Reed says the recommendations by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) are a “threat” that would “destroy” an
agency that “is like nothing else on earth.” Reed is urging other
patient advocates to turn out at next week's critical meeting of the stem cell agency's board and lobby against alterations in how it does
business.
 |
| Reed and CIRM's Amy Adams World Stem Cell Summit photo |
Reed is a fixture in stem cell circles
nationally and in California and has been a regular at the stem cell
agency's public meetings since 2004. He is also vice president of
Americans for Cures, a private stem cell lobbying group created by
Robert Klein when he was chairman of the stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM).
Reed has written twice about the IOM
report on his blog with duplicate publication on the Huffington Post.
Yesterday, he said IOM “defies” the voters' will when they
created the stem cell agency in 2004. On Dec. 19, he said the
$700,000, 17-month study was “staggeringly misguided.” He wrote,
“If its recommendations were enacted, they would silence stem cell patient advocate involvement, eliminate public debate on funding proposals, and delegate the real decisions to secret proceedings by an out-of-state-controlled board.”
Reed described the stem cell agency as
“fantastic” and wrote,
“So why mess with it, in such a brutal and insulting manner?”
This writer has known Reed since the
early days of the stem cell agency and respects him. But in this
case he has many of his facts wrong. To mention just a few key
points: Patient advocates would not be silenced; their role would be
changed. Public comment would not be eliminated. Scientists could
still appeal negative decisions by reviewers to the full board if
they so choose, although the “extraordinary petition” process
would be eliminated. The voters' will would not be defied; they provided for a mechanism for making changes in the stem cell program.
While Bob Klein has not been heard from
publicly on the IOM report, some of Reed's comments reflect Klein's
past positions against altering the agency. Klein, an attorney and
real estate investment banker, might well be considered the father of
the agency. He directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure, Prop. 71, that created the program and wrote much of ballot initiative himself. The initiative contained a detailed description of the
qualifications for the chairman, which fit only one person in
California. It was no surprise when he won the post.
In years past, Klein has been extraordinarily protective of the ballot measure, at one point boxing
in the board on earlier proposals for changes that he disliked and that the IOM report now echoes.
In 2010, he was the prime
advocate for commissioning the IOM report which he expected
to serve as the basis for continued funding of the agency. It will
run out of cash for new grants in 2017.
To keep the money rolling in, Klein
said the IOM report would constitute a “gold standard” that would
generate increased enthusiasm for the research.
According to the transcript of the Aug.18, 2010, governing board meeting, Klein declared,
“(We will) never convince the people that are adamant against us. But for the public and for the constituent groups that are reasoned and prepared to look at evidence, this is a very important validation that they can look to to separate out what is a false claim from real performance.”
Also writing yesterday about the IOM
study was Bradley Fikes of the San Diego U-T, the dominant daily
newspaper in that area.
He summarized Reed's latest item as well as this on the California Stem Cell Report yesterday. Fikes
plans to file his own story within the next few days.
Feel free to file your own comments by
clicking on the word “comment” below or with the stem cell agency
at info@cirm.ca.gov. Anonymous
comments are permitted on this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment