The characterization was offered by
Arthur Caplan, director of NYU Langone Medical Center’s Division of
Medical Ethics, in a piece in the San Diego U-T, the dominant
newspaper in that Southern California hotbed of biotech research.
In the article posted online late yesterday by reporter Bradley Fikes, Caplan said,
“Rather than getting into an ongoing debate about the adequacy of the existing peer review process, it should suffice to say that a distinguished, independent review found the current process to be insular and somewhat incestuous.”
"Michael Kalichman, director of the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology in San Diego, said the IOM report offers 'thoughtful' and constructive criticism.
"'As funding becomes more limited, and this is likely, it will be necessary to make hard choices about what is and is not worth funding,' Kalichman said. 'Even if the decisions made are truly the best possible decisions, there is a high risk of the perception that particular voices represented on the ICOC (the agency's governing board) are heard better than those who are not represented.'”
Fikes' article is a preview of
Wednesday's and Thursday's meetings in Berkeley during which the 29
directors of the agency are scheduled to discuss the IOM's $700,000
report, paid for by the agency itself, and determine a course of
action.
Fikes' piece provided the first public IOM comment from Robert Klein, the former chairman of the stem cell agency. Klein directed the writing of the 10,000-word ballot initiative that created the stem cell agency eight years ago. He additionally crafted good portions of the measure including detailed qualifications for the chairman that appeared to restrict the choice to only one person in the state. Klein also lobbied his former colleagues vigorously and successfully last year for $40 million for StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca.,
Fikes reported that Klein “said fears that grants would be awarded by
favoritism have been disproved by experience. And patient advocates
on the committee cooperate instead of compete, because research on
one disease often proves useful for other diseases.”
One of the StemCells, Inc.,
applications was rejected twice by reviewers, whose actions were
ultimately overridden by the board. Last year saw a record level of
lobbying involving reviewer-rejected applications and patient
advocates who sought to overturn decisions. At one meeting last fall,
some board members expressed their displeasure with “arm-twisting,” lobbying and “emotionally charged presentations.” The board is also working on a new policy that would restrict “ex parte
communications” – contact outside public board meetings – with
board members.
The IOM additionally recommended that a
majority of the agency's governing board consist of independent
members. Currently the board has many conflicts of interest built in
by Prop. 71, the measure that created the agency. About 90
percent of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded as gone to
institutions connected to persons who sit on the board, according to
compilations by the California Stem Cell Report. Board members are
barred from voting on applications from their institutions, but they
set the agenda for what type of research is to be pursued and also
approve detailed concepts of proposed requests for grant
applications.
Fikes quoted UC Davis stem cell
researcher Paul Knoepfler on the IOM recommendations for changes in
composition of the board. Knoepfler said,
“Who exactly would be qualified to be on such a IOM-approved board and why should we Californians (and stem cell scientists and other stakeholders) trust them to be informed and passionate about stem cell research the way the current ICOC(the agency governing board) has shown itself to be over and over again? The IOM provides no answer to this question.”
No comments:
Post a Comment