BOB KLEIN’S RECENT SPEECH AT THE WORLD STEM CELL SUMMIT
EDITED BY DON C. REED FROM A TRANSCRIPT KINDLY VOLUNTEERED BY BETH DRAIN OF BARRISTER’S REPORTING SERVICE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA. (ANY ERRORS ARE MY OWN—DR)
“THANK YOU, BERNIE (Siegel, developer of the World Stem Cell Summit): “WE ARE ALL INDEBTED TO YOU FROM THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF THE STEM CELL REVOLUTION FOR YOUR HEROIC EFFORTS IN PROTECTING THE GLOBAL RESEARCHERS FROM A BAN AT THE UNITED NATIONS, FOR WHICH YOUR EFFORTS WERE LEGENDARY, AND WE WERE PRIVILEGED TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU ON THAT.
BUT IT TAKES ALL OF US HERE. IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS FACING THE WORLD. IT WILL TAKE ALL OF US AND THEN SOME, TO DRIVE THIS REVOLUTION IN MEDICINE THROUGH THESE DIFFICULT TIMES.
THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS IN THE U.S. AND EUROPE I EXPECT TO CRUSH THE TRADITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FUNDING APPROACHES. AT THE VERY BEST WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HOLD CLOSE TO THE CURRENT LEVELS, BUT IN REALDOLLARS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, WE CAN SEE THOSE ACTUAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES DECLINING WITH INFLATION BECAUSE THE FIGHT FOR RESOURCES WILL NEVER HAVE BEEN MORE DIFFICULT.
BUT IN CALIFORNIA WE HAVE PROPOSITION 71. AND THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ONE COULD ASK IS: “WHY AM I SO FOCUSED ON NEW PARADIGMS IN FUNDING? PROPOSITION 71 OF ITS ORIGINAL $3 BILION HAS COMMITTED 1.3 BILLION APPROXIMATELY, ATTRACTED A BILLION IN MATCHING FUNDS, AND IT WILL HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO TAKE IT THROUGH MID 2017 FOR FUNDING COMMITMENTS TO STRETCH OUT TO 2020.
IN 1955, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT BY 2005 IT WOULD COST A HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR JUST TO KEEP VICTIMS OF POLIO IN IRON LUNGS IN HOTELS DESIGNED ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
ALL OF THAT COST FOR 50 YEARS HAS BEEN AVOIDED. THERE WAS AN INVESTMENT IN THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TO CURE THOSE PATIENTS OR TO AVOID THE DISEASE, AND THAT HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM BENEFIT.
AND WE SHOULD BE ISSUING BONDS THAT SPREAD THE COST OF THAT INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THESE LONG BENEFIT PERIODS, NOT TRYING TO FUND IT ON THE BACKS OF THE CURRENT TAXPAYER.
BECAUSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, IT’S A DECADE BEFORE YOU GET REALLY THE BEGININGS OF THE BENEFIT OF THE INVESTMENT, WHICH IS WHY IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 71, I CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST SO THERE WERE NO GENERAL FUND PAYMENTS BY THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS.
AND THE REVENUE CREATED BY THE NEW JOBS WILL CARRY THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PAYMENTS IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH APPROXIMATELY THE NINTH YEAR. WE REALLY NEED TO THINK AND ADVOCATE FOR CAPITAL STRUCTURES THAT SPREAD THE COST AND ALIGN THE COST OVER THE PERIOD THAT BENEFITS.
SO IF WE’RE GOING TO HAVE PRESSURE ON NATIONAL MODELS FOR BONDS OR STATE MODELS, WHERE CAN WE GO?
WELL, IN 2006 GORDON BROWN AND BILL GATES GOT TOGETHER AND THEY LAUNCHED A PROGRAM CALLED THE IFFIm, THE INTERNATIONAL FACILITY FOR FINANCING IMMUNIZATIONS. THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE CAPITAL COSTS OF KNOCKING OUT TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNDERDEVELOPED WORLD. AND THEY ISSUED $5 BILLION OF BONDS THROUGH THE WORLD BANK.
NOW THAT ISSUANCE WAS SUPPORTED BY PLEDGES FROM INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES. SO YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE COUNTRIES DIDN’T HAVE TO ISSUE THE BONDS. THE WORLD BANK ISSUED THE BONDS. YET THE COUNTRIES COULD MAKE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE APPROPRIATIONS UNDER A LONG-TERM CONTRACT SO THAT THE FUNDING WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATIONS MODEL THAT HIT THEM WITH THE COST ALL UP FRONT. THE FUNDING WAS SPREAD OVER 20 PLUS YEARS.
THE VALUE TO DEVELOPED NATIONS OF SPREADING THEIR COST OVER A LARGE NUMBER OF YEARS– IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE, IN THESE BUDGET TIMES– IS IMMENSE, AND CERTAINLY SCIENCE IS INTERNATIONAL.
WHY NOT ADOPT A MODEL THAT’S BEEN PROVEN? WHY NOT GO TO AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL AND SEE IF WE CAN SUPPLEMENT THE NIH FUNDING, SUPPLEMENT CALIFORNIA’S FUNDING? THIS IS NOT A PARADIGM OR A MODEL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FINANCING RESOURCES, BUT TO REALIZE THOSE EXISTING RESOURCES WILL BE UNDER IMMENSE PRESSURE. TO SUPPLEMENT THOSE RESOURCES, THE AGENCY THAT RUNS THIS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE WORLD BANK COULD OPERATE JUST LIKE CIRM DOES, AS A PUBLIC CORPORATION, A GLOBAL PUBLIC CORPORATION, WITH PEER REVIEW, WITH ALL THE PROCESSES WE’VE PUT IN PLACE FOR CIRM, WITH RECUSALS WHEN A SCIENTIST FROM A PARTICULAR NATION WAS UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON A GRANT OR A LOAN.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST BY LOOKING OUTSIDE OUR NATIONAL MODELS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND IN THIS DIFFICULT TIME PERIOD A WAY TO EXPAND BY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OR TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, (AFTER A TEST PERIOD), A NEW FUNDING RESOURCE THAT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT AS A BRIDGE TO A TIME WHEN THE ECONOMIES OF THE WORLD ARE IN BETTER SHAPE AND NATIONAL FUNDIING IS REALLY MORE REALISTIC.
IT IS, HOWEVER, CRITICAL FOR US WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT THE FUNDING STRUCTURES TO GET FROM WHERE WE ARE TO GET FROM BEING ABLE TO FUND UP TO … A PHASE 1 HUMAN TRIAL.
AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE PHASE II TRIALS? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET TO COMMERCIALIZATION? WITH CIRM WE HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS WHERE WE CAN GET UP TO A PHASE II A OR II B HUMAN TRIALS TO WHERE COMPANIES CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE A SHORT ENOUGH TIME PERIOD THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY SELL TO CAPITAL MARKETS ON TAKING THAT RISKS WITH A NEW THERAPY. BUT THE CAPITAL MARKETS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, ARE HUGELY RISK ADVERSE IN THIS CLIMATE. SO THAT’S A VERY SMALL WINDOW FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF THERAPIES THAT ARE GOING TO GET A GOOD RECEPTION.
WE NEED SOME MAJOR ECONOMIC DRIVERS. AND ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS IN FULLY ENGAGING BIOTECH OR PHARMA IS THAT THE CAPITAL MODEL FOR AN INTERVENTIONIST STEM CELL THERAPY THAT SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATES DISEASE– OR IN FACT CURES SOMEONE THROUGH AN INTERVENTIONIST THERAPY– REALLY BREAKS THE CURRENT MODEL UNDER THEIR BUSINESS PLAN.
LOOK AT LIPITOR. LOOK AT LONG-TERM CANCER THERAPIES. THEY’RE CHRONIC THERAPIES OR THEY’RE LONG-TERM TREATMENTS TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONDITION. THEY’RE A LONG-TERM INCOME STREAM. IF YOU COME IN WITH A NEW APPROACH TO KIDNEY DISEASE THAT CURES THE KIDNEY DISEASE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO LAY ALLOF THAT COST UP FRONT ON A SINGLE THERAPY OR LIMITED NUMBER OF THERAPIES? HOW MANY DISEASES CAN THE U.S. BUDGET OR GERMANY’S BUDGET OR CANADA’S BUDGET TAKE AND AFFORD TO MAKE MASSIVE FRONT-END PAYMENTS ON. RIGHT?
SO YOU HAVE STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS FOR LEUKEMIA. IF YOU HAD STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS FOR 40 DISEASES, WHAT’S THAT GOING TO DO IF IT HAS TO BE A FRONT-END PAYMENT? WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THERE WON’T BE ENOUGH RESOURCES, AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET SEVERE RATIONING OR LIMITATIONS ON WHAT CONDITIONS CAN BE ADDRESSED. THAT IS NOT ALIGNED WITH OUR GOAL TO TREAT DISEASES WITH THE BEST SCIENCE THAT HUMANITY CAN BRING TO BEAR.
SO AS A POTENTIAL NEW PARADIGM, I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WE CAN LOOK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WHICH IN THE UNITED STATES HAS A COST SAVINGS FORMULA THEY DID EXPERIMENTS WITH. THEY ESSENTIALY SAID TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, IF YOU SAVE A PERCENTAGE OF THIS NEW MILITARY SYSTEM, WE’LL SHARE WITH YOU IN THOSE SAVINGS.
NOW, THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT AND IGNORE FOR A MOMENT THE FACT THAT THEY LIMITED THE SAVINGS TO A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF YEARS AND THEY CAPPED IT AT SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY, THAT THE TRANSACTION COSTS FOR MOST MILITARY CONTRACTORS WEREN’T WORTH DEALING WITH IT.
BUT REDESIGN THE PROGRAM SO IT WORKS. IF YOU SAY TO BIOTECH, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL APPROVE CONTINGENT COMPENSATION CONTRACTS, YOU DECIDE WHAT DISEASE YOU RE GOING TO TREAT,AND HOW YOU’RE GOING TO TREAT IT.
IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL IN SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATING THE DISEASE OR CURING THE DISEASE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE OF THE SAVINGS FOR 30 YEARS OR 4O YEARS.
WHAT HAPPENS? YOU’VE UNLEASHED HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WHY CAN’T THE CONGRESS DO THAT RIGHT NOW? WHY CAN’T THEY JUST APPROPRIATE THE MONEY? BECAUSE WE HAVE A PAY-GO CONGRESS AS THEY WILL IN GERMANY AND FRANCE AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.
ESSENTIALLY A PAY-GO CONGRESS MEANS YOU HAVE TO CUT A COST (SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BUDGET—DR) TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION OR YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION, WHICH I THINK IS NOT TOO POPULAR.
WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS BY SIGNING FEDERAL CONTRACTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY ON REDUCING MEDICAL COSTS AS SOON AS CRITERIA ARE MET, IN KIDNEY DISEASE, IS THE REPAIR—IS THE STEM CELL THERAPY PROVIDING A REPAIR SO THE INDIVIDUAL DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ON DIALYSIS? OR HAVE WE AVERTED IT GOING TO THAT POINT, THE PROTEINS IN THE BLOOD ARE MUCH LOWER? RIGHT?
CAN WE SEE INDICATORS ALONG THE WAY THAT WE COULD SET WITH GOOD SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS SO THAT WE ARE AVOIDING THINGS LIKE AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION?
CAN WE CREATE A COMPENSATION SYSTEM WHERE COMPANIES CAN TAKE THESE CONTRACTS AND AS SOON AS THEY START TO SEE POSITIVE RESULTS…THEY CAN START BORROWING AGAINST THEM? AND AS THE POPULATION USING IT INCREASES, THEY CAN BORROW MORE. WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR THE COMPANY?
WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE COMPANY IS THAT IF THEY CAN BORROW ON A FEDERAL CONTRACT, THEY CAN BORROW LONG-TERM AT A VERY LOW RATE, AND THEY CAN REPLACE EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE VENTURE CAPITAL UP FRONT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? … NOW THEY CAN TAKE A RISK ON A BROADER NUMBER OF DISEASES. NOW MAYBE THEY CAN TAKE A RISK ON ALS (LOU GEHRIG’S DISEASE) WHICH IS A SMALL POPULATION. NOW MAYBE THEY CAN TAKE A RISK ON A BIGGER PORTFOLIO BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BUSINESS MODEL TO DEAL WITH STEM CELL RESEARCH. … RIGHT NOW THEY DON’T HAVE THAT BUSINESS MODEL, AND THERE’S A LOT OF THE SKEPTICS OUT THERE THAT SAYS, “WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? CHARGE A MILLION DOLLARS A THERAPY? WHO’S GOING TO PAY THAT UP FRONT?” HOW CAN ANY MEDICAL SYSTEM AFFORD THAT FOR A BROAD RANGE OF DISEASES?
WE HAVE TO LOOK DOWNSTREAM AS WE CELEBRATE THE DISCOVERIES THAT ARE MILESTONES IN KNOWLEDGE AND MOVING TOWARD THERAPIES. WE HAVE TO LOOK DOWNSTREAM TO A NEW PARADIGM TO CREATE A BUSINESS MODEL THAT CAN REALLY INCENTIVIZE BUSINESS WITH HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF POTENTIAL PAYMENTS SPREAD OVER 30-40 YEARS, SPREAD OVER THE BENEFIT PERIOD SO EFFECTIVELY THOSE GENERATIONS THAT ARE GETTING THE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE AND/OR LOWER COST ARE PAYING THAT OUT OF A PORTION OF THE SAVINGS.
SO I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT GETTING THE CURRENT CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO RAISE TAXES TO FUND MORE RESEARCH IS NOT PROBABLE. BUT GETTING THE CURRENT CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO LOOK AT A PROGRAM WHERE YOU CAN TAKE A PERCENTAGE OF THE SAVINGS AND PAY IT TO A COMPANY– UNDER A LONG-TERM CONTRACT WHERE THE COMPANIES ARE ALL COMPETING TO SEE WHO CAN CREATE A THERAPY THAT WILL REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING AND SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY– YOU’VE DONE SOMETHING REMARKABLE.
CURRENTLY THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF BIOTECH, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CURRENT BUSINESS MODEL, IS ALIGNED WITH CREATING A LONG-TERM THERAPY. THERE ARE A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE IN BIOTECH WHO REALLY WANT TO CURE PEOPLE, BUT WE PUT THEM INTO A QUANDARY. BECAUSE THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE REWARDED IF THEY CREATE A LONG-TERM THERAPY, NOT IF THEY CREATE AN INTERVENTIONIST THERAPY …THAT’S NOT THEIR INCENTIVE.
SO WE HAVE TO CREATE A BUSINESS MODEL THAT REALLY MOTIVATES THEM TO A LARGE SCALE. UNDER THIS MODEL WE’VE RE-ALIGNED THE INTEREST OF BIOTECH TO BE THE SAME AS THE PATIENTS, TO BE THE SAME AS THE SCIENTISTS, TO BE THE SAME AS THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO CURE… OR AT LEAST TO SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATE.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT EXPANDING THE BOND MODEL, THE NEW PARADIGM OF CALIFORNIA’S PROP 71, SUCH AS THE ADOPTION IN TEXAS OF A $3 BILLION BOND FINANCE PROGRAM, SUCH AS THE THIRD FRONTIER PROGRAM IN OHIO, WHICH INCLUDED BIOTECH FUNDING, IS FUNDAMENTALLY AN IMPORTANT GOAL. BUT WE HAVE TO GO THE EXTRA MILE AND LOOK AT HOW WE’RE GOING TO GET TO COMMERCIALIZATION…
AS WE EXPAND THE BOND FINANCING TO SPREAD THE COST OF RESEARCH OVER THE GENERATIONS THAT BENEFIT AND CREATE THE NEW BUSINESS MODEL, WE WILL FIND THAT WE’VE LEVERAGED AN ENTIRE NEW GROUP OF DONORS, BOTH INSTITUTIONAL DONORS AND PRIVATE DONORS. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THESE NEW PARADIGMS LEVERAGE THEIR MONEY. THESE NEW PARADIGMS GIVE THEM THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: IN TIGHT FISCAL TIMES, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET RESEARCH BUDGETS TO EVEN SURVIVE?
WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE,WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY CAN REALLY LEVERAGE THEIR MONEY, THERE’S SOMEONE DOWNSTREAM TO CARRY THEM,THEN THE DONORS CAN PUT UP MAJOR DOLLARS, MUCH LARGER, QUANTUM LEVELS LARGER DONATIONS THAN THEY’RE DOING NOW WITH THE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY ARE DRIVING A LEGACY INVESTMENT THAT CAN IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION.
IN TODAY’S ECONOMY, DONORS ARE SKEPTICAL. DONORS DON’T BELIEVE THE DOWNSTREAM DOLLARS WILL BE THERE. DONORS ARE CUTTING THEIR COMMITMENTS.
(SO IN THAT CHALLENGING CLIMATE) WHERE DID THE BILLION DOLLARS IN MATCHING FUNDS COME FROM FOR CIRM’S FACILITIES? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM (IN THE YEARS) 2008, 2009?…
IT CAME BECAUSE THEY SAW A MODEL THAT WOULD TAKE THEM AT LEAST THROUGH (THE STAGE OF HUMAN TRIALS) WHERE … COMPANIES COULD … PICK UP THESE THERAPIES AND CARRY THEM FORWARD TO PATIENTS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CREATE NEW PARADIGMS FOR FUNDING THE RESEARCH UP FRONT, TO THE EXTENT WE PUT A NEW BUSINESS MODEL TOGETHER FOR CONGRESS WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL CONTRACTUALLY COMMIT THIS COUNTRY TO HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REALLY CURE OR SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATE DISEASE ON A PERFORMANCE BASIS, WE HAVE ALSO CHANGED THE GAME FOR DONORS AND THE SEED MONEY THAT IS SO CRITICAL UP FRONT FOR HIGH RISK EXPERIMENTS, FOR BRILLIANT NEW IDEAS CAN BE MAGNIFIED MANY TIMES OVER.
SO THE QUESTION, THEN, IS WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE POLITICAL WILL FOR ANY NEW PROGRAM. FORGET THE FACT THAT IT IS RATIONAL. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REALIZE THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT WE’RE LIVING IN, THAT CONGRESS LIVES IN,THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS LIVE IN, AND THAT MEDIA WE LIVE IN IS RELATIVELY DEVOID IN THE PUBLIC MEDIA OF INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU DO, WHETHER SCIENTISTS OR ADVOCATES.
IF WE LOOK AT WHAT’S HAPPENED BETWEEN 1998 AND 2005, WE FIND THAT 65% OF ALL THE SCIENCE WRITERS IN THIS COUNTRY (FOUND THEIR JOBS WERE ELIMINATED–DR), BUT THAT WAS JUST THE BEGINNING. WHAT’S HAPPENED SINCE THEN?
WELL, IN 2008, CNN LAID OFF ITS ENTIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STAFF. SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT THERE AND MOBILIZE THE PUBLIC TO SUPPORT BIOTECH, TO SUPPORT NEW FUNDING MODELS? THE SAN JOSE MERCURY SAID, TWO DECADES AGO THERE WERE A HUNDRED FIFTY PAPERS WITH SCIENCE SECTIONS. TODAY THERE ARE TWENTY LEFT. THE U.S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENCE WRITERS HAS 3,000 MEMBERS REMAINING. ONLY 70 ARE FULL TIME.
CHRIS MOONEY IN HIS BOOK UNSCIENTIFIC AMERICA SAID THAT FOR EVERY FIVE HOURS OF CABLE T.V. NEWS, LESS THAN ONE MINUTE IS DEVOTED TO SCIENCE. “FORTY-SIX PERCENT OF AMERICANS,” HE SAID, “REJECT EVOLUTION AND THINK THAT THE EARTH IS LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS OLD. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BELIEVE THAT THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH.”
WE HAVE A REMARKABLE TASK IN FRONT OF US, BUT WITH PROPOSITION 71 WE HANDLED A VERY TOUCH SUBJECT. WE PUT SCIENTISTS ON THE TELEVISION. WE MOBILIZED THE PATIENT ADVOCATES. CLEARLY, THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS $6 BILLION OF AUTHORIZATION, 3 BILLION FOR THE RESEARCH AND 3 BILLION TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS FOR 35 YEARS. CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
BUT PATIENT ADVOCATES AND SCIENTISTS GOT TOGETHER AND IT HAPPENED.
WE HAVE A HUGE JOB TO DO. YOU ARE THE REVOLUTION. SCIENTISTS AND ADVOCATES IN THIS ROOM ARE LEADERS IN THE STEM CELL REVOLUTION ON WHICH THIS REVOLUTION IS INCREDIBLY DEPENDENT, AND WE MUST GET THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES IN EVERY MEDIA MARKET, IN EVERY STATE, IN EVERY COUNTRY TO REACH OUT. DON’T WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO INTERVIEW YOU FOR A DISCOVERY. YOU’VE GOT TO GO TO THE MEDIA AND EDUCATE THEM ON SCIENCE… SO THAT THERE’S A BROAD PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE VALUE OF THIS STEM CELL REVOLUTION TO EVERY FAMILY AND EVERY CHILD IN THIS COUNTRY– OR WE’RE GOING TO GET RUN OVER BY THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS.
AND THAT ENGAGEMENT NEEDS TO START YESTERDAY. BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE PROMISES TO KEEP AND MILES TO GO BEFORE WE SLEEP; BECAUSE WE ARE THE HOPE OF AN ENTIRE GENERATION… THAT IN THIS NARROW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY, A REVOLUTION IN MEDICAL CARE WILL NOT BE CRUSHED BY AN ECONOMIC CYCLE.
BECAUSE WE, YOU AND I, HAVE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHO WOULD GIVE OUR EVERY BREATH TO RESCUE FROM SUFFERING THAT MAY WITHIN A DECADE BE LARGELY… UNNECESSARY. THANK YOU.”