Bowdlerization and Sleazy Speculation

The grant-making exercise this week of the California stem cell agency exposes something of its faux secrecy as well as one weakness of its conflict of interest standards.

The agency has released a bowdlerized version of its funding recommendations. Names are blacked out in the documents but enough details remain, in at least some cases, that the institutions could be identified by stem cell insiders. Only the shareholders in the agency – the California public – are left out.

All to avoid what one newspaper calls the “public humiliation” of some being identified as losers.

Susan Fogel, coordinator of the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, said the absence of applicants' names prevents Oversight Committee members from making good decisions.
"How can they vote on whether this applicant is an appropriate one who is capable of delivering if they don't know who the applicant is? I have never seen a foundation give out a grant to 'anonymous,' " she told reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee.

As for potential embarrassment, Fogel said, “I think they have to be big boys and girls here."

Mecoy's article noted that “at Friday's meeting in Sacramento, savvy observers also can glean some information by watching which committee members leave the room for which votes. This is part of the 'recusal' process required by conflict-of-interest laws.

“Several members of the committee represent universities and nonprofit institutions that have applied, so their absence could signal their employer is being considered.”

We assume that Oversight Committee members will see the grant applications with the names included, as opposed to Fogel's speculation. Otherwise how would they know when there might be a conflict of interest. However, committee members may be simply be told by staff not to vote. It is impossible to know, however, what the agency's procedures are in this case because it has not made them public.

Given the limited amount of money theoretically available, another more subtle conflict arises. That involves negative voting or changes in the size of grants. For instance, if one grant is denied or decreased, that makes more money available for another grant. An Oversight Committee member could vote to slice funding on one application with the intent of making it available for another grant. Then that member abstains from the vote on the other grant. Is she or he involved in a conflict of interest?

Obviously, carried to an extreme, this kind of reasoning or possible regulation could paralyze the agency. But it does illustrate the weakness of the agency's existing rules. In the absence of maximum disclosure of all economic interests and the names of institutions seeking training grants, such speculation about hidden conflicts is bound to occur. And it is not in CIRM's best interests to feed gossip – well-founded or otherwise – about possible sleazy dealings within its grant-making process.