The California stem
cell agency yesterday shed some interesting light on the awards in its $41
million round this week and their pathway to actually producing a product that
can be used to treat persons who are suffering from diseases.
It is a difficult and
long journey to generate usable therapies, a process poorly understood by the
public, which was promised in 2004 that the stem cell agency would produce
cures for ailments afflicting half the population of the state.
Writing on the agency’s blog, Amy Adams, CIRM communications manager, dealt with the issue indirectly.
She said,
“Many scientists who receive our early translation awards first got their idea for a therapy while carrying out research with one of our other awards. In fact, eight of the scientists in this round of funding had previous CIRM funding for an earlier stage of research. If a scientist's early translation award provides good results, the scientists are then able to apply for one of our disease team awards, which fund the effort of compiling data to convince the Food and Drug Administration to allow them to test it in people. Other organizations fund only early discovery research or only preclinical research. Under those conditions, researchers continually pause their projects to look for new sources of funding as the project moves through the phases toward clinical trial.”
One of the virtues of
the California stem cell agency is its promise of a continued stream of
funding. Former Chairman Robert Klein used to tout that particular aspect of
the agency, particularly in light of limited federal resources.
Adams’ comments
implicitly raise important questions concerning CIRM’s entire portfolio. How
many CIRM grants have led to additional funding from CIRM? How many are
basically one-off shots that have not led to research that has advanced the
development of stem cell therapies, either via CIRM or other funding. What is the
therapeutic and scientific significance of the research that is linked by more
than one CIRM award? What previously
funded CIRM research could be fruitfully funded again to advance the science
and not necessarily through the traditional grant rounds, which sometimes have
awkward timing?
Unmentioned in Adams’
item is an application from a UC Irvine researcher that came up at Wednesday’s
meeting of the governing board of the stem cell agency. The woman, whose name
was not clearly audible on the Internet audiocast, publicly appealed rejection
of her application by reviewers. She noted that it was an extension of work
that was previously funded by the agency. She also noted that the score on her
review was all but identical to work that was funded. The board, however,
turned her appeal aside, which had already been rejected behind closed doors by
CIRM staff.
Hers is not the only
such case in CIRM history. But they are virtually impossible to track systematically
because of the structure of the CIRM grant-making progress. It is also not
clear whether the agency itself is tracking its research awards to determine if
they result in continuing, fruitful research in a specific area. Nonetheless,
the matter deserves some public attention.
