STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Document Sample
STATE OF CONNECTICUT Powered By Docstoc
					                                                    1

              VERBATIM PROCEEDINGS




CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE



                 MARCH 22, 2006

                   1:02 P.M.




      CONNECTICUT ECONOMIC RESOURCE CENTER

              200 CORPORATE PLACE

            ROCKY HILL, CONNECTICUT




                POST REPORTING SERVICE
              HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  2
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                  . . .Continued verbatim proceedings of

 2   Connecticut Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, held

 3   at 200 Corporate Place, Rocky Hill, Connecticut, on March

 4   22, 2006 at 1:02 p.m. . . .

 5

 6

 7
 8                  COMMISSIONER ROBERT GALVIN:    I will call

 9   the meeting to order, and I believe there is some

10   clarification needed on whether this is a continuation of

11   the last meeting or this is an entirely -- that there‟s a

12   motion on the floor.   I will remind particularly those at

13   the edge of the room that this is being transcribed, and

14   in order for it to be properly transcribed, you‟ll have

15   to identify yourself when you speak.

16                  COURT REPORTER:   There are microphones on

17   either side, too, if you want to pass them around.

18                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Thank you.   Now is

19   this a --

20                  MR. HENRY SALTON:   Sure.   Henry Salton

21   from the Attorney General‟s Office.    At the last meeting,

22   as the committee members may recall, we tabled a motion

23   addressing the proposed application.   At the end of the

24   meeting, the motion was to recess and not to adjourn.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  3
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   The purpose of that was because, if there was an

 2   adjournment, the motion that was tabled would

 3   automatically die.   Taking a recess, the motion remains

 4   on the table, as opposed to being off the table.    And,

 5   so, if the committee elects to take up that motion, it

 6   still is a viable option.

 7                    So this is basically after a two-week
 8   period of recess, approximately, a continuation of the

 9   prior meeting.   The motion remains on the table and

10   available to be taken off the table at this time.

11                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   All right, now, is

12   our first order of business, then, to decide whether

13   we‟re going to take that off or to look at our minutes

14   from the last meeting?

15                    MR. SALTON:   I think the first order of

16   business should be to address whether you want to take it

17   off the table at this point in time, or you may, because

18   we seem to have a substantially different draft now

19   before us, you may basically have the motion taken off

20   the table and dispose of the motion in a negative way and

21   then have a new motion once we finish the markup of this

22   new draft to address the new draft, as opposed to trying

23   to continue to amend the old original draft to these

24   motions.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    4
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    So, to recap, what I would suggest,

 2   Commissioner, is there be a motion to -- if it‟s the

 3   committee‟s desire to take that old motion and get rid of

 4   it, at this period of time there will be a motion to take

 5   the original motion off and make it accurate, we‟ll move

 6   it to table status.    That being done, there should be a

 7   vote on that motion, and, if you wish to dispose of it,
 8   because that motion that‟s on the table is a motion to

 9   take up the original draft with some amendments, not all

10   the amendments that were discussed at the last meeting,

11   just the first couple of amendments, and that‟s all that

12   motion calls for right now.

13                    So what you might want to do is basically

14   defeat that motion, and then finish marking up the new

15   draft of the proposed instructions, and then have a

16   motion to adopt this new draft, if everyone is in

17   agreement or not, and go forward with a new motion on the

18   new draft.

19                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Everybody understand

20   that?    You don‟t understand.

21                    MR. SALTON:     Basically, I‟ll go one more

22   time.

23                    DR. MILTON WALLACK:     Can I ask?

24                    MR. SALTON:     Sure.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 5
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                  DR. WALLACK:   Before you do it, what would

 2   be the problem in just, and you have to clarify,

 3   hopefully, how we can do this, if we‟re in recess, we‟ve

 4   just walked out for 10 minutes, we walked back in, we

 5   have the original motion, the original document on the

 6   table and we ask this question at the end of the session

 7   with all of the amendments and we ask whether or not we
 8   should vote those amendments at this time, you indicated

 9   that we should hold those amendments and that we would

10   then vote them at the conclusion of the entire document.

11                  So, therefore, I mean how do we stay on

12   pace with that, in other words, to continue with the

13   document, which at least was my intent today, and then to

14   discuss all the amendments, hopefully that you have

15   written down, at the conclusion of this process?

16                  MR. SALTON:    The original concept was that

17   we had an initial draft, and then, during the last

18   meeting, we went through and made some amendments.    And

19   then what we‟re going to do is move to incorporate all

20   those amendments by amending the original motion, okay?

21                  DR. WALLACK:   Right.

22                  MR. SALTON:    My perception of this new

23   draft is that there‟s significant reorganization that

24   took place of this document, as compared to the old


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  6
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   document.   So while not necessarily adding new content,

 2   it‟s moved things around substantially.     It would be my

 3   recommendation to the committee, rather than taking the

 4   old draft or the old setup and trying to verbalize all

 5   the different ways it‟s being reorganized, as well as

 6   verbalizing all the amendments of the language, what we

 7   basically do is say, look, let‟s dispose of that old
 8   draft.   Once we finish marking up the new draft, we‟ll

 9   have one motion that says this draft that‟s now marked up

10   shall be the application utilized by the committee and

11   just vote it up or down.

12                   DR. WALLACK:   But you‟re assuming that new

13   draft incorporates all of the elements that we put into

14   it.

15                   MR. SALTON:    I have, and I think Nancy has

16   looked at it.   And based on my review of my original

17   notes and this new draft, all the elements that were

18   discussed, both by amendment, formally and in all the

19   discussions where everyone had consensus, all those

20   elements have been incorporated in this draft.    There

21   were other members of the committee who also looked at

22   it.   Bill, I think you may have looked at it.

23                   DR. WALLACK:   I looked at it, also.    I had

24   a question.   For example, we had a long discussion on the


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     7
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   numbers of pages, 50 pages for the programmatic document,

 2   and we had other discussions, for example, having to do

 3   with the senior investigators and, also, the junior

 4   investigators.

 5                     Are you sure that what‟s reflected in this

 6   draft reflects that discussion?

 7                     MR. SALTON:    I very carefully checked my
 8   notes against what‟s in this current draft, and it

 9   appeared everything was incorporated.       I do not find a

10   single item that‟s missing.

11                     DR. WALLACK:   Okay.

12                     DR. CHARLES JENNINGS:    I also believe that

13   we‟ve accurately, up until the point where it says

14   conclusion of committee discussion on March the 7th, I

15   think everything up until that point reflects the

16   substance of our last discussion.

17                     MR. SALTON:    And I did my own independent

18   review of that.

19                     DR. WALLACK:   I wasn‟t sure.   That‟s why

20   I‟m asking this.

21                     MR. SALTON:    Sure.   So what we can do --

22   so I guess the things we ought to try to get a consensus.

23   Do we want to continue in a procedural way, work off the

24   original draft, or just say let‟s finish marking this up,


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 8
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   and then we‟ll have a motion to adopt, which I think is

 2   the easiest way to do it, just finish marking this up and

 3   have a motion to adopt it, as marked, with a final

 4   markup.   Is that the committee‟s preference?

 5                   DR. JENNINGS:   That sounds reasonable to

 6   me.

 7                   MR. SALTON:   Does anyone have an objection
 8   to that as a process?   So, then, what we can do just why

 9   don‟t we just leave the motion on the table for now,

10   Commissioner?   When we get to the end of this process of

11   marking this up, we‟ll dispose of the motion that‟s on

12   the table and have a new motion to adopt the final

13   product of the committee, as amended.

14                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Does that make sense

15   to everybody?   The only remarks I have to make were I had

16   an interesting conversation with the person who wrote

17   their doctoral thesis on ethics, and after they finished

18   defending the thesis left at the same time that the

19   professor and chair of the committee was leaving, and

20   they went opposite ways, and the professor turned and

21   called back and said, you know, I don‟t really believe in

22   ethics.   I believe in judgment.

23                   I would hope that we use, exercise good

24   judgment as we go through these documents, and I would


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   9
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   also hope that we don‟t get so formulaic about applying

 2   ethical rules that we can‟t proceed.    I notice that there

 3   are several things that we‟re going to discuss about

 4   evaluating and grant the ability of the institution.    I

 5   hope we don‟t get bogged down.    And, of course, I‟m only

 6   a member of the panel.    It‟s the judgment of the majority

 7   that will have to prevail, but I would hope we don‟t
 8   begin to assign numerical, formulaic and numerical

 9   values, so that we‟re trying to, you know, find out who

10   is a 90 and who is an 89.

11                   I think there‟s a risk for us to end up

12   getting trapped in our own deliberations by being very

13   formulaic.   That‟s my only comment.   If I can find the

14   place here, I believe I know where we stopped last time.

15                   Okay.    We have some minutes from the last

16   meeting.   Are there any corrections or additions?

17                   DR. JENNINGS:    Mr. Chairman, so on page

18   three of the draft minutes, the end of the first

19   paragraph, the last sentence, the first paragraph says,

20   “There was consensus from the Advisory Board members to

21   change the document throughout to indicate that indirect

22   costs may not exceed 25 percent of the direct costs.”

23                   I think we agreed that this should be

24   based on modified total direct costs, and that‟s an


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   10
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   important clarification.    I‟m not sure if that

 2   clarification appears elsewhere in the minutes, but it

 3   probably should be there.

 4                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Make that -- any

 5   changes on the remainder of page three, or four, or five?

 6                  DR. JERRY YANG:    Mr. Chairman, I also

 7   (indiscernible) paragraph three, four million dollars per
 8   year -- four million dollars for four years.      That would

 9   be a four million dollars for four years in the two

10   sentences --

11                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    You all got that?

12   So it should read four million for four years.

13                  DR. YANG:    Wish we had that in one year.

14                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Wish we did.

15                  DR. MYRON GENEL:     I‟m sorry.   What was

16   that again?

17                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Page three.

18                  DR. JENNINGS:    -- it should be four

19   million over four years and up to five million.

20                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay?     Page four.

21                  DR. JULIUS LANDWIRTH:    I‟m sorry.    I was

22   not here the last meeting, but --

23                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    You were sorely

24   missed.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   11
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. LANDWIRTH:     Thank you for that.   Under

 2   the bullet points that are following the summary of

 3   suggestions and recommendations, under Group Project

 4   Awards, second paragraph, substitute a substantial

 5   portion of the overall budget for at least 70 percent,

 6   was that supposed to appear in the draft today?     Did that

 7   change, because I didn‟t see it?
 8                   MS. NANCY RION:    I believe, if I may speak

 9   here, I did put that in, and I think it was the judgment

10   of Lillian (indiscernible) that that should not actually

11   be in the application, but it should be understood.      So

12   if the group would like to put that back in, that‟s your

13   call, obviously.

14                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    You‟ve got the same

15   four million for four years comment here, as well.       That

16   should say four million for four years.

17                   DR. JENNINGS:    Where are you,

18   Commissioner?

19                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    I‟m on the page of

20   the bullet numbers.   Page four.    I‟m about two-thirds of

21   the way down, under Group Project Awards.

22                   DR. JENNINGS:    Yes.

23                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Instead of saying

24   four million per year.   We‟re going to delete (coughing).


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   12
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   Okay?

 2                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   Now was there something

 3   about the phase that was included in a substantial

 4   portion of the overall budget?     That was the discussion,

 5   apparently, at the last meeting, was that there was about

 6   70 percent going in a certain direction, and the

 7   suggestion was that that be changed to a substantial
 8   portion of the overall budget, but it didn‟t appear, so I

 9   assume there was a judgment to remove it.

10                    DR. JENNINGS:    I think we simply removed

11   the numeral estimate all together from the application,

12   on the grounds that it‟s not necessary to tell the

13   applicants exactly how much money we‟re intending to

14   allocate, even if we have our own -- that, at least, is

15   my recollection.

16                    DR. GENEL:    That‟s right, but we did agree

17   that a substantial of the available funds would go for

18   these types of research.

19                    MR. SALTON:   In the new draft, on page

20   three, it says types of awards.     Again, there‟s some

21   reorganization here.    But if you look at the second

22   sentence --

23                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay.   That‟s part

24   of the reorganization issue.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  13
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   MR. SALTON:    Right.   It took a little

 2   fishing to find it, but it‟s there.

 3                   DR. WALLACK:    Two items.   One that, if he

 4   saw this, he‟d boot me in the pants, so I‟d better say

 5   it.   On other attendees, Bob Mandelkern, the spelling of

 6   the name is M-A-N-D-E-L-K-E-R-N.    You owe me one, Bob.

 7                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   Page --
 8                   DR. WALLACK:    I‟m not finished.   And then,

 9   secondly, in one other thing, I asked this question

10   before when we were discussing which draft to use today.

11   We had the discussion about the numbers of pages.     As I

12   said before, the seed grants and the senior investigator

13   grants.   I think this still reflects five pages and 10

14   pages, if I‟m not mistaken.

15                   And I don‟t have a recollection, a precise

16   recollection of where we left that, but I just wanted to

17   be sure, since we had had an extended conversation, that

18   that‟s the best judgment and recollection of the group.

19                   MR. SALTON:    My notes indicate we did not

20   change the page limitations for seed grants, nor for

21   investigator awards.

22                   DR. WALLACK:    Okay.   The only one we

23   changed as the project (coughing).

24                   DR. JENNINGS:    That was my recollection.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   14
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. WALLACK:    Okay.

 2                   DR. ERNESTO CANALIS:     Page three -- third

 3   paragraph, end of the third paragraph?       The application,

 4   why are these not defined?     We‟re having confusion in our

 5   (papers on microphone).

 6                   MR. SALTON:    Okay.    I have one change,

 7   Commissioner.   It‟s on the very last page.     It should be
 8   in favor of recessing and meeting not adjourned.

 9                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Any other additions

10   or corrections to the minutes?    If not, I‟ll entertain a

11   motion to accepting the minutes.

12                   MR. SALTON:    As amended.

13                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     As amended.   Any

14   discussion?

15                   DR. GENEL:    Excuse me.   On page three, the

16   third paragraph?

17                   DR. JENNINGS:    Of the minutes.

18                   DR. GENEL:    Of the minutes?    End of the

19   paragraph, reviewed by the Internal Review Board?

20   Institution, okay.

21                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Any further

22   discussion about the motion to accept the minutes, as

23   amended?   All in favor?

24                   ALL:   Aye.


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                15
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Opposed?   The

 2   minutes are accepted.   Now I think --

 3                   MR. SALTON:   I‟m going to interrupt for

 4   one second, because it‟s important that the committee

 5   keep in mind that, as a state agency, we have to record

 6   all votes, and if it‟s not unanimous, because I did not

 7   see all hands raised, so, again, on that vote, was
 8   everyone in favor?   Okay, so, that‟s unanimous, and it

 9   will be recorded in the minutes that it was unanimous.

10                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     At this time, I

11   think it would be favorable to ask if there is any public

12   comment, and, if there is public comment, I would ask

13   those individuals to limit their comment to five minutes.

14   Is there any?   We‟ll move on.   Is Stacy here?

15                   MS. STACY OWENS:   Yeah.

16                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Over in the corner.

17   Would you like to discuss the legal and ethical issues

18   now?

19                   MS. OWENS:    That would be fine.

20   Certainly.

21                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     I have six, for

22   those of you who are following along.

23                   DR. JENNINGS:    Item Five, I think.

24                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Update on Legal and


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 16
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   Ethical Considerations.

 2                    MS. OWENS:   In terms of legal

 3   considerations, Mary Ann Horn is primarily handling all

 4   the legal matters.   And, as you may recall, I‟m composing

 5   and putting together what‟s necessary for the ethical

 6   considerations in conjunction with the Office of State

 7   Ethics.
 8                    And I hate to say this, as I have probably

 9   two meetings ago, but, right now, it is still in their

10   hands.    And just to keep you apprised of how far it has

11   gotten, as you already know, we have drafted our inquiry.

12   They have actually, through their own interim assistant

13   counsel, drafted an opinion that had to be presented to

14   their Citizen Advisory Board on February 23rd.

15                    And I can say that, in terms of the draft,

16   things were looking pretty good for us, in terms of

17   voting and being able to maintain a quorum relative to

18   everyone‟s positions in their employment and, also, when

19   they sit on certain Boards.

20                    However, because there are different

21   members of the Citizen Advisory Boards that have their

22   own opinions, I guess you could say, and, also, feel the

23   need to familiarize themselves with the process, because

24   they, too, are brand new, the Office of State Ethics is


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                17
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   brand new, the Citizen Advisory Board is brand new, and

 2   this was actually the first meeting they had, the first

 3   decision they have to render, they‟re novices, I guess

 4   you could say, essentially, they want to revisit.

 5                   They want to familiarize themselves with

 6   the laws.   They want to familiarize themselves with their

 7   own rights with respect to flexibility, in terms of how
 8   they can draft this opinion.   So the initial draft that

 9   we saw that appeared to be quite promising will probably

10   not be the end product.   We don‟t know what will be

11   forthcoming, however, the next meeting is on March 30th,

12   and, in the interim, they have agreed, meaning the

13   Citizens Advisory Board, to have their own work group to

14   review the opinion that is before them now.

15                   And I guess the impression that I got was

16   they simply wanted to change the tone to reflect their

17   own opinion.   They cannot change the law, as it stands

18   today, as we all know, but they certainly wanted to

19   change the tone.   They wanted to revisit some of the past

20   advisory opinions relative to similar incidents that have

21   occurred in the past, and they certainly don‟t want to

22   take on a tone that is similar to the past State Ethics

23   Commission.

24                   So I don‟t know if that gives you any idea


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 18
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   of where it stands, but, right now, we are still in

 2   limbo.   But, hopefully, on March 30th, they will come to

 3   a decision, which is simply next week.

 4                   DR. CANALIS:    And it can influence this

 5   committee?

 6                   MS. OWENS:    It can, in terms of voting and

 7   recusing oneself.
 8                   DR. CANALIS:    Only on that?

 9                   MS. OWENS:    At this point, yes.

10                   DR. CANALIS:    But they can take additional

11   roles?

12                   MS. OWENS:    Well we have another issue on

13   the table relative to some of the terminology that‟s in

14   the act, itself, and that issue has been taken to the

15   Attorney General‟s office.     They‟re separate and unique,

16   however, one could trump the other, and so despite what

17   may be found by the Citizens Advisory Board through the

18   Office of State Ethics, whatever the Attorney General‟s

19   Office comes up with relative to that language, that

20   could trump their decision.

21                   Are there any other questions?

22                   DR. GENEL:    Well let me ask you something.

23   We‟re in the process of finalizing the whole process and

24   an application procedure.    If the Ethics Committee


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                19
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   decides that this group is improperly constituted, what

 2   happens to the work they‟ve done?

 3                   MS. OWENS:   I don‟t foresee that as the

 4   issue.   I think, right now, the focus is relative to the

 5   voting and the granting of the monies.   In terms of

 6   drafting the proposed application, you have no idea who

 7   is going -- you have an idea of who is going to apply,
 8   but it‟s so farfetched, in terms of influence.

 9                   DR. GENEL:   I understand.   Okay.

10                   MS. OWENS:   Anybody else?

11                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I think, Mike,

12   that‟s a good point to clarify.   Although there have been

13   some conversations about the constitution of this

14   committee, I don‟t think that that‟s a current issue.

15   And, of course, with some guidance from Stacy and some of

16   our other attorneys, we‟re simply we‟re following the law

17   of the State of Connecticut, as interpreted by the

18   distinguished Attorney General.

19                   So we‟re not really in a position to

20   discuss whether it was good law, or not quite as good, or

21   even better than we thought, or whether we don‟t like the

22   concept.   So the ethical considerations are really more

23   about how we conduct business -- wasn‟t here last time,

24   but what I said is this is a very distinguished group of


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     20
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   ethicists and senior scientists and people who have

 2   brilliant, brilliant minds.      I think we can conduct

 3   ourselves in such a way to not disadvantage or advantage

 4   any particular group or sub-group as we move forward.

 5   Thank you.

 6                    MS. OWENS:    Thank you.

 7                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Now we‟re down to
 8   what is number six on what is the agenda that‟s in front

 9   of me.    We‟re back up to four.     I‟m sorry.   I did that,

10   didn‟t I?    Now I believe what we‟re going to do is

11   continue to work on the application.        Now do we have to

12   do something parliamentary?

13                    MR. SALTON:   No.    I think we‟re just going

14   to go through and do kind of a markup.       We‟re just going

15   to get comments at this point, as opposed to making a

16   decision, so there‟s no parliamentary basis.

17                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Okay, so, we‟re

18   going to go back over to where we stopped last time?

19                    MR. SALTON:   Right.

20                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     And are the

21   structural changes significant enough that we won‟t miss

22   things?

23                    DR. JENNINGS:     I don‟t think so.    I think

24   it will be fine for us to just pick up at the point from


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    21
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   page four, where it says in red, make a discussion, and

 2   then just take it down from there.      There‟s no reason to

 3   question that, right?

 4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Are you all right

 5   with that?    I‟m on page four.

 6                    DR. GENEL:    The red under number four at

 7   the top of the page, is that additional language?
 8                    DR. JENNINGS:    That‟s new language added

 9   by Charles.   I guess that would be me.    So, obviously,

10   those five words should be deleted, but the other red

11   words, proposal should include an explanation of the need

12   for core, along with estimates for likely capacity and

13   usage.   I recommend that that section should stay.

14   That‟s why it‟s staying red.

15                    DR. GENEL:    That‟s fine with me.

16                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    You okay with that?

17                    DR. GENEL:    Yeah.

18                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   This brings

19   us down to hybrid applications and linked applications.

20                    DR. LENSCH:   We actually decided, since I

21   paid the toll, that Charles would lead the discussion.

22                    DR. JENNINGS:    I was busy driving.   That

23   was a quorum, right?    Anyway, so this is the question of

24   hybrid applications, so you recall that last time we


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                               22
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   agreed that we would provide funding for collaborative

 2   projects, awards, and we would also provide funding for

 3   core facilities, the purpose of which will be to make

 4   technology widely available to anybody at a qualified

 5   institution doing stem cell research.

 6                  So then the question is should we also

 7   allow private applications, which would contain both
 8   program elements and, also, core facilities?   So the

 9   distinct thing about a core is that it‟s open -- that the

10   facilities are available not only to the participants in

11   a specific program, but, also, to other researchers doing

12   stem cell research, potentially for a fee.

13                  I mean it could be free, but it could also

14   charge some sort of fee to cover its operating costs.

15   And one can imagine that ambitious proposal might include

16   elements of both of those things.   You might want, for

17   instance, as part of a large collaborative program, to

18   acquire some equipment, but you might want to make that

19   equipment more generally available to support not only

20   the program members, but, also, other people who might

21   make use of it for stem cell research.   So that‟s the

22   rationale for having these hybrid applications.

23                  It‟s possible and it‟s probably likely,

24   but if we‟re creating core facilities that are intended


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 23
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   to be widely used, some individual proposals, whether

 2   they be seed grants or whether they be grants to

 3   established investigators, some of those individual

 4   investigators might want to submit proposals that are in

 5   some way linked to or perhaps predicated on the

 6   availability of core facilities, so those two things

 7   could -- that linkage could just be noted in a cover
 8   letter to the application being submitted as a

 9   consideration in parallel, just to make sure that the

10   left hand knows what the right hand is doing when we make

11   our decisions, as to what should be granted.

12                  So that was the proposal, and I tried to

13   summarize the arguments for why we might want to allow

14   hybrid applications.   I think we, at our last meeting, we

15   agreed on caps of five million for core facilities and

16   for program rewards, five million over a period of up to

17   four years.

18                  My own personal view is that hybrid

19   applications should be subject to the same limit.    In

20   other words, what we should not do is to say a hybrid

21   application can consist of a five million dollar program

22   grant plus a five million dollar core facility, thereby

23   creating a 10 million dollar hybrid application.    That,

24   to me, is too high a cap, given that our total budget for


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     24
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the first two years is only 20 million.

 2                     So my own view, which I think is up for

 3   committee discussion, is that we should have the same

 4   limit for all three categories, that is five million,

 5   whether it‟s a program grant, or a core grant, or a

 6   hybrid that contains elements of the above.

 7                     DR. LENSCH:    Just as a point of
 8   correction, we have decided a four million cap.

 9                     DR. JENNINGS:    I‟m sorry.

10                     DR. YANG:   -- whose grant, core facility

11   grant or hybrid, in each category on the five million

12   dollar cap?

13                     DR. CANALIS:    I‟m very confused, and I

14   don‟t see the advantage of a hybrid application, to be

15   perfectly honest.    I think, by statute, any qualified

16   investigator has access to core facilities, and that is

17   stated under number four.       So we are adding an element of

18   confusion here.    What are we going to do with a hybrid

19   application, and what is quality purpose of a hybrid

20   application?   I just don‟t see the purpose.       I don‟t see

21   it.   I mean somebody needs to explain this to me.

22                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Well I‟m also

23   confused about it.    You‟re a smart man.       Maybe you can

24   explain to me.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  25
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. CANALIS:   I can‟t.

 2                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    About a core

 3   facility.   I have some problem.   This is not the kind of

 4   science I do.   I‟m a clinician.   My understanding would

 5   be, if we have a core facility, and let‟s just say the

 6   core facility is at X, Y, Z University and I call up

 7   Ernie some day and say, you know, how‟s things, and he
 8   says it‟s kind of slow over here, and I say, well, let‟s

 9   go to the core facility and do some stuff, and so Ernie

10   says, oh, I got rained out in my golf game, all right,

11   I‟ll go, that would, to me, pardon my being facetious,

12   but, to me, that would imply that there is an unused part

13   of it, of a core facility.

14                   Wouldn‟t you be using, something this

15   expensive, wouldn‟t you be using all of it most of the

16   time, so if Ernie and I show up and say we‟d like to do

17   something here in the facility, they‟d say there‟s no

18   time for you.   We‟re busy here.   Maybe you can clarify

19   that for me.

20                   DR. CANALIS:   Okay.   I‟m much more

21   familiar with NIH style core grants, so there are cores,

22   and those cores provide a service.     So the three of you

23   ask for a service and you line up and those services are

24   pretty busy, so you say, Ernie, I want this to be done


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                               26
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   for me, and you say, yes, Commissioner, you‟re going to

 2   have to wait turn.   So a core grant, the way I understood

 3   in the previous discussions, was that there would be a

 4   core grant at a major university in Connecticut, and a

 5   qualified investigator, including you or myself, could

 6   request use of that core grant.

 7                  So if Ernie wants the core grant to
 8   prepare a given -- or given cell line, or a given

 9   something, so calls the core director and says, listen,

10   I‟d like you to assist me with this, so the director of

11   that core will provide that to you.

12                  So because, under number four, we have

13   already defined that any qualified investigator will have

14   access to these cores, I think the hybrid is going to

15   just create a lot of confusion and could create, also,

16   territories and boundaries.   Anybody in the State of

17   Connecticut could request access to the core.

18                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   So access is --

19                  DR. CANALIS:   To a core service.

20                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   To the service,

21   yeah, rather than having you and I show up and say we

22   need some space here and they go we don‟t have any space.

23                  DR. CANALIS:   That is not the purpose of a

24   core, in general terms, but NIH guidelines, you might


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  27
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1   want to have this purpose here.

 2                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Understood.   Thank

 3   you.

 4                   DR. WALLACK:    I don‟t recall that the

 5   hybrid aspect of the application was one of the original

 6   parts of the discussion.

 7                   DR. JENNINGS:   It wasn‟t.
 8                   DR. WALLACK:    Having said that, I frankly

 9   think that the idea of the hybrid application is a very

10   good one.   I think that it offers a positive statement in

11   the area that addresses the stimulation of collaboration,

12   which, to me, also means a great opportunity for

13   oversight from that institution, and it also, in my mind,

14   gives the institution, and I could be wrong, because, as

15   with you, I don‟t do this kind of research, I think that

16   it could give the institution a better idea from the

17   aspect of flexibility in putting together an application.

18                   For those reasons, I would support this

19   and defer to the idea of -- for the reason of further

20   discussion, I would move this in the form of a motion for

21   an amendment.

22                   DR. CANALIS:    I still do not see the

23   advantage you have.   There is nothing here to prevent an

24   institution to submit multiple applications --


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     28
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. WALLACK:   I think --

 2                     DR. CANALIS:   -- you could fund one and

 3   not fund the other.

 4                     DR. WALLACK:   I think --

 5                     DR. CANALIS:   Can I finish?

 6                     DR. WALLACK:   Sure.

 7                     DR. CANALIS:   Okay, otherwise, there‟s no
 8   point for me to speak.    If I can‟t finish, I can‟t.      If

 9   they are linked, then it becomes a single application

10   that you may fund or not.    So let‟s say you do not fund

11   that application, so all the components of that

12   application (coughing) unfunded, whereas they become a

13   separate group, you may elect to fund a core grant, you

14   may elect to fund a program project out of that

15   institution, or you may not.

16                     Here, you‟re really locking yourself in a

17   position that it can become untenable, and, because of

18   that, I‟m opposed to it.

19                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Let me see if I

20   catch what you‟re saying, is that with a link grant, you

21   either get all of it or none of it.

22                     DR. CANALIS:   You could, and we haven‟t

23   discussed that.    That can become a real headache.

24                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Understood.   Thank


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   29
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   you.

 2                     DR. GENEL:   Ernie, if I‟m correct, it is

 3   not unusual when program projects are reviewed for

 4   portions of the program project to not be funded.

 5                     DR. CANALIS:   You could elect not to fund

 6   a project, but, you know, we already have program

 7   projects.    I think you‟re adding an additional element of
 8   complexity here that is unnecessary.     The question I have

 9   for the group is what is the advantage of a link

10   application when you have all the other components and

11   you have much more flexibility to fund or not fund a

12   given component.    Here, you‟re creating a headache, in my

13   view, but that‟s my opinion.

14                     DR. GENEL:   Well let me provide just

15   another perspective, and that is that the essence, as I

16   understand the legislation, was to create an

17   infrastructure for a research environment in Connecticut

18   that did not exist for stem cell research.

19                     Now the reality is there are only two

20   institutions in the state that have the capacity to do

21   this.

22                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I think that‟s a

23   fair statement.

24                     DR. GENEL:   So the reality is that if the


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  30
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   institutions feel it‟s in their best interest to submit a

 2   hybrid application, if you will, that includes various

 3   elements of three and four, I think that would be

 4   entirely consistent with what the legislation was

 5   intended to do.

 6                     So I don‟t see, necessarily, that that‟s

 7   inconsistence, providing we retain the capacity not to
 8   fund portions of that application if the peer review

 9   process indicated that these were not meritorious.

10                     DR. JENNINGS:   Mr. Chairman, if I could

11   suggest one particular scenario in which the hybrid

12   application might be advantageous?     If you have a group

13   of investigators who want to conduct a joint program

14   project and they need some large expensive piece of

15   equipment that is not available, they include the cost of

16   that in their grant.

17                     Now they‟re probably not going to need

18   that piece of equipment 24/7, so then, to accomplish

19   their goal, we‟d have to fund them to buy the piece of

20   equipment, yet, if it‟s not going to be used constantly,

21   there may be advantages to also allowing it to be, as it

22   were, rented out to other uses and provide a core service

23   around that piece of equipment.

24                     From my perspective, that would make the


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   31
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   grant more attractive, because it will tend to promote a

 2   level of collaboration, as Milton was saying, that might

 3   not otherwise exist.   That‟s one specific scenario in

 4   which I think there‟s an advantage here.

 5                   DR. WALLACK:   Well I‟d like to go back.

 6   If I might, through the chair, move that we accept as an

 7   amendment the concept of the hybrid application?
 8                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I don‟t know.    I‟m

 9   sorry.   I don‟t know what accepting the concept --

10                   DR. WALLACK:   Well, in other words --

11                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We‟re either going

12   to do it, or we‟re not going to do it.

13                   DR. WALLACK:   Well that‟s what I‟m saying,

14   what I‟m suggesting, just to move the process, because I

15   think we have to be able to go to the next point.

16                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Yeah.

17                   DR. WALLACK:   Obviously, some of us are in

18   favor of this, I‟m one of them, so that what I‟m

19   suggesting is that, as with all of the amendments, I move

20   to make an amendment that would include this concept in

21   the application process, in the application.

22                   DR. CANALIS:   I‟m opposed to that, because

23   then we‟re going to vote on block, so if somebody is not

24   in agreement with this, this -- into the picture.      So I


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  32
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   don‟t want to -- that we‟re going to vote on block and

 2   this is going to be included, because I‟m opposed to it.

 3   Sir, you‟re going to have to provide us advice on this.

 4                   MR. SALTON:    Well he has the right to make

 5   a motion.   There‟s no second at this point, so unless

 6   there‟s a second, it doesn‟t go anywhere.    I think that

 7   the question, which I think you‟re raising, is whether or
 8   not the process the committee is trying to achieve at

 9   this point is to develop a (coughing) of this particular

10   document.   If you have things that are not in consensus,

11   when we come to the adoption, you may opt certain things

12   in or out at that time.

13                   DR. CANALIS:    And you‟ll guide us?

14                   MR. SALTON:    Yeah.

15                   DR. CANALIS:    Okay.

16                   MR. SALTON:    For example, there may be a

17   motion to adopt it in a certain status, and one member of

18   the committee says, well, you know, I‟m going to move to

19   remove Section 7B, the third paragraph, I want that out,

20   and that will be tested at that time.

21                   DR. JENNINGS:   That‟s what we need to do,

22   right?

23                   MR. SALTON:    Right.

24                   DR. JENNINGS:   Okay.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   33
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    MR. SALTON:    Right now, the committee has

 2   a motion that‟s not been seconded, and that motion will

 3   die, unless there‟s a second.

 4                    DR. JENNINGS:   Okay.   I will second it.

 5                    MR. SALTON:    You‟ll second it?   Okay.

 6                    DR. JENNINGS:   So the motion is to include

 7   -- I‟ll second the motion that I think I‟m seconding, is
 8   that we include language along the lines of what‟s here,

 9   the first paragraph, to permit hybrid applications.         And

10   I‟m seconding a motion that we include that as part of

11   the draft, recognizing that the draft, in its entirety,

12   is going to be subject to a down vote at the end of

13   today‟s discussion.

14                    DR. CANALIS:    Can you explain the dollar

15   limits again?

16                    DR. JENNINGS:   I‟m sorry --

17                    DR. WALLACK:    I think there‟s been

18   discussion -- may I, through the chair?      There‟s been

19   discussion five, six, seven million dollars attached to

20   this.

21                    DR. JENNINGS:   I would second the motion.

22                    DR. CANALIS:    So the total hybrid couldn‟t

23   be more than five million?

24                    DR. JENNINGS:   That is the proposal, yeah.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 34
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. CANALIS:    So you could have a core

 2   that is five million, and the hybrid, itself, is five

 3   million?

 4                   DR. JENNINGS:   Yes.

 5                   MR. SALTON:    That‟s a core hybrid.

 6                   DR. CANALIS:    I‟m totally confused.

 7                   DR. JENNINGS:   You could have a hybrid
 8   application for a total of five million dollars, which

 9   would include elements of those project and core

10   facilities.   Excuse me?

11                   DR. CANALIS:    You could have a separate

12   application for a core?

13                   DR. JENNINGS:   You could, but you might

14   have a harder case if you‟re applying for two separate,

15   yes.   There‟s no limit to the number of applications we

16   can receive, but, obviously, there‟s a limit to the

17   number we can fund.

18                   DR. GENEL:    Mr. Chairman?

19                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Yes, Mike.

20                   DR. GENEL:    I‟m a little confused, too.

21   If I were given an option of submitting a core facilities

22   grant for five million and a program project for four

23   million, or a hybrid containing both components for a

24   limit of five million, why would I submit the hybrid?


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 35
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. CANALIS:   It would make no sense.

 2   That‟s what I‟ve been trying to tell you.    It makes no

 3   sense.

 4                   DR. GENEL:    So the hybrid either is the

 5   sum of what we allow for the core and the program

 6   project, or it makes no sense, or it makes no sense at

 7   all, because there‟s no incentive to apply for it.
 8                   COURT REPORTER:   One second.

 9                   DR. GENEL:    So, conceptually, I support

10   the notion of a hybrid grant, but I don‟t think it makes

11   any sense, when one can apply for two separate

12   applications that total nine million, to limit it to five

13   million.   That does not make any sense.

14                   DR. CANALIS:   Furthermore, when it comes

15   out of the same institution for the same group of

16   investigators, they‟re already linked.     It‟s already a

17   given.   This makes absolutely no sense to me.

18                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Willie?

19                   DR. LENSCH:    Mr. Chair, Willie Lensch,

20   Children‟s Hospital.   I‟ve spent some time thinking about

21   this, also, and trying to understand what advantage there

22   is to a hybrid application, as opposed to a separate core

23   and a separate project.   And I think that the difference

24   here may be actually a fine shade, but I do see a


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                36
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   difference, and, to me, the difference is between

 2   building projects and building programs.     You know, basic

 3   science is curiosity driven.    A group of investigators

 4   will get together and apply for a grant based on what

 5   fascinates them.    An institution or a department may want

 6   to build more of a program.     And I guess it‟s my feeling,

 7   sitting and listening to this discussion, that that‟s
 8   what a hybrid grant does, is it allows flexibility for a

 9   more coordinated approach to building a program around a

10   common goal.

11                    Now the subject of how much should be

12   funded is a separate one, but that‟s my understanding of

13   where the real need of a hybrid application is.     It

14   allows an institution or a program to say we want to

15   develop an area of expertise, and then, with that thought

16   on the table, they can approach their faculty and see who

17   wants to join on.   It‟s more of a talk down approach to

18   building something that didn‟t exist before, as opposed

19   to a bunch of investigators getting together that are

20   fascinated by a topic and applying for a grant on it.

21                    DR. CANALIS:   It wouldn‟t even get funded.

22   People who are curious, they‟re not necessarily research

23   professionals.   It wouldn‟t even make it to this

24   committee.   Frankly, programs are determined by


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 37
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   universities.   Let the universities determine the

 2   program.   We‟re making life very complicated.   We‟ll be

 3   here until 8:00 tonight, because this makes absolutely no

 4   sense.

 5                   DR. WALLACK:   Again, I don‟t see the

 6   confusion, but the institution has the opportunity to

 7   move in one of the other directions, so that if, in fact,
 8   it‟s in their best interest to move through a process of

 9   wanting funding for the core, or the program, as opposed

10   to the hybrid, all we‟ve done is we‟ve given them an

11   extra opportunity, another opportunity to do the kind of

12   thing that Willie just alluded to, and that, from my

13   perspective, also, to help to build the collaboration.

14                   There‟s a statement from us, actually,

15   that we are really interested and then coming together.

16   To put it another way, away from the word program, under

17   common things, and I think there‟s some strength to that.

18   I don‟t think it‟s a problem to the institution.     They

19   can choose to go this route, or they can choose not to.

20                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Let me just give you

21   a couple of thoughts.   They‟re mine, and they‟re from my

22   reading of, from my understanding of the field and the

23   progress that it‟s making, and my understanding of what

24   the legislative attempt is is to move the stem cell lines


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                38
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   along and to produce products or intellectual property

 2   that benefits the State of Connecticut.     If you read

 3   through the law or get the intent of it, I don‟t think

 4   that they‟re going to give us 100 million dollars because

 5   we‟re good guys and scientists.

 6                   To me, the members of this panel would

 7   have to think for awhile about is helping somebody start
 8   a new program from scratch going along with what the

 9   legislative body seems to have wanted us to do?    I think

10   we have to look at programs that may encourage somebody

11   to start doing this research when it‟s a very rapidly

12   moving field.   As Malcolm Forbes said, it‟s carpe diem.

13                   If we don‟t move along with this at a

14   reasonable pace, then we‟ll fall behind.    And as -- Simon

15   and other people have said, the intellectual resources

16   for these projects are limited.   From my standpoint, I‟m

17   not sure that funding a grant that would look to put a

18   program together with respect for a new applicant, or

19   somebody who is not really involved in it, is the intent.

20                   And, once again, this whole program is

21   here not to help people do research and not to find

22   worthy folks to do research.   It‟s here to work with stem

23   cell lines that you can‟t work with out of federal funds.

24   It‟s not here to provide shortfall funding for projects


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 39
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   that you can‟t get funded from CVC(phonetic) or the

 2   national body because of the administrative prohibitions

 3   against using additional human stem cell lines.

 4                  DR. LANDWIRTH:   I‟m trying to seek some

 5   more clarification.   Help me understand what kind of

 6   research opportunities might be lost or jeopardized if we

 7   did not have that category in hybrid.     What does it
 8   accommodate that otherwise wouldn‟t be?

 9                  DR. CANALIS:    Nothing.

10                  DR. JENNINGS:    I would argue that it

11   potentially accommodates an ability -- it accommodates

12   the possibility of promoting lighter collaboration around

13   core facilities.

14                  DR. LANDWIRTH:   We‟ve defined -- the core

15   group is already defined as funding facilities that an

16   individual lab couldn‟t afford, and that‟s a priority,

17   and, therefore, requires collaboration.

18                  DR. JENNINGS:    It simply gives

19   institutions more flexibility to put together programs

20   that incorporate that element to further that goal.

21   That, in my mind, is the major argument, that it gives

22   institutions a little more flexibility to shape the

23   program in way that makes sense to them.    I think we‟re

24   all on the same page, in terms of the ultimate intent of


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                40
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   this legislation.   I don‟t think there‟s a debate there.

 2                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Jerry?

 3                   DR. YANG:   Mr. Chairman, I heard

 4   essentially everyone‟s comments and have different views,

 5   and I‟d like to call off really what I mentioned about

 6   the 18 months, a compromise.   The reason I‟m saying that,

 7   you know, all the years I was a director for a center, is
 8   the university assigned a center 100 percent so that your

 9   core center director have one so as a researcher, you are

10   the one that was selected as the coordinator -- one grant

11   only for university -- of course -- when university for

12   program grant -- whether we concur or not, we‟re working

13   together -- if you‟re not working together, you work with

14   another group -- that too I think will end the confusion.

15   If the -- were to let‟s say have control for one grant

16   only for 10 million dollars.   Obviously, you have a lot

17   of searching for person -- researcher -- if you do not

18   select him. So we need the right to the university to

19   make a selection with one grant and researchers -- the

20   committee will have no function.   For that reason, I

21   suggest we have really, 50 percent control by the

22   university -- 50 percent will be for the fair

23   competition.   The good reason for the 50 percent for the

24   university core institutional grant or a hybrid grant --


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                41
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   is that -- due to a good point -- that is we can use that

 2   funding for recruiting star scientists.

 3                   If you do individual applications -- I

 4   don‟t really know if you can include that.   No, maybe you

 5   cannot.   With that question aside, at least the

 6   university can quote them that, providing core facility.

 7   The other thing for the individual team grant --
 8   coordinate a lot of scientists themselves.   -- was the

 9   leader -- present chancellor or dean cannot -- you have

10   to work together.   You cannot order them that.    The rule

11   is scientifically -- .   If we do one grant only for one

12   university, you will -- conditions.   I think committe

13   have no function.   Number two, researches will be happy

14   about this.   Number three, I think -- basically, we will

15   have no job to do -- 10 million dollars to one university

16   and the other 10 to the other university -- no fair

17   competition no more -- .   Obviously, all the universities

18   -- not too may universities are happy, also.   Logical

19   preferred competition at least 50 percent.   That‟s why --

20   I think, I mentioned the five million-dollar limit for

21   hybrid makes sense.

22                   We if go beyond that, I don‟t think it

23   makes sense -- I think Dr. -- now it‟s a question how do

24   you really combine that.   To answer the question of how


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   42
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   do you combine a core facility grant and a group grant, I

 2   have to say, when we‟re talking about core facility last

 3   time, we only discuss one issue, and that is -- component

 4   -- for human embryonic stem cell research -- that is a

 5   human embryonic stem cell core facility of up to 5

 6   million dollar cost.   We did not talk about all the total

 7   costs.    How can we really combine them for each
 8   university for different cores -- in that sense, there is

 9   a core for human embryonic stem cells, only one core for

10   the whole state.   That‟s the five million dollar limit.

11                    If we want to combine all the core

12   facilities -- half a million dollars or one million

13   dollars -- the team grant of four million dollars still

14   within a five million dollar limit.

15                    In that case, I think at least we‟re not

16   doing something unfair to everyone.     That‟s really my

17   comment.   Last one I should mention to you, the

18   institution of hybrid one is not really matching funding

19   -- now they have in California, now they have in New

20   Jersey.    We are setting an example in the whole State of

21   Connecticut.   Let‟s give it a test, with a 50 percent --

22   controlled by the university -- the other 50 percent fair

23   condition in the whole state.

24                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay.   Any further


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    43
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   discussion?   There is a motion on the floor.      My

 2   understanding is, if this is accepted as an amendment, we

 3   will have a chance to vote at the end on the amendment as

 4   a group, is that correct?

 5                     MR. SALTON:    Right.   Right now, the motion

 6   is to include the hybrid application language in the

 7   final application.    Were you limiting yourself, Dr.
 8   Jennings, to just this first paragraph?       Because there

 9   are actually two paragraphs in this section.       You mention

10   only the first.

11                     DR. JENNINGS:   I don‟t have strong fears

12   about the second.

13                     MR. SALTON:    Right now, the motion is just

14   limited to the first, unless we hear something later on.

15                     DR. CANALIS:    The five million dollar

16   limit is part of the motion, yes or no?

17                     DR. JENNINGS:   Yes.    It is part of the

18   motion.

19                     MR. SALTON:    Okay.

20                     DR. JENNINGS:   And let‟s, for simplicity,

21   I propose to remove the second paragraph, because all it

22   really is is --

23                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    So we‟re voting on

24   the first paragraph.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 44
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. CANALIS:    If these were to be

 2   approved, you would put a ceiling on five million dollar

 3   on a hybrid application?

 4                   MR. SALTON:    That‟s the current motion.

 5   And then, at some point, hopefully at the end of the

 6   meeting, we‟ll have a chance to vote on this entire newly

 7   marked up application and vote it up or down with this
 8   language included.

 9                   DR. JENNINGS:   And just before, if I could

10   just add one comment?    What would be the incentive for

11   good investigators or a university to apply for a four

12   million dollar program grant as opposed to a five million

13   dollar limit hybrid?    And one answer might be that they

14   simply don‟t want to commit to providing a core facility

15   service for any stem cell researcher in the State of

16   Connecticut, and that‟s a legitimate decision.

17                   DR. CANALIS:    I thought the spirit was for

18   people to collaborate.   You just destroyed the spirit

19   with that statement.    Wait a minute.   What you‟re saying

20   now is you‟re allowing a hybrid to scoot over people from

21   the program.   That‟s the way the statement came across,

22   and that‟s totally against the spirit, so I just want to

23   make sure that I understand.

24                   DR. JENNINGS:   Perhaps I may not have


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   45
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   expressed myself clearly.

 2                    DR. CANALIS:    I‟m sorry.

 3                    DR. JENNINGS:   Apologize if I didn‟t make

 4   it clear.   A hybrid application includes elements of the

 5   core facility, which is specifically designed to

 6   encourage --

 7                    DR. CANALIS:    That‟s part of the program
 8   project.    That‟s already in the program project, so,

 9   again, you‟re contradicting yourself, and, again, I

10   continue to have difficulties with this.

11                    DR. WALLACK:    Bob, is the question called?

12                    MR. SALTON:    Yeah.   I just want to get

13   clarification, because we‟re going to --

14                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     -- figure out how

15   we‟re voting and what we‟re voting on.

16                    MR. SALTON:    Okay, so, the vote is on

17   adding the first paragraph under hybrid application on

18   the current draft, not the second, and then I assume,

19   basically, if you look under core facilities, we would

20   add the same sentence that‟s in the second paragraph.

21   Request that funding, and it would say for a hybrid

22   facility award, may be up to five million dollars,

23   including indirect costs, and may be expended over four

24   years.   Do you want that same category?


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     46
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    MS. RION:   And continue, in terms of the

 2   length of the application?

 3                    DR. JENNINGS:   Right.

 4                    MR. SALTON:    Is it a 20-page application?

 5                    DR. JENNINGS:   It should be 50, because it

 6   may be as complex as a group project award.

 7                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     We clear?   Okay.
 8   You want to vote now?

 9                    MR. SALTON:    Only paragraph one.

10                    DR. LENSCH:    But, also, including a five

11   million dollar limit?

12                    MR. SALTON:    Right.   Five million dollars

13   spent over four years.

14                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Everybody

15   understand?    All in favor, would you signify by name?

16   Genel, Jennings, abstain.

17                    DR. CANALIS:    Opposed, Canalis.

18                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Galvin, no.

19                    DR. LENSCH:    Lensch, yes.

20                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Wallack, yes.   The

21   motion is carried.

22                    DR. WALLACK:    Can I have just a

23   clarification?    And if you want to put it off, that‟s

24   fine.    It was just mentioned over a four-year period.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  47
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   Where did we come up with the concept, the idea, I don‟t

 2   recall this, of, I know it‟s in language that we‟ve

 3   created, the spending it over a four-year period?     Why

 4   did you reference that?

 5                    MR. SALTON:    I reference that only because

 6   that‟s the same language that was in the core facilities

 7   division, so I just wanted to get, for the purposes of
 8   doing -- I mean it seemed to me the committee‟s intention

 9   was to adopt the same --

10                    DR. WALLACK:   That‟s fine, but --

11                    MR. SALTON:    Where did it originally come

12   from?    This came from the committee.   I had nothing to do

13   with it.

14                    DR. WALLACK:   And if you think I‟m out of

15   order, that‟s fine.    I‟ll get it from you privately or

16   later in the meeting, but rationale for the four years,

17   what‟s the rationale for that?

18                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    I don‟t remember.

19                    DR. WALLACK:   Does anybody have a

20   recollection?

21                    DR. CANALIS:   I have an explanation, if

22   you wish, although I do not recall if it was discussed.

23   We‟ll have to go back to the minutes.     The average length

24   of an NIH grant is four years, and that is what it is.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                48
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1   And that might have been used as an average, as a

 2   rationale, and all your other grants are four-year in

 3   length.   A link application should be the same length as

 4   the various components.

 5                   You have program projects for four years.

 6   You have core facilities up to four years, so you have

 7   the length should be the same length, otherwise, it makes
 8   no sense.

 9                   DR. WALLACK:    I understand the answer.   I

10   just don‟t recall.   I remember, back in the first meeting

11   that we had in January, that something came up about a

12   four-year opportunity to spend the money, and, somehow or

13   other, that worked itself into the language.    I don‟t

14   recall that we specifically, you know, did that by motion

15   or anything.

16                   It may be my own recollection that I‟m

17   questioning, but if anybody has an explanation -- I mean

18   does anybody have a recollection?

19                   DR. JENNINGS:   My recollection is that we

20   simply agreed the four years was a sensible time horizon

21   on which to plan and fund a fairly ambitious project.      We

22   don‟t have money to fund, you know, five and 10 years

23   out.   Two years is too short to really execute a large

24   scale project of the type that we would like to encourage


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    49
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   in four years.

 2                    Now there may have been something more

 3   specific than that and I don‟t recall.

 4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Are we all right

 5   with this, because we‟re really bogged down here?        Our

 6   speed today is glacial.      And if we‟re ever going to get

 7   through this document -- are we resolved with this?
 8                    DR. CANALIS:    I‟m okay.

 9                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     I think your

10   statements, I think the four years, I think Charles‟

11   statement makes sense to me.     Jerry?

12                    DR. YANG:    Mr. Chairman, just one

13   clarification.   The four years is it up to four years?

14   When you‟re dealing on core, you don‟t need a four years.

15   Really, two years -- rule it up to four years.      You

16   justify that you -- in two years, three years, four

17   years, one year -- justification.     Now you‟re saying one

18   million dollars per year for the hybrid grant.      It‟s just

19   within four years, up to four years.      You cannot say five

20   years, 10 years.

21                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Everyone all right

22   with that?   Okay, let‟s move on.

23                    DR. JENNINGS:    And does it fall back to

24   me?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 50
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   You know you‟ve used

 2   the King‟s English so well, so we‟d like you to continue.

 3   You know, George Bernard Shaw says that two people

 4   separated by a common language.

 5                    DR. JENNINGS:   Okay, so, the selection

 6   criteria we‟ve added, proposed to add Item F, which is

 7   alignment with funding -- from time to time by this
 8   committee, simply because that gives us the flexibility

 9   to rethink if and when we may need to do so.      I don‟t

10   think either Willie or I have anything specific in mind.

11   It‟s just a contingency.

12                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   (Coughing)

13   clarification.   The scientific merit and high ethical

14   standards, is that the same as the recommendations of the

15   Peer Review Committee, and, if not, aren‟t you going to

16   take the recommendations of the Peer Review Committee

17   under --

18                    DR. JENNINGS:   These are selection

19   criteria -- specify who is going to impose the criteria.

20   Scientific merits and high ethical standards.     You‟re

21   right.   We actually did edit that language slightly,

22   because it seemed redundant, and, I‟m sorry, I should

23   have flagged that.   I forgot to do so.   Does anybody have

24   a copy of the original text?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    51
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. WALLACK:   The original --

 2                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I‟m going to make a

 3   statement here.    I don‟t know how to say this very

 4   nicely, except it‟s insulting to think that the people‟s

 5   brains sitting around this table would select something

 6   that did not have scientific merit or conform to high

 7   ethical standards.
 8                     Personally, I‟m offended that I would have

 9   to be reminded of that.    I mean is there anybody here

10   that doesn‟t have high ethical standards?      Down here, it

11   says that we have to review all proposals with respect to

12   ethical and scientific merit.      Well how else would we

13   evaluate these things?

14                     DR. LANDWIRTH:   That‟s an issue of

15   accountability.

16                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   There‟s an overall

17   thing with this about we‟re going to do something

18   unethical, or we‟re going to disadvantage somebody.       I

19   don‟t see any attempt to do that.

20                     DR. LENSCH:    Commissioner Galvin --

21                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   That‟s a personal --

22                     DR. LENSCH:    -- there are people in this

23   state and elsewhere that would consider that part of our

24   charge is unethical revolving around the use of human


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     52
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   embryonic stem cells, and I feel that we‟re putting our

 2   footprint down that though we may disagree, we still

 3   intend to conform to high ethical standards.

 4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     I think you‟re

 5   saying that there are people who think that the whole

 6   endeavor is unethical, and that‟s not what we‟re here to

 7   decide.   I mean the people have spoken.     The Chief
 8   Executive has spoken.   The Attorney General has said that

 9   this is legal and sufficient.     I don‟t think I have to

10   remind Julius to be ethical.

11                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   I don‟t think that‟s the

12   issue.    I think it‟s a reminder for us and everybody

13   around that we‟re obliged to provide good reasons for

14   what we do.

15                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     That‟s fine.   Good

16   judgment, good reasons.

17                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   I have a question about,

18   and maybe it was discussed last time and I‟m sorry, but

19   it seems to me the selection criteria offers another

20   opportunity to stress the value of collaboration.        Again,

21   it‟s not to say who wouldn‟t collaborate.      The question

22   is who collaborates the best and the most?      Competitive

23   grants.

24                    DR. JENNINGS:    Yeah.   So potential to


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   53
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   encourage collaboration?

 2                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Is that going to be

 3   G, Item G?

 4                    MS. RION:   And is that different than D?

 5                    DR. JENNINGS:    I would recommend to put it

 6   after D, between D and B.      How would we word it?

 7   Potential to encourage collaboration across disciplinary
 8   and institutional boundaries, how about that?

 9                    DR. YANG:   Yeah, across the institution --

10                    DR. JENNINGS:    Across institutions and I

11   think, also, across disciplines, right, clinicians and

12   basic researchers, theoreticians, etcetera.

13                    MR. SALTON:    So potential to encourage

14   collaboration across institutions and disciplines?

15                    DR. JENNINGS:    Yeah.

16                    MR. SALTON:    That‟s good.

17                    DR. JENNINGS:    Mr. Chairman, can we move

18   on?

19                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Dr. Canalis, have

20   you had a change to review this?

21                    DR. CANALIS:    No.   If I‟m quiet, it means

22   I‟m okay.    Commissioner, you should know that.

23                    DR. JENNINGS:    The remainder of page five

24   I don‟t think has changed since the earlier draft that


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   54
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   we‟ve all seen.    There‟s nothing that I wanted to flag

 2   there.    Turning to the top of page six --

 3                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Everybody okay on

 4   five?

 5                     DR. LANDWIRTH:   May I ask if the June 1st

 6   deadline date is still viable?

 7                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   What do you think,
 8   Mr. Wollschlager?

 9                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   I would say that that

10   date is not viable.

11                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   July 1st?

12                     MS. RION:   It may depend on what we finish

13   today, if I may suggest?

14                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We can return to

15   that.

16                     DR. JENNINGS:    We‟ll revisit the timetable

17   at the end of today‟s discussion.

18                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Are we done on five?

19                     DR. YANG:   Eight weeks after your

20   announcement, eight weeks after.

21                     DR. WALLACK:    I have a question.

22                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Wasn‟t there

23   something about getting married?      When you first get

24   married, you had to announce six weeks?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   55
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    DR. WALLACK:    I have a question.   Roman

 2   Numeral II, Funding, the institution, the said

 3   institution that we‟re funding, will sign a contract with

 4   Connecticut Innovations.    Do we, in fact, want to have

 5   the contract signed with Connecticut Innovations?      My

 6   recommendation was that we at least consider whether or

 7   not any signing is, in fact, done through the Department
 8   of Health in coordination with the Advisory Committee.

 9                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Say that again?

10                    DR. WALLACK:    My recommendation, as far as

11   funding goes, that the signing of the arrangements of the

12   contracts, instead of being with Connecticut Innovations,

13   be, in fact, through DPH in coordination with the

14   Advisory Committee.

15                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Is Mrs. Kennelly

16   back there?

17                    MS. CATHY KENNELLY:    Yes, I am.

18                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Would we be able to,

19   just prospectively, would we be able to -- then that

20   would make us the disburser of such funds?

21                    MS. KENNELLY:   That‟s correct.

22                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay.   Can we do

23   that?    Can we accept money like that with the structure

24   in the Health Department, or would it have to be to the


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    56
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   foundation?

 2                     MS. KENNELLY:   No.   We can do it through

 3   the Department.

 4                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay.   The

 5   Department can accept and disburse the funds?

 6                     MS. KENNELLY:   That‟s correct.

 7                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Which, of course,
 8   there would be no fee for it handling or disbursing the

 9   funds?

10                     MS. KENNELLY:   That‟s correct.

11                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay.

12                     DR. GENEL:   Is this consistent with the

13   legislation?

14                     DR. WALLACK:    I think that, Mike, through

15   the chair, that it is.    If we do a re-read of the actual

16   bill, the bill, in fact, the predisposing fact I think on

17   page five of the bill says that Connecticut Innovations

18   shall serve as the administrative staff and shall assist

19   the committee.    Then it goes on to explaining the four

20   areas that it shall be assisting the committee.

21                     It doesn‟t say that it should, in fact, be

22   signing.   It says that it shall be assisting the

23   committee in the signing of such and such and the

24   activities of such and such --


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  57
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    DR. YANG:   My understanding is that the

 2   DCS yesterday -- the overall administrative and -- the

 3   CNI wrote the grant proposal coordinators.    Because they

 4   are not only legend in the field -- legally, but also

 5   have the experience in managing grants.

 6                    DR. WALLACK:   Not true.

 7                    DR. YANG:   That‟s your understanding, but
 8   I think our understanding is --

 9                    DR. WALLACK:   No, it doesn‟t read that

10   way.

11                    DR. YANG:   What‟s the function of CII?

12                    DR. WALLACK:   Exactly what it says here,

13   shall serve was administrative staff and shall assist the

14   committee.   That‟s the function, shall serve as the

15   administrative staff and shall assist the committee,

16   okay, in such and such.

17                    DR. YANG:   Okay, can you then define for

18   DCS what is --

19                    DR. WALLACK:   DPH has --

20                    DR. YANG:   Just read that -- don‟t say

21   that yourself.

22                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Let‟s get some --

23   from our Attorney General representative, and why don‟t

24   we just clarify the point once again with Mrs. Kennelly?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  58
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   Now when we talk about disbursing funds, are we going to

 2   be able to -- is this going to be able to be accomplished

 3   like I want to buy something expensive, I get a check for

 4   it, I put it in the bank, it clears the bank, I write the

 5   check, or do we have to go through all the safeguards and

 6   all the things that have to do with people signing

 7   affidavits and all the things we have to do to work it
 8   through core Connecticut, because then the check will

 9   never get through.

10                     MS. KENNELLY:   Well, the affidavit issued

11   is not a core Connecticut issue.

12                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I know that.

13                     MS. KENNELLY:   It would treat these

14   contracts just as we do any other contract.

15                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   That‟s incredibly

16   cumbersome.   It‟s incredibly cumbersome.    I was at a

17   meeting.   I won‟t tell you what it involved, but it was a

18   million dollar federal grant, which the group of very

19   senior people felt that they could not get off the blocks

20   before September 1st and, therefore, they‟re going to

21   lose the grant.    And here we are.   This isn‟t even the

22   first of April.    We‟re talking months of checks and

23   balances, so this may be a fiscal impossibility.

24                     I‟ll let all you folks speak.   I don‟t


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    59
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1   want to get into a thing where we have to keep saying

 2   we‟ll get you the check, we‟ll get you the check.      It‟s

 3   stuck here.    It‟s stuck there.    It‟s stuck here.   It‟s

 4   stuck there.   We‟re waiting for an affidavit, because

 5   somebody saw, you know, Jerry Yang and Ernie Canalis

 6   having a hot dog in the cafeteria one day.      And this is

 7   the kind of stuff that, unfortunately, really hangs up
 8   the financial stuff and makes funds lapse, because it‟s

 9   very cumbersome.

10                     DR. CANALIS:   Commissioner, I agree with

11   you.   I mean the money train of the expenditures, who is

12   going to do that in your office?

13                     MR. SALTON:    I think that‟s CIs(multiple

14   conversations).    There are two different things here.

15   One is, who signs the contract for the grant and aid, and

16   then who, post signature, who does the work of making

17   sure the agreement is fully executed?      So, for example,

18   we want these reports to come in.      We will send you an

19   acknowledgement upon a -- report.      Those kind of steps in

20   administering the contracts.

21                     I think everything after signing the

22   contract, C.I. has been charged by the legislature with

23   providing that necessary assistance and making sure that

24   that contract is executed, meaning being performed in the


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 60
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   necessary manner.

 2                    The question of who is actually the

 3   issuing authority of the grant and aid is also spoken to

 4   by the legislation, which says the Commissioner may make

 5   grants and aid from the fund, in accordance with

 6   divisions of this legislation.    And it further says the

 7   committee shall direct the Commissioner with respect to
 8   the awarding of such grants and aid after considering

 9   recommendations from the stem cell research Peer Review

10   Committee.

11                    So the Commissioner makes the award, and

12   if he‟s making the award, then the Commissioner has to

13   sign the award document.   That would be my position on

14   it.   The execution in the sense of making sure that the

15   contract is performed in all the steps, monitoring,

16   reporting, checking to make sure that necessary funds are

17   distributed on a quarterly basis, that is going to be

18   Connecticut Innovations.

19                    But there‟s a difference between signature

20   and execution of a contract.

21                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Where does the money

22   trace go?    Money comes out of the tobacco fund, okay,

23   then where does it go?

24                    MR. SALTON:   That‟s kind of a fiscal


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  61
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   administrative issue.   I think there‟s going to be a

 2   separate.   Cathy, what do you think?

 3                   MS. KENNELLY:   That was the exact same

 4   question that I was thinking when I was listening to you.

 5   If the Commissioner executes the contract and it‟s your

 6   understanding that under the statute that is what is

 7   required, what is your understanding, as far as the money
 8   trail?   Do the funds go to C.I. to pay out, or do you see

 9   them staying in the Department of Public Health?

10                   MR. SALTON:   I think that you could have

11   the funds go to C.I. to pay out, because they are charged

12   with executing the performance of the agreement.

13                   MS. KENNELLY:   It would be difficult for

14   us to administer payments that have another entity

15   administering the rest of the grant.

16                   MR. SALTON:   Right, so you could say --

17   the point here is that the Commissioner signs the award

18   agreement, but the funds would say -- for example, if

19   there‟s an account at C.I. in which the funds will be

20   drawn and paid out upon receipt of verification of the

21   building, the purchase, or whatever way you‟re going to

22   administer the contract, those funds would be

23   administered by C.I.

24                   DR. GENEL:    Can I suggest we put this on


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  62
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the next meeting‟s agenda, because I don‟t know that we

 2   need to do this to finalize this process.

 3                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Just bear in mind

 4   that the way things work for us is we have lots and lots

 5   of checks and balances, so that if you ran it through the

 6   Health Department as other monies, we may not be able to

 7   act as expeditiously, and we may be behind on contractual
 8   payments for people, and they get very irritated when

 9   that happens.

10                   DR. CANALIS:    -- to put this in the next

11   agenda meeting if it‟s already determined by law.      We

12   already listened to the opinion.    The State attorney has

13   taken a position and recited the law to us.

14                   MR. RAKIN:    What is the issue?

15                   DR. GENEL:    Well it‟s the fine tuning of

16   this. (Multiple conversations).

17                   DR. CANALIS:   We already have a legal

18   opinion.

19                   MR. SALTON:    Well I think the only

20   question is the second paragraph under funding, or the

21   second sentence, where it says the institution will sign

22   a contract with Connecticut Innovations.    I would suggest

23   that you just say enter into a contract, which

24   Connecticut Innovations will, you know, administer.


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    63
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     MR. RAKIN:    Fine.

 2                     DR. WALLACK:    That‟s fine.

 3                     DR. LENSCH:    It could even be made more

 4   simple by just striking with Connecticut Innovations and

 5   inserting the word indicating, and the process for that

 6   will work out how it works out.

 7                     MR. SALTON:    Okay.
 8                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We‟re done on page

 9   five?

10                     DR. JENNINGS:   On page six, I think the

11   first item to discuss -- we don‟t want to debate fund

12   sizes, but Nancy has flagged a question.         Is there a

13   security problem in sharing information if they‟re sent

14   electronically?    My own view, which is that so much

15   information in the world is shared electronically these

16   days that that‟s not high on my list of worries, so my

17   recommendation is that it makes it a lot easier

18   logistically if we can distribute these things

19   electronically.

20                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Electronic is not

21   secure.

22                     DR. YANG:    All the federal grant are now

23   electronically.

24                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I understand that.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  64
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. YANG:   And all the international

 2   funding agencies always electronically now.

 3                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Fine with me.

 4                   DR. LENSCH:   But there‟s one point to

 5   clarify.   Are they submitted through a secure server,

 6   because that‟s a difference, right?    Does Connecticut

 7   Innovations or the Department of Public Health have a
 8   secure -- through which the grants would be submitted?

 9                   DR. JENNINGS:    You can provide that.

10                   MR. SALTON:   Was that yes?

11                   MS. RION:   Yes.   We would provide that.

12                   DR. LENSCH:   Then that‟s the best that can

13   be done.

14                   DR. YANG:   Makes sense.

15                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Down beneath, where

16   it says proposals that do not follow the prescribed

17   format, etcetera, etcetera, I notice we have a deadline

18   time somewhere in this document.    My understanding is

19   that the material comes in, it‟s not done right, or it‟s

20   incomplete, it‟s going to be rejected.     We‟re not going

21   to be calling people and say did you forget?

22                   I mean we‟re not going to have somebody

23   blasting in here at 4:45 and say I‟m sorry I got stuck in

24   traffic or changing things.     So if it‟s not complete and


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 65
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   it‟s not on time, it‟s not going to be considered.

 2                   DR. JENNINGS:   I don‟t think there‟s

 3   anything else controversial on page six.      The text in

 4   green that‟s just been inserted to maintain consistency

 5   is what was to be discussed.

 6                   DR. WALLACK:    Before you go on, Charlie

 7   (coughing) funds?
 8                   DR. JENNINGS:   I‟m sorry?    Page five now,

 9   right?

10                   DR. WALLACK:    Do we have to have any

11   reference to getting 12-month reports?

12                   DR. JENNINGS:   I believe that comes later.

13                   DR. WALLACK:    Do we need to have it here,

14   too, or not?   I don‟t know.

15                   DR. JENNINGS:   I don‟t think so.

16                   DR. WALLACK:    Okay, fine.

17                   DR. CANALIS:    The audit should be left

18   loose, in my opinion, because you might want to add it as

19   you see fit.   I would leave it open.

20                   DR. JENNINGS:   Are we done with page six?

21   Okay, page seven, this is a quick one here, intellectual

22   property.   Neither Willie nor I have offered any specific

23   suggestions here, and I think that‟s something that

24   requires committee discussion (coughing) pointed out that


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                    66
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   we have a document that‟s been circulated from Yale, from

 2   the Deputy General Counsel at Yale, and they recommended

 3   some language.    That‟s up for discussion.      This sheet

 4   here, financial benefit to Connecticut.

 5                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   For clarification, the

 6   language that‟s been provided to the members of the

 7   committee was sent to the Department by Susan Carney of
 8   Yale at 10:30 this morning, and it was a product that was

 9   developed in response to our attempt to start having the

10   interested parties begin discussing I.P.      We asked the

11   community for their thoughts, as to how we should adjust

12   I.P. in this application.

13                     MR. RAKIN:   I don‟t understand the last --

14   how would you ever calculate that?

15                     DR. JENNINGS:   So it‟s in proportion to

16   the full costs.    Does that include the cost of building

17   Yale or UConn‟s campus, for instance, in which case their

18   attempt to connect it will be very, very small.       I mean

19   maybe there‟s some recognized formula.      Is there anybody

20   who can speak to what this is intended to mean?

21                     DR. WALLACK:    Bob, through the chair, may

22   I ask Warren?    In Jersey, do they have an arrangement

23   having to do with intellectual property?

24                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   They do.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     67
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. JENNINGS:   I think they just both

 2   reflect percentage, but it doesn‟t say how it‟s

 3   calculated.

 4                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Jersey has --

 5                     DR. JENNINGS:   One percent.

 6                     DR. WALLACK:    Well that was my

 7   recollection.    Do we get the discussion moving?      I mean
 8   do we want to begin the consideration of what they have

 9   there?   We can move away from, or towards that, or

10   whatever.

11                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Jersey has a one

12   percent on all royalty revenue.       California requires 25

13   percent return on royalties, but that‟s over a threshold

14   of 500,000 dollars.

15                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   What do you

16   mean by royalties in this particular?      And I‟m not trying

17   to put you on.    What would we consider, developing a stem

18   cell line that did something that you wanted it to do and

19   you could sell?    Would that be a royalty?

20                     DR. JENNINGS:   That would generate

21   royalties.

22                     MR. RAKIN:   But you‟re saying one percent

23   of royalty income, just like New Jersey does?        So that‟s

24   basically nothing.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 68
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   Right, as opposed to

 2   versus California, which slapped in the 25 percent.

 3                   DR. YANG:   I think Warren made a good

 4   point.   New Jersey‟s return, one percent.   California, 25

 5   percent in the for non-profit institutions universities.

 6   Then they have a second for -- 3 percent.

 7                   DR. JENNINGS:   California does.
 8                   DR. YANG:   Yeah, California has several

 9   documents -- one for the non-profit -- one for profit.

10                   DR. JENNINGS:   So this penalized the non-

11   profits by taking an extra 22 percent.

12                   DR. YANG:   I don‟t really know why, but

13   they have two thoughts -- one‟s really for --

14                   DR. WALLACK:    Well, it could be that they

15   do that because the core profit maybe is not accessing

16   the state funds in the same way.    I don‟t know.

17                   DR. JENNINGS:   Maybe they just thought

18   that core profits wouldn‟t swallow it.

19                   DR. YANG:   I don‟t know why.

20                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   The suggestion has

21   been made that those submitting requests, you know, grant

22   requests, that they include in that what percentage of

23   the intellectual property they would consider as

24   reasonably taxable for the State of Connecticut for


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 69
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   providing the funds and to do the research, and that we

 2   would then evaluate the proposals and use that as one of

 3   the tools we use to evaluate the proposals.

 4                    I think Deane Slayman had a few moments.

 5   Do you have some opinions?

 6                    MS. CAROLINE SLAYMAN:     I‟m really not the

 7   right person to comment on it.    Sorry.    Susan Carney has
 8   been working on it.

 9                    DR. JENNINGS:   Mr. Chairman, if I could

10   point out a potential complicating factor here?        In

11   reality, what tends to have a million inventions made at

12   these academic institutions, it‟s sometimes quite

13   difficult, as I understand, to trace them to one specific

14   grant or one specific funding source.      You know,

15   inventions evolve over time.     They happen in environments

16   that receive simultaneous funding from multiple sources,

17   and that raises the question of what percentage of the

18   total cost of the invention was supported from any given

19   funding source, and the real key question, who makes that

20   determination?

21                    I mean, obviously, it‟s in the interests

22   of the recipient institution to argue that number down

23   and to say, well, you know, you get a million dollars.

24   In fact, this was part of a much larger 50 million dollar


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                70
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   program in which we contributed the other 49, and so

 2   where do you draw the boundaries on that, and who is

 3   responsible for making that determination?     I don‟t

 4   presume to have an answer to that question, but it is,

 5   potentially, I think, a tough question when you‟re

 6   dealing with an institution that receives many different

 7   sources.
 8                   COURT REPORTER:   Excuse me.

 9                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   -- some comments

10   that he made to me about California making -- it has to

11   do with the making available the proceeds of the research

12   to all the citizens.

13                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   Right.

14                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Maybe you could

15   restate that.

16                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   I appreciate that,

17   Commissioner.   I think, when we‟re talking I.P., we need

18   to look to the bigger issue that‟s simply a dollar return

19   and go back to the intended law, which is for the good of

20   the people of Connecticut.   California does require the

21   grantees to grant exclusive licenses involving publicly

22   funded therapies and diagnostics to those organizations

23   serving the underinsured or uninsured.

24                   Basically, we‟re looking then at the issue


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 71
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   of what extent should we build into this process access,

 2   and should we address access to diagnostics or therapies

 3   that come about because of the investment of public

 4   dollars?   That, then, might get to the question of who

 5   would track this.   If an entity, such as a DSS, knew that

 6   they had a stake in some amount of benefit that would

 7   help offset costs involving accessing new therapies, we
 8   think that may be --

 9                   But I think, when this group talks about

10   I.P., you need to also think about I.P. in terms of

11   access for the underinsured, and that may very well be

12   all of us, since I would imagine that, at least at the

13   beginning, none of our insurance plans are going to cover

14   access to new stem cell related diagnostics and

15   therapies.

16                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Ernie?

17                   DR. CANALIS:   Who is the owner?   I mean

18   who owns (multiple conversations).

19                   MR. RAKIN:   The university or the company,

20   right?

21                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Well, as Julius

22   said, if it‟s the University of Connecticut, the state

23   owns it.

24                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   But what if it‟s Yale?


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  72
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   MR. RAKIN:   Mr. Chair, if I may?   I mean

 2   Warren‟s point is fine, but I thought you made a point at

 3   a prior meeting that if work comes out of this that

 4   generates a lot of value, you want to see some industry

 5   developing and some economic benefit from the state.

 6                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Yes.

 7                   MR. RAKIN:   But before there‟s a therapy
 8   or diagnostic, there‟s going to be a lot of commercial

 9   activity, and somebody gets something that‟s worth --

10   some company comes along and pays 100 million for that, I

11   think it would be a little unfair if the stem cell

12   initiative that helped fund that didn‟t get anything or

13   got one percent of a future royalty.   I mean California

14   strikes me as interesting, because they‟re just saying

15   we‟ll just pick 25 percent, as we‟re a junior partner,

16   and sometimes it will be less, sometimes it will be more.

17   Two of them will be a little upset if some big deal does

18   happen in five or seven years and weren‟t part of it.

19                   DR. WALLACK:   You know, I agree with what

20   Kevin just said.   I think we should have some value here.

21   I have to just reflect that I‟m really very, very

22   impressed with Warren‟s statement having to do with what

23   really is the social benefit of this to the citizens of

24   the state.   In other words, to somehow have that money


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  73
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   available to create access, vis-à-vis the uninsured and

 2   so forth, that, to me, at least in my own mind, makes me

 3   really want to see something happen with this.

 4                  And I‟m not sure of the exact number.     I

 5   know we had the same problem with the question of the

 6   payments last time, and we settled on a certain amount,

 7   and we had a rational discussion.   If others agree with
 8   the fact that there should be some type of number in

 9   here, then perhaps, if we can agree to that, maybe we can

10   then agree on a specific number.

11                  And I would agree, Kevin, that we should

12   have that number upfront.

13                  MR. RAKIN:   Yale does that, where it says

14   the inventor gets a share of whatever Yale gets, so why

15   shouldn‟t the Stem Cell Committee or the State, I guess,

16   also get something?

17                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I have some

18   feelings, about how do you sort all this out, about not

19   all -- some of the work may have taken, that leads to the

20   discovery of whatever, may have taken place before this

21   grant, and some may take place after this grant.    We

22   know, with the University of Connecticut, that we own it,

23   the State owns it.

24                  It‟s much different with Yale University,


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  74
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   which is a privately endowed university (papers on

 2   microphone) to a 25 percent indirect overhead, which, as

 3   Carolyn said last week, it‟s considerably less, which

 4   means, in effect, they are donating some of the money for

 5   this.    So what‟s equitable for a non-State institution?

 6   Okay, what‟s fair for you guys?

 7                     If you‟re a Yale or Willie is a Yale
 8   researcher and he invents the Rosetta Stone and gets the

 9   Nobel, are we going to take, you know, and say, hey, you

10   know some of that‟s our money?     (Laughing) I mean you can

11   see where it would be very difficult to look at some sort

12   of a financial benefit and say, well, really, you know,

13   some portion of that is ours, and some portion of that is

14   ours, because we‟re getting work done that wouldn‟t be

15   done otherwise.    How do we make that equitable?      I‟m not

16   sure I can decide that in an hour and 20 minutes.

17                     DR. LENSCH:   May I ask a couple of

18   questions, including the people here that might help us?

19   So, as a principle, would we agree, as a group, that the

20   State should have a greater return on an invention than

21   an inventor or less of a return?     Pardon me?

22                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   If I invent

23   something, you know, if I find that Rosetta Stone, then

24   no matter what I do, it all belongs to the State, so I


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  75
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1   don‟t get any.

 2                    MR. SALTON:    As a State employee.

 3                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   As a State employee.

 4   (Multiple conversations.) Is there a value, a fixed vale

 5   at Yale?

 6                    DR. LENSCH:    I‟m not sure, but Bruce

 7   Carlson is up in the left corner of the room, and he‟ll
 8   tell you that.

 9                    MR. BRUCE CARLSON:   I‟m Bruce Carlson.

10   I‟m the Director of the Office of Technology and

11   Commercialization at the University of Connecticut, and,

12   under that, we have our tech transfer office.     Let me

13   just give you a brief feel of how it works at UConn.        How

14   it exactly works at Yale, I don‟t know.      And that is,

15   should an inventor invent something that we can

16   commercialize and there is a cash flow back to the

17   university, because the university owns it, going to the

18   Commissioner‟s original point.

19                    Thirty-three percent of that cash flow

20   goes to the inventor or inventors.

21                    DR. LENSCH:    That‟s the number I‟m looking

22   for.

23                    MR. CARLSON:   Thirty-three goes to that

24   inventor‟s school, department and lab, and that‟s divided


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                76
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   up in negotiation with the Deane, and 33 goes to the

 2   university, itself.   So, in my world, I use that 33

 3   percent to fund the Office of Technology and

 4   Commercialization.    Should we get the 100 million

 5   dollars, then there would be a little more money than

 6   what we, the Office of Technology and Commercialization.

 7                  I believe that what you see in the way of
 8   language, just to clarify what was passed out, is not

 9   only language that came from Yale.   It came through the

10   e-mail from Yale, but it was language, which was

11   discussed with the University of Connecticut and agreed

12   to by those of us at the University of Connecticut.

13                  And the way I see it is very much a

14   question of, as difficult as it may be to understand,

15   that there will always be, in my mind, more money going

16   into a research project than what will come in through

17   the State stem cell funds.   Whether that is money

18   contributed by university, whether that is money

19   contributed by others in developing that technology, at

20   the end of the day, there is going to be more money

21   involved in what happens.

22                  Therefore, what the language was trying to

23   say is that the return that would come back to the Stem

24   Cell Advisory Committee or through the Stem Cell Advisory


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                               77
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   Committee, maybe back into the Stem Cell Fund, would be

 2   proportionate to all those other sources.   That‟s how we

 3   would propose (coughing) Yale to have that happen.

 4                   It‟s an accounting issue, one I think

 5   Charles made the point that those of us at the university

 6   may be very interested in talking about the large sums of

 7   money that are contributed by the university to make this
 8   happen.   I think some of that may well be what can be

 9   worked out.

10                   The fact of the matter, going to the

11   A.G.‟s point earlier, is that the statute says that the

12   application from the institution should be making a

13   recommendation, as to how this intellectual property

14   arrangement would work, rather than to have an

15   application process dictate what it is.

16                   We were asked, in order to facilitate this

17   discussion, to come up with a recommendation for this

18   committee, as to what we thought would work and would be

19   language that we would contribute as part of the

20   application.

21                   That‟s how we work at UConn, and that‟s

22   how the language that‟s in front of you got to be in

23   front of you.

24                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay, so, if I


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  78
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   interpret your remark correctly, Dr. Krause(phonetic) had

 2   a huge breakthrough and had a value of 500 million

 3   dollars and our -- millions of dollars represented 20

 4   percent of the total investment, we would be entitled to

 5   20 million, 20 percent, the State would, of the proceeds

 6   from the invention.

 7                   MR. CARLSON:   Let me try to use numbers
 8   that we can all understand, because somehow we all like

 9   500 million, but let‟s talk about a million dollars here.

10   Let‟s say that there was a breakthrough that brought a

11   return back to the university of a million dollars and

12   the proportionate contribution for that breakthrough was

13   20 percent, as you say.   The question is that one million

14   dollars coming back to the university, there‟s already a

15   distribution.   As I said before, a one-third, one-third,

16   one-third.   So now what‟s the 20 percent of?   It is 20

17   percent of the amount going to the faculty member, is it

18   20 percent of the amount going to the Deane in the

19   school, or is it 20 percent of the 33 percent coming to

20   the university, itself?

21                   DR. CANALIS:   That‟s six percent.

22                   MR. CARLSON:   Right.

23                   DR. CANALIS:   (Laughter)   Let‟s keep the

24   numbers straight here.


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 79
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                  MR. CARLSON:   But I think it‟s very

 2   important, when you start using numbers, to be able to be

 3   very clear about what those numbers are applied against,

 4   and that was my point.

 5                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   If we were dealing

 6   with an entity out of the University of Connecticut, it

 7   would be a fixed amount of money that we would determine,
 8   and we‟d say to Wesleyan or whoever, Quinnipiac, here‟s

 9   your share, you know, or you made so much, we want so

10   much, and we don‟t care what you do with the rest of it.

11                  MR. SALTON:    I think, though, that Bruce

12   is right, and I just want to reiterate.    If you look at

13   the statute, the statute says the committee shall require

14   any advocate to submit, and then there‟s a list of things

15   that they have to submit, a complete description of their

16   organization, the applicant‟s plan for stem cell research

17   and proposed funding from other sources, and then the

18   third thing is the applicant shall submit proposed

19   arrangements concerning financial benefits to the State

20   of Connecticut as a result of any patent, royalty

21   payment, or similar rights developing from any stem cell

22   research made possible, so it‟s not caused, made possible

23   by the awarding of a grant and aid.

24                  So it may be let‟s say that you have two


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                80
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   small seed applications come in and they‟re relatively

 2   equal, they‟re both going to use the same core facility,

 3   and one says we‟re offering the State of Connecticut 25

 4   percent of anything that‟s made from now to the year 2050

 5   off of our research, and another one will come in and say

 6   we will offer the State of Connecticut three percent or

 7   six percent of anything we make.    The committee will then
 8   use that as a factor in judging which to award.

 9                  Assuming everything else is equal, I

10   suspect I know where we‟re going to go.    I doubt

11   everything else is equal.    Now the committee may want to

12   issue a guideline that says nothing less than 10 percent

13   will be acceptable, or it will be disfavored if it‟s less

14   than 10 percent, but the real question at this point is

15   do we need to do that or finish the application?

16                  DR. CANALIS:     In that case, under page

17   five under E, we should say no benefits to the State of

18   Connecticut, but financial benefits to the State of

19   Connecticut, because the law is the law.    If we‟re going

20   to rank applications depending on the financial benefit,

21   that should be stated (coughing).

22                  MR. SALTON:    It could be benefits

23   including financial benefits.

24                  DR. CANALIS:     Whatever you want to phrase


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   81
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   it.   I mean you know better than I.

 2                    DR. WALLACK:   Bob?

 3                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    One second.   I think

 4   we‟re sort of at a point here where are we going to judge

 5   this individually, or are we going to start deciding

 6   right now what we want to do?

 7                    DR. WALLACK:   I would like to move on,
 8   also.    I think that the only thing maybe we would want to

 9   do here is just have some reference, and you can put in

10   to some wording, if the group agrees, and that is that

11   encourage the sharing of proceeds.      That would, then,

12   accrue to the benefit of Connecticut and of the citizens.

13                    It gives the flexibility to pick up on

14   Warren‟s idea later on however we want to use those

15   monies, and we can define that some other date.

16                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    I think we have to

17   pay some close attention to that.      I would probably say

18   how do I get my money back?     I give you a million bucks

19   for an invention, you make 10 million, and you say here‟s

20   your million bucks back, but am I entitled to more than

21   that?    Maybe you wouldn‟t even say here‟s your million

22   back.

23                    DR. WALLACK:   I understand that, and Kevin

24   might agree with that, because he wants that defined


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   82
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   specifically.    For the sake of moving the process, you

 2   know, the idea that we‟re encouraging this distribution,

 3   to me, I can come back to it at a later date.

 4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   Move on.

 5                    DR. CANALIS:    It will be prior to the

 6   submission of the applications?     I mean we need some

 7   idea.
 8                    DR. JENNINGS:   It does need to be prior to

 9   the execution of any agreement.     I mean the one thing we

10   don‟t want to be doing is negotiating after the event.

11   We want something pretty clear.

12                    DR. CANALIS:    Can we define a later event?

13   By when?    You said at a later date.

14                    DR. WALLACK:    Ernie, to me, if we finalize

15   the application today, hopefully, by the time we get the

16   application back, we will have had a number of other

17   meetings.    It would be hopefully my idea that we would be

18   finalizing on this specific point, as well as other

19   points, during that interim.

20                    DR. CANALIS:    Prior to disbursing of the

21   funds?

22                    DR. WALLACK:    Yes.   Right.   Exactly.

23                    MR. RAKIN:   What about a subcommittee to

24   pursue this?    Because it sounds like it‟s worthy of some


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                   83
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   discussion.    This document, this suggestion, you won‟t

 2   see any return.    So I think we owe it to this early

 3   investment we‟re making to try and pursue this, so this

 4   is a complex issue.    It‟s a very complex issue.

 5                     DR. GENEL:    Okay.

 6                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Are there

 7   individuals who would like to serve on a subcommittee?
 8                     MR. RAKIN:    Well I‟d be happy to.

 9                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.

10                     DR. GENEL:    I‟d say Dr. Lensch is on a

11   program --

12                     DR. LENSCH:    I would state strongly for

13   the record that I am simply introducing (papers on

14   microphone).   I‟m not possessing personal intellect or

15   property, and I‟m not qualified to speak.

16                     DR. GENEL:    We‟ll be here all day Friday.

17                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    We need another

18   member.   Yes, Warren?

19                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:     If I may just

20   procedurally, Mr. Chair?       I believe you adopted the

21   summary of statutory principles a couple of meetings ago,

22   and there you defined work groups.       I don‟t know if this

23   would be a work group, but I presume it might be, and

24   that says the work group shall consist of not less than


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  84
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   three, no more than five members, including the chair.

 2                   DR. CANALIS:    Can you retain individuals

 3   outside this body?

 4                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    You can, but it says at

 5   least three of the members have to be from this body.

 6                   DR. WALLACK:    Bob, if this is true, if

 7   there‟s no other people that you can assign, I would
 8   volunteer to work with Kevin, but, certainly, I would

 9   step aside gladly if you can find other people.

10                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Any other people?

11   Then I‟ll be the third.

12                   MR. RAKIN:    Thank you.

13                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   Moving right

14   along.

15                   DR. JENNINGS:    As far as I‟m aware,

16   nothing else on page seven is likely to be controversial.

17   You‟ll see a sentence that‟s been added in green right at

18   the very bottom of page seven (coughing) applicant and

19   the sponsor.   I think that should say both the applicant

20   and the faculty sponsor in the event that the applicant

21   is not a faculty member.     It could be agreed that seed

22   grants could be awarded to --

23                   Is there any further discussion on page

24   seven, or can we move to page eight?


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     85
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     At the top of page

 2   eight.

 3                     DR. JENNINGS:    Top of page eight, most of

 4   this is unchanged, but you‟ll see there‟s a big paragraph

 5   in green.

 6                     DR. CANALIS:    Before you go to that, may I

 7   ask a question?
 8                     DR. JENNINGS:    Yeah.

 9                     DR. CANALIS:    This will not be part of the

10   page limitation, right?       It will be an attachment outside

11   the five, 10 or 50-page limit.        I just wanted to make

12   sure.

13                     DR. JENNINGS:    Yeah.

14                     DR. CANALIS:    And so is true for the bio

15   sketches?

16                     MS. RION:    Yes.

17                     DR. JENNINGS:    So I would bring to the

18   committee‟s attention this green paragraph to discuss

19   with the committee.    The proposal here is that group

20   project grants may, under special cases, include start up

21   funds for faculty members yet to be hired.       So, in other

22   words, this will be what might sometimes be called

23   recruiting costs.    I think they‟re more sort of start up

24   costs associated with building new expertise, which is


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                               86
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   obviously kind of a high priority, particularly in areas

 2   like embryonic stem cell research, where there isn‟t a

 3   lot of existing expertise within Connecticut.

 4                   Such cases will require detailed

 5   justification, and release of funds will be contingent

 6   upon the faculty member accepting and taking up the

 7   position.   In other words, we should not simply give
 8   three million dollars or whatever it might be and sort of

 9   startup costs for some unknown person that‟s going to

10   work on projects that‟s yet unknown.

11                   I think there is a potential concern here,

12   and I think the phrase recruitment costs sometimes sort

13   of raises a red flag, that that money could trickle into

14   some sort of rather amorphous pot that is not tightly

15   connected to the purpose of this whole stem cell program.

16   That is something I think we have a responsibility to

17   avoid.   On the other hand, my own view is that we may, on

18   occasion, need to help institutions to recruit new people

19   in order to carry out the mission that we‟re trying to

20   support.

21                   I drafted some language here, which --

22   address the concern, so we would only do this if there is

23   detailed justification of the need, and why do you need

24   an additional faculty member, and how exactly are you


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                               87
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   going to spend this startup fund.    We don‟t want to

 2   simply see estimated costs one million dollars to recruit

 3   a faculty member.   We should be one million dollars

 4   specifically to build such and such a piece of equipment

 5   to support a specific research program that this person

 6   plans to undertake if and when they come to our

 7   institution.
 8                   Somehow, I think we need to be assured

 9   that funds may not be used for general research

10   infrastructure where they‟re not directly related to the

11   goals of the Connecticut Stem Cell Research Program.     So

12   that‟s the proposal, and I think it needs some committee

13   discussion.

14                   DR. CANALIS:    Who -- there‟s no

15   investigator.

16                   DR. JENNINGS:   There must be a lead

17   investigator.

18                   DR. CANALIS:    The program project has four

19   components, and one of the components is the investigator

20   to be named and who writes the component.

21                   DR. JENNINGS:   The lead investigator, the

22   person who will be the leader of the program and will be

23   the principal point of contact with this committee could

24   say, for instance, you know, we propose, I don‟t know, to


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                88
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   develop stem cell treatment for Leukemia or whatever it

 2   may be, however, one component of this program requires

 3   an additional hire in the field of, I don‟t know, stem

 4   cell molecular, whatever it may be, and we will need some

 5   startup funds in order to attract that candidate here to

 6   carry out the proposed program of research --

 7                   DR. CANALIS:    -- new category, to be
 8   frank.   We have a project without an investigator, and

 9   we‟re giving this person money to somebody who is not

10   even part of the institution.    Like I have obligations to

11   my institution, my institution is signing off the grant.

12   Now we have an unnamed person in Kansas City that we‟re

13   going to give -- could apply for even, you know, a

14   significant large amount of money, 250,000 dollars a year

15   over a four-year period.

16                   DR. JENNINGS:   There would be no question

17   --

18                   DR. CANALIS:    -- institution.

19                   DR. JENNINGS:   Just to be clear, there

20   would be no question of giving money to the University of

21   Kansas or whatever.   This is funding that would go to

22   Yale or UConn or whatever it may be.

23                   DR. CANALIS:    For an unknown person in

24   Kansas City, you know, or wherever.    Unless I have an


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                 89
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   investigator responsible for a project, I think it‟s high

 2   risk to give money so you can hire somebody.

 3                  DR. JENNINGS:   There‟s a danger being

 4   stuck in a Catch 22.   I mean sometimes what happens is

 5   that universities will be in negotiation with particular

 6   individuals, and somebody will say, well, yes, I would

 7   love to come to your fine university, but I‟m going to
 8   need X amount of startup funds.

 9                  And they may say, well, yeah, if we knew

10   you were here, we could apply for that money, but we‟re

11   stuck, because you haven‟t committed.   So what I guess

12   I‟m looking for is a way to help get around that Catch 22

13   situation.

14                  DR. CANALIS:    It‟s a new category.   Now

15   startup funds is not even part of a program project,

16   startup funds, so you‟re going to recruit Ernie for a

17   million dollars, so we have a new category, a totally new

18   category of grants with an unnamed person.   I mean, if

19   you have somebody who is, you know, number one, you‟ve

20   seen many, many times, applicants at the last minute do

21   not sign a contract with the universities.   You know, one

22   person is not hired by the institution unless --

23                  DR. JENNINGS:   Then, if they don‟t sign

24   that contract, then there should be no release of funds,


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                     90
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   at least that is the proposal that we put in here.

 2                     DR. CANALIS:    There is not even a project.

 3   We have an unknown person that I want.        So if I were not

 4   part of this committee, I could write a grant.         I want to

 5   hire Mr. Wonderful for a million dollars.         I have a

 6   startup.   They say, what is the project?        Give me the

 7   money, then I‟ll tell you.       No.   No way.
 8                     DR. WALLACK:    Ernie, the institution is

 9   going to write the grant.

10                     DR. CANALIS:    The institution doesn‟t

11   write the grant.    The institution is responsible for the

12   administration of the grant.      An investigator runs the

13   grant.   I move to oppose this.        I have a motion on the

14   table.

15                     DR. GENEL:   Well let‟s discuss that a

16   little further.

17                     DR. CANALIS:    We can discuss it.

18                     DR. GENEL:   Well sure we can.     Why not?

19                     DR. CANALIS:    Sure.    I said we can discuss

20   it.   I have a motion on the table.

21                     DR. GENEL:   Let us say that the individual

22   is identified, has a project, and happens to be at

23   another institution.

24                     DR. CANALIS:    That‟s not what this says.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                      91
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. GENEL:   That‟s what I read.

 2                     DR. JENNINGS:    It doesn‟t say --

 3                     DR. GENEL:   It doesn‟t say explicitly

 4   that.

 5                     DR. JENNINGS:    It doesn‟t say that they‟re

 6   identified, but it could be so modified if we thought

 7   that appropriate.
 8                     DR. GENEL:   I don‟t have any problem with

 9   it being identified as to be designated, but I would

10   think that if there was somebody who was clearly

11   identifiable, would happen not to be at the institution,

12   I don‟t see that that would be a problem.

13                     DR. CANALIS:    -- startup funds.    Startup

14   funds is not part of the program project.      It‟s giving a

15   large pot of money to pursue it, which is a totally

16   different category.    It‟s a new category of grant.      It‟s

17   a new category.    You need to put it in as a category of

18   grant.

19                     DR. LANDWIRTH:   Well it could be a new

20   category, but it doesn‟t have to be a new category,

21   because we‟re talking about on the special cases, which

22   we may have to make judgment about in a case-by-case,

23   because there are situations, you don‟t want to be in a

24   Catch 22.    It‟s not a category, okay, here‟s X amount of


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                92
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   money to start up.   Go out and hire people.   I think

 2   there will be times where somebody -- you can make a case

 3   and say, look, I‟ve got this guy, which is going to come,

 4   but we need to know that we can pay him, and that could

 5   be a special case, depending on how serious we view it

 6   and take some risk with it, of course.

 7                   DR. GENEL:    Mr. Chairman, I want to go
 8   back to something I said earlier in the meeting, and that

 9   is that the purpose of the legislation is to assist in

10   building the infrastructure in Connecticut.    Now if we‟re

11   going to fulfill the purpose of that, then we have to be

12   in a capacity where we encourage the recruitment into

13   Connecticut of people who fulfill the criteria that was

14   envisioned.   So you can‟t have a program that is going to

15   encourage the development of infrastructure in stem cell

16   and inhibit the capacity to bring people in, which is

17   what I would think precluding this would do.

18                   DR. LENSCH:   So if there is a named person

19   that an institution is attempting to recruit and they

20   request a startup package, does that startup package not

21   have a budget associated with it?    And we‟re not talking

22   about carte blanche, but in those special circumstances

23   and in a way that the release of those funds would be

24   contingent on that investigator signing the contract,


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  93
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   could we not make occasional rare exceptions to support

 2   the institutions in meeting those ends?

 3                   And you‟re right, Dr. Canalis, that it‟s

 4   not ideal, because the person is not already there, but I

 5   don‟t think we‟re talking about something that‟s going to

 6   happen with great frequency and that we‟re giving

 7   ourselves the flexibility to assist the institutions in
 8   unique circumstances.

 9                   DR. CANALIS:    May I speak?   I think you

10   are competing unfairly against the other people that are

11   following the well refined grant applications.       So if you

12   want to have a different category for startup funds, you

13   need to put it as a different grant category.     It has to

14   be, otherwise, I have strong feelings.     You are

15   competing.   So you have a very competitive application

16   now in your hands from the University of Connecticut and

17   the Deane of Yale says I need a couple of million bucks

18   to recruit so and so, we‟re going to give it to somebody

19   without even a project written?    That is unfair.

20                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    We don‟t have to

21   give it.

22                   DR. WALLACK:    Since there‟s no second to

23   the amendment, may I offer --

24                   MR. SALTON:    Yeah.   It hasn‟t been called.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  94
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   You can‟t amend his motion as he can amend it at this

 2   point.

 3                   DR. CANALIS:   I do not want to amend it.

 4                   MR. SALTON:    Procedurally, the chair has

 5   to call for a second before we determine that there is no

 6   second.   Right now, it‟s just open for discussion.

 7                   DR. WALLACK:   If, then, the chair called
 8   for a second and there was no second --

 9                   DR. LENSCH:    Then the motion dies.

10                   DR. WALLACK:   The motion dies.   For

11   information purposes, I would then offer the suggestion

12   that we, from my perspective, we accept this paragraph,

13   include this in the application, with the modifications

14   that Dr. Genel has already offered.

15                   MR. SALTON:    Okay, but you‟re not making a

16   motion?

17                   DR. WALLACK:   No.   I just, for information

18   purposes, wanted to share.

19                   DR. YANG:    I did say earlier and in

20   previous meetings, our trapping star scientists to

21   Connecticut in this next few years -- phase one is a very

22   critical, very, very important if we want Connecticut to

23   lead in the nation, and I think that‟s the reason that I

24   suggest, also, let‟s help the university to have 50


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  95
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   percent control.   Five million dollar cap in that

 2   category they can recruit a top scientist in that

 3   category.   In the last meeting -- the star scientist is

 4   requesting two and a half million dollars, and, clearly,

 5   that‟s a good reason really of having the whole package

 6   before the application of the hybrid for instituting the

 7   grant.    And that is really on the university coordinator
 8   -- for this thing good for the university --

 9                    DR. LENSCH:    Mr. Chairman, the point that

10   Dr. Canalis brings up is an important one about

11   competition, but I think a point that I was also trying

12   to make is that it would be a main project and that an

13   investigator that seeks to come to a university has a

14   project proposal and that that proposal would be on the

15   table for us to consider, as to whether it was fundable

16   also by the review committee.

17                    And if we feel that it‟s of insufficient

18   merit in the way we‟re trying to hand out funding, we can

19   say no.   We don‟t have to say yes.    And that if we say

20   no, then those funds are not given to the institution.

21   That portion of the application is simply removed from

22   the application.

23                    DR. CANALIS:   Can I ask a question?   So

24   that would follow under the category of established


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                96
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   investigator award, without a contract with an

 2   institution?

 3                  DR. JENNINGS:   Specific for group project

 4   grants, but I suppose it could also include hybrid.

 5   (Multiple conversations).

 6                  DR. CANALIS:    I need to know what is in

 7   your mind.
 8                  DR. LENSCH:    Well it‟s forming here,

 9   because you‟re bringing up important facts, and I‟m

10   trying to figure out -- because they are valid points.

11                  DR. JENNINGS:   I like the idea of

12   requiring it to be an identified individual, rather than

13   some abstract person, to be recruited.   If there‟s an

14   identified individual, then, obviously --

15                  DR. CANALIS:    With a written project.   An

16   identified individual without a written project.

17                  DR. JENNINGS:   With a written project, but

18   it‟s an essential part of a larger strategy.   So a group

19   project, and I‟ll cite a different example, say to

20   develop neuro stem cells to treat some kind of

21   neurological degenerative disease, now you might say we

22   have all the tools, this is a very ambitious program,

23   it‟s going to require a number of investigators, we have

24   everything we need, except for an expert in assessing


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  97
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   animal behavioral models.    We are in negotiation with an

 2   ideal person to (multiple conversations).     They can

 3   decide how much of the writing they do themselves.

 4                  DR. CANALIS:    It would be much more

 5   acceptable if there was a name and there was a project

 6   attached to that name, and then you release the money

 7   when that name signs a contract with the institution.
 8                  DR. LENSCH:    I agree.

 9                  DR. CANALIS:    If you say that, I‟m willing

10   to withdraw my motion, otherwise, I will not withdraw it.

11                  DR. LENSCH:    And my point is that part of

12   their request for startup funding that that project

13   should be delineated and available to the institution.

14   It should also be made available to us if we are to

15   consider assisting the institution in funding that

16   individual.

17                  DR. CANALIS:    And we‟ll follow the same

18   guidelines of the other.

19                  DR. LENSCH:    I believe so.   It would have

20   to, in order to be fair.

21                  DR. CANALIS:    You believe or you agree?

22                  DR. LENSCH:    I agree.

23                  DR. CANALIS:    I withdraw my motion.     I

24   withdraw my motion, provided that all those statements


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                  98
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   are part of this.

 2                   DR. JENNINGS:   So let‟s make sure that we

 3   --

 4                   DR. CANALIS:    I think they have been

 5   recorded.   I‟m sure there will be no doubt.

 6                   MR. SALTON:    Why don‟t we just make sure

 7   we have it down in writing, so we don‟t miss anything?
 8   You want to go back to this paragraph that is actually in

 9   the text now and see where we can mark it up?

10                   DR. CANALIS:    I want a named investigator

11   with a written project that is going to be part of the

12   program project of a specific institution and funds will

13   not be released until a contract of that investigator

14   with that institution has been finalized.    Those are my

15   four components.    If somebody wants to add or subtract,

16   they can do so, but that‟s what I want to see.

17                   DR. JENNINGS:   So already the one about

18   release of funds is already there.

19                   DR. CANALIS:    I didn‟t read it.   I‟m just

20   telling you what would satisfy me.

21                   DR. JENNINGS:   So the two elements that

22   are not there that you‟ve requested and I at least agree

23   with them that the person should be named and that the

24   project should be identified.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                                      99
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. CANALIS:    We can assess.

 2                     MR. SALTON:    Okay.   Your language now says

 3   group project grants, so they already have to meet all

 4   the criteria for group project grants. (Multiple

 5   conversations).

 6                     DR. JENNINGS:   Or hybrid.

 7                     MR. SALTON:    Or hybrid grants.   So we
 8   first have to meet those first two categories, so this is

 9   an element that would be under your existing grant

10   formula, startup funds, and I would say for identified

11   faculty members not yet hired?

12                     DR. JENNINGS:   Right.

13                     MR. SALTON:    Now such cases will require

14   detailed justification.    I‟m not sure I understand.        I

15   assume that any group or hybrid project would include a

16   written --

17                     DR. CANALIS:    The investigator has a

18   written project.

19                     MR. SALTON:    So you want the investigator

20   to have a separate written project?

21                     DR. CANALIS:    -- this person is no

22   exception.

23                     MR. SALTON:    So in a group project,

24   because I‟m just looking --


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            100
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                  DR. CANALIS:    No, I understand.

 2                  MR. SALTON:    I‟m a layperson.   When I went

 3   back and looked at the definition of group projects, it

 4   said group projects may have multiple co-principal

 5   investigators --

 6                  DR. CANALIS:    -- will write a project.

 7                  MR. SALTON:    Okay.
 8                  DR. JENNINGS:   Or contribute to the

 9   writing of the group, the shared project, that would be

10   an integral participant.   Which cases will require

11   detailed justification, including the identity of the

12   person to be recruited and a detailed summary of their

13   proposed (paper on microphone) for their proposed

14   contribution to the overall structure.   How about that?

15                  DR. CANALIS:    Sure.

16                  DR. JENNINGS:   (Multiple conversations) A

17   detailed summary of their proposed contribution to the

18   overall group project.

19                  MR. SALTON:    All right, so, such case will

20   include detailed justification, including the identity of

21   the person to be recruited and a detailed summary of the

22   contribution of the person to overall group or hybrid

23   project.

24                  DR. CANALIS:    The summary I don‟t like, to


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            101
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   be honest with you (multiple conversations).

 2                    DR. JENNINGS:    Should be as detailed, as

 3   for anybody else.

 4                    DR. GENEL:    I hate to prolong this any

 5   further.

 6                    DR. CANALIS:    Please.   Please do that for

 7   us, Mike.
 8                    DR. GENEL:    I will.   Why does this have to

 9   be a separate paragraph?      Why don‟t we just amend the

10   language that we‟ve already accepted for program projects

11   and for hybrid projects to include the fact that

12   investigators can include somebody, an identifiable

13   individual not at the institution, and incorporate it?

14                    DR. CANALIS:    Wherever you put it is fine

15   with me.    As long as we put it correctly, I don‟t care

16   where it goes.

17                    DR. GENEL:    You‟re asking an individual

18   designated not at the institution to contribute to the

19   scientific aspects of an application.

20                    DR. LENSCH:    I think we should move this

21   paragraph to just before selection criteria on page four.

22                    DR. GENEL:    It could be there, or it could

23   be within three and now what would be I guess five, is

24   the hybrid application.    It doesn‟t matter to me.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            102
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. LENSCH:    Since it discusses hybrid, it

 2   should probably come after hybrids.

 3                   DR. GENEL:    It doesn‟t matter.

 4                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    We now have about

 5   three quarters of an hour, gentlemen.

 6                   DR. JENNINGS:    I think the rest of page

 7   eight is uncontroversial.     I see there‟s a question about
 8   how equipment is defined, but I see every institution

 9   must have a clear cut definition.

10                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Why don‟t we put

11   travel funds up to five grand --

12                   DR. JENNINGS:    Cheap hotels.

13                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    We don‟t want

14   scientists staying at flea bags and YMCAs.

15                   DR. LENSCH:    Then I have to move to get an

16   apartment.   My comment about the capital equipment level,

17   it does vary by institution, but we‟re establishing what

18   our capital equipment level is here, and it should

19   probably be what it is for UConn, since that‟s the state,

20   and I don‟t know what that is.

21                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    What equipment --

22   identified in exceeding 1,000 dollars.

23                   DR. YANG:    That‟s the federal requirement.

24                   DR. JENNINGS:    My recommendation would be


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            103
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   to allow the institutions to have -- they‟ll have fixed

 2   definitions, and we‟ll make it easier for them, in

 3   accounting terms, to deal with something that‟s

 4   consistent. (Multiple conversations).

 5                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Are we okay with

 6   5,000 for travel?

 7                   DR. CANALIS:    Sounds good to me.
 8                   DR. JENNINGS:   Can we move to page nine?

 9   Patent costs.   Wait.   Somebody said accept costs -- I

10   don‟t know.   What was the intent of that?    Some open

11   access journals now impose an application cost, typically

12   around 15 hundred dollars per paper.     I can‟t see any

13   reason not to --

14                   DR. CANALIS:    Yeah.   We‟re nicking and

15   diming. (Multiple conversations).

16                   DR. JENNINGS:   Patent costs up to 5,000?

17   I mean it costs more than that to prosecute a patent.

18                   MR. RAKIN:   If it costs more, then why

19   should we pay it if we‟re not going to get the benefit of

20   it?

21                   DR. JENNINGS:   So should we just remove it

22   all together?

23                   MR. RAKIN:   Take it out, yeah.

24                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Take it out?


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            104
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    DR. JENNINGS:    We just saved 5,000 bucks.

 2   The next paragraph we inserted, so this, I think, is an

 3   important principle -- a cost sharing region -- so my own

 4   view, and I think this is consistent with the new NIH

 5   policy, is that we should require, or at least strongly

 6   encourage people that we fund, to share any kinds of

 7   reagents, protocols, data that generates as a result of
 8   the projects that we fund.      But if you generate, say

 9   transgenic mice and people -- you know, a useful strain

10   of mice -- and people start requesting mice from you, it

11   gets expensive to fulfill those requests.     And I think it

12   is reasonable that we should allow a component of the

13   budget to cover the costs of sharing, creating and

14   distributing reagents to be shared.     So it‟s my

15   recommendation we do this.

16                    DR. CANALIS:    I think the cost is minimal,

17   but I think it‟s critical that people share whatever is

18   developed.   To send a clone or to send, you know, I mean,

19   within the State of Connecticut, that is going to be a

20   marginal cost.

21                    DR. JENNINGS:    It‟s marginal if it‟s just

22   once, but the labs that make a lot of transgenic animals

23   and get lots of requests --

24                    DR. CANALIS:    But it‟s still within the


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                             105
     RE:    CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

 1   state.

 2                    DR. JENNINGS:    The cost is not really

 3   proportioned to the distance.     It‟s between the breeding

 4   colony, feeding the mice, that kind of stuff.       It can get

 5   expensive.   Does anybody object?

 6                    DR. CANALIS:    I have no objection.

 7                    DR. YANG:   The cost within the state of
 8   Connecticut and outside of Connecticut     -- let‟s say we

 9   clone animals or transgenic animals, there will be a

10   charge.    If the state funding is not covering that,

11   right, so then we cover in part, let‟s say 20 percent, 30

12   percent payment from Connecticut compared to all the

13   states.    Some charges --

14                    (Off the record)

15                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   Do we have anymore

16   discussion about the sharing of data component?

17                    DR. JENNINGS:    There is, on page 11 --

18                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   I noticed that.    You want

19   to wait?

20                    DR. JENNINGS:    Well, do you want to jump

21   to it now, since it‟s related?

22                    DR. WALLACK:    So we all finished on nine

23   now?

24                    DR. JENNINGS:    We jumped because of the


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            106
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   semantic connection.

 2                    MR. SALTON:    Just this one paragraph.    Is

 3   this being left, as written, or is there any change?

 4                    DR. JENNINGS:    My own recommendation is to

 5   leave that as is, unless anybody disagrees.

 6                    DR. YANG:   I would add within Connecticut.

 7                    MR. SALTON:    At the end of the sentence?
 8                    DR. YANG:   -- how much it cost for that

 9   center providing services.      Within Connecticut, no charge

10   -- or low charge, right?

11                    DR. JENNINGS:    Well that‟s, sir, that‟s, I

12   guess, that‟s more of a philosophical question.

13                    DR. WALLACK:    Leave it as it is.   I mean

14   what if you want to share something with Harvard or

15   something?

16                    (SEVERAL VOICES)

17                    DR. LANDWIRTH:    Now getting back to the --

18   for a moment, whether that comment about state

19   encouraging sharing it appears later on page 11, and this

20   would kind of go together.

21                    DR. CANALIS:    Where do you want us to go?

22                    DR. LANDWIRTH:    Well, we‟re here still

23   under this question of covering the cost of sharing

24   reagents.    The data is included in that.   And on page 11,


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              107
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   there‟s a comment that the State encourages all that, and

 2   I‟m wondering, A, whether those will be better just to

 3   consolidate that into one statement somewhere.      Secondly,

 4   if you want to say any more about Jerry -- because it‟s

 5   not quite the same as Jerry the -- . My understanding of

 6   the NIH approach to that is that it‟s addressing projects

 7   that are over a acceptance for publication.
 8                    DR. JENNINGS:   Is that the current policy?

 9   I couldn‟t remember.

10                    DR. CANALIS:    And there is no cost

11   associated with --

12                    DR. JENNINGS:   In general, it‟s cheap to

13   share data.

14                    DR. CANALIS:    Can we remove the word data

15   out of that statement?

16                    DR. JENNINGS:   Well, the sharing of data

17   is --

18                    DR. CANALIS:    No.   You‟re talking about

19   cost.    You‟re throwing data into the middle, and it‟s

20   creating --

21                    DR. JENNINGS:   It‟s not necessarily free

22   to share data.    If you‟re going to do it over the web,

23   there may be some web defilament costs, for instance.

24   There may or may not, but we might not --


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              108
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Nancy?

 2                    MS. RION:   I‟m wondering if the statement

 3   that‟s on page 11 that we‟ve been referring to is not,

 4   has not been incorporated on page seven, commitment to

 5   sharing resources.

 6                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   No.    Resources and data

 7   are not the same thing.
 8                    MS. RION:   Maybe resources is the wrong

 9   word, but it does say (multiple conversations) recipients

10   and their institutions to share the data.

11                    DR. JENNINGS:    It does seem redundant,

12   doesn‟t it?

13                    DR. LENSCH:    Yeah, I think it is.

14   (Multiple conversations)

15                    DR. JENNINGS:    Nancy is absolutely right.

16   So the green one at the bottom of 11 can be struck out,

17   simply because it‟s redundant. (Multiple conversations)

18                    DR. CANALIS:    Remove it.

19                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   No, I‟m not going to

20   remove.

21                    DR. CANALIS:    No.    Remove the green out of

22   nine.

23                    MR. SALTON:    Okay.   So now, just to make

24   sure I‟m clear, the paragraph on page nine that‟s in


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            109
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   green ink, we‟re taking that out, because it‟s already on

 2   page seven?

 3                     MR. RAKIN:    Yeah, because seven says it

 4   can be included in the budget.

 5                     DR. JENNINGS:   It does.   It hurts to

 6   repeat it when you‟re itemizing the things in the budget.

 7                     MS. RION:    I believe it needs to be there
 8   if it‟s a budgetary item.

 9                     DR. JENNINGS:   It‟s completely harmless to

10   leave it there.    It doesn‟t change anything.

11                     MR. SALTON:    Okay, so, we‟re leaving it.

12                     DR. JENNINGS:   Okay and indirect costs I

13   think we discussed last time, so I assume we don‟t need

14   any further discussion on that.

15                     DR. CANALIS:    On page nine, you have --

16   are you still on nine?

17                     DR. JENNINGS:   Yes.

18                     DR. CANALIS:    If you‟re going to put the

19   escrow there, you know, by rights, you should include the

20   Institutional Review Board, also, because, I mean, they

21   are somehow related.    I don‟t want to convey the message

22   that the escrow --

23                     DR. JENNINGS:   I think didn‟t we make a

24   similar change somewhere else last week?


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            110
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    MS. RION:   Correct.

 2                    MR. SALTON:   Okay.

 3                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   Everyone‟s suggestion

 4   about that section on escrow and that we might ask the

 5   applicant to describe the process, I would just simply

 6   say it was approved by, you‟re going to ask them at least

 7   at the beginning, you know, what is -- tell us, just like
 8   you‟re asking people to describe some other process

 9   (multiple conversations).

10                    DR. LANDWIRTH:    If we‟re going to have, as

11   a selection criteria, the ethical merit, then we ought to

12   know (multiple conversations).

13                    DR. JENNINGS:    So what should it say?     It

14   should say applications should --

15                    DR. LANDWIRTH:   First of all, it has to be

16   approved.

17                    DR. JENNINGS:    It has to be an approved

18   application --

19                    DR. LANDWIRTH:    -- describe the process by

20   which that‟s done in the application.

21                    DR. YANG:   Ruling in the Federal funding

22   court -- ruling just a check -- whether you have proof to

23   the numbers, now it‟s -- we are not requiring any

24   approval before the applications.       For funding -- the


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            111
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   kind of funding they require --

 2                   DR. JENNINGS:    But they can still describe

 3   the process.   Even if the final signoff has not been

 4   obtained, they can still describe the process that it

 5   either has gone through or is going through.

 6                   MS. RION:    Is the on the bottom of page

 7   two, the top of page three?
 8                   DR. JENNINGS:    You‟re right.   It‟s

 9   actually stated there, isn‟t it?

10                   MS. RION:    The bottom of page two.

11                   DR. GENEL:    So it‟s all there.   Why don‟t

12   we just eliminate that?

13                   DR. JENNINGS:    You‟re right.   We can just

14   write this out, because it‟s been --

15                   DR. GENEL:    It‟s all there.

16                   DR. JENNINGS:    This whole paragraph is

17   redundant with language (multiple conversations).       Put it

18   up front in response to our last meeting‟s discussion.

19                   DR. CANALIS:    Furthermore, we do not need

20   to approve any application (coughing).

21                   DR. JENNINGS:    That‟s easy.    Moving on --

22                   DR. LANDWIRTH:    -- it doesn‟t really

23   require a description of the process.

24                   DR. JENNINGS:    You mean the language on


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            112
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   page two?

 2                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   Right.   The timetable of

 3   creating the escrow and whether or not it‟s been

 4   approved.

 5                   MS. RION:   I guess part of the question

 6   here is, when you all discussed this a couple of months

 7   ago, escrow committees were not formed.    My impression is
 8   that escrow committees have been formed, and I‟ll take

 9   this opportunity to say it‟s not just UConn and Yale.

10   I‟m aware of Wesleyan, Fairfield University, and the

11   University of Hartford are all interested in this, but I

12   believe they also have escrow committees that already

13   have been formed, so that‟s new data since we said this.

14   So perhaps you can say that that information needs to be

15   in the application.

16                   DR. CANALIS:   I have a question for you.

17   If we were to receive the members of the escrow committee

18   and a copy of the policies and procedures, would that

19   satisfy you?   Not for its application, but for all the

20   institutions that were to apply, that Connecticut

21   Innovation would have on file, on record, the members and

22   their policies and procedures.

23                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   That sounds, at least on

24   its face, like a good idea, in general.    I‟d be very


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            113
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   interested in having that as public information.

 2                  DR. CANALIS:    Okay, so, would that

 3   satisfy?

 4                  DR. LANDWIRTH:   Yeah.

 5                  DR. CANALIS:    So we would request from any

 6   applicant institution?

 7                  DR. LANDWIRTH:   I think they‟d make a fair
 8   assumption, that if they said it‟s approved, it‟s

 9   approved in accordance with their policy.

10                  DR. YANG:   I think Julius‟ comment is

11   really excellent.   It‟s really basically requesting what

12   are the university‟s procedures for the escrow or --

13   that‟s the information -- that‟s fine.      Now, as another

14   requirement, you‟ve got to have approval before

15   application. You can say normally would be your

16   university, whether you have community focus or not or

17   the procedure for the reviewing process.

18                  DR. CANALIS:    We‟re not going to release

19   funds before it is approved by the escrow.

20                  DR. YANG:   That‟s right.

21                  DR. CANALIS:    And for the escrow to

22   approve this, they need to have members and policies and

23   procedures.

24                  DR. JENNINGS:    We agree.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            114
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. LANDWIRTH:   I think that suggestion is

 2   fine, if we had that information, so if there are four or

 3   five applications coming from an institution, everybody

 4   wouldn‟t have to write the same thing.

 5                     DR. CANALIS:    I‟m trying to make it

 6   simple.

 7                     DR. WALLACK:    Do we have that language?
 8                     MR. SALTON:    So each applicant shall

 9   submit --

10                     DR. CANALIS:    Applicant institution shall

11   submit, and a list of the members of the escrow

12   committee, as well as copies of the policies and

13   procedures.

14                     MR. SALTON:    A list of the members of the

15   escrow committee, and a copy of its policies and

16   procedures.

17                     DR. JENNINGS:    That‟s good.

18                     DR. CANALIS:    Prior to release of funds.

19                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   I would just point out

20   institution means something in the statute.       It means

21   individuals, as well as academic institutions.

22                     DR. CANALIS:    Applicant institutions?    We

23   need the lingo.    I don‟t know that lingo.

24                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   Yeah.   I‟m really just


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            115
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   saying it‟s going to be something else besides, you know,

 2   besides that.   It‟s just like the house of all eligible

 3   institutions.

 4                   DR. LANDWIRTH:    A person can check to see

 5   if we already have it.

 6                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Yeah.

 7                   DR. WALLACK:    Does he have the right
 8   wording now that you‟re talking about?

 9                   DR. LENSCH:    We can request that the

10   applicant identify the escrow that will sit in approval

11   of their grant, and then, outside of the application, we

12   can request that.

13                   MR. SALTON:    Well it‟s applicant,

14   apostrophe S, institution.     If you look under who may

15   submit on page two, that same term is used.    The

16   applicant‟s institution must undertake responsibility for

17   financial administration, blah, blah, blah.

18                   DR. CANALIS:    Are we good?

19                   MS. RION:    I‟d like to double check that.

20   On the bottom of page two, the first sentence remains.

21   Then, following that, you say each applicant‟s

22   institution will require a list of escrow members with

23   the policies and procedures.     Do we leave the next

24   sentence, or do we strike that?


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            116
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    DR. CANALIS:    What‟s the next sentence?

 2                    MS. RION:   If a proposed project has not

 3   yet been approved, if an escrow committee has not yet

 4   convened to consider the project, the applicant must

 5   summarize the plans and timetable for establishing such.

 6                    DR. JENNINGS:   I think we should keep

 7   that, because even though we have word of mouth that
 8   they‟re making good progress, we don‟t actually know that

 9   for sure.

10                    MS. RION:   That‟s fine.

11                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   And some businesses may

12   seek to apply.

13                    MS. RION:   Correct.   Thank you.

14                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We‟ve got about 25

15   minutes to do the last two pages, or else we‟ll have to

16   reconvene.   I do see an item here about eggs and

17   prohibition against.   I presume this applies, refers to -

18   -

19                    DR. JENNINGS:   What page are we on?

20                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   It‟s at the top of

21   10.   There is a prohibition against buying eggs in

22   Connecticut.

23                    DR. CANALIS:    Is this the law?

24                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   It‟s the law.   The


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              117
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   problem we‟ve gotten into is people are putting a very

 2   fine point on this and saying, if Jane Doe comes in and

 3   says I want to donate an egg, and we say, well, it‟s very

 4   nice, and she says, I don‟t want any money, and we say,

 5   that‟s very nice, and then we say, well, who is going to

 6   pay for the donation procedure, and her insurance company

 7   says, why should I pay for it?     That‟s not part of the
 8   insurance company‟s policy.

 9                    So who pays for her hospital cost, and is

10   this a complication in harvesting, taking the eggs, and

11   does the woman that‟s hospitalized or has a disability,

12   who is responsible?    We haven‟t gotten a good answer on

13   that.

14                    DR. LENSCH:   We‟re working on it.

15                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   I think we can

16   proceed in good faith.    I don‟t think anybody would

17   seriously consider that an entity couldn‟t pay for the

18   cost of the technical procedure.     How could you possibly

19   ask somebody who is donating a portion of their body or

20   their genetic material to pay for it?

21                    MR. RAKIN:    Bob, I would agree with you,

22   because it would otherwise also be discriminatory,

23   somebody who doesn‟t have certain amount of means

24   couldn‟t, in fact, participate.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            118
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     And I think a lot of

 2   insurance companies will refuse to pay if they knew the

 3   purpose.

 4                   MR. RAKIN:    I agree.

 5                   MR. SALTON:    Bottom of 10?

 6                   MS. RION:    I believe there was a question

 7   on the adherence to original budget estimates.      I think
 8   there was some registered concern that --

 9                   DR. JENNINGS:   So this is the third

10   section on page 10?

11                   DR. CANALIS:    Adherence to original budget

12   --

13                   DR. JENNINGS:   So, specifically,

14   reallocation of more than 15 percent of the annual budget

15   requires approval from this committee, and I guess the

16   question is does this committee really want to be

17   concerned with -- what‟s the threshold which we want to

18   get involved?

19                   DR. CANALIS:    Either you trust people.

20                   DR. JENNINGS:   If it was 100 percent, we

21   might have a problem.   If it was 50 percent, we‟d

22   probably have a problem.

23                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     That really should

24   become apparent in the reports, that if somebody solicits


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            119
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   and obtains funds for X, Y, Z and they do A, B, C, D,

 2   then we‟ll have a problem with it, but I would agree with

 3   Dr. Canalis‟ statement.   You have to have some trust.

 4                   DR. CANALIS:    This is crazy.

 5                   DR. JENNINGS:    Well I think it‟s a fairly

 6   standard requirement.

 7                   MR. SALTON:    Again, this is taxpayer
 8   money, and it‟s by contract that we‟re giving the money

 9   for specific, where contract includes the budget,

10   includes the budget.    It‟s your responsibility.   I mean

11   you may change the threshold, but I don‟t think you can

12   throw it out.

13                   DR. JENNINGS:    We‟ve been told that NIH

14   specifies 20 percent as the threshold, and that seems

15   like a reasonable guideline.

16                   DR. CANALIS:    I don‟t think so, unless I

17   have total freedom to reallocate funds.

18                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   But you wouldn‟t go from

19   stem cell project to something entirely different.

20                   DR. CANALIS:    No, no, no.   Same project,

21   but reallocation of funds.

22                   DR. LANDWIRTH:   Within the framework of

23   the project.

24                   DR. CANALIS:    Yes, within the framework of


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            120
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the project, five percent.    Let‟s say that I borrowed --

 2                  MR. SALTON:     It started at 15 percent.

 3                  DR. CANALIS:     The allocation is to more

 4   than five percent.

 5                  MS. RION:     It‟s five percent.   Let

 6   Connecticut Innovations know.    If it‟s up to 15 percent,

 7   then Connecticut Innovations would bring it to you.      We
 8   don‟t have to do that.

 9                  DR. CANALIS:     No, we don‟t.

10                  MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:     Just to go back to the

11   point that you stress all the time on transparency, it‟s

12   a very new program.   We have caps of up to five million

13   dollars for some of these grants.    You‟re talking 20

14   percent, being able to move a million dollars around, and

15   I would think that the public might have, not to mention

16   the general assembly, might have an interest in where

17   that million dollars is going.

18                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Okay, so, we have to

19   have a threshold.    Okay.   Twenty percent all right?

20                  MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:     Twenty percent is good.

21                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Okay.

22                  DR. CANALIS:     How about for Connecticut

23   Innovations?

24                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Five.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            121
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     DR. CANALIS:    Five? (Multiple

 2   conversations).

 3                     DR. YANG:    Ten.

 4                     DR. CANALIS:    Two hundred and fifty

 5   thousand dollar grant.

 6                     DR. YANG:    Ten.

 7                     DR. WALLACK:    Ten for C.I.
 8                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Ernie, you‟re a high

 9   roller.

10                     DR. CANALIS:    No.   Ten percent is 25,000

11   dollars.   It‟s not very much.

12                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:     Or it‟s 500,000.

13                     MR. RAKIN:   Or it‟s 500,000 if you have a

14   five million dollar grant.

15                     DR. CANALIS:    Like if you have a program

16   project, you know, one of the projects could deviate by

17   10 percent, then that is the only one that is reporting,

18   so you base it, give or take, 250,000, so you‟re talking

19   about 25, which is not a lot.

20                     DR. JENNINGS:   If the changes are so

21   small, it‟s not going to raise much --

22                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   Twenty and

23   10.

24                     MS. RION:    Project reports, I believe, is


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            122
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the next.   How often?

 2                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Yearly.

 3                   MR. SALTON:    Annual.

 4                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   May I ask?

 5                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Who said you want

 6   every six months?

 7                   MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   And if we‟re talking
 8   about payments, and maybe I don‟t understand the

 9   difference between program reports or fiscal reports, but

10   it seems to me how are we going to be making payments to

11   contractors absent -- but we‟re only going to be making

12   annual payments, then, I would presume.

13                   MS. KENNELLY:   On page five, under

14   transmittal of funds at the bottom, it repeats that

15   (indiscernible -- too far from microphone).

16                   DR. CANALIS:    Is this the law you‟re

17   reading? (Multiple conversations)

18                   MS. RION:    That was under the assumption

19   that it would be semi-annual.

20                   DR. GENEL:    We‟re talking about technical

21   progress reports.

22                   DR. JENNINGS:   Yes.

23                   MS. RION:    Fiscal reports.

24                   DR. JENNINGS:   Remove technical in that


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              123
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   paragraph on page five.      Semi-annual fiscal reports.

 2                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Or should you stick to

 3   a consistent approval?

 4                    DR. CANALIS:    I‟d be happy with scientific

 5   reports yearly and fiscal reports twice a year.      Is that

 6   okay?

 7                    DR. JENNINGS:    Yeah.
 8                    DR. LENSCH:    And we‟ve mentioned the

 9   technical report is supplied by the investigator.      The

10   fiscal report comes from the grant‟s office.

11                    MS. RION:    Just for your information, it‟s

12   usually --

13                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    So you‟re going to

14   strike the technical reports in that section?

15                    DR. YANG:    Thirty days -- may be made

16   within 30 days after scheduled expiration date of the

17   contract.

18                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    I‟m sorry?

19                    DR. YANG:    Page five, under funding,

20   paragraph three.

21                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Oh, I see.

22                    DR. YANG:    Thirty days.   Thirty days or 60

23   days.

24                    DR. JENNINGS:    Sixty days to pay your


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            124
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   bills.

 2                     MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    Sixty is reasonable for

 3   the Department.

 4                     MS. RION:    May I ask?   Again, on page

 5   five, then, under transmittal of funds, were expectations

 6   about when you want to release funds.       The first

 7   installment would be as soon as you approve the -- the
 8   contract is approved.    The subsequent installment would

 9   be after the first year?

10                     MR. RAKIN:    Six months if you get a fiscal

11   report.

12                     DR. CANALIS:    You get fiscal reports every

13   six months.

14                     MS. KRAUSE:    And if it‟s a full year

15   grant, then half the grant won‟t be disbursed at the end

16   of your ‟07 year, „06/‟07.       If I write a million dollar

17   grant for four years, we‟ve got 20 million dollars now to

18   disburse, you‟re only going to give me half of that.

19                     MR. SALTON:    You‟re making an assumption

20   that it‟s in equal installments.      I think the bid could

21   say we want a million upfront.      The first year, we need a

22   million dollars in two installments.

23                     MS. KRAUSE:    We need to change that for

24   the individual grants, because it says 250,000 dollars


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              125
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   per year.

 2                    MR. SALTON:    Well the individual grants

 3   that was done intentionally, I think.

 4                    MS. KRAUSE:    Half your money is not going

 5   to be disbursed at the end.

 6                    MR. SALTON:    That‟s a cap.

 7                    MS. RION:    In my experience in
 8   administering grants, it‟s been our practice at

 9   Connecticut Innovations that we approve the technical,

10   that the technical milestones have been reached prior to

11   distributing more additional funds for the next budgetary

12   year.

13                    This is suggesting that every six months

14   they‟re going to get an automatic installment without

15   that check of what they‟ve been doing.     If that‟s what

16   you want, that‟s fine.

17                    DR. CANALIS:    Projects might --

18                    MR. RAKIN:    But page 10 gives you an out

19   that says, if you don‟t comply with annual reports, there

20   can be a deferral of subsequent payments.

21                    MS. RION:    Okay, so, annually, you would

22   check.    (Multiple conversations)

23                    MR. RAKIN:    You have that protection.

24                    DR. JENNINGS:   So it‟s just a question of


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            126
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the administrative curtain of reviewing progress six

 2   months rather than every 12 months.

 3                  MS. RION:     But as soon as we get -- part

 4   of my difficulty is my experience has been with

 5   universities is if the project begins in July and six

 6   months later it‟s December, it may be March before I get

 7   the university‟s fiscal reports for that previous six
 8   months, so the investigator is not getting.     Just because

 9   they come at six months, they‟re not going to get their

10   installment, which is why C.I. intends to pay, gives the

11   whole year budget upfront.    And because these are larger

12   grants, you may not want to do that, but I just want to

13   check, in terms of your expectations.

14                  MS. KRAUSE:    You can‟t write a report for

15   June until three months, because you don‟t have the

16   numbers.

17                  MS. RION:     If you wanted, you could

18   automatically give them six months.

19                  MR. CARLSON:    Advance in six months and

20   then work against the advance.

21                  MS. RION:     Right.   And not worry about

22   that fiscal report.   Just automatically give them.

23                  DR. WALLACK:    Should we move on?

24                  MS. RION:     Well I need it clear.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            127
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    DR. LENSCH:    Is this something you need to

 2   be in your application or the in the contract?

 3                    DR. JENNINGS:    It certainly needs to be in

 4   the funding agreement.   I‟m not sure that it needs to be

 5   in great detail.

 6                    MS. RION:   Okay.

 7                    DR. JENNINGS:    But the principle is that
 8   we‟ve got to have some mechanism to checking that they‟re

 9   doing what they said they would do and withholding the

10   funds if that‟s not happening.

11                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     We need to finish

12   page 11.   I have a commitment.      I can‟t stay late.

13   Invention, software and copyright is what we‟re going to

14   talk about in our subcommittee.      Final report,

15   acknowledgement support and disclaimer of proposals

16   public record.

17                    DR. CANALIS:    What is the question in red

18   is what I do not understand.

19                    DR. JENNINGS:    Which one?

20                    DR. CANALIS:    Under page 11, the last

21   bottom one.   What is the problem?

22                    DR. LENSCH:    I added that on, because the

23   sentence here says that the Commissioner of Public Health

24   retains rights to use published materials.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            128
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. CANALIS:    It‟s published, recorded.

 2                   DR. LENSCH:    But the issue is that every

 3   time I‟ve submitted a paper for publication, I have to

 4   sign the rights to the journal.

 5                   DR. CANALIS:    -- to release a copyright. I

 6   mean we do this all the time.

 7                   DR. JENNINGS:    I doubt that it‟s going to
 8   be a problem.

 9                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.

10                   DR. JENNINGS:    Now we‟re on 12.

11                   DR. GENEL:    That‟s an easy one.

12                   DR. CANALIS:    Sure it is.

13                   DR. JENNINGS:    Clarify how we amend the

14   question of the donation of unfertilized eggs, and I

15   don‟t know how we being to clarify.

16                   MS. RION:    I don‟t think we can do that.

17                   DR. GENEL:    We need an opinion.

18                   DR. LANDWIRTH:    Well I don‟t quite

19   understand the question.     You have some provisions --

20                   DR. WALLACK:    Bob already indicated his

21   rational, reasonable approach to it and where along those

22   lines the A.G. is going to --

23                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Yeah.   He‟s got to

24   determine that, about the payment.


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            129
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   If I may, on the

 2   broader issue of handling donations? (Multiple

 3   conversations)

 4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      We‟re at a special

 5   point in the proceeding where Dr. Canalis‟ and my

 6   attention span is (Laughter) a lot of red ink.       Okay, go

 7   ahead.
 8                    MS. RION:   I have two questions.    One, may

 9   I have a volunteer from the committee to help redesign

10   the budget page to reflect the different possibilities we

11   have from the four different projects that you‟re going

12   to have?

13                    DR. WALLACK:    Well --

14                    MS. RION:   We‟ll it‟s part of the

15   application.

16                    DR. JENNINGS:   If we could get this out of

17   the door, right?

18                    MS. RION:   Yes.

19                    DR. JENNINGS:   Which attachment, Nancy?

20   Is it attachment one, or attachment two, or what?

21                    MS. RION:   Attachment three.

22                    DR. JENNINGS:   I don‟t have attachment

23   three.

24                    MS. RION:   So it needs to have a place, so


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            130
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1   the core facilities and so forth can be addressed

 2                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Why don‟t see if

 3   Mrs. Kennelly can work with Nancy, and then I‟ll be the

 4   committee member who kind of gets involved in that?

 5                  MS. RION:    Okay.

 6                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   So we have a

 7   financially sound document.
 8                  MS. RION:    The other piece that I would

 9   like you to make a stab at working on is on page two, a

10   date for a letter of intent, and then a date for when you

11   want the proposals in.   The dates that are here were my

12   arbitrary dates, so this is for you to determine.

13                  DR. YANG:    Why do we need a letter of

14   intent?

15                  DR. JENNINGS:   So we kind of can step out.

16                  DR. CANALIS:    Just to have an idea of what

17   is going to come (Multiple conversations).

18                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Warren, what do you

19   think, move them up a month?

20                  MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:    A month is too long.

21                  DR. JENNINGS:   How quickly are we going to

22   get this out of the door?

23                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We‟ve got to do the

24   budget.


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            131
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                  MS. RION:    It‟s not a problem, except for

 2   your I.P. piece.   And if you could do that in the next

 3   couple of days, we can --

 4                  MR. RAKIN:     -- take a couple of weeks.

 5                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    That‟s going to take

 6   a couple of weeks.

 7                  MS. RION:    Then we could probably do this
 8   by the end of the week.

 9                  DR. LENSCH:     Good.

10                  DR. WALLACK:    So are we saying that we can

11   get it out by March 31st, Friday, March 31st?

12                  MS. RION:    I don‟t see any reason why not.

13                  DR. CANALIS:    What are we getting out?

14                  MS. RION:    -- your guideline.

15                  DR. WALLACK:    Can we move that we have the

16   document out by March 31st?    And what‟s reasonable

17   (Multiple conversations)

18                  COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    First, we‟ve got to

19   vote down the old one, secondly, we‟ve got to adopt this

20   one, and then we can decide.

21                  MS. RION:    And my assumption is that the

22   adoption that you do today should be contingent on your

23   approval of -- Henry and I make these final.     We put it

24   back into the language, and you need to look at that and


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              132
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   make sure that you‟re comfortable with it.

 2                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Let‟s get rid of the

 3   old document first.

 4                    DR. CANALIS:   I move to get rid of the old

 5   document.

 6                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Second.    Any

 7   discussion?    All in favor?
 8                    ALL:   Aye.

 9                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Opposed?   Unanimous

10   vote.    Now we‟re working on this document.

11                    MR. RAKIN:    Right.

12                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Do we want to

13   propose that it be accepted, subsequent to --

14                    DR. WALLACK:   Conditioned on.

15                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Conditional on an

16   acceptable budget format?

17                    MR. RAKIN:    And the I.P.

18                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Okay, so, we‟re

19   going to vote now on those, with a subsequent I.P.

20   proposal and a budget document.

21                    DR. LENSCH:    So moved.

22                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     Second?

23                    DR. CANALIS:   Second.

24                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:     All in favor?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              133
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1                     ALL:   Aye.

 2                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Opposed?   Unanimous

 3   vote.

 4                     MS. RION:     Now can we suggest some dates,

 5   please?

 6                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.   We‟re going

 7   to be able to get this out on the first of March.         First
 8   of April.

 9                     DR. CANALIS:    April 1, the document is

10   available. (Multiple conversations).

11                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    March 31st, and we

12   need eight weeks to get it back?

13                     DR. YANG:     Yeah.

14                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay, June 1st it‟s

15   required.

16                     MR. SALTON:    For the full bid or the

17   letter of intent?

18                     MS. RION:     No, full -- (Multiple

19   conversations).

20                     DR. YANG:     The letter of intent is

21   optional.    It‟s not required.     To make a requirement, I

22   think it‟s really too much.

23                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:    Okay.

24                     MS. KRAUSE:    You probably should have a


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              134
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   letter of intent, because you might end up having 1,000

 2   applications.    The Review Committee is going to need to

 3   know.    All you need in a letter of intent is putting the

 4   title and your name.

 5                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      Letter of intent no

 6   later than 30 April.    Okay, what day of the week of 1

 7   June?
 8                     MS. RION:    Thursday.

 9                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      That‟s a Thursday.

10   They‟re due back here in the office no later than 4:30

11   p.m.?

12                     MS. RION:    Yes.

13                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      June 1st.   No lates

14   accepted.    So if it comes to the door the next morning,

15   we‟re not going to accept it.         Nancy, we‟ll change it to

16   May 1st.

17                     DR. GENEL:   May 1st is a Monday.

18                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      That‟s a Monday.

19   That‟s fine.    May 1st, letters of intent are due.        June

20   1st, no later than 4:30 p.m., completed application.

21                     DR. JENNINGS:   The new process has to

22   happen in June?

23                     MS. RION:    And the start date.

24                     COMMISSIONER GALVIN:      Yes.   Okay?


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            135
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                    MS. RION:   I don‟t think you could

 2   estimate what that would be, because we don‟t know how

 3   long the peer review.   I mean I think the goal might be

 4   September 1st.   We don‟t know whether we‟re going to get

 5   four proposals or 50, and that would make a huge

 6   difference to how long the review process would be.

 7                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Mr. Wollschlager?
 8                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   I recognize you‟ve got

 9   three minutes left.   A couple of items we haven‟t gotten

10   to week after week, one which involves the Peer Review

11   Committee.    I‟ve got to say, I‟m very concerned about --

12   I‟m very pleased with the progress of this group.      I‟m

13   very concerned about the five-person Peer Review

14   Committee and how this is going to work.     We‟re a brand

15   new landscape.

16                    We‟ve had on the agenda a possible

17   formation of a work group to look at peer review issues,

18   and I would ask the chair whether or not it would

19   consider appointing or requesting a discussion of such a

20   work group.

21                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Well there are only

22   five people, but I think the fact that somebody reviews

23   it and attests to the fact that they review it I would

24   not want to ask -- did he review it, or did some of his


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                              136
     RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                            MARCH 22, 2006

 1   staff help him with some of it, or screen it.    I think we

 2   sort of depend on the individuals‟ integrity.

 3                    And these are international scientists,

 4   and so the fact that they review it and give us their

 5   opinion, I would prefer not to say did your graduate

 6   student look at this before you did?    I mean there‟s a

 7   million variations on this, but I‟m sure they‟ll get the
 8   work out.    I would be reasonably certain we wouldn‟t have

 9   more than six or seven applications per person.    Maybe we

10   will.

11                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   Well they‟re going to

12   have to all look at all of that.

13                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Yeah.

14                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   And I would think that

15   we‟re going to have more than six or seven.

16                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   We would probably

17   have a dozen, 20, whatever.    I don‟t want to say to them

18   you and only you, because we have to go back and ask for

19   statutory.

20                    MR. WOLLSCHLAGER:   Okay.

21                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Okay?

22                    MS. RION:   I would appreciate a vote on

23   the meeting dates, simply so that we can submit all of

24   these dates officially.


                        POST REPORTING SERVICE
                      HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            137
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   DR. WALLACK:    I have a question.    On

 2   December 4th, did you really mean December 4th, or did

 3   you mean December 5th, because we‟ve been going with the

 4   Tuesdays.

 5                   MS. RION:    I may have made a mistake.

 6                   DR. GENEL:   Those were special meetings.

 7                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   April 18th and May
 8   23rd are the next two meetings.

 9                   DR. JENNINGS:    I won‟t be able to attend

10   on the 18th.

11                   MR. RAKIN:   Are we allowed to do our work

12   group by e-mail?   Do we have to physically meet?

13                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Do it by phone.

14   Motion to adjourn?

15                   MR. TWEEDDALE:    Commissioner?

16                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Yes.

17                   MR. TWEEDDALE:    We have -- Willie is going

18   to be on a panel for the Stem Cell 2006 Science, Law and

19   Business.   It‟s a web cast that we‟re using.     We‟re going

20   to hold it in the conference room here, and everyone is

21   welcome to attend.   It runs from 9:00 to 4:00.      You‟re

22   welcome to come.

23                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Will a typed version

24   be available?


                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                            138
     RE:   CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                          MARCH 22, 2006

 1                   MS. RION:   I don‟t believe so, right?

 2                   DR. LENSCH:    I don‟t know, but I would be

 3   surprised if they didn‟t record the proceedings.

 4                   DR. WALLACK:   One other announcement, and

 5   that is it‟s very, very important, and that is that

 6   there‟s a Symposium Committee.    You‟re aware of it.

 7   You‟ve sent out the letters, but I don‟t know if
 8   everybody here knows about it, and that‟s going to be

 9   that next, in ‟07, March 27th and March 28th of ‟07.

10                   There‟s going to be an international

11   symposium taking place in the state.    It‟s going to be

12   devoted to a scientific day on the Wednesday, the 28th,

13   and followed by a public forum that night, to be preceded

14   on the 27th with a legislative session in the morning,

15   and then, in the afternoon, an economic opportunity, a

16   development session, and a bioethics session that will

17   involve escrow and so forth.

18                   We‟ve already gotten five or six people to

19   accept.   Todd Mountain(phonetic) is going to be coming,

20   Arthur Caplan is going to be coming, Janet

21   Rossant(phonetic) is going to be coming.    It‟s an amazing

22   group of people --

23                   COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   This is, of course,

24   subject to we requested 200,000 dollars in funding.      I


                      POST REPORTING SERVICE
                    HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102
                                                             139
    RE:     CONNECTICUT STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                           MARCH 22, 2006

1   don‟t think we‟re going to get 200,000 dollars.

2                    DR. WALLACK:   Well, the other sources of

3   income, as well.

4                    COMMISSIONER GALVIN:   Since we‟re an

5   executive branch department, all this is subject to the

6   Governor‟s approval.    A motion?

7                    DR. LENSCH:    So moved.
8                    (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 4:06

9   p.m.)




                       POST REPORTING SERVICE
                     HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102