In the past year, since J.T. Thomas has
served as chairman of the California stem cell agency, the $3 billion
enterprise has done well in providing the public with important
information about matters that come before its governing board – a
welcome change from the grievously
deficient past performance.
However, that new, high standard for
openness and transparency is coming up short this month.
With less than three days remaining
before Thursday's
meeting of the governing board, important information
remains missing on significant matters scheduled to be discussed
later this week in Burlingame.
At the top of the list is the response
by CIRM President Alan Trounson to the first-ever
performance audit of the nearly eight-year-old agency. The $234,944
study said the agency is laboring under a host of problems, ranging
from protection of its intellectual property and management of
its nearly 500 grants to an inadequate ability to track its own
performance. Trounson's response could have come much earlier than
this week, even last May when the results were unveiled publicly, although the agency had been briefed privately on them still earlier.
Also missing from the agenda is an
important update on what Thomas has called a “communications war”
– shorthand for the efforts by CIRM to generate more and favorable
news coverage of the agency along with solidifying support among its
constituent groups. The agency's weak PR effort, which is now
improving, has troubled many directors for some time. The CIRM story
is critical to the agency's financial future as it looks to
private funding to continue its life beyond 2017 when its money runs
out.
Also not be found is an explanation of an
item before the directors' Science Subcommittee on Wednesday evening
that appears to have interesting implications, given CIRM efforts to
embrace the biotech industry more warmly. The proposal calls
for establishing “responsible budgeting as a criterion
for evaluating applications for funding.” No further information is available. But one wonders whether the proposal could reflect CIRM's unfortunate experience with Geron, which signed
a $25 million loan agreement with CIRM last summer only to dump its hESC program a little more than three months later. Geron cited
financial reasons. One also wonders whether the need to focus on
“responsible budgeting” reflects problems with some researchers
or whether it is intended to help businesses pick up a larger share
of awards.
Posting details on issues to be decided by directors -- in a
timely fashion -- should be a routine matter for the agency. It is also
key to engaging the public, industry and researchers – not to
mention that it is good policy, good management and good government. Without adequate notice, it
is impossible for interested parties to comment on proposals or make
well-considered suggestions. Given the agency's improved performance
during the past year, this month's slippage may only be an aberration. We
hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment