Michael Hiltzik, who is a regular critic of the agency, asked,
"So how did CIRM react to the report? Even before the review panel's conference call with the press was completed, the agency issued a news release stating that the panel had 'praised' the agency 'for its ground breaking work in helping advance the science of stem cell research.'"If you wanted to know about the committee's criticisms, the first mention of those was in paragraph 9 of the news release. It quoted board Chairman Jonathan Thomas as promising to 'work on establishing a process to enable us to consider how best to proceed with reviewing the recommendations.'
"By my count, that's seven steps it will take before actually acting on the recommendations.
"As it happens, the panel's recommendations, which include creating a majority of independent board members without any potential conflicts of interest, track very closely to recommendations made by several previous outside reviews of CIRM, especially a 2009 study by the state's Little Hoover Commission.
"CIRM rejected almost every one, and it looks to be preparing to circle the wagons again against sensible improvements in the way it does business."
“'They’re not broken but they’re bent,' said Sharon Terry, president of the nonprofit Genetic Alliance who was part of the panel. 'They need some correction.'”
“California has transformed into a powerhouse player in stem cell research, but the taxpayer-funded institute responsible for that needs an overhaul, a report released Thursday found.”
“A review of California's stem cell research funding agency proposed changes to the agency's governing structure and commercial goals while praising its results so far. The 124-page report from the Institute of Medicine recycles many conflict of interest and intellectual property concerns that have dogged the San Francisco-based” agency.