State of Connecticut

1 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 VERBATIM PROCEEDINGS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 21 22 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 23 24 8:00 A.M. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HARTFORD MARRIOTT 44 200 COLUMBUS BOULEVARD

3 4 5 POST REPORTING SERVICE 6 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 2 2 1 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

3 4 5 POST REPORTING SERVICE 6 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 3 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 . . .Verbatim Proceedings of Connecticut

2 Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee held at the Hartford

3 Marriott, Hartford, Connecticut on November 21, 2006 at

4 8:00 a.m. . . .

10 COMMISSIONER ROBERT GALVIN: Good morning.

11 VOICES: Good morning.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. We are ready

13 to proceed. I will ask Attorney Horn to call the roll and

14 please answer appropriately if you’re here. If you’re not

15 here and on the telephone answer, if you’re not here and

16 not on the telephone don’t answer.

17 (Laughter)

18 MS. MARIANNE HORN: Dr. Galvin?

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yo.

20 MS. HORN: Dr. Canalis?

21 DR. ERNESTO CANALIS: Here.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 4 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. HORN: Dr. Fishbone?

2 DR. GERALD FISHBONE: Here.

3 MS. HORN: Dr. Genel?

4 DR. MYRON GENEL: Here.

5 MS. HORN: Dr. Huang?

6 DR. MILTON WALLACK: Here. Oh, oh, did

7 you say Huang?

8 MS. HORN: Yes. It’s close to Wallack.

9 (Laughter)

10 DR. WALLACK: He’s on the phone.

11 MS. HORN: That’s what I thought. I was

12 directing my voice that way. Paul Huang?

13 DR. PAUL HUANG: I’m right here.

14 MS. HORN: Yes. I’m sorry, I’m probably

15 not pronouncing your name correctly. Dr. Jennings?

16 DR. CHARLES JENNINGS: Here.

17 MS. HORN: Dr. Kiessling?

18 DR. ANN KIESSLING: Here.

19 DR. HUANG: I’m having a hard time

20 hearing.

21 DR. KIESSLING: Here. Here.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 5 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. HORN: Dr. Landwirth?

2 DR. JULIUS LANDWIRTH: Here.

3 MS. HORN: Dr. Latham?

4 DR. STEPHEN LATHAM: Here.

5 MS. HORN: Dr. Lensch?

6 DR. WILLIAM LENSCH: Here.

7 MS. HORN: Robert Mandelkern?

8 MR. ROBERT MANDELKERN: Here.

9 MS. HORN: Kevin Rakin?

10 MR. KEVIN RAKIN: Here.

11 MS. HORN: Dr. Wagers?

12 DR. AMY WAGERS: Here.

13 MS. HORN: Dr. Wallack?

14 DR. WALLACK: Here.

15 MS. HORN: Dr. Yang?

16 DR. XIANGZHONG YANG: Here.

17 MS. HORN: Okay. We are all here.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. We’re going

19 to have to speak up so that those of us here whose hearing

20 is not as good as it was at one time, including myself,

21 and the gentlemen -- the two gentlemen on the phone will

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 6 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 be able to hear us. So we’ll have to speak loudly and

2 distinctly and I’ve never been accused of not speaking

3 loudly, so I don’t have to particularly worry about that.

4 We are here to do some very important work

5 this morning. I’m going to make just a few minutes’ worth

6 of remarks and I would beg your forbearance while I do

7 that, however, I’d like to say that this is really an

8 historic occasion and that assembled in this room are as

9 fine a bunch of scientists and ethicists and thoughtful

10 people as we could find. I don’t think there’s any better

11 group anywhere and I think that this group and our Peer

12 Review individuals have done an outstanding job. We have

13 seen many wonderful proposals and I am in awe of some of

14 the individuals who submitted those proposals and to those

15 who have devoted their life to the advancement of the

16 science of medicine and done investigatory work and done

17 work which really will improve the lot of mankind in

18 general.

19 And my hat’s off to them. I spent over 40

20 years in the clinical end of medicine and I have great

21 respect for individuals who have devoted their entire

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 7 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 careers to research and to bringing forth knowledge for

2 the benefit of their fellow man. And I can only say that

3 the things that we are discussing today weren’t even

4 considered back when I was a medical student in the early

5 1960s and I remember vividly a young man who on our

6 clinical service who died because we were unable to

7 visualize his coronary valves because ultrasound was only

8 conceptually being thought about at that time.

9 The things we are discussing weren’t --

10 were almost beyond consideration. They were -- people

11 were just beginning to realize things about the genome and

12 the like and we have come a long, long way in that 40-year

13 period, but we will come a much longer way in a much

14 shorter period.

15 The work we do here today is very

16 important. I will not be a voter on the projects. I will

17 give you what my take is on this, both as a person with

18 some business experience and as a medically trained

19 individual. Our earlier conversations for many months

20 revolved around what exactly we should fund and what

21 exactly was the best way to ensure that our projects move

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 8 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 forward. And in fact in the great wisdom and the

2 bipartisan wisdom that our Legislative body has showed and

3 our Governor has showed in signing this bill into life has

4 really put us way out ahead of everybody else and we’re

5 the leaders in the United States. Connecticut is the

6 leader and we want to maintain our lead.

7 We’re in a small state with significant

8 problems with national resources and significant problems

9 in retaining and improving our intellectual resources and

10 this type of work is going to maintain and improve and

11 become a funnel to bring intellectual resources into

12 Connecticut and become a driver for educational resources

13 to be created in this state and for science to become

14 preeminent. It is an absolutely marvelous coalition of an

15 excellent private university and an excellent public

16 university moving ahead for the benefit of all the

17 citizens in Connecticut.

18 I will say that the times now are

19 difficult for things medical and the competition for the

20 funds are intense. We are now at a point where our gross

21 domestic product is being devoted at a rate of 17 or 18

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 9 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 percent to medicine and things medical. We’re bumping up

2 against the point where one out of every $5 in the Federal

3 budget will be devoted to medicine. It’s incumbent on us

4 to prove that what we are doing is the best possible way

5 to use this money. We are in a state where we have a

6 budgetary cap. That means in essence that we are

7 competing -- these funds and further funds compete with

8 other projects for funding so that $1,000,000 that’s spent

9 here is $1,000,000 that’s not spent somewhere else and

10 there’s lot of other places to spend it.

11 I’d like to get a couple of million

12 dollars a year more. Len Boyle (phonetic), the Director

13 of Public Safety, could use more officers and more

14 equipment. We could use more roads. We need more

15 educational facilities in Connecticut. So we are

16 competing against other funds and the fact that our funds

17 win means that someone else’s lose. And I don’t say this

18 is a pejorative way, but it’s -- in a way it’s a zero sum

19 game. Some folks get the money and some don’t. So it’s

20 incumbent upon us to do the best we can so we can enhance

21 and improve our funding over the next -- over the next

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 10 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 decade.

2 Our earlier discussions seemed to from my

3 point of view indicate that seed grants were very, very

4 important to us in terms of developing the science and

5 attracting new scientists and bringing people to

6 Connecticut and keeping people in Connecticut who might be

7 attracted to go elsewhere. I think you -- as you discuss

8 things this morning you need to think about, do you want

9 to change any of the seed grants which are all relatively

10 small grants and if so does that fit in with things we’ve

11 discussed in the past?

12 My appreciation of the past discussions is

13 that core facilities are very important at this stage of

14 the game to get us off and running and into the ballgame

15 so to speak. I realize that the established grants are

16 also very, very important. I would say a couple of

17 things. One is it is my observation that some of the

18 established grants seem to be looking towards applications

19 which may be, and this is my opinion and I’m a non-voter,

20 and I’m a non-stem cell scientist, it appears to me that

21 some of the grants seem to be out ahead of the basic

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 11 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 science and I’m not sure that that is the best way to

2 spend our money.

3 I will return very briefly to my opinion

4 of the core and the project grants in terms of they are

5 all large grants -- it is my opinion that cutting any --

6 if those grants have evidence that perhaps their financial

7 requirements are overstated we need to look at that. We

8 need to make sure that we are not duplicating core

9 facilities, particularly within the same university

10 complex.

11 It is my opinion that if you cut these

12 grants significantly that it does one of two things -- one

13 of several things. One, it will impair the ability of the

14 individuals receiving the grant to do what they are going

15 to do and may account for them failing to accomplish their

16 needs. Secondarily, if changing these grants and

17 readjusting these grants strikes me as being something

18 which may not be fair to everybody, that is to say if we

19 take one grant and fund it 75 percent and negotiate a deal

20 with the grant receiver to make up the difference should

21 we not have offered that opportunity to anybody who is

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 12 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 applying? Is that fair in the context of disbursing State

2 funds? And that is for you to decide.

3 I would only add one thing, which is a

4 technical thing, that it may be considerably easier for a

5 private university to anti up an additional $1,000,000

6 whereas in the State system it’s not all that easy. My

7 department -- in my department we handle a lot of funds.

8 I sometimes need four to six months to disburse funds

9 which are Legislatively approved and allocated. We do

10 have a public health foundation. With a public health

11 foundation we receive some money from the National

12 Governor’s Association. We got it in the morning, we put

13 it in the bank, the Director disbursed it in the

14 afternoon. It’s very difficult to do that with funds

15 which must be approved by the Legislative body.

16 And finally, I’ll get back to Attorney

17 Salton’s Duster and in terms of if you change the -- if we

18 change things beyond a certain non-essential point then

19 does it become an entirely different grant and if it is an

20 entirely different grant how is the distinguished Attorney

21 General and myself, how are we supposed to ensure that the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 13 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 grant is doing what it’s supposed to do when we’ve changed

2 it from the original configuration? And I was thinking

3 this morning that if Henry’s father had said to him, you

4 can -- I’ll buy you the Duster and I found a really nice

5 Plymouth Duster for you, it’s just that it’s painted pink

6 and it says, Mary Kay Cosmetics on it, and it’s still the

7 same vehicle and maybe Henry wouldn’t want to drive it

8 around town or maybe he wouldn’t care, but if he had -- if

9 he got the Duster and somebody took the Dunlop tires off

10 and put old lousy recaps on that would change it.

11 And with that I’ll open up the meeting and

12 leave you to your own good judgements.

13 MS. LYNN TOWNSHEND: Very quickly, a

14 reminder. Please turn off cell phones, laptops,

15 Blackberries to both the audience members and the

16 Committee itself. If I’m not mistaken I believe we left

17 off with roll call votes for the maybes. Nancy, is that

18 correct from yesterday? Is that how we wish to proceed at

19 this point?

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay.

21 MS. TOWNSHEND: And we’re starting with B-

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 14 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 16, which is -- is that correct? We’re starting with the

2 higher numbers and moving upward? I’m sorry?

3 MR. MANDELKERN: (Indiscernible, too far

4 from mic.) established investigators?

5 MS. TOWNSHEND: Yes. We’re still under

6 established investigators, Category B, and we are moving

7 to do roll call vote on B-16.

8 DR. CANALIS: Commissioner? Could I make

9 a comment, suggestion? Because there’s obviously not

10 sufficient funds to cover whatever is on the yes category

11 already, you know, there is a conceivable scenario that

12 this independent investigator grant -- there will be too

13 many of them to fund. Now we have five grants out there

14 that were straight yes’s. Straight out very good scores,

15 no doubts. When we start moving maybes to no’s it’s

16 pretty easier. But if we move maybes to yes they are

17 going to compete with grants that straight out the

18 consensus was -- they were yes’s and it’s not quite the

19 same and maybe should be a yes with a qualifier. Because

20 when we decide at the end we’re going to be able to fund

21 only three, or four, or five, or six, or whatever number

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 15 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 of our ones, you know, we’re going to be -- we’re going to

2 have to reassess everything. And it’s, you know, those

3 five were straight out. The other ones barely made it.

4 So maybe others want to comment on this? Maybe -- it’s

5 just a comment -- suggestion for consideration.

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Are you

7 saying Dr. Canalis that it’s probably best for us to

8 either accept or not accept a grant rather -- we’re going

9 to end up if we keep doing what we’re doing with more

10 grants than money.

11 DR. CANALIS: Sure. That is --

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: And so there’s only

13 a couple of things you can do, you know, you can cut 10

14 percent off of everybody’s grant, which --

15 DR. CANALIS: -- that’s good.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- that’s a

17 possibility, or you can cut some of the bigger grants and

18 deny them or cut them drastically, that’s a possibility.

19 Or some permutations of the like and I think we have -- we

20 have to have some sort of philosophy, I would advise the

21 group to say, are we going to try to pick the best grants

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 16 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 we can and fund them as requested, minus things we think

2 which may be inflated or -- there was a comment yesterday

3 about P.R. being built into a grant. Some of those things

4 can go out, but that’s not much. So I don’t know what our

5 philosophy is.

6 MR. HENRY SALTON: Can I advise on Dr.

7 Canalis’ suggestion? While I think it’s an attempt to try

8 to build some efficiency in the time we have left I think

9 that my advice would be that that would not be a proper --

10 changing the process mid-stream is not appropriate.

11 People who are staff investigators would say it was a

12 matter of just coincidence that you chose established

13 investigators to go last as opposed to seeds or whatever

14 that somehow now the people who got into the maybe

15 category are going to be given a different process. So I

16 think that would be best just to move to -- straighten --

17 there are six left, straighten up votes --

18 DR. CANALIS: Option two, could we keep

19 the priority scores -- score counts next to the grant? At

20 least we’ll get continuous reminder.

21 MR. SALTON: -- sure.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 17 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. CANALIS: That is legal, right?

2 MR. SALTON: Absolutely.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Good. Yep.

4 DR. CANALIS: So I like that reminder on

5 the yes’s if Nancy could put a priority score and the

6 maybes becoming yes’s keeping the priority scores. At

7 least people know.

8 MR. MANDELKERN: You mean on the maybes

9 Ernie?

10 DR. CANALIS: Maybe becoming yes’s and --

11 MR. MANDELKERN: You want the Peer Review

12 score on the maybes?

13 DR. JENNINGS: You want -- I think what

14 you’re asking to do is for us to rank these by priority so

15 that if and when we come --

16 DR. CANALIS: In the end that will happen.

17 DR. JENNINGS: -- yes.

18 DR. CANALIS: Sooner or later that is

19 going to happen.

20 DR. JENNINGS: Yes, agreed.

21 DR. CANALIS: I think we all know that.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 18 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 So keeping the scores next to them is sort of a constant

2 remainder how they made it there without breaking the law.

3 Yes?

4 DR. JENNINGS: Yes. But my point is

5 that’s the Peer Review Committee’s score, which may not

6 necessarily correspond exactly with our own rankings. So

7 what perhaps Nancy should do is to as we transfer things

8 from the maybe to the --

9 MS. NANCY RION: (Indiscernible, too far

10 from mic.)

11 DR. CANALIS: He’s not allowing that.

12 DR. JENNINGS: In ranked order based on --

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on here for a

14 second. Are we talking about putting -- everything that’s

15 under funded is unanimous. Now it seems to me unlikely

16 that everything that’s a maybe will be unanimously moved

17 to be a fund. Is that the vote we want?

18 MR. SALTON: My understanding of what Dr.

19 Canalis is saying it’s merely that the Peer Review ranking

20 remain attached to those that move from maybe to fund and

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 19 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay.

2 MR. SALTON: -- and if -- I mean, that’s

3 information every Committee member has in front of them

4 right now for every item in the fund category. So that’s

5 fine and if you want you can put the rest of the Peer

6 Review rankings on those that are already in the fund

7 category and -- just for people’s convenience. But it

8 doesn’t change the status as far as -- these are just --

9 again, we’re going through a process of elimination.

10 We’re putting people into the pool that will still be

11 subdivided and shuffled to get to our final $20,000,000.

12 DR. WALLACK: Henry, I would concur that

13 we move in that direction, which is only an extension of

14 what we were at precisely at the time that we concluded

15 our deliberations yesterday and perhaps with that in mind

16 we can go on and delineate what we feel about these last

17 six at this point.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let’s do

19 number -- is that B-16?

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-16, yes. They’re doing

21 some --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 20 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, it’s ranked

2 25, 2.5.

3 MS. HORN: -- B-16, Yale, Niklason,

4 $1,000,000, 2.5 Peer Review ranking, Yang -- I’m sorry, 11

5 members eligible to vote. Please respond fund or no.

6 Canalis?

7 DR. CANALIS: No.

8 MS. TOWNSHEND: No? You’re not ready or

9 is that a no vote?

10 DR. CANALIS: You caught me by surprise.

11 Can you call me at the end?

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: I can call you at the end.

13 Yang?

14 DR. YANG: No.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: No. Mandelkern?

16 MR. MANDELKERN: Yes.

17 MS. TOWNSHEND: Yes. Rakin?

18 MR. RAKIN: I need to come at the end

19 also.

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: Alrighty. Wallack?

21 DR. WALLACK: No.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 21 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: No. Jennings?

2 DR. JENNINGS: No.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: Kiessling?

4 DR. KIESSLING: No.

5 MS. TOWNSHEND: Lensch?

6 DR. LENSCH: No.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: Wagers?

8 DR. WAGERS: No.

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: Huang?

10 DR. HUANG: No.

11 MS. TOWNSHEND: Fishbone?

12 DR. FISHBONE: No.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: Canalis?

14 DR. CANALIS: No.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: Rakin?

16 MR. RAKIN: No.

17 MS. TOWNSHEND: That is 10 no fund, one

18 fund for B-16. B-16 goes into the no fund category. The

19 next is B-11, UConn, LoTurco, $638,218, Peer Review ranked

20 at 2.3. 11 members eligible to vote. Genel?

21 DR. GENEL: No.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 22 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Landwirth?

2 DR. LANDWIRTH: Yes.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: Mandelkern?

6 MR. RAKIN: No.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: Wallack?

8 DR. WALLACK: Yes.

10 DR. KIESSLING: Yes.

12 DR. LENSCH: No.

14 DR. WAGERS: Yes.

16 DR. HUANG: Yes.

17 MS. TOWNSHEND: Latham?

18 DR. LATHAM: Yes.

20 DR. FISHBONE: Yes.

21 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-11, eight fund, three no

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 23 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 fund. B-6, Yale Medical, Jonas, $994,321, Peer Review

2 ranked at 2.0. 11 members eligible to vote. Canalis?

3 DR. CANALIS: I’m not ready on that.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: Pass? Am I going too

5 quickly?

6 VOICES: Yes.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’m going too quickly.

8 Okay.

9 VOICE: It takes a minute to find them.

10 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’m sorry. We’ll begin

11 that roll call with Canalis?

12 DR. CANALIS: No.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: Yang?

14 DR. YANG: No.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: No.

18 MR. RAKIN: No.

20 DR. WALLACK: Yes.

21 MS. TOWNSHEND: Jennings?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 24 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. JENNINGS: No.

5 DR. LENSCH: No.

7 DR. WAGERS: No.

9 DR. HUANG: No.

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-6, 10 no fund, one fund.

13 B-18, Yale, Krause, $973,469, Peer Review ranked at 1.95.

14 11 members eligible to vote. Are we ready? Canalis?

15 DR. CANALIS: Abstain.

16 MS. TOWNSHEND: Yang?

17 DR. YANG: Absolutely, yes.

21 MR. RAKIN: No.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 25 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Wallack?

2 DR. WALLACK: Yes.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: Jennings?

4 DR. JENNINGS: Yes.

8 DR. LENSCH: Yes.

10 DR. WAGERS: Yes.

12 DR. HUANG: Yes.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: Nine fund, one no fund,

16 one abstain. B-18 goes in the fund category. B-3, UConn,

17 Nishiyama, $602,127, Peer Review ranked at 1.9. 11

18 members eligible to vote. Are we ready? Genel?

19 DR. GENEL: Yes.

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: Landwirth?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 26 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Mandelkern?

4 MR. RAKIN: Yes.

6 DR. WALLACK: Yes.

10 DR. LENSCH: Yes.

12 DR. WAGERS: No.

14 DR. HUANG: Yes.

16 DR. LATHAM: Yes.

19 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-3, nine fund, two no

20 fund. That’s moves to the fund category. And finally, B-

21 23. UCHC, Campagnola, $978,774, Peer Review ranked at

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 27 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 1.9. Are we ready? 11 members eligible to vote. Genel?

2 DR. GENEL: Can you come back to me?

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: Certainly.

4 VOICE: Hold on a minute. I can’t find --

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let’s wait

6 one second.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: One moment.

8 MR. RAKIN: From a process perspective I

9 think this is the one, Amy if I’m correct, this is the one

10 we were talking about yesterday?

11 DR. WAGERS: Yes.

12 MR. RAKIN: So I would appreciate my co-

13 reviewer giving a few comments because I don’t think I did

14 justice to the scientific basis of this proposal.

15 DR. WAGERS: Sure. So this grant aims to

16 study cell extracellular matrix interactions and how those

17 are involved in the differentiation of mouse and human

18 embryonic stem cells to faux lineages. And this is a very

19 accomplished investigator in tissue engineering. My -- so

20 major concerns are that the focus of the proposal is not

21 on embryonic stem cells, it’s the study of mesenchymal

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 28 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 stem cells and so it’s really a focus on adult cells and

2 there’s not as strongly between -- the application that

3 they’re going to use for looking at the more quality or

4 the shape of the cells and the function of the cells. And

5 so I actually would recommend not funding it.

6 MR. SALTON: Any discussion based on

7 comments provided by Dr. Wagers? Roll call?

8 MS. TOWNSHEND: We’ll move forward with

9 the roll call. B-23, UCHC, Campagnola, $978,774, Peer

10 Review ranked at 1.9. 11 members eligible to vote.

11 Genel?

12 DR. GENEL: No.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: Landwirth?

14 DR. LANDWIRTH: No.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: No.

18 MR. RAKIN: No.

20 DR. WALLACK: No.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 29 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. KIESSLING: No.

3 DR. LENSCH: No.

5 DR. WAGERS: No.

7 DR. HUANG: No.

9 DR. LATHAM: No.

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-23, 11 members under no

13 fund. I’ve been asked to remind the Committee that there

14 is only $19.8 million with 200,000 dedicated to

15 administrative support for 2006-2007 just as a reminder

16 moving into the funding portion of the meeting.

17 MR. MANDELKERN: Lynn, could I ask you to

18 repeat the numbers that went from maybe to fund under the

19 established investigators?

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: Today?

21 MR. MANDELKERN: Just now.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 30 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Just today.

2 MR. MANDELKERN: Just now.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-03 --

4 DR. JENNINGS: Perhaps you could even

5 write them up on another stickie next to the -- or rank

6 them by the voting.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- for those that went

8 into fund --

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on. Warren?

10 MR. WARREN WOLLSCHLAGER: Just a process

11 question. We didn’t do that for seeds. We didn’t

12 establish a sub-category of yes’s that used to be maybes.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Do it the same way

14 as before.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- so the three additional

16 ones that we added today are B-03, B-11 and B-18.

17 MR. MANDELKERN: Thank you.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Now if we go from

19 left to right on the board and add up all the seed grants,

20 all the ones in the project and core and hybrid grants and

21 project and core grants we’re already over budget. And

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 31 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Warren, can you do a quick -- let’s see, one, two, three

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: We have it here.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- okay.

5 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: It’s about 30,000,000.

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yep.

7 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Roughly.

8 DR. JENNINGS: Could you just take us

9 through that? 2,000,000 under the seeds.

10 MS. HORN: Kevin Crowley (phonetic) has it

11 all calculated on the computer.

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: Alright. We have under

13 the seed grants $1,984,382.

14 MR. MANDELKERN: Could you repeat that?

15 DR. JENNINGS: Go slow at this point

16 please?

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I don’t think

18 Bob got -- did you get that Bob?

19 DR. JENNINGS: We don’t need the last

20 person or place.

21 (Laughter)

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 32 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: It’s approximately 1.98

2 million.

3 DR. JENNINGS: Thank you.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: For the other categories

5 combined, that’s C -- B, C, D and E the exact number is

6 for the record 24,547,706. So approximately 24.5 million.

7 VOICES: (Indiscernible, talking over each

8 other.)

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: That’s B, C -- B, C --

10 VOICES: (Indiscernible, talking over each

11 other.)

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: C, D and E.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- we need to break down

14 to C, D, and E?

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: C, D, and E is --

16 MR. SALTON: 18.3.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- good Henry.

18 You’re ahead of me.

19 DR. JENNINGS: And then what is it --

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: 18.335.

21 DR. JENNINGS: -- what is category B?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 33 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. SALTON: B is about 6,000,000.

2 VOICE: It’s at 6.2.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Mike?

4 DR. GENEL: Mr. Chairman, I have a

5 proposal.

6 MS. TOWNSHEND: We’re getting the exact

7 numbers right here.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on one second

9 until we get --

10 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’ll put these up on --

11 seed we’ve already done, C, D and E, we got that right. B

12 is 6,000,000, this is B, established grants, 6,211,937.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: 6.21 million.

14 MS. TOWNSHEND: 6,211,937 for Category B.

15 I’ll put them all up on the board.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: They’re all up.

17 MS. TOWNSHEND: Oh, they’re all up? Okay.

18 DR. FISHBONE: Lynn, could you remind us

19 if there were caps on each?

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: I believe there’s a cap on

21 the seed --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 34 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. FISHBONE: With 2,000,000, yeah.

2 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- for 2,000,000 and I’ll

3 defer to Warren or Marianne.

4 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: There were caps within

5 individual applications but not by category.

6 DR. FISHBONE: Not by category, okay.

7 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: And all of those up

8 there came within four --

9 MR. MANDELKERN: Except that C, D and E we

10 said substantial portion of the funds should got to C, D

11 and E?

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: That’s correct. Dr.

13 Genel?

14 DR. GENEL: I would like to recommend that

15 we fund the two cores for two years rather than four.

16 That would save us $5,000,000, and invite them to reapply

17 in two years with justification for continued funding.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Comments?

19 DR. JENNINGS: I concur.

20 MR. MANDELKERN: Can you repeat the number

21 please Mike? Just the number.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 35 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. GENEL: The number? I would say we

2 fund -- that we fund the cores at -- for two years rather

3 than --

4 (Interference on microphone.)

5 DR. GENEL: Are we ready? Okay. What I’m

6 recommending is that we fund the two large cores for two

7 years rather than four. Now I -- this is without looking

8 at the specific yearly budgets. There may be -- there may

9 be differences in the first year as opposed to say the

10 fourth year budget but I would still propose that we fund

11 them for two years and encourage, invite, however is

12 appropriate them to -- to apply for continued funds after

13 two years. I think there’s a lot of merit to this

14 scientifically and programmatically. There have been

15 concerns about to what extent the cores will provide

16 resources for other investigators in the state and within

17 their institution. I think after two years or after a

18 year and a half when they would be reapplying there would

19 be ample opportunity to provide evidence for this. I

20 think it also will allow us to free up more money for

21 investigators who would use those cores. So to fund cores

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 36 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 without funding investigators who would use those cores

2 doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. And I think it

3 at least allows us to pare down by about 5,000,000 and

4 that leaves us at least about $2,000,000 or so to pare. I

5 think this is the most equitable -- this is the most

6 equitable and most reasonable way to get down closer to

7 that $20,000,000 number. So I would propose this for the

8 Committee’s consideration.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: There’s going to be

10 some comment on this and I think this is a very -- a

11 proposal very worthy of consideration and very thoughtful.

12 But I think we -- if I understand it correctly we have

13 more good projects than we have dollars and we’re either

14 going to, you know, we’re either going to cut everybody

15 across the Board, which is nonsensical or we’re going to

16 find a place where we can cut money from one source and

17 allocate it to another. And it appears that if we back up

18 one more step from my esteemed colleague’s comment that

19 the place where we’re going to make the changes are in the

20 middle panel of those four -- of those four large grants

21 that we’re going to do something with them to fund the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 37 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 established investigator grants.

2 And I think that’s a basic philosophical

3 step. Are we going to go pick say, we’re not going to do

4 this one, now we said we’re going to do this one, now

5 we’re not. You know, going over and try to change those

6 seed grants if you knock 50 grand off of them they’re

7 probably not doable. So what are we going to do, knock

8 10,000 off of $112,272 program? It doesn’t make any

9 sense. And a small amount of money is a large percentage

10 change there. I figured that out. Over on the other side

11 it may be the changes aren’t huge dollar amounts, but they

12 may impair the ability of the individuals to do the grant

13 and it may predispose them to failing to accomplish their

14 purposes because they’ll be under funded and because of

15 what we did.

16 So it is my opinion that right now it

17 appears to be the most fruitful area of discussion should

18 be on the middle panel. Now we have to decide whether we

19 are going to cut back on -- I’ll get to it. I’ll get to

20 you. Everybody will have a chance to talk. We have to

21 look at the middle panel and decide, how you going to do

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 38 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 this? Are you going to cut pieces or cut whole grants?

2 And I’m not going to tell you how to do it.

3 I will tell you that if you get to a

4 certain point you may cut the grant so much that it

5 doesn’t -- it doesn’t resemble the original proposition,

6 which would mean that other individuals can say well, if I

7 knew you were going to do this I would have sent grant A

8 and grant B. Grant A is if I get 500,000, grant B is if I

9 get 300,000. I think that opens it up to criticism. I

10 think it also makes it difficult for those of us who have

11 to enforce how this money is being spent to supervise that

12 properly.

13 Be that as it may, the one thing that I

14 know for sure is you can’t cut back on these things and

15 then say, don’t worry, come back with a good proposition

16 in two years. We can’t promise any money in advance, or

17 special consideration for any reason in advance. We may

18 be able to get 2,000,000 bucks next year, or we may not be

19 able to get the -- or 10,000,000 or 2,000,000 more, maybe

20 we can get 12,000,000, maybe we’ll get 8,000,000. But we

21 can’t promise people in advance that they have a stake on

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 39 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 these grants the next year around. And I think that I saw

2 a hand over here and then Ann would be next.

3 DR. LENSCH: Thank you Commissioner. And

4 so Mike’s question was about the budget and before I give

5 you these numbers and everybody has them in front of you,

6 it was stated yesterday I think that there is a

7 fundamental difference between the core grants and the

8 other grants. The other grants have specific projects

9 that they will accomplish after they’re funded. The core

10 grants establish a service and we use lots of different

11 metaphors the warehouse, the breaking apart, whatever, but

12 if you look at the numbers I think that it bolsters that

13 concept of establishing something and then continuing a

14 service throughout the subsequent years of the grant. If

15 we look to the Yale grant, D-01, the first year has an

16 expenditure of $2.4 million. Years two, three and four

17 are basically level at .9. The specific language of that

18 grant, and I’m looking to page 35 for those that are

19 capable of looking at it, year one is key to that grant.

20 It has a larger budget, it shows the establishment of a

21 core, and then years two through four are listed as

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 40 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 maintenance. Maintenance of that service.

2 The grant from the University of

3 Connecticut, D-02, Professor Xu, shows that years one and

4 two have a larger expenditure. 1.4 million in the first

5 year, 1.3 million in the second year, and then a lesser

6 but level amount in years three and four, 1.15 million and

7 1.16 million. And I think that it reflects a similar

8 trend. Getting something up and running and then

9 perpetuating that service to the research community in the

10 subsequent years. We don’t see that -- pardon me?

11 DR. WALLACK: (Indiscernible, too far from

12 mic.) the grant was the first year?

13 DR. JENNINGS: 1.4.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Milt, I don’t think

15 the people on the phone -- can you say that again?

16 DR. WALLACK: I asked for a clarification

17 on the first year.

18 DR. LENSCH: The first year is 1.4

19 million, the second year 1.3 million, year three 1.15

20 million, year four 1.16 million. So a reduction, not as

21 significant a reduction as the Yale core facility grant,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 41 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 but I think it bares out the same principle, establishing

2 something and then requiring funding to keep it running

3 for investigators. And I hold the same sentiment as my

4 other colleagues that have spoken. It’s important to

5 establish a core facility so that investigators throughout

6 the state can use them, but if there are few investigators

7 to use them, then it’s a bit of a difficult issue and I

8 think that taking some money away from cores by simply

9 removing later years of funding is something that’s doable

10 and is not doable for other project-oriented grants.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I think Ann.

12 DR. KIESSLING: Jerry had his hand up.

13 DR. YANG: I did a calculation of my own

14 yesterday. The seed grant allocation is clear at

15 $2,000,000. That’s nearly 10 percent. The rest of $18 if

16 you add together is at 24. Easily using 30 percent of the

17 cost to all or some category. I can realize it’s really

18 difficult to cut the core facilities and really difficult

19 to cut these, you know, the established investigator grant

20 either. I like the idea, but I’d like to propose that

21 differently and for the core facility only to the very,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 42 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 very important, very, very critical, it’s a very, very

2 difficult to cut. So how do we do that if, you know, I

3 like Dr. Canalis’ suggestion for the two years for I think

4 the second two years really causing new rather than

5 competition we can do that has to be really guaranteed for

6 the four years otherwise anybody hired through that core

7 facility you cannot fire them. So I would call that, you

8 know, two-year funding, two-year renewal, rather than two-

9 year re-application because no way we can guarantee the

10 funding.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I understand that,

12 but I don’t think that we can guarantee people they’ll be

13 renewed. So they may be two-year funding and then zip.

14 DR. YANG: I know. Can we -- the State

15 funding cutting --

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, we may not get

17 it even if the State funding is there we may decide we’re

18 not going to give it to them. So I don’t think -- and the

19 attorneys at the table can tell me, I don’t think we can

20 do things now that obligate future funds. And I don’t --

21 in two years, whoever is sitting here I think it would be

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 43 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 most uncomfortable for people to come in and say, our

2 understanding was that you would fund us for two years and

3 then we’d get another two years when you had -- with more

4 funding. We can’t do that. So -- and that would mean

5 that they would have to hire people with the understanding

6 that this grant may terminate at two years, which could

7 happen. But I can’t obligate funds in the future based on

8 deals that we do today. That’s unfair. It’s got to be

9 another public bidding process.

10 DR. YANG: In that case it’s really

11 difficult to cut the core facilities.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yes. Yes. I think

13 you have to think about do you want to cut the whole grant

14 or can you cut parts of it and not obligate us for down

15 line funding.

16 DR. HUANG: Mr. Chairman, if I may?

17 Yesterday we also discussed one possibility and that was

18 because if we are considering more than one core then each

19 core doesn’t have to support as many projects and

20 therefore even without changing the time from four years

21 to two years, leaving the time the same, we could justify

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 44 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 reducing the amount because each core would only have to

2 support part of the investigators in the state of

3 Connecticut over that time. Is there consideration for

4 that as well?

5 DR. KIESSLING: I think --

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Go ahead Ann.

7 DR. KIESSLING: -- I think I agree with

8 that. I think two -- there were two -- neither of the

9 cores actually indicated that they were going to put in

10 place a GMP component and the Peer Reviewers commented on

11 this and I was very disappointed to see that neither UConn

12 nor Yale were going to build into this core facility a GMP

13 component.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I’m sorry, I don’t

15 understand what a GMP is.

16 DR. KIESSLING: Well, for any kind of FDA

17 approval you’re going to have to have derived the stem

18 cell lines and grow the stem cell lines in a facility

19 that’s called good manufacturing practices.

21 DR. KIESSLING: And because this was not

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 45 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 even mentioned in either of these core grants it seemed to

2 me as though this was sort of not well thought through and

3 not going to serve the state of Connecticut as well as

4 could be done. It is mostly a matter of bookkeeping, it

5 isn’t a very -- it isn’t a huge expense, it’s mostly a

6 matter of planning, but neither of these cores had built

7 into them a GMP thought. And I find that to be a serious

8 flaw from both institutions.

9 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can I ask who

10 was on the phone just so I can log it?

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Oh, it was Dr.

12 Huang.

13 COURT REPORTER: He asked the question?

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yes.

15 COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Do you have a

17 suggestion?

18 DR. KIESSLING: I think -- and from my

19 viewpoint I think that it’s more important for the state

20 of Connecticut’s efforts right now to fund the senior

21 investigator grants and to fund the two group projects

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 46 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 that I thought were sterling. I didn’t see any flaws in

2 either of those. You can certainly cut budgets for any of

3 those at 10 percent. So I have serious concerns about the

4 way the cores are currently designed.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Now I think

6 then we’re at a point where we’re looking -- either we’re

7 going to whittle these grants down, which is going to make

8 it difficult, or we’re going to not fund one of these four

9 in it’s entirety, which is going to make it difficult. So

10 I think we need discussion about are we going to -- are we

11 going to -- I know several people want to speak, but

12 please let me finish. Are we going to look at -- there’s

13 really only a couple of ways we could go now other than

14 Dr. Yang’s and Henry and I were saying facetiously let’s

15 just cut 30 percent off of everybody and that doesn’t make

16 any sense. Now we have four grants there and we’re either

17 going to whittle them down or drop one We don’t have too

18 many other choices. Maybe --

19 MR. SALTON: Or a combination thereof.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- or some

21 combination thereof. Some extraordinary difficult

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 47 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 combination I’m sure. Now I will go in order. First and

2 then Mike and then I’ll get you Bob, you’re the third to

3 speak. Go ahead.

4 DR. JENNINGS: Who’s going first? Me?

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yep, you’re on.

6 Charles is on first.

7 DR. JENNINGS: I just wanted to speak in

8 favor of Mike’s idea of two years’ funding for each of

9 these cores and two years’ from now we will have a

10 different administration. We don’t know whether it will

11 be Republican or Democrat, but it is very likely that they

12 will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell funding. So I

13 think the case for providing for this work is particularly

14 concerning in the immediate term, in the first two years.

15 And both of these, of course I’m recused on the UConn one,

16 but I think it’s essentially similar to the Yale one, both

17 of them have provided a long list of investigators who are

18 likely to use it. I find that a compelling case.

19 I think in that no category of seed grants

20 and also in the no’s of the established investigators is a

21 lot of excellent and very promising science. I’m not sure

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 48 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 that it was shot down by the reviewers for lack of

2 preliminary data and I think if you’re -- particularly if

3 you’re a young investigator without a lot of funds you are

4 in a Catch 22 situation, you cannot begin the work if you

5 don’t have access to facilities. You can’t begin the work

6 that will generate that preliminary data that will make

7 you more competitive for funding down the road, whether

8 that’s funding from us or whether it’s funding from NIH

9 once the restrictions are lifted.

10 So I -- the other point in favor of a two-

11 year fund, I think core facilities are a little bit

12 uncertain. I think the case for setting them up now is

13 very compelling, but I think it’s very important to

14 maintain some level of accountability and oversight. I

15 think that is more true for a core facility than for an

16 investigator grant with a specific scientific discovery

17 end point and I think funding for two rather than four

18 years provides this committee in the event that the

19 Legislature appropriates more money and provides this

20 Committee with the opportunity to exercise an oversight

21 which I think should be built into the funding structure.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 49 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 So for all those reasons I’m in favor of cutting the

2 budgets for the two cores to two rather than four years.

3 Now I absolutely take Willie’s point, both

4 cases are front-loaded and they will simply have to, you

5 know, make some decisions, prioritize which pieces of

6 equipment, which staff need to be hired sooner rather than

7 later. I would also point out as I think I mentioned

8 yesterday there appeared at least to me to be a

9 discrepancy in the equipment budget for the Yale core.

10 The total for equipment was 1.779 million according to my

11 notes whereas the itemized pieces of equipment added up to

12 only 584,000 leaving almost 1.195 million unaccounted for

13 in the budget justification. That’s a substantial

14 discrepancy and most of you have access to that and

15 somebody else might want to check my numbers. But my

16 problem is that I would be uncomfortable cutting these

17 cores altogether.

18 And one more point I’d like to make is I

19 don’t think we have to fund every investigator grant that

20 is in that fund category and one possible partitioning of

21 the budget would be the following, if we cut the cores --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 50 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 I want to make sure we have that -- if we cut -- Rowe is

2 at 4,000,000, if Snyder could be rounded down to

3 4,000,000,Lin and Xu would be each half and approximate

4 numbers, that gets us to a total of 13,000,000 here, that

5 leaves 5,000,000 for investigator grants. We could fund

6 even five or possibly six, because I see two that are

7 closer to half a million than to 1,000,000, we couldn’t

8 fund everything on that list, but we could fund at least

9 the majority of it. And I would like us to consider that.

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on. Bob is

11 next then Milt.

12 MR. MANDELKERN: I thought Mike was next

13 and then me.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Nope, you’re next.

15 Just give me a moment to make a comment.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: I would speak --

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Please let me make a

18 comment --

19 MR. MANDELKERN: -- oh, I’m sorry. I

20 thought you called on me Doctor. I beg your pardon, I

21 never would intercede.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 51 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- okay. Thank you.

2 Thank you.

3 VOICE: Don’t apologize so much Bob.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think those

5 remarks are very well thought out. I would like you to

6 consider however if I went to Jerry Yang an said, Jerry,

7 I’m from Missouri and I want to recruit you to come and do

8 stem cell work for the state of Missouri. And Jerry says,

9 well, okay. I’ll think about. And we talk it through and

10 Jerry decides that he’s going to leave Connecticut and go

11 to Missouri. And I said, by the way Jerry, I can only

12 guarantee you funding for two years. And I’m not sure

13 what Jerry would say, I have a fairly good idea that it

14 might -- that might not suit him and I think that we may

15 have some problems recruiting people when we can only

16 guarantee two years’ worth of funding. I share Charles’

17 feelings that there seems to be a change in the national

18 government and the change seems to me to revolve around

19 conflict in the Middle East and some other things. I’m

20 not sure what they will do with stem cell and I’m not sure

21 whether there is national support or national opposition

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 52 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 to stem cell, so I would not -- I would be not surprised

2 if there was a reversal of the current President’s view on

3 stem cells.

4 I would not be astounded if there were not

5 and that the Anti-Stem Cell Coalition became preeminent

6 and that it didn’t get through. At present time there is

7 not a significant majority in the Legislative body to

8 override a Presidential veto. And it would take a super

9 majority of two thirds in both chambers to override a

10 Presidential veto. I’m not sure if I could predict the

11 next Presidential election I’d probably get a Nobel Prize.

12 I’m not sure and we’ve all seen people who were clear --

13 clear winners in the August or the April before the

14 election and had misfortunes occur and someone else became

15 the President.

16 So I just -- I think there’s some danger

17 in trying to say, well, we’ll only give you two years, but

18 don’t worry. The money will be there after the end of two

19 years. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t be. My

20 presumption is it will be. My presumption is that

21 Connecticut will siphon money from every place else in the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 53 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 United States, but I couldn’t guarantee Jerry -- I

2 wouldn’t be able to say to Jerry, don’t worry Jerry, I’ll

3 find the money somewhere. Because I might not find it.

4 DR. YANG: Just a clarification. I think

5 that Dr. Galvin is not really pushing Jerry Yang out of

6 Connecticut, that’s for sure.

7 (Laughter)

8 DR. YANG: But I think what he’s saying

9 both the UConn and the Yale core facility proposals

10 involve the hiring of scientists coming to Connecticut

11 only as to where you’re going you’re hiring someone for

12 four years, it’s difficult to say two years later we don’t

13 know the funding. So that’s a consideration.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah. I think

15 that’s a very succinct way and I apologize for using you

16 as an example, but I think it’s going to be hard for Jerry

17 to hire high quality scientists with a two-year guarantee

18 instead of four. Bob, you had a comment?

19 MR. MANDELKERN: Yes. I would like to

20 speak first of all very strongly to retaining two cores in

21 Connecticut, both at UConn and at Yale because I think the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 54 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 intent of the Legislation is to move forward with

2 fundamental research and experienced research on embryonic

3 human stem cells and we have to spread the ability to

4 carry out that research as widely as we can in the state

5 and we have indicated that that is our first mandate to

6 put a substantial part of our funds. And the science at

7 both institutions is remarkable. I can do a statistical

8 analysis showing it, but I won’t take the time of the

9 group.

10 My figures show me that we have in seeds

11 1,000,900 funded, in core, hybrid and group we have 18.3

12 and experienced investigators 6.2. We have a funded area

13 of 26,500,000. We are 6,500,000 over. I would like to

14 make a radical suggestion and that is keeping the two

15 cores as they are to facilitate the fundamental forward

16 movement of stem cell research in Connecticut and looking

17 to the other two major areas, particularly the Snyder

18 application, which I know is a favorite among our

19 scientists, however, I would like to refer to the core

20 grant of Yale reading from the Peer Reviewer number one.

21 B, it is not clear how this core grant of Yale’s overlaps

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 55 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 or not with the hybrid grant from M. Snyder where a stem

2 cell core is proposed. Now according to the reviewer, I

3 know contrary to some of the scientists here, apparently

4 they believe that the M. Snyder grant for 4,300,000 or

5 200,000 carries with it a stem cell core also and it says

6 further, this should be clarified and if both funded

7 carefully evaluated to prevent double charging for similar

8 activities.

9 Now I think that behooves us to pay

10 attention that the Peer Reviewers think there’s a conflict

11 there and since we have a conflict of having 6,500,000 too

12 much in our funded categories perhaps a view of keeping

13 the two cores so that they can operate efficiently and

14 move forward with creative work keeping our six

15 established investigators, keeping our 10 fundamental

16 seeds and just possibly eliminating the 4,000,000 two or

17 three hundred thousand in Snyder and getting very close to

18 our objective. Thank you.

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you. That’s a

20 very piercing analysis and I appreciate that. Dr.

21 Wallack?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 56 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. GENEL: Mr. Chairman, I believe I --

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Oh, I’m sorry,

3 excuse me. Go right ahead.

4 DR. GENEL: -- just a few comments. I

5 actually have not for obvious reasons have not had an

6 opportunity to look at the Yale applications and the Yale

7 core, but the UConn core is slightly front loaded, not

8 heavily front loaded. In two years the UConn core calls

9 for 2.68 in the first two years, so that’s a really -- my

10 rough figures -- my point is my rough figures that we save

11 $5,000,000 is obviously exaggerated. I doubt if we can

12 save five, perhaps we can save two, by my proposal of

13 funding the cores for two years.

14 The other point I would make and I had a

15 side conversation with Dr. Kiessling, is that the need for

16 good medical -- good laboratory practice -- what is it?

17 GMP? Is not something that needs to be implemented at the

18 initiation of the cores, it can simply be put in place

19 four or five years down the line and I don’t think any of

20 us envision that any of these research proposal is going

21 to be applicable for FDA approval in the next few years.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 57 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 So I do not see that as a major -- as a major hindrance to

2 the cores.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I think Dr.

4 Wallack is next.

5 DR. WALLACK: I’m going to pick up I

6 think where Mike just has left off and that is that we

7 can’t cut I don’t think $5,000,000. First of all, I

8 totally support the concept of the two cores. I totally

9 understand and accept Mike’s premise of funding it for two

10 years. I don’t think it’s going to save us $5,000,000.

11 If it saves -- because if we’re consistent with wanting to

12 fund for two years, Willie, if you would help me out with

13 this, I think the first two years at Yale would come to

14 something like 3.5 million, is that right?

15 DR. LENSCH: 3.2.

16 DR. WALLACK: How much?

17 DR. LENSCH: 3.2.

18 DR. WALLACK: 3.2. 3.2. And I think the

19 first two years at UConn would come to 2.6, is that

20 correct?

21 VOICE: 2.68.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 58 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. WALLACK: 2.7. 2.7.

2 DR. WAGERS: Does that take into account

3 Charles’ observation about the equipment budget?

4 DR. WALLACK: Well, I’m not going in --

5 DR. WAGERS: Okay.

6 DR. WALLACK: -- Amy, I’m not going into

7 his observation that there might have been some redundancy

8 because that could be worked out in the last two years.

9 I’m not sure what -- if he was referencing something up

10 front or in the latter two years.

11 DR. JENNINGS: The discrepancy is in the

12 first year budget of the Yale --

13 DR. WALLACK: The first year?

14 DR. JENNINGS: -- so the first year

15 budget, and let me just take you to it, it’s on page 83 --

16 I’m sorry. I’m looking -- that’s my note. I’m recused

17 from Snyder just to remind you because there’s a small

18 component at UConn, but it doesn’t have relevance to this

19 discussion. Okay. So on page 64 of Lin’s application --

20 COURT REPORTER: Could you just pull that

21 microphone closer to you?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 59 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. JENNINGS: -- on page 64 of Lin’s

2 application is the budget for year one, which includes

3 1.779 million in permanent equipment and that’s Item D, it

4 says, describe on the budget explanation page. If you

5 turn to the budget explanation page, which is page 70,

6 which itemizes large items of equipment cuts which are

7 defined as items costing more than 10,000, there is a list

8 of stuff. It extends from page 70 to page 71. I added it

9 up myself and I might have made an error, but I don’t

10 think a dramatic error, I got to 584,000. So that is

11 approximately a $1.2 million discrepancy. So they have

12 not in my view given an adequate explanation for why they

13 were requesting almost $1.8 million of permanent equipment

14 in year one. They certainly haven’t told us how they’re

15 going to spend it.

16 DR. WALLACK: So from your estimation what

17 should that figure have -- how much should we reduce that

18 figure by in year one?

19 DR. JENNINGS: Well, that -- instead of

20 their total of 1.779 I came up with 584,000. Somebody

21 should certainly check my numbers, but that was the total

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 60 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 that I got.

2 DR. WALLACK: Alright. Even if we didn’t

3 take that into account, if we just pursued the line of

4 thinking that I was trying to advance, that is that if we

5 were to fund Yale 3.2 and UConn 2.7 we’ll then pick up

6 $4,000,000 because we’ve only spent 6,000,000. We can

7 adjust it if Charles can, you know, show us where we can

8 make an additional adjustment. I think we’ve said that

9 while we’re not sure about the redundancy with 01 and the

10 Yale core that there might be some. If the scientists can

11 tell us what we can pick up, whether it be 500,000 or

12 $1,000,000 on the Snyder grant, that would be helpful to

13 us and would get us very close to then being able to fund

14 the established investigators, if not entirely, almost

15 entirely.

16 Willie, do you have any sense of the

17 overlap or Charles?

18 DR. JENNINGS: Could I also comment since

19 I have looked at it?

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think I need to

21 interrupt the proceedings for a moment. Henry would --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 61 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Attorney Salton would like to make -- give us some

2 clarification and perhaps a little bit of guidance.

3 Ready?

4 MR. SALTON: Yeah. I am a little -- I

5 appreciate that the Committee wants to reduce the amount

6 that these two cores take out of the total budget. I’m a

7 little -- I’m uncomfortable with the idea of using a two-

8 year or a three-year or four-year type of line. I think

9 it would be better off for the Committee to simply say,

10 look, we’re going to give each core 3,000,000, 4,000,000

11 and pick the number and say, you come back now and we’ll

12 allow you to resubmit your budget, which is a proposed

13 four-year budget, and show us the allocation instead of us

14 sort of -- now we’re tinkering within the context of each

15 contract in deciding where they should spend the money in

16 the first year.

17 When you look at the bid, at the

18 applications, Yale -- and for whatever intentional

19 purposes, it may have something to do with support they’re

20 getting outside of the Committee, or whatever, but their

21 first year -- their first two years is 3.2 million.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 62 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 UConn, if you look at their budget it’s more -- it’s kind

2 of more balanced across the four years. They’re spending

3 2.7 in the first two years, about half, and then the other

4 half in the second two years. So when you draw an

5 arbitrary line and say, well, we’re just going to fund two

6 years, I mean, UConn might have said, jeez, we would have

7 done what Yale did, we would have up fronted a lot more of

8 our costs the first year to try to get the money in hand

9 the first year.

10 And what you’re doing by using that as

11 your dividing line is you’re creating an unfair -- an

12 unlevel playing field in the sense that people’s proposals

13 are not being treated the same because -- there was no

14 suggestion in that -- that you could alternate your budget

15 fund -- your budget allocation across the four years. In

16 addition, we only reserve -- you know, we reserve the

17 right for the Applicant to come to us with a 20 percent

18 variation and we would rule on it, but we didn’t tell them

19 that we might cut their process over four years.

20 So if the Committee wants to look at any

21 one of these things, as I said before, and say look, you

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 63 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 know, 3,000,000, three and a half million for each one,

2 3.2 million, whatever the number is, and allow them to --

3 saying you have to build the core and get it operating,

4 but the going forward costs, we’re not going to fund the

5 going forward costs. You’ll have to deal with that --

6 then that’s okay. But using the two-year line doesn’t in

7 my mind work.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Can I just follow up

9 Henry? Let me -- just one brief. I think what you’re

10 hearing from Attorney Salton is that doing these two-year

11 reductions won’t work. We can’t do it. I think he’s

12 saying --

13 MR. SALTON: Well, not using that as a

14 nomenclature --

15 DR. GENEL: Well, wait a minute. You’re

16 saying not cutting it -- cutting it where the budgets are,

17 but we could go back and ask them to submit a two-year

18 budget, couldn’t we?

19 MR. SALTON: -- you could say to them,

20 we’re going to give you -- let’s say -- let’s just pick

21 for example’s sake, you say to both of them to be fair,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 64 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 each of you will get $3.2 million, end of story. For $3.2

2 million we expect you to create the core and have it

3 operational within two years. Submit -- and you have to

4 on a going forward basis you have to submit a budget to

5 show, you know, reallocate it within -- if they want to

6 say, we want to do it within four years, you know, that’s

7 their original proposal, but we can decide we’re only

8 going to fund it -- or the money will only be available

9 for two years and that’ll be it.

10 DR. WALLACK: You know, can I just --

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Hang on. Go

12 ahead Milt.

13 DR. WALLACK: -- can I just pursue one

14 last part of it? And by the way Henry, I normally agree

15 totally with your analysis and recommendations through the

16 Attorney General’s Office. In this instance, with all due

17 respect --

18 MR. SALTON: I may be wrong. I’m not

19 guaranteeing anything.

20 DR. WALLACK: -- I totally don’t agree

21 with your analysis. I think that this is eminently fair.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 65 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 We didn’t on purpose indicate to them ahead of time how

2 they should address their budget. We’re just reacting to

3 their budget which is -- and we’re not reacting to a

4 programmatic aspect. My question to Willie was, on the

5 overlap or possible overlap -- or to Charles, whoever has

6 this information, or Amy, or anybody, what type of overlap

7 might there be in the core aspect of the Snyder grant? Is

8 there any money to be saved in the core aspect if we

9 funded however you want to call the $3.2 million two

10 years, or whatever, at Yale? Do you have any information

11 about that?

12 DR. LENSCH: My reading of those grants

13 was that the Snyder core is fundamentally a genomics and a

14 proteomics core. It is non-redundant, it does not derive

15 embryonic stem cell lines, it does not train in the

16 maintenance or basic experimental methodology and

17 embryonic stem cell lines it is a different type of core

18 facility. Core facility is a generally descriptive term,

19 but it is very open in terms of what type of core it will

20 be. I do not see a fundamental overlap whatsoever.

21 DR. WALLACK: Was there any savings we can

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 66 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 approve? Because I remember when I read the Peer Review

2 papers there seemed to be an indication, I can go back --

3 we all can go back to it, but there could be a savings

4 with greater collaborative work. Is there any kind of

5 savings at all that you would anticipate?

6 DR. LENSCH: I wouldn’t be able to comment

7 on that so specifically, but I would like to know -- I’ve

8 gone back and looked at the reviewers’ comments and at the

9 grant from Dr. Lin and what they have failed to do is to

10 list and we discussed this in the context of their grant,

11 they failed to list that they are buying a new fax machine

12 and a new confocal microscope. I’ve just gone back

13 through it page by page and those are large equipment

14 purchases. They are not included in that amount that

15 Charles has gone through and I’ve checked his numbers

16 also, 584,000, does not appear to include those two large

17 ticket items which must account for the difference in

18 their budget total of 1.7 million.

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Once again -- once

20 again, you can’t go back and change these grants around to

21 fit our concept of what they should be and if we start

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 67 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 doing that then we’re going to have to open up the whole

2 process all over again and give everybody else a chance to

3 rearrange and rethink and to change things. You can’t

4 change things. I have to think -- say I think Henry is on

5 the correct pathway. I also have to advise you that the

6 Attorney General and myself will be responsible for

7 watching these disbursements and that neither of us have

8 -- are going to be shy about this. We live in an

9 atmosphere in this state where things are very carefully

10 watched and regulated for the benefit of the public and we

11 do have -- the Health Department has a major role in

12 health care regulations and Mr. Wollschlager is a

13 regulator. He’s a very fine guy to have a cup of coffee

14 with and a conversation and share a joke, but he’s also a

15 very assiduous regulator and we are going to have to watch

16 this.

17 It’s going to have to be very clear how

18 these things are structured so that we don’t have people

19 saying things like, well, you cut my money so I did this

20 instead of that, because we’re responsible for making sure

21 the money is going to be appropriately used and it’s got

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 68 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 to be very clear. I think if you tinker with these too

2 much all of the guys that are on the no side will come

3 back and say, I want reconsideration. Go ahead -- I’m not

4 sure who’s next. I think it’s Ernesto.

5 DR. CANALIS: I have a question for Henry.

6 You almost imply --

7 COURT REPORTER: Use that microphone.

8 DR. CANALIS: -- you almost imply that we

9 could cut the core grants from four down to 3.2 million.

10 MR. SALTON: It’s five.

11 DR. CANALIS: 5.2, whatever.

12 MR. SALTON: Right.

13 DR. CANALIS: But before Commissioner had

14 indicated that we would not make a 30 percent cut across

15 the board, but legally it’s the same.

16 MR. SALTON: Well --

17 DR. CANALIS: You know, if you’re allowed

18 to cut one set of grants then why don’t we cut them all

19 and we go home? You know, we say these are the monies we

20 have. It’s legal or it’s not legal? If it’s legal for

21 the cores it’s legal for everybody.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 69 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, if you want to

2 do that we can cut everybody beginning at the left and

3 moving to the right, come to $20,000,000 and shake hands

4 and go home.

5 DR. CANALIS: No, but my question is, is

6 it legal to make -- other funding agencies do across the

7 board cuts and Henry seems to imply that you can do that

8 for the cores. If it’s legal for the cores why it is not

9 legal for everybody? It’s a very simple question.

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think I’ll let

11 Henry speak. I think it’s legal, but I think if you take

12 $112,000 grant and cut 30 percent off it, it probably is

13 not going to be worth doing. But go ahead Henry about the

14 legality of cutting a grant.

15 DR. CANALIS: If it’s not legal then, you

16 know, we don’t even need to consider that, but if it’s

17 legal then we can use permutations of that.

18 MR. SALTON: I think that the process

19 requires that you make individual judgements on each

20 application. If you want to generate -- say a rule of

21 thumb is we’re going to -- we feel that there’s a certain

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 70 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 percentage we’re going to need to try to achieve you can

2 create, I mean, it’s almost like creating a legal

3 regulation. But I think that the point here is you’re

4 going to have an up and down vote on every one that gets

5 funded. And so I think that there’s going to be -- I

6 would have some concern about us starting with a general

7 rule that everyone is going to be cut a third regardless

8 of the merits of that cut on the individual applications.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. We have other

10 comments.

11 MR. SALTON: It’s more of a gray area of

12 liability risk than a real black and white determination.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I’m not sure

14 who’s next, but I’ll --

15 MR. SALTON: Let me just --

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- yeah, go ahead.

17 MR. SALTON: -- I think that the thing

18 about the core that’s a little -- from my understanding

19 again, I’m probably the least qualified person to talk

20 about this here, but the idea is it’s almost like a

21 baseball park. The project is to build the park and then

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 71 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 have it operating for three seasons let’s say. What we’re

2 really saying to the -- what you can do is simply say,

3 look, here’s the money. You have to build the park and

4 then you have to propose how many seasons you’re going to

5 operate and then we can say, at a minimum you’ve got to

6 operate for one season or two seasons or the Committee may

7 choose to say all three seasons and you find the operating

8 costs somewhere else, okay?

9 I mean, but at a minimum I don’t think you

10 can for example go in and say, you know what? The

11 corporate boxes that you proposed come out and add an

12 extra season. That’s not doable. And the distinction

13 with the other grants is that the other grants have a

14 beginning, an end point, and a number of aims to be

15 achieved in those times. It’s not that -- basically

16 between each season, season one, two and three they’re

17 really just, you know, it’s the same performance, we’re

18 just not buying as much performance but we are buying the

19 park to start.

20 So I think that’s a legitimate line. I

21 think I’m willing to advise the Committee to take the risk

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 72 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 if somebody wants to come back at us on it, but on the

2 other ones I would say no way could I condone that.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Dr. Fishbone?

4 DR. FISHBONE: Yeah. I would like to

5 support Henry’s position in that using your baseball park

6 analogy. If you say you have $5,000,000 to build a

7 baseball stadium you say, oh, I can do this, this and

8 this. If you say you have 4,000,000 you don’t say, I

9 can’t build the baseball stadium, you know, I have to

10 modify some things. And I think the point about the

11 grants is valid, that people have a specific task they

12 have to do. They’ve put in a budget where they say they

13 need these amount of people, this amount of supplies.

14 It’s reasonably reliable. But with the core I think you

15 could expand it or reduce it in anyway that you want

16 because there isn’t a specific sort of project that you’re

17 doing. And I think the idea -- I agree with you about not

18 doing the two years thing, but just saying give them less

19 money because this is all we have and that one of the

20 mechanisms they have I’m told to make up some of the funds

21 is to charge to the grants of the people who use the core

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 73 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 to make up shortfalls. And I think it’s -- unless there’s

2 some legal reason why you can’t do it I think it makes a

3 lot of sense in those kinds of grants to say, well, this

4 is what we’re going to give you and do what you can with

5 that amount and find elsewhere.

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I think Julie

7 had a question.

8 DR. LANDWIRTH: It may turn out to be

9 awfully difficult to ask people to resubmit a budget for a

10 lower amount and then -- and then avoid having some

11 significant program changes in that revised budget. The

12 baseball park, you know, meeting the original set of specs

13 might be virtually impossible and you’re still going to

14 get a baseball park and somebody is going to have to

15 explain how they’re going to do that and but put aside

16 what constitutes a substantial change in a program?

17 DR. LATHAM: May I ask a question?

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yes. Who’s speaking

19 please?

20 DR. LATHAM: Steve Latham.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay, okay Steve.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 74 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. LATHAM: I don’t have any hands to

2 wave so I have to just shout out.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, the phone was

4 jumping up and down.

5 (Laughter)

6 MS. TOWNSHEND: Hang on Dr. Latham, we

7 need to turn the microphone around. Thank you. Proceed.

8 DR. LATHAM: Okay. Thanks. I’m just

9 wondering to what extent does funding for cores would be

10 crowding out an investment that the universities are

11 already making. We heard the other day that Yale was

12 putting 30,000,000 I think into their stem cell research

13 and I wonder whether then offering them two and a half

14 more for a couple of years is meaningful, especially as

15 opposed to offering their senior researchers an

16 opportunity to do work that’s targeted toward goals. We

17 didn’t get numbers yesterday of whether UConn is similarly

18 invested in it’s own infrastructure. But my question is

19 basically whether the funding for the core would really be

20 crowding out money that the universities are investing

21 anyway?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 75 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think that’s an

2 excellent comment Professor and I think that although we

3 are sitting here disbursing $20,000,000, which is a lot of

4 money to all of us, that the initiative itself is going to

5 be many times that cost and not just in the long run but

6 in the short and the intermediate run. I think that we

7 are trying to spend this money wisely. I think that the

8 Legislative and Gubernatorial permission to move forward

9 on this initiative is leading some of the investment

10 activities. I think that our activities of allocating

11 funds are helpful to those institutions. I think that

12 they indicate where the state of Connecticut is in the

13 process and our backing of their initiatives. I’m not

14 sure how either institution would react to cuts and -- but

15 I think that the initiative is moving forward. We want to

16 fuel it and I also would like the members to consider that

17 for every million dollars we invest in this in Connecticut

18 we probably get $4,000,000 or three and a half million

19 dollars of multipliers in terms of jobs and services

20 attached to the money that’s spent. Milt?

21 DR. WALLACK: Thank you Bob. Whatever

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 76 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 decision we make is going to be a well intentioned

2 decision and it’s going to be a decision that’s going to

3 be very positive in every regard because we’re going to

4 fund things that are wonderful projects and that will help

5 the people of the state of Connecticut as well as humanity

6 and there’s no one answer to how we’re going to be able to

7 accomplish that. However, with that in mind I’m going to

8 make a suggestion just as a starting point. If we were to

9 consider the possibility of funding the Yale core, and I

10 don’t have any great rationale for this because I don’t

11 think -- and I don’t feel badly about that because I don’t

12 think anybody is going to be able to create any great

13 rationale, so you’ll have to pick apart what I’ll say or

14 totally dismiss it.

15 If we were to fund the Yale core at 3.0

16 million the UConn core at 2.7 million, if we were to cut

17 the two group projects by 250,000, which is not an

18 unreasonable amount, my friends in the scientific

19 community tell me that especially in this climate, in this

20 environment, when they put their projects in to NIH they

21 would be thrilled at this point in time to have it come

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 77 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 back with only a reduction of that limited percentage

2 point. So if we were to do that we’d pick up 6.2 million.

3 There’s approximately $6,000,000 in the remaining

4 individual grant monies that have to be disbursed. If we

5 agree to at least work with this concept, which is close

6 to the concept we’re talking about, I think that we can

7 re-look, leave the core and the group in place with that

8 idea, reexamine the individual grants and see if there’s

9 any cutting we can do there to bring it even less than

10 $6,000,000 and I think we would be home free at the end of

11 the day. And I don’t think it would violate any of the

12 admonitions that Henry has put in front of us.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I’ll get to

14 you in one moment Bob.

15 MR. MANDELKERN: Thank you Bob.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: But let me see if I

17 can summarize a bit. We’re now at a juncture where we

18 have several choices. It appears that no one wants to

19 completely refuse to fund any of the grants on the middle

20 board. It appears to me that everyone, or at least the

21 sentiment that I hear predominant is that we would like to

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 78 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 do something with the dollar amounts of the middle board

2 to reallocate money between the middle board and the

3 right-hand board.

4 My feelings about the established

5 investigators is that these are virtually all unanimous

6 votes and we would -- with some exceptions at the very end

7 and that we would have to go back and reevaluate all of

8 them and restructure them to meet a financial goal of some

9 kind or another. So I think we have to decide whether

10 we’re going to work the middle board or the middle board

11 and the right-hand board. And if we’re going to work --

12 my understanding is that we want to do most of our work on

13 the middle board and reduce the size of the award to make

14 sure that we can fund the stuff on the right-hand side?

15 DR. WALLACK: That’s right. And my

16 starting point would be the 3.0 and 2.7 and that would --

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let’s --

18 okay. I’m not sure we can ask Milt how he got those

19 numbers, but I just want to see if I can understand. Is

20 it the consensus of the Committee -- does everybody agree

21 what we’re going to try to do is take money from the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 79 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 middle board and put it over on the right-hand board? Is

2 that what you guys want to do?

3 VOICE: Yes.

4 VOICE: No.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: No? You don’t want

6 to do that? Well, what do you want to do?

7 DR. JENNINGS: Can we call for a vote and

8 see --

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, I’m not sure

10 what the issue is, but we have to -- I think Professor

11 Latham is lecturing at 11:00 so we need to fish or cut

12 bait here. Either we’re going to work the middle board to

13 reduce the grant amounts or we’re going to do something

14 else. Just tell me, you know, just tell me what you want

15 to do?

16 DR. JENNINGS: Mr. Chairman, I think we

17 could do both. I think we must work the middle board,

18 that’s going to foul our whole budget if we don’t. And I

19 think we may also have to make some tough decisions on the

20 right-hand board and there are two types of decisions we

21 could make. We could either cut them completely or we

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 80 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 could cut all of them partially or some combination of the

2 two. It is -- so at least three of them are exactly

3 1.00000 million, that’s not because that’s the exact

4 amount that they need, that’s because that’s the count

5 that we set. I’m confident that we could cut it by 10

6 percent, perhaps more, without doing damage to their

7 overall aim. So I think we should -- I think we should be

8 looking at those cores, although just as a matter of

9 numbers, the bigger cuts I think are going to have to come

10 from that board.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: If you cut the

12 right-hand board you’re going to have -- if you cut the

13 right-hand board that’s means we’re going to have to go

14 back and look at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven

15 grants all over again.

16 DR. JENNINGS: That’s okay if that’s what

17 we have to do.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. If that’s

19 what you want to do I’m not sure you’ll be able to finish

20 that bit of work today but we’ll proceed.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: I don’t want to do that.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 81 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 I would speak to keeping the right-hand board, the

2 established investigators sacrosanct. There are exactly

3 seven funded projects there for $6,200,000. What may I

4 ask is the point of establishing two cores if we do not

5 give funding to established investigators to do the work?

6 What, are we setting up an empty ballpark, which analogy

7 has been referred to? I would simply say we can only work

8 with the middle $18,300,000 and again, I would radicalize

9 my proposal. I feel to give us the best impetus, the best

10 opportunity for hiring to do the fundamental seed work,

11 which we’ve approved 10 projects for $2,000,000, the

12 investigator that we established the most comprehensive,

13 complete, encouraging, optimistic cores for 5,000,000 each

14 at UConn and at Yale and the other two applications, one

15 in the -- in the group project, Rowe for 4,000,000 and one

16 in the Yale project hybrid for 4.3 million be eliminated

17 because we cannot have the funds to do them.

18 They are worthwhile. They’ve been funded,

19 but we can’t do them. We are limited by mandate to

20 20,000,000 and I think we should put the best forward foot

21 (sic) for fundamental research with two excellent cores.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 82 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Eight established, 10 seeds and possibly by eliminating

2 the $8,000,000 we pick up one or two more established

3 investigators, which I think is very important to get

4 going to find some fundamental research that would lead us

5 to some therapies, some cures, some hope and some promise

6 and that is my suggestion to the group.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think that there

8 is great merit in what Bob suggests and I think what we’re

9 trying to do here is to shape a program where one part,

10 Part A, Part B and C, D and E all fit together. His

11 analogy of having the baseball stadium, you know, and it

12 crossed my mind that we end up with seven guys on one team

13 and six guys on the other and a great stadium with a dome

14 and all that. So I think there’s merit to considering

15 what he mentions.

16 I do have -- first thing, I have a hard

17 time not believing there’s a bit of duplication among this

18 $18,000,000 worth of grants. Maybe there’s not, and maybe

19 I’m wrong, because I’m not that type of scientist. I do

20 not think, you know, and my colleagues will disagree with

21 me, I don’t think that driving from Hartford to New Haven

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 83 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 or New Haven to Hartford is an insurmountable object. You

2 know, it’s not 600 miles from -- as I said, it’s not going

3 from Portland, Maine to Holton, which is about 450, it’s

4 going from, you know, I don’t think it’s insurmountable.

5 Perhaps it is to some. Comments?

6 DR. FISHBONE: We have several senior

7 investigators in the room and the proposal to cut from

8 $1,000,000 which was the cap by 10 percent, would that

9 affect anybody’s opinion the ability to achieve --

10 VOICE: (Indiscernible, too far from mic.)

11 DR. FISHBONE: -- right. That was my

12 feeling.

13 MR. MANDELKERN: (Indiscernible, too far

14 from mic.)

15 DR. FISHBONE: Pardon?

16 MR. MANDELKERN: That only saves $600,000

17 Dr. Fishbone.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: 600,000.

19 MR. MANDELKERN: 10 percent of --

20 DR. FISHBONE: Yeah, but that’s what the

21 original proposal was to take the -- from the two cores

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 84 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 and try to save another 500,000,000 -- actually, it was

2 500,000. That would bring it down to the 20,000,000 cap.

3 But I think, you know, if you give somebody $1,000,000

4 they spend the $1,000,000. If you give them 900,000 it’s

5 hard to believe and we’re assured by the scientists that

6 you are not able to do the project with that sum of

7 money.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Amy’s next and then

9 Ann. Be aware that nine tenths of the budget is in the

10 middle block. Go ahead Amy.

11 DR. WAGERS: So I would like to speak

12 first of all in support of the cores. I think it’s

13 important to fund these not necessarily at the full level

14 that they’ve requested, I think we can enable them to

15 support stem cell science without funding at the full

16 $5,000,000. I think that to Bob’s point I would just want

17 to remind everyone that the project in hybrid grants

18 contain components that would be equivalent to an

19 established investigator grant and that had they come in

20 as an established investigator grants they probably would

21 have scored quite well and they will be providing very

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 85 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 important scientific discoveries and so I think

2 eliminating them out of hand is probably not what we want

3 to do for promoting the science there.

4 So I think it’s a hard thing --

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: What do you think we

6 ought to do?

7 (Laughter)

8 DR. WAGERS: -- I think it’s reasonable to

9 consider reducing the costs that will be given to the

10 cores, not necessarily cutting it at a yearly amount, but

11 basically saying, we’re going to give you this amount of

12 money to enable what you want to do and you can enact a

13 charge back program or recruit other funding in order to

14 do that and we can -- it sounds like cut substantial

15 amounts of money that way. I think it’s reasonable to go

16 back and reestablish the established investigator grants

17 that we talked about and think about reducing budgets

18 there. And we could also look at the core in the context

19 of the hybrid grant, whether that core itself needs to

20 operate at the budget level that it’s set up at.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Mr.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 86 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Wollschlager?

2 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: I think --

3 COURT REPORTER: Mr. Wollschlager, if you

4 could just --

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, I’m trying to

6 go down one side of the room and then the other and then

7 we’ll go down this side and go up this side.

8 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: -- great. In that case

9 I’ll be happy to speak. Just thank you Mr. Chair. Just

10 as an algorithm, if you’re trying to save dollars from the

11 middle to cover the cost to the right it works out pretty

12 simply. If you cut for every, you know, if you save

13 $2,000,000 off the cores by cutting them down to 4,000,000

14 you can fund two established investigators. If you want

15 to cut -- if you want to cut $4,000,000, that’s two from

16 each of the cores, then you can cover the four established

17 that were unanimously approved by this body. So it’s

18 really just -- I just point out that it’s a fairly simple

19 algorithm. To the extent that you want to fund the

20 projects and the cores and some number of established it’s

21 a simple algorithm.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 87 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let’s -- I

2 think Mike was first and then Milt and then Ernie.

3 DR. GENEL: I just want a clarification

4 from Henry. Just a clarification Mr. Salton on what you

5 suggested because I think I find it very attractive as a

6 solution. And that is --

7 (Laughter)

8 DR. GENEL: -- well, within our

9 constraints and -- our constraints. If we were to

10 authorize funding of pick your dollar, let’s just say

11 arbitrarily two and a half million, and ask each of the

12 two cores to provide us with a budget as to how that would

13 be spent and I would also say -- and say that we would

14 give this to them for a two year period, is this

15 appropriate and is this a way of asking -- of dealing with

16 this particular issue? In other words, picking a fixed

17 sum, asking the cores to submit a budget, and I would

18 argue giving them over a two-year period?

19 MR. SALTON: I think that --

20 DR. GENEL: Is it feasible? Whether or

21 not we wish to do that or not is another matter.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 88 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. SALTON: -- right. I think I would

2 change that in a couple of important ways, but not

3 dramatically. What I would say again going back to the

4 analogy is I think in this situation and the way the RFP

5 is written and everything else, the bottom line is with

6 the cores is that you have to demand that for the money

7 that they build the park. You cannot go to them and say,

8 okay, resubmit your proposal and have a different style of

9 park. The facility must be built.

10 DR. GENEL: Okay. Yeah.

11 MR. SALTON: The only question then is I

12 think we have enough flexibility in the way the proposals

13 are set up that you could say, your -- the number of

14 seasons that we’re going to fund.

15 DR. GENEL: Right.

16 MR. SALTON: You could say, we’re not

17 going to -- we’re not saying how many seasons, we’ll just

18 say the obligation is to build a park and we’re going to

19 give you enough money to build the park and then you tell

20 us -- and additional money to operate for some period of

21 time, you submit the budget and tell us how much time you

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 89 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 can do that.

2 DR. GENEL: You would prefer we ask them?

3 MR. SALTON: I think you need to set a

4 minimum of the park has to be open and I would say you

5 must operate for at least one year and then here’s your

6 budget. And if you can do more than that you do more than

7 that. But I don’t think you can come in and tell them

8 that they can reconfigure the core facility as far as the

9 equipment they acquire or other things because then it’s a

10 different -- you’re really going into the program in a

11 hardcore way that I wouldn’t -- I suggest is not feasible.

12 MR. MANDELKERN: Point of information.

13 Can --

14 COURT REPORTER: You need a microphone.

15 MR. MANDELKERN: -- can staff -- with that

16 scenario can staff reasonably be recruited and maintained

17 with that scenario of a two-year budget and a two-year,

18 can you really establish a working core?

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on.

20 MR. MANDELKERN: It’s a point of

21 information.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 90 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah. Let me answer

2 that for you. I think that we’ve answered that several

3 times. You’re not going to be able to recruit the people

4 you want with two-year budgets -- or two-year programs. I

5 think Jerry said that, you’re just not going to be able to

6 guarantee -- as Jerry has said. You have to recruit on a

7 four-year basis. So you’re going to -- and you have to

8 factor that in. You’re going to lose some good scientific

9 candidates who can’t be guaranteed a four-year employment.

10 DR. GENEL: Mr. Chairman, I would

11 respectfully disagree with that. I don’t think that’s

12 true.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, I wouldn’t

14 take a job for two years, but that’s alright. I’m not

15 voting.

16 DR. GENEL: No, no. What I’m saying is I

17 don’t think the guarantee of two years or four years

18 depends on whether we fund the core facility for two years

19 or four years.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, as long as

21 that’s perfectly clear that this Committee and the people

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 91 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 of Connecticut have no obligation to continue your funds

2 at all and I think Ann had some comments for us.

3 DR. KIESSLING: I want to just remind the

4 Committee that the scientific reviewers recommended

5 funding these cores at the level of two to $2.5 million.

6 That was their recommendation after they reviewed the

7 cores and the budget.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Good point. Thank

9 you. And I think Milt had a point?

10 DR. WALLACK: Yeah. Thank you for the

11 mic. Mike.

12 (Laughter)

13 DR. WALLACK: Again, I don’t think that

14 there’s going to be anybody who is going to be able to

15 create an answer to this from a purely scientific

16 perspective. So again, my solution will not attempt to do

17 that. If however we cut the Yale core by $2,000,000, if

18 we cut the UConn core by $2.5 million, if we then cut

19 $350,000 off each of the hybrids --

20 MR. MANDELKERN: There’s only one hybrid.

21 DR. WALLACK: -- no, Rowe and Snyder. I’m

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 92 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 sorry. I’m sorry. Rowe and Snyder, that comes to

2 $5,250,000. We’re trying to get to fund the individuals.

3 If we cut the individuals by 10 percent, by 10 percent

4 without going back Bob as you’ve indicated would be a very

5 difficult thing to do, that would free up an additional

6 $600,000, which by reducing the individuals and by the

7 cuts I’ve indicated which now amount to $5,850,000 I

8 believe that would get us to the point where we would be

9 able to fund and cross the T’s and dot the I’s with this

10 project as it is and I would recommend that as what we

11 should be doing at this point.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Thank you

13 very much for those remarks. I know there are other

14 speakers and people that wish to speak. I will get to

15 everybody. But I want you to consider what Ann just said.

16 The reviewers considered these $5,000,000 grants as over

17 funded by 100 percent, maybe they were wrong, maybe for

18 some reason they got up on the wrong side of the bed or it

19 was raining someplace, but you know, that comment I at

20 least have to make note of that. These things are 100

21 percent over funded from some people’s point of view and

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 93 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 these appear to be the best scientists we could find. So

2 I think we need to think about that. Maybe I’m

3 overstating -- or overstating Ann’s case, but if they --

4 if they said two and a half million and they’re coming in

5 with five I’m a little --

6 DR. WALLACK: Well, that takes into

7 account my comment. Takes into account precisely what Ann

8 has indicated and exactly what you’ve indicated as well.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- okay. But Milt,

10 you know, and Ann, I don’t want to spend 5,000,000 bucks

11 on a two and a half million dollar grant.

12 MR. MANDELKERN: No, but it does not say

13 that. It says specifically --

14 DR. JENNINGS: Gentlemen, can we have

15 some--

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Yep, yep.

17 MR. MANDELKERN: -- two and a half million

18 would cover three of the five parts of the --

19 COURT REPORTER: He doesn’t have a

20 microphone. Bob, you need a microphone.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: -- so it’s not accurate

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 94 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 to say that it’s doubly overstated. They say that two to

2 two and a half million will cover part of the core grant

3 of UConn and Wesleyan. Now remember that yesterday we

4 took very important and other grants which we felt that

5 parts of it were the best SENT in the state of Connecticut

6 and we said no. It’s not accurate to say that they say

7 only 2.5 for the joint core of Connecticut and Wesleyan.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Ann?

10 MS. TOWNSHEND: As a point of

11 clarification please wait until you are recognized by the

12 Chair before commenting. Thank you.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Hang on. Now

14 maybe I misheard Ann, but -- or maybe these -- I don’t

15 know. I don’t do these kinds of things. I don’t know if

16 people say, I think I’ll put in 5,000,000 and if I get

17 three I’ll be really happy. I’m not sure -- that’s just

18 me. But I think maybe Ann can clarify those remarks. If

19 there is, you know, if they are overstated then we need to

20 consider that before we move ahead, but we have to move

21 ahead soon or we’ll be here when the snow flies.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 95 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. KIESSLING: I would just like to read

2 actually what it says here. Derivation and

3 characterization of new lines, this is the specific

4 comment for the UConn core, training and education are

5 fine. However, in this proposal I was also missing a

6 proposal to establish new GMP facilities and stem cell

7 banks. That comment was made about both cores. That’s a

8 big problem for me.

9 Two to $2.5 million could cover fees for

10 the three major aims. Derivation of new lines, training

11 and education. And that’s what Connecticut needs to do.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: That’s -- now that’s

13 what our Peer Reviewers have been, you know, have said.

14 None of them has a stake in Connecticut, none of them has

15 a professorship at any Connecticut university or an option

16 for that. These are as independent statements as we can.

17 So what people are saying is that it dovetails with some

18 of Dr. Wallack’s remarks -- I’ll get to you all, don’t

19 worry. Dovetails with some of Dr. Wallack’s remarks about

20 maybe we need to look at cutting those. We need to figure

21 out what we’re going to do pretty soon because I know Dr.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 96 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Latham is lecturing at 11:00 o’clock, it’s 10 minutes to

2 10:00. And I’m going to go down this -- I can’t remember

3 the sequence, but I’ll start and go down this side of the

4 board with Kevin.

5 MR. RAKIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well,

6 I just wanted to echo some points that have been made.

7 When you actually look at these budgets, which I would

8 really encourage everybody to look at page 44 in the UConn

9 grant and page 66 in the Yale grant. I think what jumps

10 out in these budgets is that the great majority of

11 expenditure is on reagents, supplies and equipment. So I

12 think it’s incorrect to say that a big part of this is on

13 salaries. In fact, most of the salaries are technician

14 salaries and so I would suggest that a technician would

15 not be looking at a four-year commitment before they take

16 on employment.

17 Certainly there are a couple of senior

18 people in each of these grants, but those people are

19 already in place. So I just wanted to echo the statement

20 that perhaps the two and a half million dedicated for a

21 number of years for the equipment, reagent, supplies and

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 97 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the technicians’ salaries to get these core grants up and

2 running is a reasonable position for this Committee to

3 have.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: So you would like to

5 -- say it again?

6 MR. RAKIN: I echo the suggestion more or

7 less that can go about the exact dollars of Milt because I

8 don’t believe this -- I think it’s supported by the Peer

9 Review Committee and I don’t think it materially puts us

10 at risk for not being able to recruit top talent because

11 the majority of the budget are not salaries at least for

12 the new employees.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Did you have

14 a comment Dr. Lensch?

15 DR. LENSCH: Yes I do sir. Thank you

16 Commissioner Galvin.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: You’re entirely

18 welcome Dr. Lensch.

19 (Laughter)

20 DR. LENSCH: I have a question for the

21 group and I would start by saying that it seems like we

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 98 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 are looking at our glass as being half empty, but I think

2 it’s half full and I would ask the group, what do you say

3 to an ability to fund 27 individual research projects core

4 facilities to promote junior investigators to allow for

5 the conduct of senior investigator research that promotes

6 collaboration within the state of Connecticut and that is

7 consistent with the advice that we’ve received from the

8 representative of the Attorney General’s Office in a

9 manner that is not onerous in terms of renegotiating

10 individual contracts? There is a way to do that. If we

11 look at the two hybrid -- I’m sorry, the core grants,

12 which consistently we’re hearing are the only grants I

13 think that we can really look at in terms of scaling back

14 the budget, if we take off the last year basically, if we

15 fund both of those grants at 72 percent, reducing them to

16 roughly 3.6 million each we leave the group project the

17 same, we leave the hybrid the same, because we can’t cut

18 into a grant reasonably that contains individual projects,

19 we fund 10 seed grants, the blood is going to be shed

20 unfortunately here, but it does allow us to fund fully the

21 two grants that received the highest priority score, the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 99 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 best priority score from the Peer Review Committee, the

2 grant from Professor Carmichael, the grant from Professor

3 Graveley at 1,000,000 each. This totals $19,520,151. I’m

4 hearing we have $19,800,000 in our fund which accounts for

5 200,000 that went for the conduct and the furtherance of

6 this Committee and leaves us with a surplus of $279,849.

7 It’s not as much individual ingress -- investigator

8 support as we would like, but if you go through and you

9 add up all of these projects it’s 27 individual research

10 projects in addition to supporting cores and furthering

11 the mission of the state of Connecticut. It’s not what we

12 would all like, we would all like more money but I think

13 that that’s a pretty significant amount of research.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Dr. Lensch, so I can

15 understand, you want to keep all of the seed grants?

16 DR. LENSCH: 10 seed grants.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: That’s all of them,

18 there’s only 10 selected, is that correct?

19 DR. LENSCH: Yes sir.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. So that’s all

21 the selected -- so we’re not looking at the left side

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 100 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 panel at all?

2 DR. LENSCH: No.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. And in the

4 right-hand panel what do you want to do?

5 DR. LENSCH: Well, let me go to the middle

6 first if I may?

8 DR. LENSCH: Dr. Rowe’s grant we must

9 remember contains nine individual research projects.

11 DR. LENSCH: That’s 19. If we go to the

12 cores we look at Dr. Xu and Dr. Lin --

14 DR. LENSCH: -- I don’t know how many

15 individual projects they’re going to have in their core,

16 but if we just assume one each that’s two more. 19, 20 --

17 we’re up to 21. There are four individual research

18 projects in the hybrid grant for Dr. Snyder and then if we

19 fund two established investigators that’s 27 individual

20 research projects in addition to funding the cores as they

21 sit taking off basically one year each funding them at 72

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 101 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 percent, going back to them per the recommendation from

2 the Attorney General’s Office and saying, look, four years

3 is too much. If we shave off a year at the end you’ll

4 still be able to build the park, we’re just cutting back

5 on one year of service basically. They have the

6 opportunity to come back later again, no promises made.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Now which two

8 of the established grants are you going to pick?

9 DR. LENSCH: I think that the only fair

10 way that we can do it is to take the two with the best

11 score from the Peer Review Committee and that would be

12 Professor Carmichael and Professor Graveley, both scoring

13 1.6.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Does that

15 meet legal sufficiency for since they were all unanimous

16 votes?

17 MR. SALTON: Yes.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Do we have to

19 consider the eight that we’re not going to fund?

20 MR. SALTON: You only have to vote -- the

21 only things that have to come up for a vote are things

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 102 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 that are going to be passed. So if you -- for example, if

2 someone calls for -- if no one calls a motion on a grant

3 it’s not going to be passed.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. So I’ll get

5 to you. I’ll get to everybody. Now, assuming -- so we

6 have an assumption here that if we look at Dr. Lensch’s

7 excellent commentary we all have to agree we’re only going

8 to fund Dr. Carmichael and Graveley and the other grants

9 are not going to be proposed for funding so they won’t be

10 funded. Do we understand that?

11 DR. LENSCH: And that suggestion is made

12 purely based on their priority score from the Peer Review

13 Committee.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. So now we all

15 understand what we’re talking about?

16 DR. WALLACK: Yep.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Go ahead

18 Milt.

19 DR. WALLACK: Yes. I appreciate what

20 Willie has presented. I’m going to go back to something a

21 little different from what Willie presented, more in line

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 103 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 of what I presented just a few moments ago.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. We’re going

3 to have to start labeling these as Proposition 1,

4 Proposition 2.

5 DR. WALLACK: Okay. Fine. Okay.

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah. Okay. I want

7 to make sure that we all understand that and then we’re

8 going to have to decide which of several alternatives

9 affecting panels -- the middle panel and the right-hand

10 panel we’re going to use.

11 DR. WALLACK: Alright. I’ll wait for

12 Nancy to finish what she’s doing.

14 DR. WALLACK: I’m going to recommend that

15 we fund the Yale core at $3,000,000. I’m going to

16 recommend that we fund the UConn core at $2.5 million.

17 I’m going to recommend that we reduce the Rowe grant by

18 $350,000 and if somebody would do the math please?

19 VOICE: Why not 400,000?

20 DR. WALLACK: We can get to that. I’ve

21 reduced the -- who has the math for reducing the Rowe

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 104 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 grant by $350,000? What’s the number?

2 VOICE: (Indiscernible, multiple voices.)

3 DR. WALLACK: Okay. That’s the number.

4 And I would reduce the Snyder grant by $350,000.

5 DR. JENNINGS: Can you do 335,769?

6 DR. WALLACK: 330 -- make the Snyder --

7 reduce the Snyder by 335,769. So that brings us to

8 $4,000,000. The Snyder grant is $4,000,000. I would then

9 -- I would then -- and this is what’s driving my proposal

10 Mr. Chairman. I would like to -- and what’s driving my

11 proposal is that I heard enthusiastic support for all of

12 the individual grants and I think there’s value in keeping

13 them. What I would then do is reduce each of the six

14 individual grants --

15 VOICE: Seven.

16 DR. WALLACK: -- seven individual grants

17 by 10 percent. By 10 percent, which is a -- 10 percent.

18 MS. TOWNSHEND: 5.6.

19 DR. WALLACK: And that saves all of the

20 individual grants and that would be a way to get into the

21 things we need.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 105 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Nancy, could you

2 label that one Dr. Wallack and the other one Dr. Lensch?

3 MS. RION: Sure.

4 VOICE: How much was the seed, was it

5 1.98?

6 DR. JENNINGS: Yes. That’s written up.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Does

8 everybody understand what we’re looking at? Okay. I got

9 it. I got it. Please, I’ll get to everybody. You don’t

10 -- please be patient because I’m not.

11 (Laughter)

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Does

13 everybody understand what we have up on the Board? What

14 we’re talking about? And one is Dr. Lensch’s program and

15 the one is Dr. Wallack’s program and we may have some

16 others. Go ahead.

17 DR. LANDWIRTH: Just a question that goes

18 back to Willie’s proposal.

19 COURT REPORTER: You need a microphone.

20 DR. LANDWIRTH: This is with respect to

21 Willie’s proposal. Much of it is based on the fact that

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 106 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 we have these complex proposals that incorporate the work

2 of a number of investigators. Do you have a sense of how

3 many senior established investigators are included in

4 those hybrid or project -- what I’m concerned about is

5 that we, you know, that we just skew it away -- too much

6 away from the established investigators. So I don’t know,

7 who are the people -- what category are most of those

8 people in who are incorporated into the eight projects of

9 Rowe’s and so on?

10 DR. LENSCH: My recollection of looking at

11 those investigators is that they are all at the least the

12 assistant professor level and above.

13 DR. LANDWIRTH: Thank you.

14 DR. LENSCH: Oh, and I should mention that

15 it does also include graduate students, post-doctoral

16 fellows and technicians, though not listed as primary

17 staff.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Now, I think

19 Julie and Dr. Lensch have clarified some points. Is this

20 clear to everybody what we’re looking at? And do we need

21 to -- for our folks on the telephone do we need to read

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 107 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 this?

2 DR. LATHAM: I heard the first two by Dr.

3 Wallack and Dr. Lensch. I didn’t hear if there was

4 another proposal after that.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: We just have those

6 two and so if you are clear on that then we will proceed

7 to --

8 DR. LATHAM: Okay.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- are there any

10 other proposals?

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yep. Go ahead Bob.

13 MR. MANDELKERN: I suspect this is a

14 minority point of view which will not find much support,

15 but I would like to put forward Alternative C. I feel

16 that cutting back on the two cores is unfortunately

17 putting us on a mediocre path toward success. I would

18 remain with the two cores at full funding so that they can

19 go ahead and achieve the goal of establishing a

20 fundamental research program on embryonic stem cell

21 research in Connecticut. I do not share the devotion to

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 108 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the one group and the one hybrid that they have to be

2 saved.

3 I would take -- we are 26.5 with

4 everything up there. By eliminating the one group and the

5 one hybrid we save $8,200,000. That would give us

6 $2,000,000 to do several more E.I.’s. I think if we

7 encourage the 10 beginning seed investigators and we up

8 the ante from the eight experienced investigators full

9 blast into fully moving fundamental cores at both

10 UConn/Wesleyan and at Yale we will have established a

11 magnificent opening program.

12 So my approach is to take away the $8.3

13 million from the middle area as -- the soft underbelly as

14 we’ve been referring to it and that will give us

15 $2,000,000 for additional experienced investigator grants

16 which I think are fundamental to move forward research in

17 Connecticut. That is my point C. Now does that come out

18 Nancy?

19 MS. RION: Pretty close, yes.

20 MR. MANDELKERN: That is my --

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Is that what

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 109 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 you want, what’s on the --

2 MR. MANDELKERN: -- well, I really can’t

3 see it. If Nancy would read it I would --

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- why don’t we

5 bring it over where you can see it.

6 MR. MANDELKERN: -- five, five, eight --

7 that’s 18 and two for your seeds.

8 MS. RION: I didn’t put the seeds yet.

9 MR. MANDELKERN: Two for seeds, which

10 makes 20,000,000 balanced. Yes ma’am.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. That’s what

12 you want?

15 MR. MANDELKERN: I think there may be a

16 few hundred thousand in reserve.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let me -- I

18 need to now ask for Dr. Lensch when he’s got a moment, my

19 understanding of what he said was with Dr. Rowe’s and Dr.

20 Snyder’s grant that any significant reduction would knock

21 investigators -- would result in investigators being

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 110 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 knocked off the grant and would jeopardize the entire

2 purpose of a grant which uses multiple investigators. And

3 I need to make sure that paraphrasing is what Dr. Lensch

4 wants to say.

5 DR. LENSCH: It’s my understanding that

6 because Dr. Rowe and Dr. Snyder’s grant contain individual

7 projects that it will put us on very thin ice in terms of

8 asking them to reduce that funding amount. Especially for

9 Dr. Rowe’s and this is I think a key point. We can’t

10 remove Dr. Rowe’s grant if our goal is to have additional

11 individual investigator’s grant. It is a grant composed

12 of individual investigators. It’s composed of nine

13 individual investigators and so to take nine out here to

14 put over there isn’t meeting the ultimate goal in my

15 opinion of increasing individual research.

17 DR. LENSCH: It’s just robbing Peter to

18 pay Paul.

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. I’ll get to

20 everybody. How about Dr. Snyder’s grant, would that be

21 the same?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 111 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. LENSCH: Dr. Snyder’s grant is a

2 little bit more difficult because it contains both types

3 of components. It contains individual research projects

4 as well as a core that supports that research but is being

5 made available to the community at large throughout the

6 state of Connecticut. To separate out which part of his

7 budget is going to support the state of Connecticut apart

8 from which part of it is important to submit the projects

9 in that proposal I feel is impossible to do. I don’t

10 think we can go into both of those. The service component

11 is there, but a peer service component is lacking though

12 it’s present in the two core facilities. That’s the

13 difference.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I’m just -- thank

15 you very much Dr. Lensch. Does everybody understand -- my

16 understanding is that Dr. Rowe’s grant is actually a grant

17 involving nine established investigators?

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Do we all

20 understand that for our deliberations?

21 VOICE: Integrated. I think that’s

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 112 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 important.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, and

3 integrated.

4 DR. WALLACK: Point of information from

5 Willie please? Willie, with your plan my understanding is

6 that we would lose two of the individual established

7 investigators?

8 DR. LENSCH: It would leave only two

9 grants in that category, which is a very difficult pill to

10 swallow. Let me just reiterate why I came to that

11 conclusion and that is I’m hearing advice through Mister

12 -- through the Attorney General’s Office that it’s going

13 to be very difficult for us to go back and try to

14 negotiate a reduction in the grant award that they’re

15 willing to accept without at the same time accepting that

16 there’s going to be a reduction in what they’re going to

17 promise us, what research they’re going to do. And so a

18 key part of what I proposed was that I don’t think it’s

19 onerous in terms of this back and forth negotiating

20 because the only negotiations that happen are with the two

21 core facilities in terms of basically knocking a year off

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 113 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the end of those and reducing the amount of service that

2 they provide. It’s not something that I feel great about,

3 but I do want to move forward and I think it’s a way to do

4 that and fund 27 projects at the same time.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. And I will

6 get to -- I think Charles is first and then I’ll get to

7 everybody on the right side. You know folks, you know

8 sometimes you go out and you go Christmas shopping and you

9 pick out all the things you want and you’ve got a one

10 hundred dollar bill in your pocket and you’ve got $150

11 worth of Christmas presents and you’ve got to figure out

12 which ones you’re not going to buy. And this is it.

13 We’ve got more really good projects than we have money.

14 DR. LENSCH: Excellent projects.

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: But it’s, I mean,

16 this is not terrible. I think usually if you’ve got a one

17 in six chance of getting a dollar from NIH here you’ve got

18 a little less than one in three, it ain’t bad. You’ve got

19 a 30 percent chance of being funded. But Charles, go

20 ahead.

21 DR. JENNINGS: So Mr. Chairman, we have

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 114 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 three and four --

2 COURT REPORTER: Use the microphone.

3 DR. JENNINGS: -- I’m sorry. Mr.

4 Chairman, we have three alternative proposals up here and

5 I’m most sympathetic philosophically to the middle one,

6 the one from Milt, and I very much want to preserve the

7 project and hybrid grants of Rowe and Snyder which scored

8 extremely highly and I’m very reluctant to see us

9 eliminate more than we have to from the investigator,

10 individual investigator grants, and I used Milt’s proposal

11 as a starting point and I would just like to suggest some

12 fine tuning of it because I think it contains some

13 arbitrary elements. So trust me, I can’t see a strong

14 case, at least I don’t think the case has yet been made

15 for why we should treat Lin and Xu differently. They have

16 both asked for 5,000,000 to provide core facilities. I

17 can’t see any basis for why we would give Lin 3,000,000

18 and Xu only two and a half million, although I think

19 that’s certainly reasonable. If we’re going to do that

20 then I think we should have a reason for doing so, which I

21 haven’t heard yet.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 115 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 If anything, you Mr. Chairman, have made

2 the alternate argument that Yale is a more wealthy

3 university than UConn and it’s better able to make up for

4 shortfalls. So if any -- if we have to --

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Let me interrupt you

6 for a moment. I’m not commenting so much on wealth or not

7 having wealth.

8 DR. JENNINGS: -- okay, so procedurally --

9 procedurally --

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: The process -- the

11 process is a bit easier in the private sector than in the

12 public sector.

13 DR. JENNINGS: -- my personal preference

14 would be to treat them equally since I haven’t heard a

15 strong argument for not doing so.

17 DR. JENNINGS: Excuse me?

19 DR. JENNINGS: So well -- two alternative

20 numbers on the table. So let me just finish my thinking

21 first. And then I think we have to make some cuts in the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 116 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 others, that is in the individual investigators and in the

2 project -- the Rowe and Snyder project and hybrid grants.

3 I can’t see a strong case for treating them differently.

4 Rowe as Willie has pointed out consists of nine projects.

5 So if we were to -- if there was a 10 percent cut across

6 the board for all of those then according to my math we

7 get -- so Snyder would come out to 3.87 million, Rowe

8 would come out at 3.8 million. I’ll propose two

9 alternatives for the cause. One is that we fund them at

10 two and a half million each for a total of 5,000,000.

11 That gets us to 12.67 million, leaving -- I know you guys

12 have omitted the administrative costs here, but that

13 leaves I think 5.33 million to cover investigator grants

14 plus administrative costs.

15 If instead we fund the two cores at

16 3,000,000 each then we’re left with 4.33 million to cover

17 individual investigators plus administrative costs. I’m

18 proposing that we -- whichever of the individual

19 investigators we do fund we fund them -- we impose a cut

20 which was originally suggested should be 10 percent to

21 that budget and then we just see how many of them we will

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 117 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 be able to fund. I think it will come out at around four

2 or five depending on whether we give two and a half

3 million or 3,000,000 to the cores and depending on whether

4 we fund the ones that have asked for 1,000,000 or the ones

5 that have asked for around 600,000.

6 But I think that’s -- I propose that

7 that’s the wiggle room that we should be operating in.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Now you understand

9 that means we’ll have to negotiate every single one of

10 those contracts separately with the reductions?

11 DR. CANALIS: I’m totally confused. Now I

12 really -- could you give us numbers please?

13 DR. JENNINGS: Nancy is -- okay. So I

14 have two alternatives. So Lin two and a half million, Xu

15 two and a half million, or Lin 3,000,000, Xu 3,000,000,

16 yes?

17 MS. RION: And then projects, what were

18 you --

19 DR. JENNINGS: Projects I was cutting both

20 of them by 10 percent --

21 DR. CANALIS: Which makes Rowe 3.6 --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 118 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. JENNINGS: -- which makes Snyder 3.87

2 and Rowe 3.8 -- I’m sorry. Oh, I apologize.

3 DR. CANALIS: -- it’s 3.6 and 3.9, give or

4 take.

5 DR. JENNINGS: I apologize. Yes, Ernie is

6 correct.

7 DR. CANALIS: 3.6 and 3.9. That’s what

8 he’s trying to tell us.

9 DR. JENNINGS: Alright. So then --

10 alright. Then let’s recalculate what was it again.

11 DR. CANALIS: So you have three, six,

12 three times four is 12. You have 13.5 mils. That leaves

13 four and a half mils for new investigators.

14 DR. JENNINGS: Right.

15 DR. CANALIS: So you have four and a half

16 new investigators instead of Willie’s two?

17 DR. JENNINGS: Right.

18 DR. CANALIS: But you sacrifice them out

19 of Rowe’s and Snyder’s. So yet, I mean, we’re going to go

20 back and forth. You’re taking them from one end to the

21 other, you know, I mean, we can go back and forth.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 119 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. JENNINGS: I guess I would like to see

2 us impose the same percentage cuts on Rowe, Snyder --

3 COURT REPORTER: One at a time.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: One at a time. One

5 at a time. One at a time. Okay. I’ll get to you in a

6 moment Milt. Has everybody finished their remarks?

7 DR. JENNINGS: -- yes. Just to clarify I

8 would like to see us impose the same percentage cuts on

9 Rowe, on Snyder and on whichever of the individual

10 investigator grants we choose to fund.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. We’ve got to

12 move this along folks and make a decision. Go ahead Milt.

13 DR. WALLACK: I appreciate Charles’

14 comments obviously. The only difference that I have

15 between what Charles has indicated at this point at least

16 and what I’ve indicated -- well, there’s two differences.

17 Number one, I did hear rationale -- I’m sorry. I did hear

18 rationale for why I would have a difference in the Lin and

19 Xu grants and that is that the first two years of their

20 expenditures from what I recall at least were in fact

21 different. I’m comfortable in having therefore staying

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 120 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 with the Lin at three and the other at 2.5. I’m willing

2 to come down to the 3.6, which we have on both grants.

3 I’m willing to go to the Snyder at 3.9 -- 3.9 instead of

4 four and the difference that I would then suggest is that

5 with the savings of $500,000 and trying to keep Mr.

6 Chairman all of the seven grants on the established

7 investigators, reduce them by approximately -- by

8 approximately 10 percent, or whatever percent that has to

9 be, 10 or 12 percent.

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: That’s going to be

11 an administrative nightmare I must say.

12 DR. WALLACK: Why would it be an

13 administrative nightmare?

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Because we’re going

15 to have to negotiate all those contracts all over again,

16 but it’s the wills of the Committee. Whatever you want to

17 do, but some of that may be very difficult for us.

18 DR. WALLACK: My understanding -- I

19 understand what you’re saying. I understand there’s going

20 to be a lot of work involved, but my understanding, and

21 correct me if I’m wrong the scientists who have appeared

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 121 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 before NIH, this is not an uncommon thing that happens.

2 That a certain percentage is cut from the grant. It’s a

3 negotiated thing. It’s something that unfortunately we’ll

4 have to do. But what I gain out of that Mr. Chairman is

5 that all seven of the established investigators are going

6 to be able to be funded substantially. Substantially.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: You had a comment

8 Dr. Lensch?

9 DR. LENSCH: Yes. And I -- it would not

10 be an uncommon thing to do in NIH, but I’m hearing it

11 would be a very uncommon thing to do in Connecticut.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, I’ve got to

13 enforce this thing, you know?

14 (Laughter)

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: You have to give me

16 something that I can live with and that the distinguished

17 Attorney General can live with and that Mr. Wollschlager

18 can live with. And so it’s things that might work for the

19 NIH might be very difficult -- might be very difficult for

20 us. We’re -- to begin with we’re not grant -- we have not

21 been characteristically grant enforcers or -- and it’s

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 122 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 only recently that we’ve become aware that we have to

2 watch how we spend our money. And I watch how I spend our

3 money because I’m involved in business -- in business

4 dealings. But it’s going to be -- going to be very

5 difficult to do this in some ways.

6 I would prefer selfishly as simplistic a

7 solution as possible. I have a couple of questions and we

8 need to move forward. One is, I think one is a

9 fundamental question. Are we going to leave the

10 established grants intact or are we going to change them

11 and fund only a portion of them? And I think we need to

12 decide. We’re going to fund them all or we’re going to

13 fund some of them.

14 DR. WALLACK: I would move that we fund

15 them all.

16 DR. KIESSLING: I second that.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. So we’re

18 going to -- we have a motion on the floor to -- and can we

19 all vote on that?

20 VOICE: No.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 123 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. SALTON: I mean, some people were

2 recused from each one and there are different recusals on

3 those.

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: There were seven

5 grants, so how --

6 MR. SALTON: I think we should try to

7 develop a consensus as opposed to calling for motions at

8 this point.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- okay.

10 MR. SALTON: And as far as exploring the

11 options for the Committee.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. So can we

13 develop a consensus at least as to whether we’re going to

14 include all of the established grants or some of the

15 established grants? Does that give us wide enough

16 latitude?

17 MR. SALTON: Yes.

19 DR. YANG: I think on the consensus to

20 fund all the established ones, the seven, only is the

21 majority support. But I think the question is, is it

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 124 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 possible to have a 10 or 15 percent cut is one of the

2 questions.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Right. Anything’s

4 possible.

5 DR. YANG: That is good.

6 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Amy’s next.

7 DR. WAGERS: Okay. I just actually wanted

8 a point similar to Jerry’s because I’ve become confused in

9 this conversation about whether we can in fact cut the

10 budgets of the established investigators and I was asking

11 Henry for clarification.

12 MR. SALTON: Can I answer that Mr.

13 Chairman?

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Sure.

15 MR. SALTON: Okay. Again, you can cut the

16 amount of funding, but you have to require them to perform

17 the same task.

18 VOICE: So it’s a take it or leave it.

19 MR. SALTON: It’s a take it or leave it.

20 You’re going to offer -- for example, you’re going to say

21 to Graveley, here’s $9,000,000 for the same project you

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 125 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 bid, take it or leave it.

2 VOICE: And he’ll take it.

3 (Laughter)

4 MR. SALTON: You’re not -- you’re not

5 going to go in and say, here’s 9,000,000 and let’s talk

6 about how many FTEs or whatever you’re going to do on this

7 project.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: But I have to hold

9 -- I have to hold this guy’s feet to the fire.

10 MR. SALTON: What he’ll have to do is say,

11 we agree and here’s our reconfigured budget. And so

12 they’ll come back and maybe they’ll take 10 percent off

13 every line item or they’ll say, we’re going to have one

14 person who’s going to work gratis and we just saved, or

15 you know, or someone else will donate the money and we’ll

16 just take 100,000 off of a senior investigator’s salary or

17 whatever.

18 DR. WALLACK: I’m going to work gratis.

19 MR. MANDELKERN: Dr. Galvin?

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yep?

21 MR. MANDELKERN: I have put forward my

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 126 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 proposal C in the hopes that it was a simplified mechanism

2 that could move this forward rapidly and creatively and

3 positively and successfully. However, unless I hear some

4 support from it from other -- some other Committee member

5 I would respectfully withdraw it because I don’t think it

6 is simplifying, it’s just putting another confusion in the

7 way.

9 MR. MANDELKERN: Is there any support for

10 the point of dropping Rowe and Snyder and going with the

11 5,000,000 each? No? Then I would ask permission to

12 withdraw it Doctor.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let me see if

14 I can over simplify the matter. We have $24.5 million

15 worth of proposals and we have 18 -- just about

16 $18,000,000 worth of money to pay for those proposals. So

17 we have to come up with some algebraic or whatever or

18 linear algebra or whatever you want to call it, we have to

19 come up with a formula to take money from the middle

20 column, the middle panel, in it’s entirety and fund all

21 the right-hand column or a combination of taking some

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 127 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 portion of the right-hand column either percentage-wise or

2 by deleting whole grants so we can combine it with

3 reductions in the middle panel. That’s -- those are all

4 the choices we have.

5 MR. SALTON: Perhaps it would be

6 worthwhile just noting the following. It seems that three

7 proposals all call for reduction in the core, but in --

8 right now you have one proposal that calls for zero

9 reduction in projects and hybrid and as you did just

10 moments ago and talked about keeping all the established

11 -- does the Committee want to develop a consensus on

12 whether you want to fully fund or consider a reduction in

13 projects and hybrids? Because that is sort of another --

14 moves you one step further.

15 DR. WALLACK: We already moved for a vote

16 or a consensus, I’m sorry, a consensus on the established

17 investigator. If you wanted to couple that with a

18 consensus on the hybrid question I would find it

19 appropriate.

20 DR. CANALIS: I beg to differ. We have

21 not reached consensus about that.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 128 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. SALTON: On the established?

2 VOICE: Yeah, we did.

3 DR. CANALIS: I missed the vote. I mean,

4 but I didn’t -- to be honest with you at no point I

5 realized that we reached consensus about that because that

6 would make Willie’s and Charles’ proposals out of the

7 question.

8 MR. SALTON: No, I think the only -- the

9 only --

10 DR. CANALIS: In that case I want to go on

11 record that I do not favor that.

12 MR. SALTON: -- favor what?

13 DR. CANALIS: You know, to fund all the

14 independent established investigators. I don’t favor that

15 because it just closes the doors to the two initial --

16 whatever, middle proposals, on Willie’s and Charles’

17 proposals. And I’m not about to close the door to those

18 proposals and therefore, you know, you could have

19 consensus except for Ernie on this one, okay? You’re all

20 in consensus, but not --

21 DR. YANG: I think you’re right. It’s not

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 129 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 been voted on yet. It wasn’t, it was a really general

2 consensus, but not voted on yet. You’re right.

3 DR. CANALIS: I do not agree with that.

4 DR. YANG: Yeah, you are right.

5 DR. CANALIS: In that case might as well

6 take those two proposals down and just go with something

7 else. And I’m sorry. And in fact I find those two

8 proposals quite appealing in permutation, so those

9 proposals could close this, you know, could reach some --

10 reach closure.

11 DR. WAGERS: I just wanted to make a

12 suggestion that we keep the projects and hybrid grants

13 intact and the reason for that is this. I understand the

14 desire to want to reduce that budget sort of commensurate

15 with what we might reduce the investigator grants, but

16 that’s actually a multi-investigator grant and if you

17 calculate out the money for each investigator it

18 approaches what the seed grants are and we had previously

19 discussed that reducing a budget of that level would

20 inhibit the science. And I think if you want to argue

21 from a sort of value for money standpoint too, you know,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 130 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the synergy that the investigators have in this

2 collaborative project, which is, you know, collaboration

3 being one of the goals of what, you know, our Committee is

4 supposed to, you know, put forward in stem cell research

5 in Connecticut that those grants as they are really are --

6 it would suffer from reduction much more than reduction of

7 an individual investigator grant.

8 DR. JENNINGS: Amy, that’s a good point,

9 but surely the budget -- if you divide 4,000,000 by nine

10 in the case of Rowe --

11 COURT REPORTER: Use your microphone.

12 DR. WAGERS: I can’t hear you.

13 DR. JENNINGS: -- if you divide 4,000,000

14 by --

15 (Laughter)

16 DR. JENNINGS: -- that doesn’t help you,

17 it helps her.

18 DR. WAGERS: No, no, but she was talking

19 at the same time and I couldn’t hear you.

20 DR. JENNINGS: I’m sorry. If you divide

21 4,000,000 by nine in the case of Rowe, there are nine

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 131 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 separate projects, then that’s something more than 400,000

2 each, which is a more substantial -- but it’s at least

3 twice the budget for seed grants. Although over a longer

4 period of time.

5 DR. WALLACK: Also, and I appreciate Amy’s

6 remark, but picking up another aspect of what Charles just

7 indicated and that is that the -- I see the group grants

8 differently in that there’s greater synergy I think in the

9 group grants so that you gave each of the researchers

10 while it may be $400,000 in affect it becomes more because

11 of the synergy, so there is a difference between I think

12 the group grants and the seed grants. I don’t have a

13 problem therefore with cutting the hybrid grants.

14 DR. CANALIS: One word of caution when we

15 look at the number of investigators the percent effort can

16 be highly variable so when we do for keen investigators

17 could be however you want to calculate five percent a

18 year, a month, whatever. And in the Snyder grant for

19 instance, I cannot comment on Rowe’s, some of the devoted

20 effort is quite small. So to keep things fair and in the

21 right perspective. So there is a synergism, which is a

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 132 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 plus, but there is also considerably less effort.

2 MR. RAKIN: Ernie, could you articulate

3 for me why it’s not feasible to just deduct 10 percent off

4 the project, the hybrid and the established investigators?

5 What’s the argument against doing that?

6 DR. CANALIS: I think because it doesn’t

7 get us to the $20,000,000.

8 MR. RAKIN: But I thought where we were

9 going with at least most proposals is by deducting 10

10 percent of the project, the hybrid and the established and

11 then essentially just using the difference to reduce

12 equally Yale and UConn’s core --

13 DR. CANALIS: That would give you five

14 established the way I see -- that is your -- if you go

15 three and three -- if you add what is on the left-hand

16 side, where Nancy’s standing, I think that is --

17 MR. RAKIN: -- I’m doing -- I’m adding the

18 6,000,000 and the project and hybrid, which totals

19 14,000,000 and saving 10 percent there’s a million four

20 and saying your additional shortfall of about 3,000,000,

21 three and a half million just gets split between Yale and

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 133 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 UConn’s core and I thought with you arguing against you

2 were saying there wasn’t a consensus for 10 percent

3 reduction and I was trying to understand the argument as

4 to what --

5 DR. CANALIS: The consensus was -- where I

6 did not agree was because the possibility of reducing the

7 number of independent investigator awards. Because when I

8 did the math of those three proposals, you know, the one

9 where Nancy is standing would allow for five independent

10 investigators, Willie’s proposal would allow only for two

11 independent investigators. So the only one that I think

12 allowed for the seven was Milt’s.

13 MR. RAKIN: Right. And I’m -- and you

14 proposed --

15 DR. CANALIS: I didn’t feel like closing

16 the door to Willie’s and Charles’ proposals, which I find

17 appealing.

18 DR. WALLACK: Kevin, could I just amplify?

19 What I specifically recommend is the 10 percent cut on the

20 hybrids and that gets to the figures that are up on the

21 board and an approximate 10 percent cut on the seven

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 134 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 established investigators and I say approximate because in

2 doing the final math it may work out that we need to cut

3 it 12 percent or whatever some odd amount in order to get

4 to the 20,000,000. So that’s my flexibility. That’s my

5 cushion on the established investigators, it may be 10,

6 it’ll probably be more like 12.

7 MR. RAKIN: No, I understand. But I think

8 it’s more helpful in order to be specific and to try and

9 address this consensus issue, is it appropriate with a 10

10 percent or 12 percent to deduct a number, a diminimus

11 number of all the established, the project and the hybrid,

12 oh, and I’m guessing marking the scientist list or is that

13 not practical and we’ve got to choose to only fund some of

14 the established? Because I think we’ve all accepted that

15 we’re reducing the cores, or hopefully that’s the

16 consensus. So now I’m trying to understand do you just

17 deduct 10 percent, 12 percent off everybody else or do you

18 have to pick individual grants at their full allocation?

19 DR. LATHAM: Folks, I’m very sorry. This

20 is Steve Latham, I’m very sorry, but I have to go now.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you. Thanks

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 135 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Steve.

2 MR. RAKIN: It’s more helpful not to pick

3 any specific proposal.

4 DR. LATHAM: Thank you. I’m sorry not to

5 be able to stick around and vote for the money for all

6 these fabulous applicants.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you. We

8 appreciate your contribution and good luck with your

9 class.

10 DR. LATHAM: Good luck all.

11 DR. WALLACK: I think what you heard Kevin

12 from Bob is that he’d be happier if we cut two established

13 investigators because then he wouldn’t have to do --

14 rework the math. I understand that. And if that’s how it

15 has to be I feel badly, but I can live with that. At

16 least I’d get five out of it rather than seven. I didn’t

17 hear Bob say that it was impossible to keep the seven and

18 therefore I would rather keep the seven. It will mean

19 that he will have to work much harder in getting those

20 contracts done.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Let me -- I’m

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 136 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 going to ask Mr. Wollschlager for a comment. Let me tell

2 you about this. We should not leave this room and picture

3 yourself having a glass of wine or a cup of coffee with

4 someone who’s a non-scientist and if you don’t think that

5 you would be able to explain it to them in less than a

6 paragraph let’s not concoct something like that. I’ve got

7 to get up in front of the Legislature and the Attorney

8 General and explain these things so that they can

9 understand it. This is getting very complex and Warren

10 has a comment. I think you’ve got to decide whether you

11 want all or part of the established and investigators.

12 You want them all or you want part of them. If you want

13 them all then the money’s got to come out of somebody’s

14 hide and the hide is the middle panel. And it appears to

15 me that the most reducible portions are in the two core

16 facilities. But you’ve got to decide and it can’t be

17 complicated, what’s 10 percent is 12 percent because Mr.

18 Blumenthal and the Legislative body is going to look at me

19 and say, I don’t understand. Now I’m at the point where

20 I’m having trouble understanding it and I’m pretty good

21 with figures. Warren?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 137 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Thank you Commissioner.

2 I want to certainly agree with that point. We, and this

3 body, needs to submit a report to the General Assembly and

4 to the Governor’s --

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Gentlemen, please?

6 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: -- and to the

7 Governor’s office on January of ’07 and you have to

8 justify why you came up with the cuts that you did and

9 certainly to the extent that there’s not an across the

10 board cut there’s 12 percent here, or nine percent there

11 and four percent there, that’s going to be very difficult

12 to justify in terms of our reporting back out to the

13 general public as well as to the General Assembly. As far

14 as the work involving the contracts, let’s be perfectly

15 clear, that work is coming back to you. That’s not coming

16 to C.I. and that’s not coming to the Health Department.

17 You’re going to have to renegotiate and reapprove each of

18 the budgets before any thought to giving money out can

19 occur.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: To anybody.

21 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: So I want to be clear,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 138 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 this is not an onus upon me, it’s easy for me, it’s easy

2 enough for C.I. But no money will go out to anybody until

3 all of it comes back to you.

4 DR. CANALIS: Explain this? If you make a

5 10 percent cut --

6 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: We have to get a new

7 budget.

8 DR. CANALIS: -- we need to reapprove each

9 individual one?

10 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Yes.

11 DR. CANALIS: Okay. And we will be here

12 again?

13 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Yes.

15 DR. CANALIS: Okay.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Kevin?

17 MR. RAKIN: I have a proposal that I’d

18 like -- it works backwards from this. And my proposal is

19 that we take the project, the hybrid and the established

20 investigators, each one of them gets reduced 10 percent

21 and the difference to get to the 19.8 million gets divided

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 139 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 equally as a deduction from Yale and UConn’s core.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: From the what?

3 MR. RAKIN: Yale and UConn’s core. We can

4 do the math, but you know, I’m trying to get a concept

5 rather --

6 DR. JENNINGS: Could we actually do the

7 math and see what that looks like?

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, do the math.

10 VOICE: Could you say that one more time?

11 MR. RAKIN: Deduct 10 percent off the 8.3

12 million plus the 6.2 million, so that’s -- Rowe, Snyder

13 and the established.

14 DR. KIESSLING: Can I make a comment? If

15 you cut Rowe, Snyder and all the established grants by

16 12,000,000 and you reduce the cores to 2.5 million for

17 each institution we come out fine.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Can you put up the

19 numbers?

20 DR. KIESSLING: Well, if you cut each of

21 them, I mean, the math is pretty simple. We have 1.98

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 140 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 million in seeds, 5,000,000 in cores. If you divide --

2 that leaves us $12.8 million. If you divide that by the

3 $14.5 million we want to give to Rowe, Snyder and our

4 seven established investigators the number if 12 percent

5 you have to cut it.

6 DR. WALLACK: I have those same numbers.

7 DR. JENNINGS: The 5,000,000 core is two

8 and a half each?

9 DR. KIESSLING: Yes. Two and a half

10 million for each core and the if you add up Rowe, Snyder,

11 our seven established investigators, that comes up to 88

12 percent of the money we have left. So if you cut each of

13 those applications by 12 percent across the board we can

14 fund everybody we want to fund. That’s going to be a huge

15 help to Connecticut.

16 VOICE: Cut the project and the hybrid by

17 12 percent too?

18 DR. KIESSLING: Yes. And the established

19 investigators.

20 DR. WALLACK: I personally would endorse

21 Ann’s recommendation.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 141 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COURT REPORTER: Who said that?

2 DR. WALLACK: Milt Wallack.

3 DR. JENNINGS: Yeah, could we just make

4 sure that it really is -- really does add up?

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: 12 percent of the

6 established grants is $744,000.

7 DR. JENNINGS: And then 12 percent of

8 project and hybrid.

9 DR. LENSCH: I can give you the exact

10 numbers to the dollar.

11 DR. JENNINGS: Yes please. Seed should be

12 1.98, not 1.9.

13 DR. LENSCH: The exact numbers to the

14 dollar, seed is at 1,984,382 and I have the same numbers

15 that Ann has calculated. If we take the established

16 investigator grants, all seven, the group project and the

17 hybrid and apply the same percentage reduction across

18 them, which has to be 12 percent, as a total that comes to

19 $12,801,981. If the cores are funded --

20 DR. JENNINGS: It’s low because --

21 (Discussion off the record.)

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 142 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COURT REPORTER: One at a time.

2 VOICE: 12,800,000 --

3 DR. LENSCH: 801,981 and that is across

4 the board, established investigator, group project and

5 hybrid, not at 10 percent but at the number that has to

6 happen for the budget to come out, which Ann is absolutely

7 correct, it’s a 12 percent reduction, funding them at 88

8 percent. If each of the cores is then funded at two and a

9 half million exactly, and I think we would be very hard

10 pressed to go below that because of the time issue that’s

11 involved then the total is 19,786,363, taking into account

12 the $200,000 of administrative costs, that leaves a

13 surplus of $13,637.

14 But I have one question there. I think

15 it’s very important to ask about the delay and I know

16 there’s no way to say how long it’s going to take to

17 renegotiate these contracts, but it should not be lost on

18 any of us that it’s going to have to be done. And one of

19 the imperative aspects of our work is to get to it. We’re

20 going to have to come back and reconvene as a group to

21 approve these budgets once they are reconfigured and

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 143 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 resubmitted and when is that going to happen?

2 MR. RAKIN: So now we’ve made that

3 progress let me add to Willie’s analysis for choice. So

4 the choice instead of redoing all these contracts would be

5 to drop two of the established investigators, which is

6 more or less the same.

7 DR. LENSCH: I’m sorry. It would be to

8 retain only two. To drop five.

9 MR. RAKIN: No, you only saved when you

10 did your 12 percent analysis, how much did you save? I

11 only have saved about a million five, a million six.

12 DR. LENSCH: I didn’t calculate the

13 individual savings by grant. It would just be that --

14 DR. JENNINGS: Approximately one and a

15 half million.

16 MR. RAKIN: Yeah, but your project, hybrid

17 and established is 14,000,000. So you could only have

18 saved about a million five, a million six, which is 12

19 percent.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: No, no. But you’re

21 cutting the two cores by $5,000,000 each.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 144 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. RAKIN: If we accept that then the

2 choices are from the million five savings let’s call it.

3 DR. KIESSLING: Yeah. That’s only nine

4 budgets to look at.

5 MR. RAKIN: I’m just pointing out the

6 choice for us.

7 MR. SALTON: And again, you’re not

8 renegotiating the work, you’re only saying to them, take

9 it or leave it on the amount that you’re funding. So when

10 you talk about renegotiating a contract you’re strictly

11 saying to them, you have to do the amount of work, submit

12 a new budget showing that the bottom line in the budget is

13 the number we’re giving you.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Hold it.

15 Let’s make sure we know what’s on the floor here. My

16 understanding is what’s on the floor is to cut D-01 and D-

17 02 by two and a half million dollars each. And to take C-

18 04 and E-0 --

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- hang on, hang on.

21 Let me finish please? My understanding is then we’re

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 145 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 going to go and take E-01 and E-04 and all of the funded

2 established grants and cut them by 12 percent?

4 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Now does everybody

5 have the same understanding as I do?

6 VOICES: Yes.

7 VOICE: Commissioner, did you say you

8 would cut the cores by 2.5 or you would cut to 2.5?

9 MR. RAKIN: It makes no difference.

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: It doesn’t make any

11 difference.

12 VOICE: They’re $5,000,000.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Bob -- Bob --

14 DR. WALLACK: I have a question.

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- hang on Milt.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: I have a question to

17 Warren and to the group. Did you or did you not say that

18 this would create a administrative nightmare that would be

19 very difficult to untangle?

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I said it would be

21 an administrative nightmare. But that was when --

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 146 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. MANDELKERN: Well, if --

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- hang on. Hang

3 on. Let me finish. That was when we were talking about

4 cutting one 10 percent and one 12 percent, you know, and

5 if we do varying percentages it’s going to be very

6 difficult for Warren and I to make enough sense of this so

7 that a Legislator who may be running a hardware store in

8 Sprague, Connecticut can understand this and many of the

9 folks in the body are -- none of them are medically

10 trained with two exceptions. Many of them are attorneys,

11 but some of them are people whose interests are in

12 manufacturing and other things and you’ve got to make it

13 so they can understand it. It’s not that they’re not

14 people who -- excuse me, can’t understand things, it’s

15 just this is very foreign. So if we do a percentage that

16 applies to everybody that’s a lot easier for that. My

17 feeling would be some of these folks might want to come

18 back and say, we just found another $100,000. Or we’ll

19 find another 100,000, or whatever. But we can deal with

20 that. Varying percentages are going to be very hard for

21 us to deal with.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 147 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. MANDELKERN: -- my question is --

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Let me finish.

3 MR. MANDELKERN: -- oh, I thought you were

4 done. Excuse me.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, go ahead. Go

6 ahead.

7 MR. MANDELKERN: My question was aimed at

8 we are now one day or so from Thanksgiving. If this

9 process cannot be finished in the month of December do we

10 not then get pushed over into ’07 and start a whole new

11 cycle meaning that might not be able to get any of our

12 funding out whatsoever because of this process?

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I’m not concerned

14 about that. I think once the decisions are made here we

15 need to make sure the process is legally sufficient and

16 transparent to the public. I don’t think there would be

17 -- we frequently overlap years. I don’t think there would

18 be any problem in paying money out in March of ’07 that

19 was allocated in December or September of ’06. Getting

20 these contracts out friends and neighbors is not going to

21 be simple or easy. This is disbursement of public funds,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 148 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 this is not as easy as one might think it would be.

2 DR. WALLACK: Yeah. I think that Ann has

3 captured really the essence of what some of us have been

4 hearing really believe will work. I take it that Ann’s

5 recommendation could be formulated in the form of a

6 motion. If I’m correct in that and if Ann is willing to

7 agree to that I’d be anxious to accept that as such. And

8 I think that both of us are able to vote on every issue.

9 MR. SALTON: I think that again because of

10 the recusal situation you ought to -- at the end of the

11 day when we finally come to the formulation that everyone

12 feels comfortable with there will have to be a motion on

13 each one of the funded and you can say, the motion is --

14 for example, with Carmichael that we fund it for this

15 amount.

16 DR. WALLACK: Then I would recommend -- I

17 understand Henry. Then the essence of what I just said is

18 to do precisely that and I think that we should at this

19 time move to that activity.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think that’s a bit

21 premature and there were other comments that need to be

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 149 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 made.

2 DR. CANALIS: The only concern I have is

3 based on what Henry said that now we’re going to ask the

4 cores to do the same amount of work for half the amount of

5 money and I think we need to be prepared for them to come

6 back and say we are not going to do it. And I think we

7 need to be cognizant of that and I think one of the -- I

8 think the cores are central to the program, you know, and

9 I think that it’s worth it to come back that it would be a

10 definite to the program.

11 And the problem we’re facing was addressed

12 last summer and basically was addressed by Mike and I that

13 we never established how many grants from the independent

14 investigators we were going to fund and we’re suffering

15 from that. So I’d like to look at the future and not get

16 into situations that we’re going to regret. So I would be

17 very careful about saying well, two and a half mils, take

18 it or leave it.

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Unfortunately with

20 our shopping cart when we go to ring out our Christmas

21 presents that’s what they -- exactly what somebody will

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 150 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 say to you, look, you’ve got $130 worth of gifts here and

2 you just gave me $100 bill so take what you don’t want out

3 of the cart.

4 MR. SALTON: And again, I think it’s

5 important for me to go back and say the cores are the

6 exception to the take it or leave it principle that I laid

7 out for the Committee. With the cores, the obligation

8 we’re looking for them to do for the money is to secure

9 and create the facility, but the Committee has the ability

10 to say, we will, you know, on an operationally going

11 forward basis as, you know, we’re not going -- we’re going

12 to provide enough money for this amount of operations to

13 keep the doors open. How many seasons they decide to play

14 will be based on the budget they get. But they -- but at

15 a minimum they have to, you know, the RFP calls for them

16 to create the facility, not to fund it’s operations on a

17 going forward basis for four years per se. I mean, in

18 fact we could reduce -- and even after the contract’s

19 signed we can always sit down with the party and talk

20 about a 20 percent reallocation of the budget. So again,

21 the cores have -- are sort of the minor variation to the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 151 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 rule to the take it or leave it.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Mike?

3 DR. GENEL: Just a brief comment.

4 COURT REPORTER: Use the microphone.

5 DR. GENEL: Just a brief comment and

6 perhaps a question regarding the process beyond this

7 meeting. My understanding was that irrespective of

8 whether we cut the awards or not that there would have to

9 be a contractual negotiating process anyway. So the only

10 difference is that the amount that we’re negotiating is

11 the amount that we’ve awarded, not the amount that was

12 requested. So I don’t see that that’s likely to add any

13 -- I don’t see why that adds anymore time to the process

14 assuming that most investigators would be very happy to

15 get 88 percent of what they submitted.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I would agree with

17 that. I think we may have a problem where somebody gets

18 90 percent and someone else gets 84 percent.

19 DR. GENEL: Oh, yeah. Well, I think we’ve

20 all agreed, at least I think that we’ve all agreed that

21 it’s the fairest thing to do is cut across the board.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 152 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Yeah.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Cuts across the

3 board, yep. Bob?

4 MR. MANDELKERN: I would like to follow up

5 on something that Ernie said which concerns me and that is

6 making sure that we’ve allowed sufficient investment and

7 capital for the cores to go forward, because if they don’t

8 go forward nothing goes forward. So I would like to

9 respectfully ask Dr. Galvin, the Assistant Director of the

10 Yale program is here and a high administrative official

11 from the UConn program --

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: No, no, no.

13 MR. MANDELKERN: -- is that possible to

14 get a comment from them?

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: No.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: No. Then that’s the

17 answer, we can’t get a comment from you.

18 (Laughter)

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: It’s true that the

20 cores are important. It’s also equally true that although

21 $20,000,000 isn’t exactly pocket change that it’s a drop

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 153 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 in the bucket in terms of the total amounts of

2 expenditures that are going to move forward for these

3 projects. And I think this is -- I think that as seed

4 money or start up money this is wonderful. I think the

5 permission of the Legislative body and the law allowing us

6 to do this is of primary importance and it is my

7 estimation that the two prestigious universities involved

8 will find ways to supplement funds that are given to them

9 and I think that they are all planning and have expended

10 funds already to recruit staff and change their facilities

11 and I think they all realize that giving them $5,000,000

12 is nice, but probably for the 5,000,000 they’re probably

13 going to have to put in 45.

14 MR. RAKIN: So one last clarification.

15 You made a point about fairness and cuts across the board

16 from the prospective of fairness should we go and include

17 the seeds and make it a 10 percent cut across the board

18 with everybody?

19 DR. YANG: No. Not seeds. You cannot cut

20 seeds.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 154 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay? Jerry?

2 DR. YANG: I think it’s certainly a legal

3 issue Henry I guess needs to answer. Clearly if you got a

4 12 percent cut all the proposals on the sheet can

5 guarantee whatever they’re proposing. I mean, when you’ve

6 got 100 proposals you know that there’s always a cut, you

7 still can promise what you can do. That negotiation is

8 legal, that’s fine. You cut the core facilities 50

9 percent, funding it to two and a half million dollars I

10 think UConn and Yale how they get the money is okay, but

11 to promise what they promise in the proposal they cannot

12 guarantee. That include the equipment, that including the

13 hiring, you know, four faculty at Yale and I don’t know

14 how many in UConn. That cannot guarantee with the fund

15 with the $5,000,000 and now you say two and a half million

16 dollars you have to do what you have proposed. How do we

17 solve that issue legally that’s really the question. Even

18 if we cannot solve that issue the only choice is one core

19 facility in Connecticut and it’s only UConn and Yale

20 competition which one we selected. But I’m not really

21 sure, you know, this is the only choice. You need to

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 155 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 answer the question, legally do they have to do what they

2 propose with two and a half million dollars?

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Well, they have to

4 fulfil their contract and if they come back to us and say,

5 you were going to give us -- we thought we were going to

6 get five, we got two and a half, we can’t do it, then it’s

7 done and then the two and a half goes back into the

8 coffers. If they tell us they can do it then we’ll hold

9 them to the terms of the contract. And if they don’t do

10 it then you face penalties and getting to meet Mr.

11 Blumenthal.

12 MR. SALTON: Again, I think that there’s a

13 little bit of confusion that’s reflected in your question

14 Jerry and I want to make sure you understand this.

15 DR. YANG: Yeah.

16 MR. SALTON: Everybody but core are going

17 to have to do what they promised with the 12 percent --

18 DR. YANG: That’s right. Except the

19 cores.

20 MR. SALTON: -- everyone understands that.

21 The cores what they’re going to have -- because of the way

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 156 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the request for proposal calls for the creation of

2 facilities. The core -- not the operational costs after

3 the facility is going forward. Okay? So for two and a

4 half million dollars what will happen is the Commissioner

5 and C.I. will go -- invite UConn and Yale in a room and

6 say, here’s two and a half million dollars. For two and a

7 half million dollars you must create the facility. The

8 physical plant, assemble the people and equipment to get

9 the facility operating and a budget. If they say, well,

10 we can do that, but we cannot operate -- this is not

11 enough money for us to operate in years three and four

12 then that’s, you go, that’s fine, we’re not buying years

13 three and four, we’re only buying creation of facility and

14 the first -- and what is in the first season of operation

15 let’s say.

16 DR. YANG: So Attorney, you are saying

17 they can bring -- whatever they propose they can change

18 because they have to hire four people, got to bring in

19 $2,000,000 equipment, so they still have to guarantee

20 that?

21 MR. SALTON: Yes. The variation on

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 157 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 maintenance or the -- going forward can be changed. The

2 variation in the creation of the physical plant and the

3 support staff to operate the physical plant we have to get

4 that -- that has to be delivered for two and a half

5 million dollars, okay? And the other option is this both

6 facilities -- universities can say, we can’t do this,

7 we’re not going to do this, and then the money comes back

8 to the Committee and we can then say, fine, we’re going to

9 revisit picking one or another or reallocating the

10 $5,000,000 we have left to something else.

11 DR. YANG: It sounds to me like they need

12 matching funds to cover that $5,000,000 required like when

13 you’re buying a car.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Whatever they want

15 to do. Yeah, whatever they want to do. Dr. Lensch?

16 DR. LENSCH: Alright. So if I’ve

17 understood everything that I’ve heard correctly, if we are

18 legally entitled to cut all of the categories and grants

19 that we’ve discussed by 12 percent, which I think is not

20 an overly onerous percentage, they will still be held to

21 perform their specific aim and if we are allowed to ask

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 158 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the two core facilities to fund their projects at two and

2 a half million and if they are allowed to come back and

3 say we will, but only for two years, then I would withdraw

4 my proposal.

6 DR. WALLACK: I think again we’re pretty

7 much on target to make a decision and we only have an

8 hour. I think that the roll call since we’re going to

9 have to go into the individual votes is probably going to

10 take us a few minutes. I might suggest with all due

11 respect that perhaps we should start the roll call pretty

12 much around this time.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Is there

14 anybody who feels they would be disadvantaged by that or

15 would like to make a comment or doesn’t feel that they can

16 go -- that they can -- well, let me back up, and not to be

17 insulting, but does everybody here understand what we’re

18 doing? Maybe -- maybe -- where’s Warren? Can you

19 paraphrase what we’re doing in your own dulcet tones?

20 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Well, if I understand

21 it correctly we are choosing to fund both cores at 2.5

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 159 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 with the understanding we’ll go back to them and ask for

2 them to re-identify their workload but guarantee us the

3 start up of a full core for at least a two year period.

4 We are going to maintain the funded seed grants at the

5 existing level with no change in any of those 10 funded

6 amounts. And we are going to take the rest of the funded

7 applications, which include those --

8 VOICE: Established.

9 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: -- what?

10 VOICE: Established.

11 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Well, it’s both the

12 established and --

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Dr. Rowe and Dr.

14 Snyder.

15 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: -- Dr. Rowe and Dr.

16 Snyder and reduce all of those and that’s one, two, three,

17 four, five, six, seven, eight, nine of them by 12 percent.

18 We should total approximately 19.8 million. It’s actually

19 more like 19.785 or something like that, leaving us a

20 surplus of 15,000,000 -- 15,000.

21 (Laughter)

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 160 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: 15,000.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: There goes our trip

3 to Australia.

4 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: There’s Australia for

5 us Commissioner.

6 (Laughter)

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Now does everybody

8 understand this? Because please don’t come back to me, we

9 have a very few number of voters and please don’t come

10 back to me and say I voted, but I didn’t understand it.

11 Yeah?

12 DR. YANG: If there are no legal problems

13 I think we can go ahead and vote if we can solve that

14 legally.

16 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: One thing again as Dr.

17 Lensch appropriately pointed out, for those funded

18 applications that are being reduced by the 12 percent

19 there’s no change in their workload.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Right.

21 VOICE: Correct.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 161 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Everybody

2 understands it?

3 MR. MANDELKERN: No, I don’t.

5 MR. MANDELKERN: The seed grants remain

6 funded at 100,000, in other words, 10 grand for 19,000?

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Seed grants are not

8 involved.

9 MR. MANDELKERN: Okay. Thank you. Thank

10 you.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Seed grants are not

12 on the table. The two core grants are going to be reduced

13 by two and a half million dollars or 50 percent, whatever

14 floats your boat, each. Dr. Snyder, Dr. Rowe’s grants and

15 the seven established investigator grants are going to all

16 be reduced by 12 percent each. Okay. Anybody who doesn’t

17 understand that? Okay.

18 DR. LENSCH: I want to add one last

19 actuarial thing to our total, which I think is very

20 important. This plan that we discussed we will fund 32

21 investigators to do primary stem cell research in the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 162 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 state of Connecticut within our budget promoting all of

2 the aims that we have set out to meet over the many months

3 that we have sat here. I find that highly laudable and I

4 think it says to the citizens of Connecticut that they are

5 getting value for their money and that this state has

6 taken very seriously their plight and their concerns.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I daresay that this

8 would not have happened --

9 (Applause)

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- I don’t think

11 this would have happened without Dr. Lensch’s endless

12 hours of input and Dr. Kiessling’s very wise input and the

13 input of all the members of the panel. I think we’re --

14 we’ve gotten to a very good point and I think we need to

15 allow Dr. Wallack to make a motion and move forward.

16 DR. WALLACK: I would move that we have a

17 roll call vote pertaining to the allocations that we’ve

18 discussed.

19 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Is there a second?

20 DR. JENNINGS: Second.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Second by Dr.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 163 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Jennings.

2 MS. TOWNSHEND: Dr. Jennings has seconded.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: With permission I will do

5 the roll call and I will ask again for fund or not fund

6 the proposal as delineated by Warren and discussed this

7 morning. Is that understood and that is --

8 MR. SALTON: We have to do -- we’re going

9 to start with -- we have to go through each one of the

10 seed grants and vote fund or no fund and then we’ll go

11 through the others.

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- alright. We’ll start

13 with -- the same way that we did --

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Fund indicates

15 funded at 12 percent of the requested amount.

16 MS. TOWNSHEND: No. We’re doing the

17 seeds, so that’s 100 percent.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Oh, okay. Okay.

19 MS. TOWNSHEND: So we need to vote on A-

20 30, which is UCHC -- I need to write this down for the

21 record, A-30, Li, the request is $200,000, Peer Review

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 164 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 ranking of 1.15, 11 members of the Committee eligible to

2 vote. Dr. Latham has recused himself from the meeting, so

3 there are 10 members.

4 MR. SALTON: He’s sustained from this,

5 just don’t count him.

6 MS. TOWNSHEND: He’s sustained, okay. So

7 10 members present are eligible to vote beginning with

8 Genel?

9 DR. GENEL: Yes.

10 MS. TOWNSHEND: Fund. Landwirth?

15 MR. RAKIN: Yes.

17 DR. WALLACK: Yes.

21 DR. LENSCH: Fund.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 165 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Wagers?

2 DR. WAGERS: Fund.

4 DR. HUANG: Fund.

6 DR. FISHBONE: Fund.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: Is it unanimous to fund A-

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Excuse me. Since

10 we’re all unanimous votes is there anyway of casting a

11 single ballot or do we need to do each of them again?

12 They were all unanimous votes.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’ll defer to the

14 Attorney.

15 MR. SALTON: This is what I suggest for

16 these.

17 COURT REPORTER: Attorney, you need to get

18 closer to a microphone.

19 MR. SALTON: Okay. On A-34 we could just

20 have a voice vote of those who are eligible and we just --

21 and just read the names of people who are eligible, okay?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 166 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 You don’t have to -- so for example for A-34, I don’t even

2 have it in front of me.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’ve got it.

4 MR. SALTON: Okay. So just call those --

5 name the people that are eligible and then call all in

6 favor aye, any opposed? Okay.

7 MS. TOWNSHEND: A-34, those eligible are

8 Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Kiessling,

9 Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Latham who is abstaining, and

10 Fishbone. All in favor?

11 VOICES: Aye.

12 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? That passes.

13 MR. SALTON: He’s absent.

14 MS. TOWNSHEND: Absent, he’s not

15 abstaining, he’s absent. I apologize. A-9, those

16 eligible to vote, Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin,

17 Wallack, Kiessling, Lensch, Huang, Latham, Fishbone.

18 Latham is absent. All in favor?

19 VOICES: Aye.

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? That is passed.

21 A-2, 11 members eligible to vote, Canalis, Yang,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 167 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Jennings, Kiessling, Lensch,

2 Wagers, Huang, Fishbone. All in favor?

3 VOICES: Aye.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? That passes. A-

5 5, 11 members eligible to vote, Genel, Landwirth,

6 Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Kiessling, Lensch, Wagers,

7 Huang, Latham, Fishbone. Latham is absent. All in favor?

8 VOICES: Aye.

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? This carries.

10 A-31, 11 members. Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin,

11 Wallack, Kiessling, Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Latham,

12 Fishbone. Latham absent. All in favor?

13 VOICES: Aye.

14 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? This passes. A-

15 26, 11 members eligible to vote, Genel, Landwirth,

18 VOICES: Aye.

20 A-12, 11 members eligible to vote, Canalis, Yang,

21 Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Jennings, Kiessling, Lensch,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 168 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Wagers, Huang, Fishbone. All in favor?

2 VOICES: Aye.

4 A-27, 11 members eligible to vote. Canalis, Yang,

7 VOICES: Aye.

9 A-18, 11 members eligible to vote, Genel, Landwirth,

12 VOICES: Aye.

14 MR. SALTON: Okay. The process should we

15 go to cores?

17 MR. SALTON: Okay. So on the cores I

18 think the best thing to do here is have a motion by an

19 eligible member to fund it at a suggested level and a

20 second and then we will have a roll call vote -- not a

21 roll call vote, but in the same process. Identify the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 169 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 members on the record and have a voice vote.

2 DR. WALLACK: Move to accept -- move to

3 take that vote.

4 MR. SALTON: Well, I think the motion

5 would be for example, I move that core number blank,

6 blank, be funded at this amount, someone second.

7 DR. JENNINGS: Okay. So I motion that we

8 fund D-01, Lin at the amount (indiscernible, interference

9 on microphone.)

10 DR. LENSCH: Seconded.

11 MR. SALTON: Any discussion? No

12 discussion, so we can just go to a vote.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: This is D-01, Yale, Lin,

14 at 2.5 million.

15 MR. SALTON: Correct.

16 MS. TOWNSHEND: 10 members eligible to

17 vote. D-01. Canalis?

18 DR. CANALIS: Yes.

20 MR. MANDELKERN: You’re asking for a vote

21 now?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 170 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Are we asking for the roll

2 call?

3 MR. SALTON: A voice count.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: Okay. Canalis,

7 VOICES: Aye.

8 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? Motion passes.

9 MR. SALTON: And again, we need a motion

10 on the second core.

11 DR. WALLACK: Move to fund it at 2.5

12 million.

13 DR. LENSCH: Seconded.

14 COURT REPORTER: Who seconded that?

15 MR. SALTON: Dr. Lensch.

16 MS. TOWNSHEND: Dr. Lensch. The motion is

17 to fund D-2, UConn, Xu, at 2.5 million. 11 members

18 eligible to vote. Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin,

19 Wallack, Kiessling, Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Latham,

20 Fishbone. Latham is absent. All in favor?

21 VOICES: Aye.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 171 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? This carries.

2 Next?

3 MR. SALTON: Okay. Next should we go to

4 hybrid again, and then we would need a motion to at a

5 certain amount.

6 MS. TOWNSHEND: Which one are we talking

7 about?

8 MR. SALTON: E-01, Snyder is the hybrid.

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: E-01 Snyder.

10 DR. LENSCH: I move to fund SE-01,

11 Professor Snyder from Yale, the hybrid grant, at a level

12 of 88 percent.

13 MR. MANDELKERN: Seconded.

14 MS. RION: 3,815,000 --

15 COURT REPORTER: You need to move closer

16 to a microphone.

17 MS. RION: -- everybody should really be

18 able to read it.

19 DR. LENSCH: I’ll just calculate it real

20 quick also for the sake of the motion. So the original

21 amount is 4,335,769. 88 percent of that amount is

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 172 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 3,815,476.72.

2 DR. WALLACK: Second.

3 MS. TOWNSHEND: Three-eight-one-five-four-

4 seven --

5 DR. LENSCH: Six --

6 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- six --

7 DR. LENSCH: -- point seven-two.

8 MS. TOWNSHEND: -- point seven-two. Thank

9 you.

10 MR. MANDELKERN: I seconded.

11 DR. LENSCH: Yes. I think that somebody

12 should definitely check my calculation before we vote.

13 MS. RION: Yes, we just did that.

14 MS. TOWNSHEND: Is that five-seven?

15 MR. SALTON: Okay. So let’s just make

16 sure the record’s clear. The motion is to fund E-01

17 Snyder at $3,815,476.72 and there’s a second to that

18 motion. Is there any change in the motion on the floor?

19 Okay. So we’ll identify who’s eligible to vote now.

20 MS. TOWNSHEND: Eligible to vote 10

21 members. Canalis, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Kiessling,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 173 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Galvin, Fishbone. All in favor?

2 VOICES: Aye.

4 MR. SALTON: Okay. As to the project

5 proposal is there a motion?

6 DR. KIESSLING: I move that we fund Dr.

7 Rowe’s project at a level of 3,520,000.

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: C-04?

10 MR. MANDELKERN: C-04.

11 MS. TOWNSHEND: At a rate of 3,520,000,

12 correct? 11 members eligible to vote. Genel, Landwirth,

15 VOICES: Aye.

16 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? Motion carries.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Since you

18 have your computer fired up Willie would you -- how much

19 -- where are we? How much money did we just allocate for

20 those four? 5,000,000, 8,000,000? Give me the total on

21 that?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 174 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. LENSCH: Counting seeds fourteen-

2 three.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Fourteen-three?

4 DR. LENSCH: Counting seeds.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Counting

6 seeds we’re at 14.3.

7 DR. LENSCH: Correct.

9 MR. SALTON: Alright. So we should go to

10 established investigators. And we’ll start with B-08,

11 Carmichael -- is it Carmichael, B-08?

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: 880,000 on all those

13 millions.

14 MR. SALTON: Excuse me. We need a motion.

15 Let’s start with the one at the bottom of the page and

16 work our way up. B-09 is Graveley, is there a motion

17 after Graveley anyone?

18 MR. MANDELKERN: I make a motion to fund

19 B-09, Graveley, at 88 percent of request.

20 MR. SALTON: Which is 800 --

21 MS. TOWNSHEND: 880,000.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 175 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. MANDELKERN: Fine.

2 MR. SALTON: -- is there a second?

3 DR. FISHBONE: Second.

4 MR. SALTON: Did you get the second on the

5 record?

6 COURT REPORTER: Please identify yourself

7 when you make the motion and then when you do the second?

8 Because it goes too fast and I can’t figure out who’s

9 speaking.

10 MR. SALTON: Alright. The motion was made

11 by Mr. Mandelkern. Who -- Dr. Fishbone second. Identify

12 the voters?

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: Voters are Genel,

14 Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Kiessling, Lensch,

15 Wagers, Huang, Latham, Fishbone. Latham is absent. All

16 in favor?

17 VOICES: Aye.

19 MR. SALTON: B-08 I believe is the next

20 one working off the bottom of the list.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: I move to fund B-08,

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 176 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Carmichael, at $880,000.

2 DR. GENEL: Second.

3 MR. SALTON: Second was by Dr. Genel.

4 MS. TOWNSHEND: Eligible to vote, Genel,

7 in favor?

8 VOICES: Aye.

10 MR. MANDELKERN: I move to fund B-14, Dr.

11 Hu, H-U, at $880,000.

12 MR. SALTON: We need a second?

14 MR. SALTON: Dr. Wallack seconds.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: Eligible members, Genel,

18 in favor?

19 VOICES: Aye.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: I move to fund B-05 a

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 177 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 joint Wesleyan/UCHC grant at -- in the amount of $998,123

3 VOICE: No, no, no, no.

4 MR. MANDELKERN: -- minus 12 percent. I

5 can’t do the math in my head.

6 MR. SALTON: Alright. The amount --

7 MR. MANDELKERN: Nine-ninety-eight-one-

8 twenty-three minus 12 percent. Do you want me to amend

9 that with the exact amount Dr. Galvin?

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Read it into the

11 record please?

12 MR. MANDELKERN: I can’t read it, could

13 somebody enunciate --

14 MS. RION: I’ll read it for you.

15 $878,348.24.

16 MR. MANDELKERN: -- that is the motion.

17 MR. WALLACK: Second.

18 MR. SALTON: Dr. Wallack seconds.

19 MS. TOWNSHEND: This is 05?

20 MR. SALTON: This is 05. The amount is

21 eight-seventy-eight-three-forty-eight and 24 cents.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 178 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Eligible to vote, Genel,

4 in favor?

5 VOICES: Aye.

8 Campagnola in the amount of $978,774 minus 12 percent.

9 MS. RION: Would you mind doing number 11

10 next? That’s one we’ve figured out.

11 MR. MANDELKERN: Oh, I’m sorry. 23 was

12 not funded. I beg your pardon.

13 MR. SALTON: So there’s no second on that

14 motion -- is there a second on the motion?

15 VOICE: No.

16 MR. SALTON: Because it’s been made and we

17 have to deal with it.

18 VOICE: No.

19 MR. SALTON: No second, the motion

20 therefore does not pass.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: Excuse me. B-11.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 179 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MR. SALTON: B-11 in the amount that’s on

2 the the wall there sir.

4 UConn, LoTurco, in the amount of 638,000 --

5 MS. RION: No. Five-sixty-one-six-thirty-

6 one-eight-four.

7 MR. MANDELKERN: -- say that again?

8 MS. RION: 561,000 --

9 MR. MANDELKERN: 561,000 --

10 MS. RION: -- 631 dollars --

11 MR. MANDELKERN: -- 631 dollars --

12 MS. RION: -- and 84 cents.

13 MR. MANDELKERN: -- and 84 cents.

14 VOICE: Second.

15 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-11, eligible members to

16 vote, Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack,

17 Kiessling, Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Latham, Fishbone.

19 VOICES: Aye.

21 MR. MANDELKERN: Okay. Take 18. I move

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 180 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 --

2 MR. SALTON: Wait a second sir. Just wait

3 a second while we catch up here, alright?

4 MR. MANDELKERN: -- oh, I’m sorry.

5 MS. RION: We’re not as fast as you are

6 Bob.

7 MR. MANDELKERN: What? I’m sorry.

8 MS. RION: Let me get you the amount

9 first. Now we’re looking at 18?

10 MR. MANDELKERN: I move to fund --

11 VOICE: Hang on. Is that correct Nancy?

12 VOICE: Yes it is correct.

13 MS. TOWNSHEND: It is correct. Thank you.

14 MR. MANDELKERN: -- I move to fund B-18,

15 Yale, Krause, in the amount of $856,653.

17 MR. SALTON: Mr. Wallack seconds.

18 MS. TOWNSHEND: Eligible members, Canalis,

19 Yang, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack, Jennings, Kiessling,

20 Lensch, Wagers, Huang and Fishbone. All in favor?

21 VOICES: Aye.

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 181 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: Opposed? Motion carries.

2 MR. MANDELKERN: I can’t find -- oh, here

3 it is.

4 MR. SALTON: Can you just wait a minute?

5 MR. MANDELKERN: Yes, I’m waiting. I move

6 to fund B-03, UConn, Nishiyama, in the amount of

7 $529,871.76.

8 VOICE: Second.

9 MS. TOWNSHEND: B-03, eligible members to

10 vote, Genel, Landwirth, Mandelkern, Rakin, Wallack,

11 Kiessling, Lensch, Wagers, Huang, Latham, Fishbone.

13 VOICES: Aye.

15 MR. MANDELKERN: Do we need a motion to

16 close funding?

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Let’s make sure --

18 can we total this up? Okay. What are our totals?

19 DR. KIESSLING: $19,781,987.28.

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you.

21 VOICE: Please repeat?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 182 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. KIESSLING: $19,781,987.28. And

2 that’s the biggest check I’ve ever written.

3 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Are we all in

4 agreement that that’s the correct amount?

5 VOICE: And I believe that was for 34

6 investigators?

7 DR. KIESSLING: It might be more than that

8 because we don’t know how many are going to be hired by

9 the cores.

10 VOICE: I’m getting a different number.

11 DR. JENNINGS: Yeah. Don’t go on record

12 with that number.

13 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Hang on.

14 DR. KIESSLING: It’s approximately three

15 dozen.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. Now this

17 number is going to get in the press. Are we certain it’s

18 correct? Dr. Lensch?

19 DR KIESSLING: I’m hoping somebody else

20 did -- did somebody else double check that?

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Are you comfortable

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 183 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 with that?

2 DR. LENSCH: My --

3 VOICE: Could we have please a little

4 quiet in the back? Thank you.

5 DR. LENSCH: -- my numbers do not include

6 exact cents beyond the decimal place, so I’m going to need

7 a minute to update my speed. I think that someone at C.I.

8 would be better pressed to come up with a number.

9 DR. GENEL: In the meantime may I ask a

10 question?

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Sure.

12 DR. GENEL: Can we leave our paper grants

13 here or should we taken them with us?

14 MS. RION: You may take them with you --

15 you can take them with you if you’d like. If you leave

16 them here we will ask that they be shredded.

17 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Please recall this

18 is confidential and proprietary information so they’re not

19 good documents to leave where they may --

20 DR. JENNINGS: Mr. Chairman, if I may? We

21 tend to need them again because we will have to reapprove

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 184 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the revised budgets.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Good advice.

3 Alright. We have a figure of nineteen-seven-eight-six-

4 three-sixty-three and 28 cents. Are we agreed that that

5 is the official figure?

6 DR. LENSCH: Commissioner, that’s the

7 number I get as well.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Okay. That’s fine.

9 That will be our official -- and we’re agreed that it’s 36

10 investigators?

11 VOICE: Approximately.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Approximately.

13 VOICE: Three dozen.

14 (Discussion off the record.)

15 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Prior to public

16 comment are there any members of the Committee who would

17 like to make a comment?

18 DR. WALLACK: Yeah. Bob, I would just

19 like to complement you on an extraordinary job and I think

20 that I’d like to comment about how thrilled all of us are

21 I believe in being able to be the first in the nation to

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 185 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 go through this kind of process and to put almost

2 $20,000,000 in the hands of 36 some odd researchers. I

3 think that it’s untold the benefit that humanity will

4 derive from the actions that we’ve taken. I applaud you

5 and I applaud the whole process. Thank you.

6 (Applause)

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I think the latter

8 part of Milt’s statements are entirely -- are entirely

9 correct. We have really moved science along a quantum

10 leap, particularly in a subject which some would regard as

11 controversial. And I would say it is with great pleasure

12 that I serve the people, their elected representatives and

13 the Governor of our fine state. Thank you. If there are

14 no further remarks I would entertain --

15 MR. SALTON: You have some.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- oh, Dr. Lensch?

17 DR. LENSCH: Thank you very much. While

18 we’re on the record I would like to thank the members of

19 this Committee for what I’ve been taught in the service of

20 the state of Connecticut. It is invaluable information.

21 I perhaps on behalf of the Committee would like to address

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 186 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the afflicted of Connecticut that your Legislature has

2 heard you and that I see this as a very significant step

3 toward meeting unmet clinical need, which is really the

4 unifying task that’s brought us here today. And then to

5 the research community, the work has just begun. So now

6 we’re all looking toward the back of the room and in a

7 very excited manner.

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Very good. Amy, did

9 you have a comment?

10 DR. WAGERS: Yes. I just wanted to again

11 thank the Committee for all the hard work and to thank you

12 for allowing me to be part of this process and I wanted to

13 say that although we could -- we funded a great deal of

14 very interesting science I think there is a vast amount of

15 science that was also as interesting that didn’t make the

16 cut for funding and I think it’s really indicative of the

17 strength of stem cell research in Connecticut and I think

18 we can all be very proud of all the very excellent

19 proposals that we had to consider and the tough job that

20 we had to do here.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: I frankly am amazed

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 187 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 at the science yes. Excellent remarks. Bob?

2 MR. MANDELKERN: Dr. Galvin? I would like

3 to complement the Committee on behalf of the million or so

4 people in Connecticut who are neurologically impaired from

5 the various diseases that stem cell research might

6 contribute to. I think by our pioneering action today we

7 are moving forward the hopes and the dreams of these

8 people that therapies might be in the distant offing and

9 in the further distance might be cures for over 70

10 neurological diseases and spinal cord injuries that people

11 suffer from and might be alleviated by embryonic stem cell

12 research. We’ve done a historic thing and I feel it

13 deeply because I am afflicted by one of these neurological

14 diseases and without hope there is no quality of life and

15 with hope you have inspired millions of people in the

16 state of Connecticut and I thank you for all of them.

17 (Applause)

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you.

19 MR. LENSCH: One last thing that I hope to

20 say and that is that to come out on this issue as a

21 Legislator and as a Governor I think takes a lot of

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 188 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 bravery, especially considering that Governor Rell is a

2 Republican and I doubt whether she has been able to curry

3 a lot of favor in the current administration, perhaps

4 because of her stand on this issue. I would just like to

5 say well done, very well done.

6 VOICE: Here, here. Here, here.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Here, here. I would

8 like to add on that Governor Rell does what she thinks is

9 right and appropriate and her primary concern is the three

10 and a half million people who live within the borders of

11 the state of Connecticut, but I echo your sentiments. It

12 was -- there was some difficulties with this, but we had

13 enormous support and an enormously supportive

14 scientifically oriented Chief Executive. If there are no

15 further --

16 DR. GENEL: May I? Commissioner, I

17 believe we would be remiss if we did not thank our

18 colleagues from Massachusetts for the extraordinary effort

19 that they put into assisting us in this effort and I mean

20 it’s one thing for some of us to drive an hour or two to

21 come here, but to drive two and a half to four hours

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 189 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 repeatedly, monthly, for the past year as some have done

2 and to remain with us over the last couple of days is --

3 at least three members that are sitting here today have

4 done I think is an extraordinary contribution. All of it

5 voluntary and I think we owe them a great applause and

6 gratitude for their efforts.

7 (Applause)

8 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: And I would

9 certainly say that Interstate 90, the Mass Pike is not

10 exactly a fun place, particularly from November through

11 about May in and around Wooster and the higher environs.

12 If there are no other comments --

13 DR. LANDWIRTH: I have one more. I think

14 we also --

15 COURT REPORTER: Use that microphone.

16 DR. LANDWIRTH: -- to acknowledge how

17 dependent on the success of this project has been and will

18 continue to be the level of collaboration among the major

19 research institutions that we enjoy here in Connecticut

20 and that will continue in the future. And to that end I

21 -- it occurs to me that what we did with the core

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 190 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 proposals was to take a more realistic look at inter-

2 institutional collaboration by saying focus on building

3 your park for your own shop and then when you come back if

4 we’re continuing maintenance we will have a higher

5 standard for collaboration as one of the criteria at a

6 more appropriate point.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Jerry?

8 DR. YANG: May I say a few things? I

9 think everyone understanding my situation that’s why I’d

10 like to make a few statements. First of all, I’d like to

11 thank the state of Connecticut for all the citizens and

12 really supporting human embryonic stem cells in

13 Connecticut. Whether Democratic or Republican 70 to 80

14 percent are supporting human embryonic stem cells. That

15 will place Connecticut into a leading role in the nation

16 for stem cell research. I also would like to thank the

17 Stem Cell Coalition headed by our -- one of our members,

18 Dr. Wallack who really made this possible. I also would

19 like to thank the Senate and the Assembly with a majority,

20 we’re talking 90 percent in the Senate, 75 percent in the

21 Assembly who voted to support human embryonic stem cell

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 191 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 research in Connecticut.

2 And certainly those are really, really

3 very, very important and I also would like to thank the

4 Department of Health and C.I. for managing this and also

5 the Coalition Committee for making the stem cell research

6 grants possible. I have to say very, very clear that now

7 34 -- no, 36 professors really moving in that direction of

8 working with human stem cells. One good example is Diane

9 Krause. She’s really excellent in adult stem cells moving

10 that expertise and applying that expertise to human

11 embryonic stem cell research. That’s a good example in

12 Connecticut and we really should support that.

13 I realize of course in Connecticut that

14 all grants awarded involves human embryonic stem cells

15 with two key core facility grants aims to use donated

16 human embryos to derive and bank currently available and

17 new human ES cell lines and provide ESC resources and

18 service in Connecticut. This year zero nuclear transfer

19 grant in Connecticut was funded, but I understand the

20 issue recommended strongly by the reviewers, recommended

21 strongly by the committee members, but due to the legal

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 192 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 interpretation issues of grant funding guidelines that

2 part of that grant for nuclear transfer core

3 facility/project recommended for funding cannot be funded.

4 I can understand that decision. But thank you all.

5 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you very much.

6 (Applause)

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: And I would say that

8 as we close this meeting that much of the heavy lifting in

9 this project has been done by Warren Wollschlager who has

10 a genius at organization.

11 (Applause)

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Marianne Horn who

13 has helped us immeasurably in the understanding and

14 interpretation of the law. And as you all know we in the

15 Department of Health are represented by our distinguished

16 Attorney General and his Assistant Attorney General, Mr.

17 Salton. Henry was good enough to sit through -- sit with

18 me through some arduous hearings on certificate of need

19 for cardiovascular diseases. He is --

20 MR. SALTON: The good old days.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- in the good old

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 193 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 days. He is as all lawyers are supposed to be, a

2 counselor and sits patiently through these things and has

3 been a source both of emotional and intellectual support

4 and his -- of course his presence and how he reacts and

5 interacts with us is a reflection of the assistance we’ve

6 had from the Attorney General’s department and I would

7 like all of you to join me in a hand of applause for

8 Attorney Salton.

9 (Applause)

10 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Are there any

11 comments from --

12 DR. JENNINGS: Commissioner, if I may? I

13 would also like to add our thanks to Nancy, Kevin and

14 everybody at Connecticut Innovations for the tremendous

15 logistical support that they have given us. We’ve gone

16 through a very challenging process and we couldn’t have

17 done it without everything that they’ve contributed. So

18 thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- anything further

21 from the Committee?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 194 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 MS. TOWNSHEND: I’m not on the Committee,

2 but just a reminder. The funding portion is over. You do

3 have now in your email talking points. If the media

4 approaches you, you are welcome to talk to them. You are

5 welcome to triage that back to and we encourage you to

6 triage that back to the main spokesperson who is Dr.

7 Galvin. A press release will be put out a little bit

8 later today and I’m about to let the Governor’s office

9 know that we’re complete -- you’re complete with your

10 duties today. Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: You are of course

12 free to discuss anything you want with any of the media.

13 I would -- although you do have the opportunity to defer

14 to us to make official comments. As I’ve told some of you

15 before, it’s not a good idea to be talking with the press

16 and be speculating about, well, maybe this could have gone

17 better or, you know, the coffee was not Chock Full of

18 Nuts, it was Maxwell House. But speculation and sorting

19 your thoughts while talking to a member of the press is

20 probably not a good idea. We will be glad to help you

21 with press releases. Deliberations and things which have

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 195 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 gone back and forth within the confines of the room I

2 think should stay within the confines of the room and be

3 -- we’ve had vigorous discussions and we’ve moved a huge

4 project ahead. Not because everybody agreed with

5 everything, but because we were able to collaboratively

6 come to what we consider appropriate conclusions. Are

7 there any further comments? If not I’ll --

8 DR. HUANG: Mr. Chairman, if I may? This

9 is Paul Huang. I need to go, but I wanted to thank you

10 for giving me the opportunity to participate by telephone

11 today.

12 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: -- thanks Paul and I

13 hope you have a good time on the Chinese mainland.

14 DR. HUANG: Thank you. Bye everybody.

15 VOICES: Bye.

16 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Dr. Krause, you’ll

17 have to come forward where there’s a mic.

18 MR. MANDELKERN: You can have my mic.

19 DR. DIANE KRAUSE: I’ll have your mic.

20 I’d like to just go around and thank each and every one of

21 you individually. I wish I could send you flowers or

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 196 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 something individually because of the time and effort

2 you’ve all put into it. This has really grown from a

3 grassroots effort to an official State level proclamation

4 in support of stem cell research in Connecticut, so I

5 thank you all very, very much. You had to make incredibly

6 difficult decisions and you were forced to make them in

7 the end and thank you for the decisions that you’ve made

8 and it’s been a pleasure to meet those of you who I’ve

9 met. Thank you.

10 COURT REPORTER: Could you please identify

11 yourself and spell your last name for the record?

12 DR. KRAUSE: Diane Krause, K-R-A-U-S-E,

13 from Yale University.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Thank you Dr. Krause

15 and I believe Dr. Rowe has some remarks?

16 DR. MARK LaLANDE: It’s actually Dr.

17 LaLande.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Sorry.

19 DR. LaLANDE: My name is Mark LaLande, L-

20 A-L-A-N-D-E, an Associate Dean of Research at the

21 University of Connecticut Health Center and I want to add

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 197 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 thank you very much to all of you for your hard work. I

2 will carry this message back to the University of

3 Connecticut and Dr. Austin the President, who is very

4 appreciative and I’d like to thank our stem cell work

5 group headed by Dr. Yang as well as David Rowe and David

6 Goldhammer (phonetic) and Dr. Anhiskies (phonetic) who is

7 the head of the Escrow Committee. Thank you very much and

8 we will prepare for the next round now. Thank you.

9 DR. ELFA KRISST: I’m Elfa (phonetic)

10 Krisst, K-R-I-S-S-T, Assistant Vice Provost for Research

11 at the University of Connecticut and I would also like --

12 I have observed the incredible work of this panel for

13 quite a while and I would just like to assure the

14 Commissioner and his staff and C.I. and Nancy Rion that

15 from the administrative perspective we look forward to

16 working with you and taking care of all the relevant

17 details now. Thank you.

18 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yes sir?

19 DR. WEIMIN ZHONG: I’m Weimin Zhong from

20 Yale University and I just realized I’m part of the co-

21 investigator who got the largest grant from this -- the

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 198 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 hybrid grants, I have a hybrid grant. So I really want to

2 thank the reviewers and the advisory committee and

3 everybody for recognizing the importance of fostering

4 collaboration between the investigators. This grant

5 actually comes from completely very different backgrounds.

6 So I’m really gratified that the reviewers and the

7 advisory committee recognize how important this is to

8 carry research forward. Thanks.

9 COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your

10 first name?

11 DR. ZHONG: My first name is Weimin, W-E-

12 I-M-I-N, my last name is Zhong, Z-H-O-N-G. Thanks

13 everybody.

14 DR. YANG: He’s one of the co-leaders in

15 the Snyder grant, one of the four C.I.s.

16 MR. LIN XU: My name is Lin Xu, last name

17 is X-U. I came from China originally and I have stayed in

18 Wisconsin and I did embryonic stem cell research with the

19 frontier scientist, Dr. James Thompson and I came to this

20 great state in April by the call of Dr. Mark Lyland

21 (phonetic) and Dr. Jerry Yang and I’m so proud to learn

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 199 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 the whole process of this grant review and decision

2 process and it’s a big, big experience to me because I

3 never experienced this democratic process and very, very

4 fair. Although some of us nervous, but finally cool.

5 (Laughter)

6 DR. XU: And now I’m fully charged. I’m

7 the Director of the embryonic stem cell core facility of

8 UConn/Wesleyan so now with this big responsibility I’m

9 charged and I’m ready to go and so promote the greater

10 thing for this great state. Thank you. Thank you very

11 much.

12 (Applause)

13 DR. YANG: I forgot to mention. I’d like

14 to thank UConn for hiring the outstanding scientist Dr. Xu

15 and Yale to hire outstanding scientist, a leading stem

16 cell research, Dr. Hifan (phonetic) Lin to Connecticut.

17 DR. WALLACK: One additional comment, or

18 however many, but I have to make one. There’s somebody in

19 the audience who’s been in the audience for many, many of

20 our meetings and I think we should acknowledge the fact

21 that he’s been here throughout. He co-chairs the Stem

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 200 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 Cell Coalition with me. He was instrumental, I think we

2 should acknowledge this, instrumental in writing the

3 legislation that enabled all of this to go on. That’s

4 Paul Pescatella (phonetic) from Curic (phonetic) United.

5 (Applause)

6 DR. YANG: Paul is the co-chair of the

7 Stem Cell Coalition, has a pretty good role.

8 MR. PAUL PASCATELLA: Thank you.

9 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Any further

10 comments? If not -- yes, Mr. Wollschlager?

11 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Just a matter of

12 business before -- in anticipating that perhaps you were

13 getting read to wrap up here.

14 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: What makes you think

15 that?

16 (Laughter)

17 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: Just a reminder that

18 there is -- the next meeting of this body has been

19 scheduled for --

20 MS. RION: December 19th.

21 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Where?

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 201 2 RE: CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4 5 1 DR. JENNINGS: Boston.

2 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: Yeah, Boston.

3 MS. RION: We’ll let you know.

4 MR. WOLLSCHLAGER: -- and we’ll get the

5 information out to you as to the logistics as quickly as

6 possible. Thank you.

7 COMMISSIONER GALVIN: We’re adjourned.

8 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at

9 11:40 a.m.)

6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102