The California stem cell agency is close to approving rules for dividing up the booty from therapies developed by businesses as a result of grants from CIRM.
That is the central issue next Thursday afternoon at a session of the agency's Intellectual Property Task Force. Next stop for the IP rules is the Oversight Committee meeting Oct. 11, which makes the final call.
So if you represent a business with a stake in this issue, now is the time to make your voice heard.
The specific agenda item involves a draft IP policy that is based on principles approved at an Aug. 29 meeting of the Task Force. As far as we know, the California Stem Cell Report is one of only two media to carry a report on that session, including some of the details of the principles. You can find our report here. Here is a link to the other, stemcellbattles.com.
CIRM has not yet posted the draft of its proposed policy on its web site. We will let you know if and when it becomes available.
Also on the Task Force's agenda is a presentation on open access policies for scholarly articles published by CIRM grantees. This is a far-reaching issue. We will carry a preview on the matter in the next few days.
Remote access to the San Francisco meeting next week is available in Chico, Irvine, Elk Grove and La Jolla.
(a) The principles were not approved at the Aug IPTF meeting--there was no vote and they were seen for the first time.
ReplyDelete(b) There will not be quorum at the Sept IPTF meeting, whether that concerns one or not, it should if any so-called "sense of the committee" recommendation is forwarded to the ICOC.
(c) It's painfully obvious that term limits have put CIRM beyond the reach of Sen Ortiz and that some of her valid concerns about access and return to the state are receiving much less attention.
Re the comment on the IP principles not being approved, they were "approved" as much as they are going to be. Vote or no, Ed Penhoet made it clear that there was a consensus on them, and they are the basis for the draft IP policy, whatever that may be. Of course, they could be "unapproved" next week by the Task Force. Your remarks do highlight the ongoing deficiencies in the way CIRM provides notice in advance of its meetings, among other problems it has in conducting the public's business. I wonder about your prescience on attendance on the meeting next week. Penhoet has made it clear that he wants to present the draft to the Oversight Committee Oct. 11. Can you tell us how you know no quorum will be present at the IP meeting? Thanks.
ReplyDelete