The agency has prepared a presentation
of how it perceives the process. The Institute of Medicine has also
described the review process. Both descriptions offer different sorts
of insights into the procedures.
We are offering both characterizations.
Both have at least one error and other limits. The IOM, for instance,
says grant applicants who file extraordinary petitions are invited by
CIRM to make public presentations to the board. That is not the case.
CIRM's presentation refers to a second
tier category for applications, a category that has not been used for
some time by the agency. The agency also says that it provides to the
public in advance of board meetings statistics on the spread and
deviation of reviewer scores on applications. That is not the case.
The material, a key board tool for evaluating appeals, has generally
not been available to the public until the day of the meeting, if
then. Sometimes it has only been available via a Power Point
presentation on a screen at the meeting. The CIRM slide on executive
sessions says that board members do not discuss merits of an
application in executive session. That assertion is marginal at best.
Last September, statements by the chairman of the board clearly
indicated that such a discussion occurred during an executive session.
From our attendance at other meetings, it seems abundantly clear that
discussions do occur in executive session.
We have queried the agency
concerning the statements in the grant review presentation document.
Readers should also be aware that grant reviewers make the de facto decisions on grants, although the board has final legal authority. The board has almost never rejected a grant approved by reviewers. The board also goes along with reviewers on the vast majority of applications that are rejected. The board, however, does pick a few applications not favored by reviewers in each round and approves them.
Readers should also be aware that grant reviewers make the de facto decisions on grants, although the board has final legal authority. The board has almost never rejected a grant approved by reviewers. The board also goes along with reviewers on the vast majority of applications that are rejected. The board, however, does pick a few applications not favored by reviewers in each round and approves them.
That said, both of descriptions are
helpful in understanding the process. Here is a link to the text of the IOM description. The CIRM description is embedded in a document on its web site and can be found as exhibition B.
No comments:
Post a Comment