CIRM Directors Avoid Discussion of Scientists' Concerns About Decision Process for Millions in Awards
Letter involves allegations of lack of scientific merit and "administrative"-based decisions
LOS ANGELES — The governing board of the $12 billion California stem cell agency today did not take up the complaints of 15 scientists who say that the agency is acting without regard for scientific merit and instead is making funding decisions for “administrative” reasons.
The complaints concern the grant approval process at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is largely conducted behind closed doors and without public disclosure of the names of the grant reviewers.
“CIRM’s stated objective of maximizing the efficient use of California taxpayer dollars to facilitate clinical translation is clearly inconsistent with repeated administrative rejections of previously CIRM-funded projects,” the scientists said.
“This translates to therapies that have been developed with millions of CIRM dollars that will now sit in limbo, not due to scientific challenge, but due to CIRM’s changing and unclear administrative priorities.”
The grantmaking process was discussed in a different context by the 35 members of the CIRM board. Some raised general questions but did not deal with the two-page, single-spaced letter from the researchers, who work at UC San Francisco, UCLA, Gladstone Institutes, City of Hope and USC.
A top CIRM official said later that CIRM does not engage in public back-and-forth about individual applications. The person said CIRM expects to meet with the researchers to discuss their concerns.
While the scientists’ letter cited five specific cases, its overall thrust involved the integrity of CIRM’s process.
Coincidentally, today’s meeting also included a briefing on CIRM’s new communications effort to increase awareness of CIRM’s work and foster confidence and trust in the agency. One could argue that failing to address -- in public -- serious concerns from scientists is not a good way to build trust or confidence.
None of the scientists involved attended today’s meeting. Nor did they seek to address the board during the public comment period using CIRM’s online access.
The researchers’ names and institutions can be found on their letter. All of the institutions have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Below is a poll seeking readers’ opinions on whether the CIRM board should have discussed the letter in public today. Responses to the poll do not contain any information on readers. Only numbers on each side are counted. I will carry the results in the near future.