55-9

No confidence in McKinney passes

Resolution 1 passes

McIntyre's resolution passes 58-5 on a secret ballot.

Bury the past

Meanwhile, the Chancellor shows the plan for Vision 2020

Blast off!

The Eagle reports on the faculty senate poll:

"My thinking and the thinking of most of the faculty is we're very concerned about the reputation of the university," said Larry J. Reynolds, an American Literature professor who voted to support both resolutions. "Both the decision to hire Dr. Murano and the decision to [remove] her were unprofessional."

Rod Davis, a spokesman for McKinney, declined to comment.

The Faculty Senate will meet in about an hour (3:15 PM CDT) to vote on the resolutions; the poll was advisory. Regent Jim Wilson is expected to speak. Vision 1920 will report on what happens.

Ad blockers pt 3

Previously:

• Part 1
• Part 2

In 1993, Jack Roth's group described the adenovirus p53 vector that would become Advexin in a short paper in the journal Biotechniques. The earliest clinical trials in the gene therapy trials database with p53-carrying Adenovirus vectors started in 1995, with Jack Roth as one of the PIs. Overall, the database lists 34 US clinical trials of Adenovirus vectors carrying p53 for cancer therapy. Some of these may have involved Introgen competitors, but many were for what would become known as Advexin. A 1997 press release describes the results of one set of Phase 1 trials, and a collaboration:

Introgen Therapeutics, Inc., an Austin-based company engaged in the development of cancer therapeutics, sponsors Drs. Roth and Clayman along with 25 other clinicians and researchers at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Introgen and RPR Gencell, the gene therapy division of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, are collaborating to develop and commercialize gene therapy products based on the p53 pathway and k-ras oncogene inhibition.

Adenovirus vectors fell under a cloud in 1999 when an Arizona teenager died during clinical trial involving adenovirus vectors. This was not a trial involving Introgen, but all ad vectors were suspect. Even improved vectors were cause for worries:

Gene therapy researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, who recently reported success with the 'gutless' adenoviral vector in animals may not get to test the vector in humans.

The pharmaceutical company, Merck, which owns the licence on a technique used to produce the vector, is refusing to extend its material transfer agreement (MTA) with Baylor, saying that it does not want to be liable for any problems the vector might cause in clinical trials.

How this affected the Introgen Adenovirus projects is not clear. Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials continued, and Introgen-sponsored scientists presented safety results at meetings. In 2002, the Ad5-p53 vector was trademarked as Advexin, and Introgen was telling the world to expect an approval application in 2004 (Biodrugs 17 (3): 216-222). Also from that review:

In April 2001, Aventis Gencell and Introgen restructured their existing collaboration agreement for p53 gene therapy products. Aventis Gencell indicated that p53 research had suffered from internal competition for resources and was pulling back from its development agreement with Introgen for p53 gene therapy products.

In a 2004 review of gene therapy skepticism about the Advexin approach appeared:

Results published to date have been disappointing. Phase I trials for recurrent glioma reported only modest survival benefit and expression of adenoviral derived p53 only a short distance from the site of virus administration.¹¹⁵ Phase II/III trials for ovarian cancer failed to show treatment benefit with intraperitoneal administration of adenovirus expressing p53 with chemotherapy after debulking surgery.¹²⁰ Finally, Swisher et al published antitumour effects associated with the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer; however, no comparable control group was described in their report.¹¹⁶

That last bit is harsh. The author is not just saying the results were disappointing; he's calling the quality of the studies into question.

The potbanging would get worse.

To be continued...

Faculty Senate survey

Resolution 1-1,332 responses
Agree 92.5%
Disagree 3.6%
No opinion 3.9%

Resolution 2-1337 responses
Agree 83.5%
Disagree 7.9%
No opinion 8.7%

1337!

Priceless

Former VP and TAMU CFO William Krumm has a column in today's Eagle about costs at A&M:

I read and listened with interest as the discussion of reducing "costs" at Texas A&M University hit the headlines recently. I have spent more than 30 years in higher education finance -- 22 at the University of Michigan and more than eight at Texas A&M. I am not sure the right questions are being asked.

Krumm calls for an external group to be brought in to figure out where the money is going. Interestingly, the online version omits a paragraph found in the print edition:

Then examine he costs of running the system offices and the Board of Regents. All costs must be captured and addressed, including services and hosting activities provided by the university to the system offices. Some of these costs may have to be imputed, as there is no current market price for such items as the chancellor's private box at Kyle Field and similarly provided services and activities

Vision 1920 says: let's not get carried away here.