“Ted Stanley, Whose Son’s Illness Inspired Philanthropy, dies at 84” (Jan. 8, 2016 by Sam Roberts, under “U.S.)”
In 1988, something went terribly wrong with Jonathan Stanley’s brain. A college junior, he was visiting a friend in New York when he suddenly suspected that secret agents were pursuing him. For three days, he raced through the city’s streets and subways without food or water until the police found him penniless in a deli perched naked on a plastic milk crate.
Later, at a hospital, the diagnosis was bipolar disorder. | “We’ll call it the epiphany, from my dad’s standpoint at least,” Mr. Stanley recalled in a 2014 interview with NPR, the public radio network. “My dad came to visit and got to see his beloved son in a straitjacket.”
His father was Ted Stanley, who had made a fortune selling collectibles, and who died on Jan. 3 at 84 at his home in New Canaan, Conn. When he learned of Jonathan’s diagnosis, Mr. Stanley was inspired to begin giving large amounts of money to related medical and pharmaceutical research — philanthropy that led to a donation of more than $825 million, including a record single gift of $650 million, to the Broad Institute, an unconventional biomedical research collaborative in Cambridge, Mass. [emphases mine]
Under Broad’s auspices, scientists from Harvard, M.I.T. and other institutions have sought the genetic and molecular causes of psychiatric disorders and the means of addressing them.
The Broad Institute (MIT, Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Center for Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing and Treatment Advocacy (“TAC”) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (written 6/15/17, posted 7/23/2017)
Post name and shortlink: The Broad Institute (MIT, Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Center for Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing and Treatment Advocacy (“TAC”) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (written 6/15/17, posted 7/23/2017). (case-sensitive shortlink ends “=71z”)…
This post had a preview, published in June, with similar, multi-component title reflecting how many components there are to these situations (and, institutes):
More info on/from the “Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits” post:
That post also looked at a website “PgEd.org” supposedly helping educate readers on basic concepts (genotype v. phenotype) although on closer look, doing a good job of soliciting for participants and (if I recall it right) PR for the cause. It’s located at Harvard Medical School Dept. of Genetics (i.e., NOT a separate 501©3? Only a thorough search would say for sure), but acknowledges a recent “generous contribution” from Professor Jennifer Doudna. On closer examination of the PgEd.org page (in that post) I showed how it’s more promotion than education (poor definitions, circular references, in between plugs for participation in getting personally genome-sequenced…)
PgED links to GETed conferences (started in 2010?) which go global, and are hosted by a 501©3 “PersonalGenome.org” started only in 2005 (at Harvard Med School). Again, they want volunteers to give their personal data and for it to be shared globally and across institutions. Meanwhile, The Broad Institute wants those CRISPR patents… The PersonalGenomes.org simplified website, to its credit, does post under “Donate” its own street address, IRS status and even EIN# 26-2973607 but, shamefully (it’s been now a dozen years!) not one Form 990 or audited financial statement.
There is no “financials” page. Having browsed their very few Form 990s (2008 first –> current) and seen employees ranging from “0” to “4” and a board of only 6, with minimal contributions until a single $1,000,000 grant given 12/31/2011 (and afterwards, times of running in the red nevertheless) I can see why they may not be encouraging a closer look. Then in 2015, organization changed its name to “Open Humans Foundation.” This website DOES post prior Forms990 (and reference the namechange). Another surprise: its legal domicile is North Carolina, not MA.
(NC filing shows timing of the name change).
Only registered for MA in 2012…(per state-level websites recording corporation names in both states.
Note: These typically come with disclaimers, but a search will show that on-line as of today (7/26/17 by now). Also interesting — in neither state were annual reports showing as filed. First, it didn’t file them (at least visible on-line, see “disclaimer” comment) for several years in NC, then after 2012, it didn’t file for four more years, until 2016. Guess if there’s enough professionals, MDs, PhDs, or important people on the organizations, they don’t have to obey normal laws regarding nonprofit registration, and corporate annual reports at the state level??
Same EIN#26-2973607 Diff’t Name. (Open Humans Foundation in Boston, formerly “PersonalGenomes.org”). The indication “MA” as legal domicile (Header Info, bottom-right) doesn’t match Business Entity records in MA or NC, which say it’s NC…
Same EIN#26-2973607 Orig. Name, Form 990EZ for 2008; this form doesn’t prompt for legal domicile…
This section and info. was added post-publication on 7/26/2017 (along with the Two Tax Returns excerpts and “PgEd.org” images extending below this section’s border) and will be discussed separately, soon. I’m just bringing it up here to “prime the pump” for a future post.
PgEd.org home banner (a Project of Harvard Med. School Dept. of Genetics) says it got a generous contribution from UCBerkeley’s (See “Doudna Lab”) Professor Doudna (Harvard + MIT’s and TBF’s “The Broad Institute” meanwhile warring with UCB (and Prof. Doudna) over CRISPR patents). No caption, no date on the pix…how “educational.”
PgEd.org home banner (7/2017). Emphasis on personal genetics + sequencing.
PgEd.org home banner (a Project of Harvard MedSchool Dept. of Genetics
PgED: Alfred P. Sloan Fndtn, Sundance Festival into it too…(No caption, no date, on the photo. How “educational”…)
“(MIT, Harvard, TBF,* 2008)” refers to the leadership (per its inc. papers available at Commonwealth of Massachusetts business entity search site). “2008” refers not to “TBF” but to The Broad Institute’s incorporation date. I mention this because records show that just before 2008, TBF changed its accounts (EIN# and legal entity registered with the state, as I recall, as next paragraph mentions. I wonder if the two planned events were somehow related.
This also affected or related to filings regarding (but not the topic of this post) two other, much smaller, Broad-funded nonprofits active in training individuals urban school leadership with a view towards its reform. That seems a lot of shifting identities shortly before the major recession IN 2008. (Those nonprofits featured training of school leadership. See previous posts.)
*TBF = “The Broad Foundation,” which as “it” changed EIN#s ca. 2006-07, but specially IRS-ruled “not a termination,” fiscally (or, at minimum two different entities associated with/filing under two different EIN#s), I guess one might say it was a paranormal succession of two-into-one foundations, with some name-shifting between which was the d/b/a of the other. (I posted on it earlier, some images here for reminders). Not the main point in this post, except for the ability to pull off some phenomenal societal shifts, when there’s enough financial and famous philanthropic names weight to be thrown around, with friends and associates, towards causes they believe in.
Like many philanthropists, Eli and Edythe Broad are active in many areas — the arts, education, architecture, development, and for purposes of this post, scientific research with a focus on the biomedical, genetic, psychiatric and the Human Genome with a view towards applications.
It’s a fascinating field, it’s a mark of this century (and the last part of the 20th), and even just the technology facilitating study or experimentation in it, is a whole other story. If I weren’t doing this blog, I’d be interested in that field in general and as it intersects with our family line which seems to have a scientific streak (as well as manipulative, bullying streak) somehow “bred into” it. But in blogging it here, my focus after posting some of the fairly recent news, is still on reconstructing the “genealogy” and “DNA” of its major philanthropic and university (collaborating) investors/funders and funding families.
Blogger comments re: timing of this post (see title). Other than this update, and adding information on one more institute (Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research — at MIT, but its own EIN# since the 1980s, say its tax returns) and that is a short post, for a change!
I have been working and focusing hard for more than a month to update the “Do You Know Your…” theme in three major parts, and ancillary posts. These are major networked nonprofits, each with its own tax returns — many parts, and a patterns developing over time within them, each with its websites, and all with their sponsors, and interrelationships.
#4 from USTreasury OCC’s BankDerivatives Rept March08
I needed a mental break and “time-out” for a bit from that subject matter and clicking through the same websites over and over to dredge out the pieces of the puzzle. I enjoyed the detail (especially on the state CAFR and US Treasury reports), but the drudgery of poorly-organized, repetitive posts and finding more and more evidence of “skullduggery” in the nonprofit sector with not one, but several different organizations… It’s not without its rewards (like increased understanding), but while study and posting on a single topic, I am immersed in that subject matter, sometimes to the point of dreaming about posting on it, or discovering key points about them.
So having accomplished several legs of this project I decided to return to the previous topic here for a while, around themes and organizations listed in post title. It’s also a fascinating one. The “heavy lifting” on this post was already done. I’m not re-viewing the content in detail (I did re-read it), but am adding some on the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research organization mentioned on the Wikipedia which I believe puts the development of the Broad Institute in some chronological perspective.
There is more that could be said on the Treatment Advocacy Center (ARLINGTON, VA, FOUNDED BY E. FULLER TORREY, OF SMRI (STANLEY RESEARCH MEDICAL INSTITUTE), referenced in the title (has connections to the Stanleys), but that very large topic and one of the main professionals, I think would be better treated on its own post. For that presentation, I’d have to do more diligent review to remember which pieces fit where. However, here are SMRI’s most recent tax returns (for a show of size at least) and a few images. E. Fuller Torry (Princeton, Stanford, McGill, b. 1937) worked at St. Elizabeth’s, and has written many books, including some on Freud’s damages to American thinking, another “Roots of Treason” relating to Ezra Pound (who was institutionalized at St. Elizabeth’s for some time). The images (click any to enlarge) have more information, but are here only for a “footprint” and for later publication with more appropriate connecting narrative. There is SOME mention of it, and possibly some images, also on the post near the bottom (June, 2017 section in light-blue background).
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanley Medical Research Institute | MD | 2015 | 990 | 68 | $96,556,847 | 06-1610506 |
| Stanley Medical Research Institute | MD | 2014 | 990 | 48 | $124,151,653 | 06-1610506 |
| Stanley Medical Research Institute | MD | 2013 | 990 | 43 | $151,855,434 | 06-1610506 |
(Image added 7/24/2017 when found — see underlying article and, of course, also look at the blogger’s perspective as father, and published author, incl. of a book CRAZY (his son had a severe mental illness). http://www.peteearley.com/2011/08/15/dr-e-fuller-torrey-sounding-an-alarm-or-being-an-alarmist/. Mr. Early is a member of and contributor to NAMI he discloses.
(Click IMAGE Read rest of the related post by author PeteEarly and for more on Torrey’s take on NAMI, NIMH, SAMHSA and more!)
To review: In updating the “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC..” posts in three parts, I also added more on the mental health networked associations and how they network with certain negative consequences (like the politically favored, but “iatrogenic” (?) (dangerous to subjects) “TMAP,” and the whole “Transformation Transfer Initiative” (TTI) as it runs into such organizations as NASMHPD and the (“where’s its tax return? I STILL don’t know), “NRI-INC.org,” which is the research arm of the NASMHPD, and supposedly independent from it. I looked closer at the ICMA and ICMARC as well as at several ABA related entities and how they fit together, AND (by contrast) the APA (and its recent, since 2001, related entity in D.C., the APA Practice Organization) (APAPO EIN#522262196).
peteearley.com-Dr E Fuller Torrey Sounding An Alarm or Being an Alarmist (<==4pp “pdf” with my comments, goes with image by same name. Click to read. A click on the nearby image links to plain article from author’s website (i.e., w/o my markings or comments).
New Topic:
Some interesting recent developments around the APA, APAPO and membership (including class action lawsuits against the APAPO for its “practice assessments”) and New Business Arrangements between the APA and its (now more independent) 1962-established Insurance Trust (i.e., professional liability insurance — and financial security products) showed up, see bottom of this post, similar background-color and color themes section.)
File under “Do You Know Your APA?” and “pay attention to related entities in major national associations.” (such as the APA or the ABA…)
Timing of this post, cont’d. (Other Recent FamilyCourtmatters.org work):
In working on post udate “To Identify and UNDERstand is to know how and why to WITHstand” I took, it feels like almost two weeks, to re-work writings and others’ published positions on the “State Owned” / “State-Run” / “Public Banking” concept which crossed well into such topics as CAFRs, and commercial banks’ positioning on derivatives right before the 2008 shockwave recession (as referenced by Walter Burien, posting treasury reports from around that time) AND taking a closer look at two blogs found reposting the “polar opposites” side of that debate.
For about the last two to three days, although it doesn’t show on the “recent posts” lists (but see comments lists) I also reworked three different posts from Sep. 15, 18, and October 1, 2010 around the theme “Wacko in Wisconsin,” and in the process, saw, again, how my approach to reporting has changed to a focus on the organizations, and how ineffective, really, it is to continue posting and reporting news articles and blog information without attention to the platform itself (and the ownership of the same).
Sept. 15 2010 title+ description (as updated):
Sept. 18 2010 post title + description (as updated, with “abstract”):
**By name-calling within Family Court, I didn’t mean the parents/litigants, but the psychological/psychiatric professionalized (“call in the experts”) reporting of those who protest abuse as needing treatment, and/or drugs to adjust their attitudes, thus churning the case, or steering it when deemed appropriate by those with the capacity (leverage, clout, positioning) to so steer it.
Oct. 1 2010 title + description (as updated):
Post title (with with wordpress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-z5”) Wacko Wisconsin – Pt. 2, the Walkers — (piecemeal post, published 10/01/2010) (format cleanup to accommodate recent comments 7/21/2017) (I wrote):
Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…
I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?
Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.
SO . .
If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.
THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL, here.
Click to enlarge image, here’s that FY2002 Form990EZ for ISI, EIN#992524840 as posted at “990finder” (=see the same for other image).
Doing updates, it’s inevitable that consciousness about another set of organizations will surface, and it did there — this time, around the conservative-oriented (and funded) Wisconsin-based “Coalition for America’s Families … Citizens for a Strong America (both, said an article in PRWatch from “CMD” (Center for Media and Democracy– I’ve posted on it) from “Club for Growth” (which is itself networked by states for rapid movement of money; I looked up Form 990 for the one in D.C. EIN#204681603, since 2006 only), and “United Sportsmen in Wisconsin” and (just out) another, its new foundation.” Some of this was posted on the “Wacko in Wisconsin” updates.
Most of these Forms 990 are lousy image quality, often fine print, and in the case of what looks like some of these front organizations, full of “See Statement____” instead of just putting information where it belongs — which of course makes for more scrolling through those typically poor-image quality Form 990 pdfs.
For this image (only) click image to access whole return: “2002_01_EO/94-2524840” from CitizenAudit. Note, a Form 990O isn’t being shown despite the “EO” designation in url.
Sometimes earlier years are easier to read, with significant exceptions like, this one (Inquiring Systems Inc FY2002, p.2 shown, fiscal agent for Public Banking Institute, an early return showing contracts with a local county, although not the one on its street address, or the county it later moved to…) An ISI earlier return (FY2000, Page 1 shown, see nearby image) had actually been typed and legible):
BACK TO DISCUSSION of “TBF” and its founders, The Broads and these research institutes!
“TheBroad.org” is a museum, but its link summarizes the couple’s philanthropy, in the process naming a few different foundations they operate, in addition to projects which also, naturally, bear their name as major donors or orignators:
http://thebroad.org/about/eli-and-edythe-broad <=overview; please read!
Eli and Edythe Broad, presumably in the Broad Art Museum (click image for more info).
Today, the Broads are devoted to philanthropy as founders of The Broad Foundations, which they established to advance entrepreneurship for the public good in education, science and the arts. The Broad Foundations, which include The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and The Broad Art Foundation, have assets of $2.6 billion. | Over the past four decades, the Broads have built two of the most prominent collections of postwar and contemporary art worldwide: The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Collection and The Broad Art Foundation.
A collection is a collection, and a foundation is something else. Anyhow,
*TBF = “The Broad Foundation,” which as it changed EIN#s ca. 2006-07, could be one of two different entities, something I’ve posted on previously and left a reminder about on the post from which this one*…
…started as an interjection and background info on the aspect of TBF I’d been reporting on — transformation of school systems from the top down through mutually synchronized grant-making from multiple mega-foundations, nationwide (and some internationally), and specifically, a project setting up a “National Education Partnership” for a database called “SchoolMatters.com”
The post I took it from was featuring, however, TBF grant to a class of privately controlled, nonprofit associations aligned with government functions by being named after them and, in many cases, restricting membership or control of them to those in decision-making authority at the state and territorial and, for some, “local” (meaning, basically, City and/or County) level.
Regarding that post on the networks of a certain, un-named TYPE of tax-exempt private, non-stock membership association (colloquially, 501©3s or 501©6s under the Internal Revenue Code): we are well into the 21st century now (more than halfway through its first quarter, 2025), and I believe that basic citizen sanity demands recognition that networks are being set in place regionally, hierarchically, to take over decision-making from legally elected and/or appointed government officials. It’s being sold as help, public interest, resources, technical assistance and training (etc.).
If those aspects exist — I’m not saying none does — the cost is undermining of representative government, and increased speed and power of standardizing “policy and practices” to minimize what actual input unaffiliated individuals, as taxpayers (not as members of local nonprofit associations hostage to their funders, whether local community foundations, and/or state resources, which may have been passed through federal — which came from the local in good part annually, in the first place….)
AGAIN, THIS POST: the title here, or elsewhere linking to it, is subject to modification, but the underlying, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-71z” will remain accurate once post is published (which it now is, 7/23/2017,//LGH)…
I have been on the trail of an apparently missing $10.5M project (SchoolMatters.com/”National Education Partnership”) funded (at least in part) by this famous foundation, while an institute funded by the Broads (in large part, and government grants) started only in 2008, and its supporting organization in 2013 (Cambridge MA) joined in other Stanley Family Foundation-sponsored research institutes or advocacy centers in Maryland (Stanley Medical Research Institute — focused on psychiatry, cures for schizophrenia, etc.) and the related “Treatment Advocacy Center” in Virginia, although it doesn’t seem to be a “related” entity on the tax returns, started making headline news over the “CRISPR patent wars.”
So, next time you hear about a big philanthropist on the news, do yourself a favor — go find and look at their financials (at least: 1) tax returns and related orgs where shown, and where possible, 2) financial statements).
I did, for a day, which delayed getting one post published, but I learned some valuable information about “how things work” and, perhaps for a while why it seems people of all ages were calling each other, or themselves, “bipolar” in casual terms. {{See also writings and networked mental health organizations NAMI, MHA, DBSA, and NASMHPD which I’ve been posting on…//7-23-2017 comment}}.
I also saw what two powerful families (and their associated foundations), widely known and appreciated for their philanthropy, and less widely understood for how the leadership (ultimate control) of the grantee institutions works, can do when they set their minds (and dedicate their money and influence including the family name and connections) to it.
For example, the Broad Foundation (and/or the Stanley Family Foundation) can, and probably did, contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to a private university in the Boston, Massachusetts area (like, Harvard, or MIT), and a region known for its historic centers of power, Ivy League institutions, and associated wealth, in part from the alumni, also from well-known investment management or consulting firms — like Bain Capital — and so forth. But these contributions, while they create a sense of gratitude and indebtedness, and mutual benefit from the reputation of whichever new “Center” is established named after the donors — still does NOT hand over ultimate control of the entire university to the private philanthropists.
How to get around that? Well, in this case —
Setting up a separate 501©3 named after the philanthropist/s and incorporating the fame [and some faculties + partnering with some of the institutions..] of the renowned universities (here, Harvard and MIT) CAN set up plenty of control, with a greater major share wielded by the foundation itself — and that’s EXACTLY what I found on looking at the Broad Institute Form 990. {{Remember that exhortation — find and read the Form 990s??}}
Startup funding, and the start date was 2008 (first funding 2009) was nearly ¾ billion dollars, that is nearly $750M, and Eli Broad on the Board of Directors with very few others (next images, also includes I think those were the first subcontractors). Click any image to enlarge (table of tax returns for The Broad Institute in main body of post, below, tweak the fiscal year-ending (if FY =/= calendar year), and for this first return only add “EZ” to the characters “990” in the url to get to FY2009 Form 990EZ):
It’s also what I found on, searching for that Form 990, finding an additional supporting foundation, “Stanley Foundation for the Broad Institute,” start date, startup funding (first 990 I found with significant funds) was about $42M — and the board members were few — a Stanley descendant, Jonathan Stanley, an employee of the company responsible for the family wealth (MBI, Inc. — shown below), Mr. Friese, and one other:
Look closer and see how the millions are donated — but typically to institutions on whose controlling boards the donor family or foundation will sit. While one Form 990PF is thus getting its charitable income tax deductions, the assets are being moved around from place to place.
The other thing that makes one ask “HOW did this come to be in the first place?” is to see how some families accumulate so much wealth (and keep it in multiple foundations, or moving from one to another) they feel that universities and medical procedures should shift in whatever direction is chosen, just as happens also in the government realm. And the sponsored scientists are hardly going to complain…
ANYHOW:
The Broad Foundation is influential in many areas of society — I’ve already documented their activity (cf. also the Annenberg Challenge to Public Education $500M Grants) in urban school districts; they were on the news the other day (I DNR that context, sorry) and when I looked into another news item (Google Jennifer Doudna, CRISPR and gene-targeting projects, warring startups and a patent war to see), a “Broad-MIT” was referenced. I started looking.
But before I report and discuss the Broad Institute (at Harvard and MIT, now not so named, but controlling “members” are from Harvard, MIT, and the Broad Foundation — only!), take a quick look from Science Magazine. “Round 1” of the patent war, it says (Feb. 2017) went to the Broad Institute. Image contains links to article, which contains link to a related article — “Science” magazine is for general reader, and it’s a straightforward read giving an idea of the scope of future profits expected and how much was already invested. No question, that patent war was a real “war” between the entities and institutions, and involved scientists.
Science Magazine Feb. 2017, “How the Battle Lines over CRISPR were drawn” (click image to access article on-line)
Here, from April, 2017, “theVerge.com” is “UC Berkeley challenges decision that CRISPR patents belong to the Broad Institute,” which also gives more history and details on both the patent (and why it’s worth billions) and how Broad Institute operated (originally, asking the USPTO to “fast-track” their patent requests in 2013 after Doudna had filed in 2012). It also notes at the end that a European Patent office is going with UCBerkeley, instead (contrary to the USPTO ruling). Amazing power being licensing of anything with so many applications!
“The legal fight will likely continue for months or even years”by Apr 13, 2017, 9:16am EDT
The University of California, Berkeley is appealing a ruling that the disputed patents on the gene-editing tool CRISPR belong to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. This means the heated battle over who owns one of the most revolutionary biotech inventions of our time will likely continue for months or even years from now.
Last February, the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the patents owned by the Broad are different enough from the ones UC Berkeley applied for that the Broad patents stand. The ruling suggested that the work done by Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley and her colleagues on CRISPR wasn’t so groundbreaking as to make any other advance obvious. ….
CRISPR-Cas9 is a technique that allows scientists to cut DNA, inserting or reordering bits of genetic code with remarkable precision and results. The gene-editing tool has already been used to create mosquitoes that don’t transmit malaria, unusually muscular beagles, and miniature pet pigs. In the future, CRISPR could change the way we fight cancer and help treat debilitating genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
Its potential is limitless, and so is the amount of money and fame that whoever owns the intellectual property of the technology would get. The CRISPR patents are estimated to be worth billions of dollars. And that’s why the legal battle has been so heated. The two parties involved in the dispute — the University of California, Berkeley and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier on one side, and the Broad Institute and MIT on the other — have been fighting for years now, spending millions of dollars on the case.
….Last month, the European Patent Office announced that it would award the University of California with a patent for the use of CRISPR in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems — a decision that went against the ruling by the US patent office.
Its potential is limitless, and so is the amount of money and fame that whoever owns the intellectual property of the technology would get. The CRISPR patents are estimated to be worth billions of dollars. And that’s why the legal battle has been so heated. The two parties involved in the dispute — the University of California, Berkeley and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier on one side, and the Broad Institute and MIT on the other — have been fighting for years now, spending millions of dollars on the case.
Ethical complications — 2015 interview in “Nature” with Doudna’s insomnia over the issue:
Genome-editing revolution: My whirlwind year with CRISPR |Jennifer Doudna 22 December 2015 Jennifer Doudna, a pioneer of the revolutionary genome-editing technology, reflects on how 2015 became the most intense year of her career — and what she’s learnt. A second link and quote on the ethical issues, from “Bioethicsobservatory.georgetown.edu” (dated Feb. 2016?). I’m including this to point out that the process is reported to cost only USD $30, and also (in basic terms only) how it works:
Nature.Com excerpt (click, or see link on title, to read)
BIOETHICS NEWS
Genome editing CRISPR-Cas9. Biomedical and ethical considerations
….The technique consists of using an RNA fragment that has a dual function: On one hand, it acts as a guide to find the piece of DNA to be modified and binds to it, while on the other, it recruits a molecule whose function is to cut the DNA, as if it were scissors (Cas9 enzyme). This enables the desired pieces of DNA to be cut, allowing the modification or removal of specific sequences. Unlike other gene-editing methods, CRISPR-Cas9 is cheap (around 30 US dollars per sequence), quick, and easy to use, and as such has been widely implemented in numerous laboratories worldwide. Furthermore, it can be applied in a large number of entities, and does not have to be limited to traditional model organisms. CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, is compiling a list of CRISPR-altered creatures, which to date “has three dozen entries, including disease-causing parasites called trypanosomes and yeasts used to make biofuels [2].
Nevertheless, while CRISPR appears to have much to offer, some scientists are concerned that the breakneck pace at which the technology is developing leaves little time for adequately assessing the ethical and safety issues that might arise as a result of these experiments.
My Wikipedia (start with the Whitehead Institute, formed 1982 with 17 faculty from MIT Biology Department, famous for work on the Human Genome) says that the philanthropist couple’s pledge of $100M resulted in the Broad Institute (formerly “at MIT and Harvard”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead_Institute
….The institute is one of the world’s leading centers for genomic research. Its Center for Genome Research was active in the Human Genome Project, and reportedly contributed one-third of the human genome sequence announced in June 2000.[3]
In June 2003, Eli and Edythe L. Broad pledged $100 million to build the Broad Institute, a joint venture of Whitehead, MIT, Harvard and local teaching hospitals. The new venture’s mission, led by former Whitehead Fellow Eric Lander, is to expand tools for genomic medicine and apply them for the treatment of disease. In 2008, Eric Lander left the Whitehead faculty, and Whitehead Institute relinquished its governance role in the operation as the Broad Institute became a fully independent institution.
(TAKE A LOOK AT Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research tax Returns — I did (also at earlier returns, the earliest I found on this database, FYE June 2002). The website is “WI.MIT.Edu.”
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research | MA | 2015 | 990 | 51 | $572,707,579.00 | 06-1043412 |
| Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research | MA | 2014 | 990 | 45 | $577,610,883.00 | 06-1043412 |
| Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research | MA | 2013 | 990 | 41 | $529,281,783.00 | 06-1043412 |
From the “BROAD INSTITUTE” Wiki page (access through Whitehead or separately):
….The Broads made a founding gift of $100 million and the Broad Institute was formally launched in May 2004. In November 2005, the Broads announced an additional $100 million gift to the Institute.[5] On September 4, 2008, the Broads announced an endowment of $400 million to make the Broad Institute a permanent establishment.[6] In November 2013, they invested an additional $100 million to fund a second decade of research at the institute.[7]
Organizational structure[edit]
The Broad Institute has 11 core faculty[8] and 195 associate members from Harvard, MIT, and the Harvard-affiliated hospitals.[9]
The Broad Institute is made up of three types of organizational units: core member laboratories, research programs, and platforms. The institute’s scientific research programs include:[10]
Hopefully this gives an idea of scope and influence, and how much the Broads have to toss around.
Total results: 5. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broad Institute | MA | 2015 | 990 | 85 | $1,385,449,314.00 | 26-3428781 |
| Broad Institute | MA | 2014 | 990 | 111 | $1,342,875,416.00 | 26-3428781 |
| Broad Institute | MA | 2013 | 990 | 79 | $1,228,067,672.00 | 26-3428781 |
| STANLEY FUND FOR THE BROAD INSTITUTE | MA | 2015 | 990 | 39 | $40,579,160.00 | 46-5574304 |
| STANLEY FUND FOR THE BROAD INSTITUTE | MA | 2014 | 990EZ | 13 | $100.00 | 46-5574304 |
[INTERESTING, and I should post separately. I wanted to show the size of operations — Broad Institute only started in 2008 (operations, July 1, 2009). Its members ARE MIT, The President and Fellows of Harvard, and the Eli and Edythe J. Broad Foundation, and from the start, it’s clear that the members control even the governing board. The STANLEY FUND for the BROAD INSTITUTE as you can see, started in 2013, and had startup funding of about $40M, as acknowledged in its supplementary schedules as coming from a shareholder (Theodore S. Stanley) of about 1% of the assets of “MBI, Inc.” Stanley’s son Jonathan is on the Board, and Eric Lander (also principal officer on the Broad Institute), showing payment of over $1M from “related entity.” Stanley Fund is obviously a related entity for the earlier Broad Institute. Next six images (click if needed to enlarge) are either self-explanatory or understandable in the larger context.
MBI, Inc. is (see website) an “opportunistic consumer marketing company” introducing products for well-known licensors. It’s been around since mid-1960s, is privately owned, and located in Norwalk CT “just outside NYC.” I saw a reference to $350M business.
Where is MBI located?
Our main office is in Norwalk, CT – just outside New York City. We also have warehouses and shipping facilities located in Shelton and Torrington, CT, as well as an overseas branch in the U.K.What We Do page, (after first advertising with large photos only three categories: jewelry (danbury mint); coins (pcscoins) and leatherboundbooks (eastonpress)*)
*”We are America’s leading publisher of leather-bound books. MBI publishes books under The Easton Press banner, which includes a wide range of leather-bound book collections and individual titles. The Easton Press also negotiates exclusive deals to market signed limited-edition books, including volumes by U.S. presidents, world leaders, celebrated authors and famous personalities.”
under “LICENSED MERCHANDISE AND OTHER PRODUCTS”
MBI markets an extensive assortment of licensed merchandise catering to various constituencies. The selection includes a wide array of legendary brands and manufacturers, stage, screen and sports stars and other American and international personalities. Licensors, iconic names including Disney, Coca-Cola, General Motors, the NFL – have our commitment that we will aggressively and creatively pursue successful product introductions and marketing strategies to maximize returns for all involved.
We are an opportunistic consumer products marketing company, constantly seeking growth by prospecting new categories, looking for our next great business.
Bloomberg.com (next image) shows it was in fact originally “Danbury Mint” until a namechange in 1973 to MBI, Inc., and that “Ted Stanley” was co-founder and CEO:
MBI, Inc. (formerly the Danbury Mint), Chairman of the Board is “Ted Stanley” (from Bloomberg.com). cf. 7% funding of initial $40M (or so) for the Stanley Fund for The Broad Institute (startup 2013, first major funding 2014, first tax return FY2015, it looks like)
When I saw MBI, Inc. and the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research going to the Broad Institute (only started up in 2008 — after some of the educational activities I’ve blogged earlier), I again saw how a single philanthropist can, based on their family experience, influence major institutional changes simply because they have the wealth and influence to pour towards favorite causes. Ted Stanley of MBI, Inc. (see Bloomberg.com company overview, caption text is light-yellow background), unfortunately, died in Jan. 2016, at age 1984. We are about to talk psychiatry, bipolar, lithium, and of course, pharmaceuticals:
NYT article:
Treated successfully with lithium, Jonathan Stanley received a bachelor’s degree from Williams College and graduated in 1993 from Quinnipiac College School of Law in Connecticut. He became a founding board member of the Treatment Advocacy Center, which supports therapeutic remedies for mental illness instead of criminalization.
“My son’s life was saved,” the elder Mr. Stanley told The New York Times in 2014, when the Stanley Family Foundation made the $650 million donation, described at the time as the largest individual private gift ever given for psychiatric research.Continue reading the main story
Click to enlarge.
The L.A. Times (“beware the pop-up solicitations”) claims the Broad Institute started in 2004. Its Form 990 says, 2008. it also points out the size of Stanley funding for this specific cause (psychiatric, medical research) put him on the level of a list headed by Bill & Melinda Gates:
Ted Stanley dies at 85; donated $1.2 billion to scientific research
Ted Stanley made a fortune selling collectibles, beginning with a series of medals commemorating the moon landing in 1969. His Norwalk, Conn.-based company, MBI, specializes in marketing consumer products.
Stanley donated more than $1.2 billion for research on bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses over two decades. He and his late wife, Vada Stanley, embraced the cause after Jonathan was diagnosed with a mental illness in 1988…..
Previously, the Stanleys had created the Maryland-based Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI) and donated nearly $600 million to the organization over more than a quarter of a century.
The two research organizations focus on different ideas about the possible causes of mental illness: The Broad Institute’s emphasis is genetic research, and SMRI’s focus has been infectious agents.
Here’s the Stanley Family Foundation.
I looked through recent (through FY2015 ending 12/31) and earlier (2001, 2004, 2005, when it was under the control of just Theodore and Vada (his wife). The large jump in assets shown in 2015 comes from a large contribution (of MBI, Inc, probably) stock from the late Mr. Sizer (who died before the tax return was set up); at this point the foundation has four people’s name on it — Sizer, Sr. (who would die within a month, Jan. 2016 and must’ve been 84-85 yrs old at the time), son Jonathan A. Sizer, Julius Friese (MBI employee, apparently) and one other whose name I DNR. In 2001, a LOT of money ($186M) was transferred not to the Stanley Center at the Broad Institute, but to another “Stanley Medical Research Institute” (“SMRI”) in Maryland, per the Form 990PF. I took several screenprints and will save in a separate folder. MOST YEARS, the donations were in line with, or under 5% of “noncharitable use assets,” sometimes only 2 or 3%. So while in dollar terms, the philanthropy was huge (and again, focused on their favorite enterprises, with far smaller amounts to others, although I’m sure much appreciated), by % it wasn’t.
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanley Family Foundation | CT | 2015 | 990PF | 24 | $512,494,796.00 | 06-1157888 |
| Stanley Family Foundation | CT | 2014 | 990PF | 20 | $297,258,693.00 | 06-1157888 |
| Stanley Family Foundation | CT | 2013 | 990PF | 24 | $297,125,778.00 | 06-1157888 |
This is a FY2001 return showing “substantial contraction” (of size of the filing Form 990PF) and where it went — another entity whose board members, notably, included two Stanley Family Members, Peter McGathalin (ck spelling) also seen on MBI, Inc. leadership, and even one doctor!
FY2015 Sched B shows father Theodore Sizer contributing $214M to the Family Foundation (other board members are only 2 — his son, and Julius F. Friese, who is also on the board of Stanley Fund for Broad Institute, started barely a year earlier). Corresponding image shows 3 types of stocks. Although it says “Various” and not “MBI, Inc.” — look at the price per shares on that image (over $2K each)..
Sched B StanleyFam Foundation FY2015, showing type of nonstock contributions. Check out the prices!
$40.2M to the Stanley Center at Broad Institute, and $600K to “Treatment Advocacy Center” in Arlington, VA
It gets complicated when philanthropists fund organizations, put their name on the organizations, and ensure they’re also on the board — as I see is the case with the SMRI (Stanley Medical Research Institute) in Maryland. The Form 990 says it started only in 2001; the website said, in 1989. Both Stanleys (Theodore S. and Vada) show on the board (I went for the FY2002 return) _ two “Torreys” with a Dr. E. Fuller Torrey also on the board of the “Treatment Advocacy Center,” a somewhat prolific author on things psychiatric and (his wife?) and just one other doctor.
The 2002 tax return of not, the Stanley Center at Broad Institute, but the SMRI (now in) in Bethesda, MD (corresponds to $186M donation, annotation with blue above, from the Stanley Foundation). This is EIN#061610506. (next three images show p.1 part, directors, and signature page showing it’s Theodore Stanley as “principal officer” signing the return!) (also posted full-size in my tan-background section above, near the tax return table of the SMRI).
EIN#061610506, SMRI in Maryland. Look who signed the tax return that year!
EIN# 061610506 SMRI in MD funded by Stanley Family Foundation ($186M assets transfer) in FY2001
NOTE: the large images below (all relating to post topic) are so large for layout — image wrapping — reasons, and I hope easier (fewer clicks, more “pageDn” or scrolling) viewing.
Otherwise the overlap between the appended information on the APA and these was hard to see and control. Where you see smaller images (and tan background) again, as well as after I say so on a section title, that’s a change of subject.
I may not have shown, but as of recent return The Broad Institute holds “0” funds in public traded securities and $353M in “Other Investments” which turns out to be labeled only “Fund of Funds.”
“What is the new business arrangement between the Trust and the APA?” (1/28/2015 APA News Release)
CONTINUED FROM SECTION IN SIMILAR BACKGROUND-COLOR ABOVE — THIS RELATES TO APA RELATED ENTITIES, AND NOT TBF, THE Broad Institute, Stanley Family Foundation, SMRI, etc. It’s just FYI and regarding the APA and related entities.
Some interesting recent developments around the APA, APAPO and membership (including class action lawsuits against the APAPO for its “practice assessments”) and New Business Arrangements between the APA and its (now more independent) 1962-established Insurance Trust (i.e., professional liability insurance — and financial security products) showed up, see bottom of this post, similar background-color and color themes section.) File under “Do You Know Your APA?” and “pay attention to related entities in major national associations.”I see there was a previously associated, and now more independent “APAIT” (Insurance Trust), which says this, has now become separate. The website isn’t dated (no year on it other than founding date of 1962). It explains how, being more separate than before, “The Trust” can expand its outreach to non-APA members. In addition, I see, there was some litigation and (Jan. 28 2015 per the APA url) now a settlement over the meaning of “practice assessment” for the APAPO, which as of 2016 will from now on be called instead “membership dues.” The APAPO is a “mutual benefit” organization for psychologists. Look at the numbers being referenced since only 2001. By 2005 it had created a PAC, and 2012 an “Education Advocacy Trust,” and by 2015 was already being sued over its practices (see images), and next quote from a 2013 article in “national psychologist.” Two points I took away — (1) D.C. is immune from consumer protection laws, with some exceptions, in most states, and (2) the APA was unclear that the practice assessment wasn’t mandatory, in part because of how it was billed with their APA dues. For ten years…. The initial assessment fee was $50, ended up $140… this helped beef up the APAPO (“Ya THINK” some of this price got passed on to consumers and clients, maybe?).
APAPO Dues Assessment Draws New Lawsuit June 2, 2013, by James Bradshaw in the National Psychologist.
…The law firm of Tycko and Zavareei LLP of Washington, D.C., filed a class action suit against the American Psychological Association and APAPO on behalf of California psychologists who paid the assessment during the 10 years prior to 2011.
The suit is filed in the name of Ira Grossman, Ph.D., who operates Grossman Psychological Associates in San Diego, Calif., “and all others similarly situated.” It mirrors a suit the law firm filed in 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia where the APA and the APAPO are headquartered.
That suit, which was filed on behalf of all psychologists in the nation who were charged the assessments, was dismissed on May 30, 2012 after almost two years of motions and counter motions in part because the District of Columbia exempts nonprofit corporations from consumer protection laws except in special circumstances that were deemed not applicable in the case.
No wonder so many national membership organization choose to legally domicile in D.C., perhaps!!
Rhea Farberman, APA’s executive director of communications, told The National Psychologist the new suit appears based on the same grounds found invalid in dismissal of the national suit.
“The dismissal of the national class action reflected a detailed and substantive rejection by the court of the basis for the plaintiffs’ claims,” Farberman said. “We don’t know what steps the plaintiffs’ attorneys will take next but it is clear to us that the California filing is essentially the same as the putative national class action that was dismissed with prejudice by the D.C. federal court.”
She added, “The move to California is an apparent effort to find a friendlier court.”
The extra charge for practicing psychologists began in 1985 as a $50 “special assessment” to support greater advocacy on behalf of practitioners. The annual assessment was renamed “the practice assessment” when the APAPO was established in 2001 as a legally separate body with increased latitude for lobbying and has increased substantially since. The lawsuit notes that by 2011, the end of the period in question, the assessment was $140. …
The APAPO’s coffers have shrunk as a result of the brouhaha, which began in listserv exchanges in the spring of 2010 when an appeal for more members to pay the assessment revealed for the first time to many practitioner members that the assessment was not mandatory.
General membership in APA also has been plummeting in recent years in part because of the assessment controversy and in part from protests that the APA Council of Representatives did not pass a total ban on psychologists working at terrorist detention facilities after torture tactics were revealed until forced by a membership petition.
The National Psychologist is published six times a year: Copyright 1998-2015 by Ohio Psychology Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Articles may be copied for personal use, but, proper notice of copyright and credit to The National Psychologist must appear on all copies made. This permission does not apply to reproduction for advertising, promotion, resale, or other commercial purposes. (Obviously N/A/ here)
APA 1/28/2015 Press Release re: lawsuits against related entity APAPO gives a window into operations. (Click to enlarge, or here for APA’s link to the release
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
daveyone1
July 24, 2017 at 9:41 am