Sunday, August 4, 2019

UC Regents Health Services Committee, August 13, more

UC Regents Health Services Committee, August 13, 2019

Agenda – Open Session

ActionApproval of the Minutes of the Meeting of June 11, 2019

 H1 Discussion  Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health, and Follow-Up to Discussion on a Clinical Quality and Safety Working Group

H2 Action  Approval of 2019 Benchmarking Framework/Market Reference Zones f or Non-State-Funded UC Health Positions  in t he Senior Management Group

H3 Discussion University of California Efforts to Improve Diversity in the Health Professions

H4 Discussion  Estimated Funding Needs for University of California Student  Mental Health Services through Fiscal Year 2024-2025 

H5  Discussion  UC Health Transition Update

H6  Discussion  Three-Year Agenda Planning for the Health Services Committee

H7  Information   Clinical Quality Dashboard for University of California Medical Centers

H8  Information     Health System Transactions Approved by the Health Services  Committee for Fiscal Years 2016-2019

Agenda Closed session

ActionApproval of the Minutes of the Meetings of May 16 and June 11,  2019 

H9(X)  Information UC Health Litigation Update


For some weekend news,

this at UC Berkeley on CRISPR via:

"The documents filed Tuesday by UC Berkeley claim that — “in pattern of deception” — Zhang and other Broad scientists presented “cherry-picked data” and “materially misstated facts” in order to prove an earlier date of invention.

“Broad withheld or misrepresented material information with the intent to deceive the Office, in order to secure allowance of the involved patents,” the UC Berkeley lawyers stated in their list of intended motions.

The documents cited a 2015 email sent to Doudna from Shuailiang Lin, one of Zhang’s former lab members.

“My lab notebooks, emails and other files like dropbox or gel pictures recorded every step of the lab's failure process. I am willing to give more details and records if you are interested or whoever is interested to clear the truth,” Lin wrote, according to the document.

The Broad Institute wrote in a statement on its website that UC Berkeley’s claims are “baseless” and do not supplant the lack of “any actual evidence of UC’s work in eukaryotic cells.”

“The UC repeats its previous false claim around an email from a student with an expiring visa who emailed Dr. Doudna seeking a job and promising information. The student was hired by the UC system within days. The email was inaccurate and contrary to all records,” the statement read.

The Broad added that UC Berkeley’s choice of tactics was “deeply unfortunate.”

“It is time for all institutions to move beyond litigation and instead work together to ensure wide, open access to this transformative technology,” the statement concluded.

Both the Broad Institute and UC Berkeley have licensed CRISPR-related patents to for-profit companies. After the patent office’s 2017 decision, Editas — the Broad Institute’s commercial surrogate and primary licensee of CRISPR — went up in value from $765 million to $1 billion, according to Forbes. A patent for CRISPR-Cas9 is valued at approximately $265 million.



 this coverage of IX at UCLA very perplexing for how it does not mention UC Title IX offices in any of it:- just as reminder : the first UC Systemwide  Title IX Officer was appointed in January 2017- that person was the existing UCLA Title IX officer at UCLA, so...

and this on Title IX at UC and CSU :

LA Times on early stages of : "Students accused of sexual harassment sue California universities "

No comments:

Post a Comment