DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Ip Task Force of the Independent Citizens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Ip Task Force of the Independent Citizens BEFORE THE IP TASK FORCE OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES ACT REGULAR MEETING LOCATION: UCSD 9500 GILMAN DRIVE EUCALYPTUS POINT LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006 8:15 A.M. REPORTER: BETH C. DRAIN, CSR CSR. NO. 7152 BRS FILE NO.: 75296 1 2 I N D E X 3 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 5 CALL TO ORDER 3 6 ROLL CALL 3 7 PRESENTATIONS: 8 JOHN SIMPSON 5 JOHN GOLLAHER 32 9 ALLAN ROBINS 50 JULIE MEIER WRIGHT 68 10 JOYDEEP GOSWAMI 82 11 TASK FORCE DISCUSSION 108 12 PUBLIC COMMENT 118 13 ADJOURNMENT 124 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006 2 3 MS. KING: WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 4 THEN. 5 CHAIRMAN PENHOET: WE HAVE A TRANSCRIBER AT 6 WORK, SO WE CAN START THE MEETING. THIS MEETING IS 7 BEING CONDUCTED IN FIVE PLACES. WE'RE AT UC SAN DIEGO, 8 AND WE THANK OUR HOST FOR PROVIDING THIS SPACE, AT 9 NUVELO CORPORATION, IN LOS ANGELES, AND IN CHICO. 10 WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO FROM THE 11 CIRM IS PRESENT. 12 MS. KING: SUSAN BRYANT. 13 DR. BRYANT: HERE. 14 MS. KING: MICHAEL GOLDBERG. 15 MR. GOLDBERG: HERE. 16 MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING. TED LOVE. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: HE STEPPED OUT. HE'LL 18 BE RIGHT BACK. 19 MS. KING: ED PENHOET. 20 CHAIRMAN PENHOET: HERE. 21 MS. KING: PILL PIZZO. JOHN REED. 22 DR. REED: HERE. 23 MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY. OSWALD STEWARD. 24 DR. STEWARD: HERE. 25 MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. 3 1 DR. WRIGHT: HERE. 2 CHAIRMAN PENHOET: GOOD. SO THANK YOU ALL. 3 SORRY WE'RE LATE IN GETTING STARTED, BUT WE WILL 4 PROCEED WITH TODAY'S SESSION. AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, I 5 THINK THIS IS OUR SECOND MEETING IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO 6 DEFINE AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY FOR GRANTS, 7 CONTRACTS, LOANS, WHATEVER FORM OF PAYMENTS WE MIGHT 8 MAKE TO INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 9 AND WE HAD A SORT OF VERY, I THINK, 10 PRODUCTIVE FIRST MEETING AT STANFORD NOW SIX WEEKS AGO, 11 I GUESS IT WAS. AND THIS ROUND WITH THE SECOND MEETING 12 IN SAN DIEGO. WE PLAN TO HAVE A THIRD MEETING PROBABLY 13 IN SACRAMENTO SOMETIME LATER IN THE SUMMER. SO WE'RE 14 MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'RE VERY INDEBTED TO THE 15 PEOPLE WHO HAVE AGREED TO COME AND SHARE THEIR 16 PERSPECTIVES ON THIS ISSUE WITH US TODAY. 17 WE HAVE A GROUP OF PRESENTERS, FIVE IN TOTAL, 18 AS YOU KNOW. AND THE FIRST OF THOSE IS JOHN SIMPSON. 19 JOHN IS THE STEM CELL PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE 20 FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. SO WE'LL 21 JUST GET RIGHT INTO JOHN'S PRESENTATION. JOHN, THANK 22 YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY AND FOR PUTTING YOUR 23 PRESENTATION TOGETHER. 24 A REMINDER, WE HAD TO WAIT FOR A TRANSCRIBER 25 BECAUSE ALL THESE MEETINGS ARE TRANSCRIBED, SO WE GET 4 1 ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND WE KEEP ALL OF THE POWERPOINT 2 PRESENTATIONS AS WELL. WE HAVE FIVE, SIX PEOPLE IN THE 3 AUDIENCE HERE THIS MORNING, ONE OF WHOM IS OUR NEWEST 4 ICOC MEMBER, DUANE ROTH, WHO MOST OF THE LOCAL PEOPLE 5 KNOW THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY. 6 MR. SIMPSON: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, DR. 7 PENHOET. IS THIS MICROPHONE WORKING LOUD ENOUGH SO 8 THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR IT OKAY? I'M WIRELESSLY HOOKED 9 UP HERE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE. WHAT ABOUT THE REMOTE 10 SITES? ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ON THE TELEPHONES? 11 (ALL SITES RESPOND AFFIRMATIVELY.) 12 MR. SIMPSON: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY 13 WANTED TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND THE FIRST DEPUTY FOR 14 GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS. WE DID 15 ISSUE A REPORT BACK IN JANUARY WHICH WAS CALLED 16 "AFFORDABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 17 CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCH." THAT WAS AIMED MORE 18 TOWARDS THE NONPROFITS. WE HAVE COPIES OF THAT HERE 19 AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. WHAT I ALSO THEN 20 PREPARED IS A WHITE PAPER TODAY THAT IS ALSO AVAILABLE. 21 IT'S THE BASIS FOR THIS PRESENTATION. I THINK YOU'VE 22 GOT THAT AS WELL. 23 I JUST WOULD POINT OUT IF YOU HAVE STRONG 24 AGREEMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS OR WHATEVER WITH WHAT I 25 MIGHT SAY, MY COORDINATES ARE THERE ON THE FIRST SLIDE. 5 1 I CAN BE REACHED AT [email protected]. OUR 2 WEBSITE IS WWW.CONSUMERWATCHDOG.ORG, AND WE HAVE OUR 3 OWN SPECIAL STEM CELL PAGES AT STEMCELLWATCH.ORG. 4 DR. WRIGHT: JOHN, THIS IS JANET WRIGHT. IS 5 THE WHITE PAPER THAT YOU HAVE THERE TODAY ACCESSIBLE 6 THROUGH THE WEBSITE, OR ARE YOU GOING TO MAIL THAT OUT 7 TO THOSE OF US WHO AREN'T THERE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? 8 MR. SIMPSON: THAT WAS E-MAILED, I THINK, WAS 9 IT? IN TERMS OF THE SLIDES. I CAN SEND IT. IT WILL 10 BE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE. I HAVE SENT A COPY OF IT 11 TO CIRM. 12 DR. MAXON: I CAN DISTRIBUTE IT AGAIN. 13 DR. WRIGHT: GREAT. THANKS. 14 CHAIRMAN PENHOET: -- HERE EVERYBODY SHOULD 15 HAVE A COPY. 16 MR. SIMPSON: THE THING I FIRST WANT TO TALK 17 ABOUT WHO WE ARE. WE'RE A NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN 18 CONSUMER WATCHDOG ORGANIZATION. WE WERE KNOWN FOR THE 19 PROPOSITION 103. OUR FOUNDER, HARVEY ROSENFIELD, WROTE 20 THAT AND REFORMED THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. WE'VE BEEN 21 INVOLVED RECENTLY IN HEALTHCARE, INSURANCE, ACCESS, 22 FIGHTING EXCESSIVE OIL PROFITS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE 23 REFORM, THAT SORT OF THING. 24 I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE 25 DID NOT HAVE A POSITION ON PROPOSITION 71 WHEN IT WAS 6 1 PASSED. WHEN IT WAS PASSED, WE FELT THAT OUR ROLE WAS 2 TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT PROMISES ARE KEPT 3 AND ENACTED. SO SOME ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN AGAINST 4 IT FROM THE BEGINNING. WE STEPPED INTO IT ONCE 5 ESSENTIALLY IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED BY THE 6 PEOPLE. 7 AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF. I'M A FORMER 8 NEWSPAPERMAN, A LONG TIME WITH THE GANETT COMPANY IN 9 PLACES IN UPSTATE NEW YORK, BINGHAMTON, ITHACA, GUAM, 10 AND THEN MOST OF MY CAREER AT U.S.A. TODAY WHERE I 11 ENDED UP BEING DEPUTY EDITOR, WHICH WAS A GLORIFIED WAY 12 OF SAYING I RAN THE INTERNATIONAL EDITION. I DID A 13 LITTLE BIT OF CONSULTING WITH THE IRISH TIMES, THE 14 GLEANER IN JAMAICA, TAUGHT JOURNALISM IN IRELAND, ENDED 15 UP AT A SYNDICATE COMPANY IN L.A., AND NOW I'M WORKING 16 FOR THE FOUNDATION. I SHOULD STRESS I'M NOT A LAWYER. 17 SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT HELPS MY VIEW OF IP OR 18 HINDERS IT, BUT THAT IS A DISCLAIMER. 19 AT THE LAST HEARING WE HEARD WHAT I THOUGHT 20 WAS SORT OF AN EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, DO IT OUR WAY OR 21 WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PETRIE DISHES AND GO HOME. 22 GENENTECH, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT PROBABLY GOING TO BE 23 INVOLVED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH, TALKED ABOUT THE 24 BIOTECH INDUSTRY AND SAID, LOOK, WE'RE NOT GOING TO 25 ENGAGE IF THERE ARE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC BENEFIT 7 1 REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THESE GRANTS. 2 BRAD MARGUS FROM PERLEGEN SCIENCES BASICALLY 3 SAID COMPANIES AREN'T GOING TO COME TO YOU ON OUR 4 KNEES. YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE BEST CLASS OF PLAYERS 5 TO PARTICIPATE, NOT JUST THE FINANCIALLY DESPERATE. 6 WELL, I THINK THERE'S SOME FACTS THAT NEED TO BE 7 EXAMINED. LAST YEAR $5.9 BILLION WENT OUT TO THE 8 BIOTECH INDUSTRY. A 120 MILLION OF THAT WAS FOR STEM 9 CELL RESEARCH. THERE WAS $30 MILLION OF FEDERAL STEM 10 CELL MONEY. AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS, I THINK, 11 THAT WHEN CIRM STARTS PUTTING OUT $300 MILLION A YEAR, 12 YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST FUNDER OF STEM CELL 13 RESEARCH IN THE WORLD PROBABLY. SO TO ME THAT MEANS, 14 YES, THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY REALLY IS KEENLY INTERESTED 15 IN THIS PUBLIC MONEY AND WANTS IT. 16 THE OTHER THING I THINK I JUST WANT TO ADD 17 ABOUT THE WHOLE VENTURE CAPITAL PICTURE, WHICH IS 18 IMPORTANT, IS THAT LOOMING OVER THE WHOLE INDUSTRY AND 19 CAUSING A GREAT AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF 20 VENTURE CAPITALISTS IN STEM CELLS ARE THE PATENTS ON 21 HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ON ALL OF THEM IN THE UNITED 22 STATES, THE PATENTS ONLY RECOGNIZED IN THE UNITED 23 STATES THAT ARE HELD BY THE WISCONSIN AREA 24 ALUMNI -- I'M SORRY -- WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH 25 FOUNDATION. THE WARF PATENTS REALLY ARE OUTRAGEOUS. I 8 1 MEAN THEY MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THAT IF THE STEM CELL 2 RESEARCHER, LIKE JEANNE LORING, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE, 3 COMES UP WITH 20 NEW STEM CELL LINES, SHE CAN'T PROVIDE 4 THEM TO ANYBODY ELSE UNLESS WARF SAYS SO. AT LEAST 5 THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. 6 PROPOSITION 71, THE PROMISES OF THAT. WELL, 7 WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE PROMISES OF CURES AND HOPE AND 8 THAT, BUT THE OTHER THING WE'VE GOT TO REMEMBER WAS 9 THAT IN THE PROPOSITION ITSELF WERE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 10 TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ESPACE Economies in Space - Working Papers in Economic Geography
    ESPACE Economies in Space - Working Papers in Economic Geography No. 2008-5 The spatial innovation biography of a commercially successful monoclonal antibody Christian Zeller 20 January 2008 Universität Bern, Institute of Geography, Economic Geography and Regional Studies http://www.geography.unibe.ch/econgeo The spatial innovation biography of a successful monoclonal antibody Christian Zeller Geographisches Institut der Universität Bern Hallerstr. 12 CH-3012 Bern Phone +-31-631 8556 Fax. +41-31-631 85 11 [email protected] Abstract. The paper presents an in-depth analysis of the innovation biography and geography of a commercially successful monoclonal antibody and related technologies. At present, out of about 100 recombinant therapeutics on the market, 21 are monoclonal antibodies. The analysis is based on a conceptual framework that combines elements from sectoral innovation systems and technological systems approaches as well as debates on different knowledge bases. This detailed analysis of one therapeutic agent reveals the participants in the entire innovation process and their locations. Pharmacetical drugs follow a very complex innovation path, from basic research on disease mechanisms, to discovery of the drug candidate, to preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and approval for market. The paper shows the structure of resource, knowledge and value flows over the course of the entire innovation process, from basic discovery up to the commercialization of the drug. The more the innovation process progresses, the more it is shaped by financial and commercial considerations. Keywords: monoclonal antibodies, biotechnology, innovation systems, knowledge, intellectual property Espace 2008-5 Spatial innovation biography of a successful monoclonal antibody 1. Introduction Much geographical research undertaken on innovation processes in biotechnology suffers from three shortcomings.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD Convened on February 3-4, 1998, at The: National Institutes of Health Natcher Building, Room E1 and E2 Bethesda, Maryland 20892
    NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD convened on February 3-4, 1998, at the: National Institutes of Health Natcher Building, Room E1 and E2 Bethesda, Maryland 20892 ATTENDEES TABLE OF CONTENTS Call to Order, Opening Remarks, and Consideration of Minutes of Dr. J. Michael Previous Meeting Bishop Dr. J. Michael Future Board Meeting Dates Bishop Report of the Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute Dr. Alan Rabson Questions and Answers Legislative Update Ms. Dorothy Questions and Answers Foellmer Remarks by the President, American Association for Cancer Dr. Donald Coffey Research (AACR) Questions and Answers Dr. Harold Report of the President's Cancer Panel Freeman Dr. J. Michael New Business I Bishop Status Report: Implementation of the Bishop-Calabresi Report Dr. J. Michael Recommendations Bishop NCAB Members Intramural Epidemiologic and Genetic Translational Initiatives Dr. Joseph Fraumeni NCI Office of Special Populations Research Dr. Otis Brawley Questions and Answers Status Report: Director, Center for Scientific Review Dr. Ellie Ehrenfeld Questions and Answers Mini-Symposium: Evidence-Based Medicine and the Cochrane Dr. Kay Dickerson Collaboration Dr. Cynthia · Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Medicine Mulrow Dr. Liam O'Toole · U.K. Medical Research Council View on Systematic Evidence and the Cochrane Collaboration Dr. Christopher · Evidence-Based Cancer Care: The Role of the Cochrane Cancer Network Williams Questions and Answers Implementation of Program Review Group Recommendations Dr.Robert Wittes Dr. Michaele · Clinical Trials Review Implementation Committee Christian · Early Detection Review Implementation Committee Dr. Bsrnett Kramer Dr. Peter · Chemoprevention Implementation Review Committee Greenwald Status Report: Director's Consumer Liaison Group Ms. Eleanor Questions and Answers Nealon New Business II Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Rituximab (Rituxan®, Mabthera®) Antibodies ELISA Assay
    “trace & catch” innovation for health & wellness Instructions for Use Antibodyinnovation for health & wellnessto Rituximab (Rituxan®, Mabthera®) ELISA SHIKARI® S-ATR Enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative determination of antibodies to rituximab in serum and plasma 0 REF TR-ARTXv1 ∑ 12i x ∑8 i 2-8 C generated at BeQRious.com Matriks Biotek Laboratories www.matriksbiotek.com SHIKARI® S-ATR • 1 Contents Page Intended Use ................................................................................................................ 3 Summary and Explanation............................................................................................ 3 Test Principle ................................................................................................................ 6 Warnings and Precautions ............................................................................................ 6 Storage and Stability ..................................................................................................... 7 Specimen Collection and Storage ................................................................................. 8 Materials Supplied ........................................................................................................ 8 Materials Required but not Supplied ........................................................................... 9 Procedure Notes ........................................................................................................... 9 Preparation of Component ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 121St NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 121st NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD Summary of Meeting February 20-21, 2002 Building 31C, Conference Room 10 National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 121st National Cancer Advisory Board NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD BETHESDA, MARYLAND Summary of Meeting February 20-21, 2002 The National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) convened for its 121st regular meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, in Conference Room 10 of Building 31, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD. The meeting was open to the public on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, from 8:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting was closed to the public from 4:15 p.m. until adjournment at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was reopened to the public on Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. until adjournment at 12:00 noon. Dr. Phillip A. Sharp, Institute Professor, Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Chair of the NCAB, presided during both the open and closed sessions on February 20. Dr. Ivor Royston, Managing Member, Forward Ventures, presided during the open session on February 21. NCAB Members President’s Cancer Panel Dr. Phillip A. Sharp (Chairperson) Dr. Harold Freeman (Chairperson) Dr. Richard J. Boxer Ms. Frances Visco Mr. Stephen C. Duffy Dr. Ralph S. Freedman Alternate Ex Officio NCAB Members Dr. James H. French Dr. Steven K. Akiyama, NIEHS Dr. Elmer E. Huerta Dr. T. G. Patel, VHA Dr. Howard K. Koh Dr. Peter Kirchner, DOE Dr. Frederick P. Li Ms. Yvonne Thompson Maddox, NICHD Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Byers: Biotechnology Venture Capitalist, 1970-2006
    Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Program in Bioscience and Biotechnology Studies BROOK BYERS: BIOTECHNOLOGY VENTURE CAPITALIST, 1970-2006 Interviews Conducted by Thomas D. Kiley in 2002-2005 Copyright © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ************************************ All uses of this manuscript are covered by legal agreements between The Regents of the University of California and Brook Byers, dated June 17, 2005. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Sciences Clusters
    SPECIAL REPORT In Praise of Lesser-Sung Life Sciences Clusters By Alex Philippidis hen U.S. life sciences clusters are dis- the University of Texas Health Science Center at cussed, the top two—the Boston/Cam- Houston, and the University of Texas MD Ander- bridge cluster and the San Francisco Bay son Cancer Center. WArea cluster—usually dominate the conversation. MD Anderson on April 15 completed its $15 Across the Yet many of the nation’s other clusters also stand million acquisition of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals’ country—not just out as centers for life sciences activity. 60,000-square-foot Houston facility, including “Boston, San Francisco, and San Diego are manufacturing, office, and laboratory space, in a in Boston and always going to be really important to the overall cost-cutting move for the cancer cellular immuno- San Francisco— drug discovery and development model. [But] other therapy developer. MD Anderson will operate the regions … are going to … play an important role as Houston facility for its own internal programs and work on cell and well. I think Houston is going to be one of those,” for manufacturing Bellicum’s GoCAR and other cell gene therapies, observes Ann Tanabe, CEO of BioHouston, which therapy products, supplying clinical trials and po- coronavirus promotes its namesake region as a vigorous global tentially sustaining early commercial activity. competitor in life science and biotechnology com- Last year, MD Anderson signaled its intent to vaccines and drugs, mercialization. actively translate basic research into new biolog- and other boons Houston’s life sciences ecosystem is best known ic drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Rituximab (Rituxan ) ELISA
    Instructions for Use Rituximab (Rituxan®) ELISA Enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative determination of rituximab in serum and plasma 30128824 96 For illustrative purposes only. To perform the assay the instructions for use provided with the kit have to be used. Distributed by: IBL INTERNATIONAL GMBH Flughafenstrasse 52a Phone: +49 (0)40-53 28 91-0 [email protected] D-22335 Hamburg, Germany Fax: +49 (0)40-53 28 91-11 www.IBL-International.com “trace & catch” innovation for health & wellness Instructions for Use Rituximab (Rituxan®, Mabthera®) ELISA SHIKARI® Q-RITUX Enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative determination of Rituximab (Rituxan®, Mabthera®) in serum and plasma 0 REF TR-RTXv2 ∑ 12 x 8i 2-8 C ∑ Revision # 2.3 August 2017 Matriks Biotek® Laboratories www.matriksbiotek.com Contents Page Intended Use .................................................................................................................. 2 Summary and Explanation.............................................................................................. 2 Test Principle .................................................................................................................. 6 Warnings and Precaution .............................................................................................. 6 Storage and Stability ....................................................................................................... 7 Specimen Collection and Storage ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering the Pharmaceutical Industry Has Embraced the Genetic Revolution
    Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering The pharmaceutical industry has embraced the genetic revolution. CELIA HENRY onsidering just how long people have been perspective, here was using organisms to generate products for a method that could Cthem—think thousands of years of beer “tinker with” or and wine—the biotechnology industry is remark- “improve” life. In ably young. The industry as we know it today is response to scien- not even 30 years old. Yet, even in that short time, tists’ call for a moratorium on it has managed to have a major impact. recombinant DNA research, the National In the broadest sense, biotechnology is defined Institutes of Health (NIH) formed a recombinant as the use of any technology to manipulate living DNA advisory committee to oversee research in systems. However, what we call the biotechnology the field. In February 1975, prominent molecular industry is most readily associated with drugs that biologists, along with a few lawyers, physicians, are produced by bacteria that have and journalists, met at the Asilo- been genetically modified to mar Conference Center in Pacif- produce a protein they would not ic Grove, CA, to discuss the have otherwise produced, one issues surrounding such DNA that would normally be produced research. The recommendations by an entirely different organism. from the meeting were devel- Before the advent of biotech- oped into NIH guidelines that nology, obtaining adequate quan- were approved in 1976. tities of such molecules was an arduous exercise in protein isola- The Big Boys tion and purification. With the In 1976, venture capitalist invention of genetic engineering, Robert Swanson approached scientists could harness bacteria Boyer about the possibility of to crank out quantities of proteins starting a company based on that made them feasible as drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Woody Powell
    Note to readers: Please do not be alarmed by the length. There is a 48 page Appendix. You may want to print only the paper itself, pp. 1- 66. We would, however, welcome reactions to the Appendix and thoughts on how and whether to present the case materials. Chance, Necessité, et Naïveté: Ingredients to create a new organizational form* Walter W. Powell Kurt Sandholtz Stanford University January, 2010 *The title comes from remarks by Genentech co-founder Herbert Boyer (2001: 95-96): “I think if we had known about all the problems we were going to encounter, we would have thought twice about starting. I once gave a little talk to a group at a Stanford Business School luncheon, and I took off on the title of a book on evolution by Jacques Monod…Chance et Necessité. The title of my talk was ‘Chance, Necessité, et Naïveté.’ Naïveté was the extra added ingredient in biotechnology.” We thank Tricia Soto, librarian at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and Tanya Chamberlain for assistance in finding archival materials. Martin Kenney was most generous in providing us with the source documents he used in writing his 1986 book, one of the very first studies of the development of the biotechnology industry. Our thanks to the Center for Advanced Study for hosting Professor Powell while the chapter was prepared. We are grateful to Pablo Boczkowski, Ron Burt, John Padgett, members of the Networks and Organizations Workshop at Stanford, and the Organizations and Markets workshop at the University of Chicago for comments on our initial draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Commencement 2001-2005
    —— — —— 7 — — ————— — Candidates Seating Stage FACULTY FACULTY 7 8 11 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 18 2 Doctors of Philosophy Aits and Sciences and 1 Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Medicine Medicine Engineering of Philosophy Advanced International 3 Doctors of Philosophy, Doctors of Puhlic Health, 4 Doctors and Doctors of Science Public Health Studies of Philosophy Nursing 5 Masters Medicine 6 Doctors Musical Arts 9 Masters Public Health 7 Doctors of and Artist Diplomas Peabody 11 Certificates of Advanced Graduate Study and Education Professional Studies in Masters Professional Studies in Business 8 Doctors of and Education Business and Education 1 Masters Aits and Sciences 1 3 Bachelors Professional Studies in Business and Education 12 Masters and Certificates Engineering 1 5 Bachelors Engineering 14 Masters and Bachelors Nursing 19 Bachelors (Q-Z) Arts and Sciences 16 Masters, Certificates, and Bachelors Peabody 1 Masters Advanced International Studies 18 Bachelors (A-P) Aits and Sciences JOHNS HOPKINS i \ i R S I T 1 July 2001 Office of the Registrar 75 Garland Hall / 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore MD 21218-2688 (410)516-8080 For those who use the Commencement Program as an official record of the awarding of degrees, please note the following changes to the 2001 Commencement Program: 1. Awards (Arts & Sciences and Engineering) Page 16-20 Add: JJ Sylvester Prize For outstanding achievement by a senior in mathematics Awarded to John Locke Myers Baber 2001 William Kelso Morrill Award For excellence in teaching Mathematics Jointly awarded to Alexander Tupan and Matthew Harvey 2. General Honors (Arts&Sciences) Page 24 - 25 Add: Marcus Lashaun Artis Westley W.
    [Show full text]
  • Biologics Partnering Forum NEW April 28 – April 29
    Final Agenda JOIN OVER 1,200 OF YOUR COLLEAGUES! the essential protein engineering summit DISCOVERY • Phage & Yeast Display • Engineering Antibodies • Antibody Optimization EXPRESSION • Difficult to Express Proteins • Optimizing Protein Expression • Purifying Antibodies ANALYTICAL • Characterization of Biotherapeutics • Protein Aggregation and Stability The Boston Park Plaza Hotel & Towers | Boston, MA • Immunogenicity Hear Highlighted Presentations From: ANTIBODIES • Amgen • National Cancer Institute • Antibodies for Cancer Therapy • Centre d’Immunologie PierreFabre • Novartis Pharma AG • FDA • Pfizer • Bispecific Antibodies • Forward Ventures • Shanghai Second Military • Antibody-Drug Conjugates • Genzyme – A Sanofi Company Medical University • Harvard University • University of Cambridge • MedImmune • University of California, Irvine • Merck Research Labs PHARMA-BIO PARTNERING PREMIER SPONSORS FORUMS Focusing on the Right Partners BIOLOGICS PARTNERING FORUM NEW April 28 – April 29 Organized by Cambridge Healthtech Institute 250 First Avenue, Ste 300, Needham MA, 02494 PEGSummit.com1 WELCOME TO THE 2012 PEGS SUMMIT Cambridge Healthtech Institute is proud to present the Eighth Annual PEGS: protein engineering summit. This comprehensive event encompasses 12 tracks, 15 short courses, and a pre- conference partnering forum for showcasing early stage companies. Topics span from early stage discovery of new methods for protein expression and antibody engineering, to improved analytical techniques, and clinical results in the most promising
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD Convened on September 23-24, 1999, at The: National Institutes of Health Building 31-C, Conference Room 10 Bethesda, Maryland 20892
    NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD convened on September 23-24, 1999, at the: National Institutes of Health Building 31-C, Conference Room 10 Bethesda, Maryland 20892 ATTENDEES TABLE OF CONTENTS Call to Order, Opening Remarks, and Consideration of Minutes of Dr. Phillip Sharp Previous Meeting Future Board Meeting Dates Dr. Phillip Sharp Report of the Director, National Cancer Institute Dr. Richard Questions and Answers Klausner President's Cancer Panel Report Dr. Harold Questions and Answers Freeman New Business I Dr. J. Michael Bishop Update: OMB Circular A-110 and the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Marvin Kalt (FOIA) Status Report on Confidentiality Meeting Ms. Mary McCabe Coding of Research Applicable to Special Populations Dr.Susan Sieber, Questions and Answers Dr. Frederick Li Recent Research Progress in Kidney Cancers · Introduction: VHL: Bench to Bedside;Dr. Richard Klausner · Anti-VEGF Therapy in Renal Cancer; Dr. James Yang Questions and Answers Sprial CT Scanning for Detection of Lung Cancer · Developments in Spiral CT Scanning for Lung Cancer;Dr. Barrnett Kramer · Possible Plans for NCI Follow-up; Dr. Christine Berg · Study Design Issues; Dr. Nicholas Wald · NCAB Discussion: Approaches to Decision-Making Process for Large-Scale Trials; Dr. Kay Dickersin, Dr. Frederick Li, Dr. Susan Love Questions and Answers Legislative Update Ms. Dorothy Foellmer Update on Cancer Vaccines · Indroduction; Dr. Richard Klausner · Cancer Vaccine Working Group; Dr. Jay Berzofsky · Vaccine Approaches for Lymphoma; Dr.Larry Kwa Questions and Answers Discussion of the CSR Panel on Scientific Boundaries Report Dr. Marvin Kalt Adjournment Dr. Frederick Li The National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) convened for its 111th regular meeting at 9:00 a.m., September 23, 1999, in Conference Room 10, C Wing, Building 31, National Institutes of Health.
    [Show full text]