Speaker Spotlight: Judith Kjelstrom, Ph.D., Director of the UC Davis Biotechnology Program

Judith Kjelstrom

Judith Kjelstrom, Ph.D., also known as Dr. Judy, has a rich background in health science and biotechnology education and training, clinical laboratory science, microbiology and immunology and program administration. She directs the UC Davis biotechnology program and the advanced degree program for corporate employees. Besides co-directing the UC Davis-Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Integrating Medicine into Basic Science graduate training program, she is also a lecturer in the departments of microbiology and molecular and cellular biology at UC Davis. Kjelstrom received her bachelor's degree in biology from Sacramento State University and her doctorate in microbiology from UC Davis.

If you have not already secured your ticket to hear Dr. Judy speak next week, contact CHI!

Q: As the director for UC Davis’ Biotechnology Program, how would you describe the environment for biotech education?

A: The environment at UC Davis continues to be strong in all aspects of biotechnology education from undergraduate to doctorate level. UC Davis continued to increase its prominence in research, especially in the sciences. The campus received more than $684 million in research funds in the last year. While federal research dollars fell slightly as stimulus funds tapered off, awards from non-governmental organizations quadrupled and state research funding grew by half.

Due to the breath of expertise and the collaborative nature of the various schools and colleges, we are able to offer research opportunities in biomedical application, agricultural and environmental biotech as well as the newer industrial areas such as biofuels. Enrollments in biotech-related programs continue to grow. For example, the Designated Emphasis in Biotechnology (DEB) graduate program, which is housed within the biotechnology program, has grown from 20 students in 2000 to 220 Ph.D. students in 2012. Having fellowship support for graduate training is critical for recruiting the most talented students to campus.

We recently received another five-year renewal for the National Institutes of Health training grant in biomolecular technology, in which the DEB is the formal graduate education program. Other related training grants, in which I am involved, are the National Science Foundation-funded Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program and the UC Davis-Howard Hughes Medical Institute Integrating Medicine into Basic Science training program, which provide additional scholarship support for DEB students. Our industry partners provide additional training through paid internships and co-ops, which are required for all DEB graduate students.

Q: What do you see as some of the biggest challenges, from an educational standpoint, going forward?

A: In a recent statement by Chancellor Linda Katehi, reduced funding from the state of California has challenged all of the UC campuses. Increased dependence on student tuition and private funding to meet our education and research missions puts in question the very nature of the university and its relationship with the state and public. In the 1960s, the California Master Plan led to the creation of what is recognized widely as the best public research university in the world. But, in the past 20 years, the commitment to the master plan has eroded and continues to do so. The state's contribution to students on the UC campuses has been reduced from $17,000 per student in 1990-1991 to less than $7,000 per student in 2010-2011. In the past four years, UC Davis alone has lost 40 percent of its state budget, while tuition has increased by 84 percent. The future competitiveness of both California and America depend on a healthy and widely accessible UC system.

Moreover, in today's academic environment, research is a vital part of this learning. For a nation that wants to be a global leader through innovation, this must be a skill accessible to all citizens. The ability to think creatively, act entrepreneurially and drive change when needed must be part of our public identity.

The biotechnology program has been hit hard by budget reductions and is unable to expand our staff and operational budgets to meet the growing demand for our programs in graduate education and K-14 outreach. Paid industrial internships for the DEB students are in constant demand, outreach programs such as BiotechSYSTEM, Teen Biotech Challenge, Biotechnology in the Classroom are underfunded, but are critical pieces of biotech education in the regional high schools. Without corporate support, we cannot meet the needs of students involved in biotechnology.

Q: What are some of the challenges you have already overcome?

A: We continually seek new corporate partners for DEB industrial internships and sponsorships for our “Train the Trainer” workshops and biotech enrichment programs for middle school and high school students. High school students who enter the Teen Biotech Challenge are hungry for summer research experiences, but funding and research mentors are limited. To address this need, the biotechnology program has partnered with the Institute of Regenerative Cures at the School of Medicine to apply for a creativity award through the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to provide summer research experiences for winners of the TBC.

Q: What are you most looking forward to hearing about at BioMed Innovation Night?

A: I am eager to meet Percival Barretto-Ko in person and learn more about ScienceWoRx. He and I share a passion for medicine as well as teaching. I would like to explore strategies as to how we might develop a similar partnership in the Sacramento Valley. Academic-industry-government partnerships will enable us to build a strong STEM workforce.






CHI-Advancing California biomedical research and innovation

Venture Capital is the Lifeblood of Biotech

Since the inception of the biotechnology industry in 1980, startup companies have looked to venture capitalists to help them move innovations through human trials and into medical practice. This endeavor requires a lot of assistance: the drug development process can take more than 12 years and $1.2 billion. This is the cost for the approximately 10 percent of drug candidates that are successfully commercialized. Nearly 90 percent will fail in development.

Working with emerging companies, venture capitalists often provide five to eight years of equity to startups whose stock is essentially valueless. The goal for both the investor and the company is to advance the potential product through Phase I and Phase II clinical trials and use positive results to complete an initial public offering (IPO) or to engage in a merger and acquisition transaction to regain their investment and advance therapies to the patients who need them.

Figure 1

The firms that have successfully negotiated this pathway have been well rewarded for their work. However, they are a part of a very select group (see Figure 1). According to the graph, of the more than 1,800 U.S. biotechnology companies founded since 1980, fewer than 200 are generating revenues on the product sales today. Of those, only six companies have earned more than they spent in development. Those companies are CHI members Amgen, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences and MedImmune.

With the stock market crash of 2008, institutional investors rebalanced their risk in part by reducing their venture capital investments. Even venture capital firms specializing in biotechnology are using their reserves to fund their prior investments rather than seeking out new startups. The current economic climate is threatening the formation, funding and forward progress of small biomedical companies—and the therapies, cures and technologies of the future.

As the economy recovers, venture capitalists and other investors will return to biotechnology in proportion to their assessment of the overall lifecycle risks and the lifecycle duration of potential products. They also will calculate the potential value of their investment at their exit. That means that California’s biomedical industry entrepreneurs need to use this time to verify the validity of their ideas, shore up their business plans and lay the groundwork for bringing their dreams to fruition—and trust that investors continue to see the value of biomedical breakthroughs.

Click here to read more in the 2010 California Biomedical Industry Report.

California Healthcare Policy Forum Spotlight: Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher

Nathan Fletcher is the State Assemblyman representing California's 75th District and will be addressing attendees of CHI’s California Healthcare Policy Forum in San Francisco at the Mark Hopkins InterContinental on Nov. 5. Assemblyman Fletcher serves as vice chair of the Assembly Health Committee and the Select Committee on Biotechnology. He is a member of the Accountability & Administrative Review, Water, Parks, & Wildlife and Utilities and Commerce Standing Committees. In addition, he sits on the Select Committees on Foster Care, Child/Adolescent Health and Safety, Healthcare Workforce Access, Safety and Protection of At-Risk California Communities and Government Reform.

Q: As a freshman lawmaker, you are vice-chair of both the Assembly Health Committee and the Select Committee on Biotechnology. What sparked your interest in healthcare policy and the biotechnology sector in particular?
A: If you look at my district, I have one of the world’s largest concentrations of biotech, including UCSD, Burnham, Scripps, Salk, all these various institutes and groups like CHI that help to bridge that and the 500 biotech companies that reside here. Also, if you look at the changing dynamics of economics, these are the jobs of the future. Information technology, biotech, clean tech, high tech, agricultural biotech—these are the industries and jobs of the future. If we don’t figure out in America and in California how to innovate and create new ideas, we’re not going to compete in the global marketplace. Whoever figures out how to cure diabetes, Alzheimer’s, cancer from a medical perspective; or to grow drought resistant crops; whoever makes a faster, smaller computer processor or figures out how to transport people faster with less of an impact on the environment; whoever figures out how to create sustainable power. Not only do they get to make the world a better place, but they also will get to sell that to the 95 percent of the world population that lives outside America and I want that place to be California. I’m very interested in this cluster effect and creating centers of innovation and working to get the brightest minds to come here and be part of it.

Q: What do you believe is the state’s role in healthcare reform?
A: The states play a tremendous role in healthcare. So much is administered by the states, even federal programs are run by states and counties, but aside from administering programs and making them work better, the states can be great incubators of new ideas. California is known for being at the cutting edge. It’s a great way to see what works and what doesn’t and California itself provides a very challenging environment. I believe in universal healthcare coverage—I think everyone should have healthcare and that we can design a system where everyone can participate, it’s just a question of how we get there. I also think California should lead on utilizing new technologies like electronic medical records.

Q:You have said that you believe healthcare begins with healthy living and that we should find constructive and creative ways to promote health and wellness. Can you tell me what some of your ideas are for the promotion of health and wellness in California?
A: I think when we talk about healthcare, we skip to the idea of healthcare for sick people and bypass the fact that healthcare should start with healthy living. I’m interested in incentivizing healthy living. I think financial motivators are great. There’s a remarkable difference in the healthcare costs of a healthy non-smoker who exercises and maintains healthy weight and at a certain point, people need to be held accountable.

I think people should be able to buy their own insurance, rather than relying on an employer-based system like we have now. It just doesn’t make sense anymore, now that people switch jobs and healthcare plans so often. We could then give individuals the tax breaks that employers now get and the consumer would get to choose and keep the plan that makes the most sense for them.

Immunizations are another area I’m interested in. I’ve lived in Africa, Asia, third world countries, and one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen is people dying of diseases like polio, which is now preventable. We’re seeing rates of unimmunized children jump in the U.S. and I’m worried about that. I respect parents’ rights but I think there’s a lot of awareness and education we can do. And we have to look at reimbursement and how physicians are paid for vaccinations. If physicians aren’t reimbursed for immunizing patients, then parents will have to go elsewhere and adding another hurdle to a busy parent’s schedule is one more hurdle that hurts all our kids.
Q: You’ve also acknowledged the need for technology and innovation to transform our current healthcare system, which is a topic that we’ll be exploring at the California Healthcare Policy Forum, where you’ll be addressing attendees on Nov. 5 at the Mark Hopkins InterContinental in San Francisco. How do you think technology and innovation can contribute meaningfully to reforming the delivery of care in the U.S?
A: Forty years ago we put a man on the moon and we talked to him. I was at Apple recently and they told me the computing power of the iPhone is equivalent to the entire Apollo project. Thinking about how we now use this technology, I can take photos, trade stocks, get information, watch news programs. Yet, I go to my doctor and he writes down information in my medical record and writes a prescription on a pad of paper that I take to my pharmacist. And I think, what are we doing? So, one application is in the medical record keeping area. I do realize the challenges with confidentiality, but certainly we can overcome this to have a system that allows my physician to see, from cradle to grave, what tests have been performed, any known allergies or chemical reactions, etc, there simply has to be a way.

I think it has a role to play in fraud prevention. I think a real-time stream of data and analysis could elucidate patterns of fraud. And the third way is empowering the individuals to make decisions as far as information. If you’re going to have a knee surgery, you should know how many your physician has done, how many of his operations led to infection, etc. The more information you can provide to people in an easy to use format, the more they’ll be empowered to make decisions about their own healthcare. In short, I see a lot of applications for technology and I don’t believe it has to be a cost center. Of course there would be some initial capital investment, but we really need to make that leap.

Q: You mention education as an important issue for you and your constituents. The biomedical industry in California is vested in improving math, science, technology and engineering education to secure a well-educated and prepared future workforce and has funded many programs to educate teachers and students and expose them to new research and technology. What are some of your ideas for improving STEM education in California?
A: The Hart-Rudman Commission did a pre-Sept. 11th study on the top threats to America and one of their top two or three, including foreign terrorism, was our declining prominence in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. We really need to have a focus in these areas in education and incentivize students to study these topics. In Florida, high school kids can choose a major like we do in college, so having programs where students can specialize in these study areas could help. We need to adequately prepare students for schools like UCSD early on and incentivize them and invest in them.

The UC system used to be 7% of the general fund and is now down to 3%. I certainly understand of how programs get funded, but if we want to maintain our status as innovators, we have to invest in our universities. We also need to change our mindset with K-12 education. We should fast track college-bound kids. Right now, 80% of 9th graders will not go to collage. We need to offer career and technical education, with some math and algebra and other skills to prepare them to enter the workforce where they can get a good job that is high paying, such as in biotech manufacturing and these other high tech and biotech jobs of the future.

I’m looking forward to attending the California Healthcare Policy Forum on Nov. 5 and meeting the folks who are actually innovating new drugs and therapies and employing people and teaching California’s future workforce. I have a lot to learn from the speakers and from the attendees so it should be a great opportunity.

CHI-Advancing California biomedical research and innovation

California Healthcare Policy Forum Spotlight: Ian Morrison

In the run up to CHI’s annual California Healthcare Policy Forum, which this year, will take place on Nov. 5 at the Mark Hopkins InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, I will be interviewing the various opinion leaders we will bring together to discuss California’s innovation economy, its place in the current healthcare debate, and how healthcare reform promises to change the provision of care in years to come. Ian Morrison, internationally known author, consultant, and futurist specializing in long-term forecasting and planning with particular emphasis on healthcare and the changing business environment, will be the moderator of the event and is the subject of my first interview. He combines research and consulting skills with an incisive Scottish wit to help public and private organizations plan their longer-term future and promises to deliver an impactful, interactive session among industry leaders, policy makers and academicians on the future of healthcare in America.

Registrations are still available for the event. Click here for more information.

Q: What will be the focus of this year’s California Healthcare Policy Forum?
A: It’s going to be a very interesting meeting. The focus is going to be on helping attendees get a handle on what healthcare reform means for CHI’s constituents, its members made up of leading biotechnology, medical device, diagnostics, and pharmaceutical companies, and public and private academic biomedical research organizations. Not just where healthcare reform is headed but what this means to innovators in California. On the one hand, healthcare reform is on the front page the New York Times everyday, but it also affects the day-to-day business of CHI’s members. This collection of leaders of industry is going to be able to give their views and my job as moderator will be to draw out those stories in an interactive setting.

Q: What do you feel participants will gain by attending the event?
A: Participants are going to get a cutting edge view of where we are in the debate from people with interesting perspectives on health policy and issues of innovation. On that first panel, we’ll be able to drive toward the “so what” for those in the innovation industry. Dr. David Gollaher, CHI’s president and CEO, will represent CHI members and what they are talking and thinking about. Dr. Alan Garber is a distinguished health policy expert, an economist and physician who specializes in the evaluation of medical technology. Dr. Sharon Levine is a physician at Kaiser, one of the senior leaders there responsible for thinking about public policy and the deployment of new technology so she’ll bring the perspective of what it’s like to be inside a large organization that makes decisions about the use of technology. And Michael Goldberg a leading venture capitalist, will talk about the effects of healthcare reform on the finance industry and ultimately, on the biomedical industry that relies so heavily on this type of investment. The panel will talk about such issues as the use of comparative effectiveness research, potential changes to reimbursement, the fact that more people will likely be covered at lower pricing and the resulting tremendous cost pressures moving forward. This panel will set up the conversations later in the day, which will feature CEOs from leading companies in the various sectors that make up the biomedical industry, giving them an opportunity to focus on what healthcare reform means to them and the various specifics they are concerned about.

Q: How do you see the provision of healthcare changing in the years to come? What part does innovation play in the new paradigm?
A: I’ve been an ongoing observer of the system for 30 years starting off by doing technology assessment. I think the environment going forward is going to challenge medical technology to deliver on the promise. It’s not just about “more is better” or “anything new is good.” That just won’t do in the future. Anything that is new in the future is going to have to demonstrate dramatically superior performance, meeting an unmet medical need where there really is nothing else available. One of the challenges I’ll pose to the group is why is it that in this industry, innovation means more expensive, where in every other industry, innovation means “better, faster, cheaper”? I think getting at the source of that is going to be an important contribution to this meeting.

Q: How must executives change their thinking in order to grow with the changing needs of the American consumer and/or the changing healthcare system?
A: I think executives need to gain clarity on what the goal is. The goal has been to find something novel that physicians can be persuaded to use. The hurdle is going to be much higher now. It’s going to be about delivering value in a much clearer way, relative to existing therapies in quality, outcomes and cost effectiveness.

Q: You mention in your writing the need for consumer education and the popularization of the concepts of how to improve the system in order to improve access and outcomes. How do you propose this to take place?
A: There’s a lot of misinformation. We are stuck in the notion that more is better and denial of anything is always bad. There is a real misunderstanding of how much healthcare costs and why. The basic problem is the average American household can’t afford the average cost of care. Everyone being subsidized by the richest 2 percent of Americans simply won’t work. So part of the collective education of consumers is the understanding that it’s expensive, costs are going up, the component elements of that are partly because of bad behavior on the part of the consumer, partly because of the high cost of care, partly because of the fragmented system providing care, and medical technology is one contributor to overall cost escalation. More judicious use of technology is a direction we’re likely to head in.

Q: What part of the California Healthcare Policy Forum are you most looking forward to?
A: With this event, we’re going to have an opportunity to interact with some decision makers on the public policy side at the state and federal level that are active in medical technology related issues. This is going to be a tremendous chance for people to learn about the “so what” about healthcare reform for people in the innovation industry and I think it will be a discussion not just cheerleading innovation but really drilling down on the challenges and encouraging them to think about how we can evolve to better meet the needs of the American public.

Register now for the California Healthcare Policy Forum.

CHI-Advancing California biomedical research and innovation