Fiscal discipline at CIRM
The 10 percent solution
A quorum shortage pops up
Four California scientists who are ready to kick off highly rated projects to treat everything from Alzheimer's to rotting jaw bones became tangled last week in a financial and procedural briar patch involving the directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.
The basic problem, however, was simple. Money.
The agency had budgeted only $15 million for this latest round of awards last Thursday. But the four applications -- already approved by the agency's reviewers -- totalled $16.6 million. Typically, the agency's full board rubber stamps in public the decisions of its reviewers, who act behind closed doors without disclosing their economic or professional interests. The board has reversed approvals by reviewers on only four occasions out of hundreds of awards over the past 12 years, according to the agency.
Last week, the chairman of the agency, Jonathan Thomas, began the public discussion by declaring that the board should go through the applications one by one and vote on them. When the money ran out, that would finish action on funding for November.
Fiscal discipline was cited as the main reason for such a course.
funding already being provided for the afflictions targeted by the proposals. If research in a particular area was already heavily supported, perhaps approving another award in that area was not necessary, Juelsgaard reasoned. However, the agency staff could not provide those figures at the time of the meeting.
A lengthy discussion followed involving several scenarios. One would have cut each award by 10 percent but approve all four. But that could mean that the proposals would be altered from the versions that were approved by the reviewers. (However, the board is not legally required to accept what the reviewers decide. Under the terms of the ballot initiative that created the agency, the board has the final say, which is part of the justification for not publicly disclosing the economic interests of reviewers.)
Another proposal would have simply increased the funding for the round. That could not be acted on because it required 10 days advance public notice.
The board ultimately approved a Juelsgaard motion to slice roughly 10 percent from each award with the condition that applicants come up with matching funds to bring the total to the level approved by reviewers.
|Yadong Huang, Gladstone photo|
|Jill Helms, Linked In photo|
Helms, who is also a Stanford University medical school professor, unsuccessfully asked the CIRM board in 2015 to overturn a negative recommendation by reviewers.
During the two-hour telephonic meeting, the board did approve conditionally two awards under the matching-fund requirement. They were for the Alzheimers proposal and one dealing with sickle cell disease (TRAN1-09292). The identity of the chief scientist on the sickle cell proposal was not disclosed by the agency under its longstanding policy and tradition within the research field.
|Jeff Sheehy, Science photo|
Thursday's meeting was being conducted telephonically. After Sheehy lost his motion, he did not respond to telephonic queries from the board. The meeting was nearing its scheduled end at noon. Other board members also failed to respond, and the meeting was adjourned minutes later.
Juelsgaard and some other members said it was important for board members to stick around for the full meetings. Juelsgaard said,
"For gosh sakes, this is something that you signed up to do."
Thomas indicated the board would try to schedule a special telephonic meeting to deal with the four applications. It also has a face-to-face meeting scheduled for Dec. 13 in Oakland. Both meetings legally require 10 days advance notice.
The review summaries on the applications are consolidated in this CIRM document along with their scores and more information.