The blue-ribbon review is expected to play a key role in public perceptions of the $3 billion agency and whether California voters are likely to approve another multibillion bond measure for the unprecedented state effort.
According to the IOM,
"The principal objective of this review is to ensure that all aspects of CIRM's operations are functioning at peak performance."
|Harold Shapiro, chairman of IOM|
review panel -- Princeton photo
The session on Wednesday will be devoted to briefings by three top CIRM officials and former CIRM chairman Robert Klein. He will provide a one-hour overview including the agency's funding model and management systems. Jonathan Thomas, the new chairman of CIRM, will provide a 15-minute "charge" to the committee.
Also briefing the panel will be Ellen Feigal, CIRM's senior vice president for research and development, and Elona Baum, general counsel and vice president for business development. Absent from the IOM meeting will be Alan Trounson, president of CIRM. The IOM said the CIRM witnesses were selected by the agency. We have queried CIRM about Trounson's absence.
No time has been allotted specifically on the IOM agenda for public comment.
The IOM report is expected to be released in November 2012 as major financing issues face CIRM. The agency is expected to run out of funds in about 2017, although it will have to scale back its multi-year grant programs sooner if it does not have a guaranteed stream of cash.
On Oct. 3, the California Stem Cell Report queried Adrienne Stith Butler, senior program officer for the study, concerning the meeting. She replied,
"As is typical for a first committee meeting, the committee will meet in closed session for its orientation and the bias and conflict of interest discussion. The sponsor will deliver the charge to the committee in open session. The open session agenda will be posted 10 days in advance of the meeting and a closed session summary (general topics discussed) will be posted within 10 days after the meeting."We asked Stith Butler why bias and conflict of interest matters are being discussed privately and commented,
"One would think that openness and transparency are paramount in such issues."She replied by citing a document that spelled out the IOM conflict of interest policy but which did not provide a justification for it. The policy says, in part,
"Access to such information within the institution will be limited to those offices whose proper business requires access to such information."Our take? It is indeed the "proper business" of the people of California to be informed about bias and conflicts in connection with an investigation of an enterprise that is costing them $6 billion(including interest). Much of the conflict and bias discussion could easily be conducted in public without infringing on the privacy of panel members. Doing so would help to remove questions that are certain to be raised, particularly in the context of an electoral campaign.
It would behoove the panel to move to conduct its initial conflict and bias discussion in public and then go into a private session, if one is actually necessary. A lack of transparency will damage the study group's credibility, particularly in the context of a statewide electoral campaign for continued funding of CIRM's efforts.
In addition to Shapiro, the other members of the IOM committee are Terry Magnuson, vice dean of the medical school at the University of North Carolina; Richard Berhringer, professor at the University of Texas cancer center; Rebecca Eisenberg, professor of law at the University of Michigan; Insoo Hyun, associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve medical school; Gary Koretzky, vice chair for research at the University of Pennsylvania department of medicine; Cato Laurencin, a professor at the University of Connecticut and CEO of the school's Institute for Clinical and Translational Science; Aaron Levine, assistant professor of public policy at Georgia Tech; Michael May, CEO of the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine, hosted by the University of Toronto; Cheryl Moore, executive vice president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cells Institute, Allen Spiegel, dean of the college of medicine at Yeshiva University, and Sharon Terry, CEO of Genetic Alliance, a nonprofit health advocacy organization. Sphere: Related Content