Proposition 14: Stem Cell Balderdash at Sacramento Bee

Has California's stem cell program "relieved the suffering of millions?” The Sacramento Bee thinks so, but the assertion is totally false. 

It was contained in an editorial today that endorsed Proposition 14, which would save the state stem cell program from financial extinction along with broadly expanding the scope of the agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). 

The agency was created in 2004 and was given $3 billion that the state borrowed. The cash is now running out. And the agency will begin closing its doors this winter without a massive infusion of money. Proposition 14 provides $5.5 billion. 

During its nearly 16 years, the agency CIRM has not yet funded research that has led to a stem cell treatment widely available to the public and approved by the federal government. 

It has helped to fund 64 clinical trials, which are a necessary prelude to commercializing a therapy. Some 30,000 patients would have to be enrolled in each of those trials to bring the "relieved-suffering" figure to two million.

The “suffering of millions” rhetoric was not the only case where the editorial echoed campaign hype. The Bee also said that the measure would cost only “$5 per person per year for 30 years,”  repeating an unsubstantiated assertion by the campaign. It may or may not be accurate, but it would involve a series of calculations and assumptions that the campaign is unwilling to share with the public. 

The California Stem Cell Report asked the campaign 53 days ago how it came up with the figure. The campaign still has not responded, which is a reasonable indication that the campaign lacks confidence in the number, to put it mildly.   

The editorial is behind a paywall. If you would like to see a copy, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

'Hobby Horse' to 'Stunning Progress:' Two Newspapers Look at California Stem Cell Program and the $5.5 Billion Prop. 14

Does California's stem cell research program, now facing a $5.5 billion referendum, represent one person's "personal hobby horse" or does it represent "stunning progress" in developing therapies and cures?

Those are two questions embodied in two articles in major Californa newspapers this week about Proposition 14. The ballot initiative would provide the billions for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state stem cell agency is officially known. 

CIRM is running out of money and will begin closing its doors this winter unless Proposition 14 is approved. In addition to the $5.5 billion, the measure sets a new and expanded course for the agency, which has yet to help finance a stem cell therapy that is widely available to the public after working on the matter for nearly 16 years. 

Lisa Krieger, writing in what the San Jose Mercury News called an "analysis," related a number of  CIRM achievements, ranging from providing more than $200 million in "elegant buildings" to familiar anecdotes about patients who have been helped in clinical trials at least partially supported by CIRM. 

She said, 

“'CIRM has supported some really superb research and researchers and built a powerful infrastructure,' said Robert Cook-Deegan of the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University. 'In a field where there aren’t as many other sources of funding, that’s almost certainly, in the long run, a good thing.'"

"This is stunning progress..." Krieger wrote. "Still, it falls far short of Proposition 71’s breathless rhetoric from the 2004 campaign."

In the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik, a business columnist and author of "Big Science," said Proposition 14 "is a perfect example of the drawbacks of allowing a public program to turn into one individual’s personal hobby horse."

Hiltzik said, 

"In this case, the individual is Robert Klein II, a Northern California real estate developer who drafted and promoted Proposition 71 of 2004, the $3-billion initiative that created the program formally known as the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM, and who led the program as chairman during its formative years. Klein has contributed more than $6.6 million to the initiative campaign.

"CIRM has funded much worthy scientific research. But it has struggled since its creation with the outsized expectations that Klein’s advertising campaign for Proposition 71 engendered — namely, that the program would yield 'cures' for conditions including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes."

Hiltzik's comments were part of a longer roundup of his thoughts on the ballot propositions that face California voters this month. He said he would vote with "regret" against the measure and referenced a longer piece that he wrote last December dissecting Klein's ballot measure and the issues have troubled CIRM.

In it, he said that Proposition 14 "perpetuates many of the original measure’s flaws and makes some of them worse. 

"That’s dangerous, because although the measure could fuel the stem cell program for years to come, it might also prompt a repudiation by voters sensitive to its many imperfections. Such an outcome would be tragic for California and the advanced science already supported by CIRM." 

The Los Angeles Times claims about 1.3 million readers daily. The San Jose Mercury is part of a newspaper chain that circulates its articles widely in the San Francisco Bay area.

Krieger and Hiltzik both were around for the 2004 ballot campaign that created CIRM in 2004 through Proposition 71, another ballot measure crafted by Klein. It ran only 10,000 words. Proposition 14 contains about 17,000 words.

I should note that Proposition 14 is technically not a ballot referendum but a ballot initiative. However, the measure effectively serves as a referendum on CIRM's past and likely future performance.

*****

To read more on CIRM, its performance and Proposition 14, see David Jensen's news book: ​California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author.

Head of Prop. 14 Stem Cell Campaign Schedules Internet Appearance for Tomorrow

The leader of the campaign to approve $5.5 billion for stem cell research in California is scheduled to appear on an Internet broadcast tomorrow during which he will deliver what the campaign calls an "important" and "special" message. 

The announcement of the appearance of Robert Klein came on short notice this afternoon. Klein, a Palo Alto real estate developer, not only heads the campaign but sponsored Proposition 14, the 17,000-word initiative that would greatly expand the scope of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state stem cell agency is officially known. 

The agency was created in 2004 through another ballot initiative, also sponsored by Klein, who became its first chairman under the terms of that stem cell initiative.  The $3 billion provided by the 2004 measure is all but gone, and the stem cell agency will begin closing its doors this winter without more cash. 

The announcement of the campaign event, which involves the campaign's student ambassadors, was made this afternoon by Melissa King, director of field operations for the campaign. King is also executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Cures, a stem cell advocacy group founded by Klein. 

King made the announcement in an email message to campaign supporters. She said  Klein would appear during the last half hour of a one-hour webinar at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow (Oct. 10) at 12:30 p.m. PDT.  Here is the Zoom link to join: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89031672494

"California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Cures:" A New Book on the State's Stem Cell Agency

David Jensen

A new book devoted to the life and times of California's nearly 16-year-old stem cell research program is now available on Amazon. The book chronicles the stem cell agency's story from its early days to its current imperiled existence. 

The book is called "California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Cures." It was written by yours truly, David Jensen, who has covered the agency since January 2005 and who has published some 5,000 items about the program on this blog, the California Stem Cell Report.

The book explores the agency's performance as 20 million Californians vote this month and next to decide whether to provide $5.5 billion more for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is officially known. Questions addressed include: 

• Has CIRM fulfilled the expectations raised by the 2004 campaign?
• Has its work since then been worth $4 billion (CIRM's cost including interest on the state bonds that finance its work)?
• What are the important elements and new directions created by Proposition 14 in addition to the $5.5 billion ($7.8 billion with interest), and does the measure fit with the state's current priorities? 

CIRM is unique in California's history, which has never seen an enterprise like this. It is also unique nationally. No other state has launched a scientific stem cell program of this magnitude.  And it is an agency that operates outside of the bounds of what many consider normal state government controls and finance. 

At the same time, even its opponent will acknowledge the significance of CIRM's work, which includes helping to finance 64 clinical trials and the creation of what it calls an Alpha Clinic Network throughout the state. 

In 2012, CIRM heard from the Institute of Medicine, which CIRM hired to conduct a $700,000 examination of the agency's work. The book re-examines the IOM findings, which were both laudatory and critical, and reviews CIRM's response.  

Along with critics, the book brings to readers the voices of CIRM supporters, its executives and former officials, including the first president of the agency, Zach Hall; its first chairman and leader of the 2020 campaign, Robert Klein; its current president, Maria Millan; its current chairman, Jonathan Thomas, and former president, Randy Mills, who introduced CIRM 2.0 and who is now president of the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute in La Jolla, Ca.

One also cannot forget the CIRM governing board director who early on who looked at the 2004 Proposition 71 governance structure for the agency and called it a "dog's breakfast." 

You can purchase "California's Great Stem Cell Experiment" by clicking on this sentence, which will take you to Amazon.  

San Francisco Chronicle Says No to $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Measure, Proposition 14.

The San Francisco Chronicle today urged its readers to reject the state ballot measure, Proposition 14, that would stave off the demise of California's stem cell agency with a $5.5 billion infusion of cash. 

The Chronicle's headline on its editorial said, 

"No on Prop. 14; no need to replicate California’s disappointing stem cell experiment"

The editorial cited the Chronicle series in 2018 assessing the work of the agency. Written by Erin Allday,  the news story said,

 “Promised breakthroughs used to sell Proposition 71 in 2004 aren’t panning out, a Chronicle investigation found."

The Chronicle is the largest circulation newspaper to editorialize on the Proposition 14. The Chronicle says it has 173,514 daily circulation, mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and 306,525 digital circulation. Readership figures for its editorials are not available. 

The impact of newspaper editorials in state ballot measure campaigns is debatable. In the heyday of the newspaper business, editorial page readership was in the neighborhood of 25 percent or less of total readers.  

Here are some excerpts from this week's editorial. (The editorial department operates separately from the news department, which produced the 2018 investigation.)

"Especially in a field as nascent as stem cells, science is slow, incremental and unpredictable, largely incompatible with the leaps forward touted in 2004. While the unique state of the science and politics drew broad support for Prop. 71 — including The Chronicle’s — we shouldn’t make a habit of setting science policy and budgets by state plebiscite."

"While state funds helped support the research that led to two approved cancer drugs and a host of prospective therapies in various stages of development, far-reaching breakthroughs attributed to the stem cell agency have been scarce so far, as a Chronicle investigation found. More than half the original funding went to buildings and other infrastructure, education and training, and the sort of basic research that, while scientifically valuable, is a long way from medical application. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is at odds with the vision of dramatic advancements put to voters."

"While both initiatives provide for recovering income from approved therapies, the fiscal benefits are a matter of speculation. And with the pandemic, wildfires and more stretching the state’s resources, stem cell research looks like an even more unlikely gamble for a government with more pressing priorities."

*********

​Read all about California's stem cell agency, including Proposition 14,  in David Jensen's new book. Buy it on Amazon:  California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author. 

$2.1 Billion in California Stem Cell Awards Goes to Institutions Linked to Directors of State Stem Cell Agency

Editor's note: The following article by yours truly was published as a freelance piece this week on Capitol Weekly, an online state government and politics news service. 

By David Jensen

Over the last 15 years, California’s stem cell agency has spent $2.7 billion on research ranging from arthritis and blindness to cancer and incontinence. The vast majority of the money has gone to enterprises that have ties to members of the agency’s governing board.

All of which is legal. All of which is not likely to change.

Eight out of every ten dollars that agency has handed out have been collected by 25 institutions such as Stanford University, multiple campuses of the University of California and scientific research organizations. Their combined total exceeds $2.1 billion.

All 25 have links — directly or indirectly — to past or present members of the board of the agency, according to an analysis by the California Stem Cell Report, which has covered the agency since 2005.

“They (the agency’s directors) make proposals to themselves, essentially, regarding what should be funded. They cannot exert independent oversight,” says Harold Shapiro, who led a 2012 study of the agency by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM), which is now called the National Academy of Medicine. The study recommended a major restructuring of the agency’s board to help deal with the problem.

The longstanding, conflict-of-interest issues are not addressed in Proposition 14 on the Nov. 3 ballot. The measure would give the agency, officially known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), $5.5 billion more and expand its scope of activities and research. The ballot measure is likely to increase the problems by increasing the size of the agency’s governing board from 29 to 35.

Another ballot initiative, Proposition 71, created California’s stem cell program in 2004. Ever since, conflict of interest questions have dogged CIRM. Indeed, critics of the agency can today point to the top five recipients of CIRM largess as examples of conflict problems. Stanford University ranks as the No. 1 recipient with $388 million. UCLA is No. 2 with $307 million. It is followed by UC San Diego, $232 million; UC San Francisco, $199 million, and UC Davis, $143 million.

All have had a representative on the CIRM board since the inception of the program.

(Editor’s note CIRM’s totals may change slightly as the result of the agency’s internal accounting procedures.)

IOM and public confidence in CIRM
The IOM study, with its criticism of conflicts, was commissioned by CIRM at a cost of $700,000. Directors expected that it would provide a “gold standard” evaluation of the agency that would support a ballot measure for additional funding. The study’s scope went well beyond conflicts of interest. In fact, it said it did not search for evidence of specific conflicts because the task was not part of the agreement with CIRM. The IOM did say that “studies from psychology and behavioral economics show that conflict of interest leads to unconscious and unintentional ‘self-serving bias’ and to a ‘bias blind spot’ that prevents recognition of one’s own bias.” While all of the study’s findings were consequential, the matter of conflicts attracted the most public attention.

“Ties to stem cell board lucrative,” said a headline in the Orange County Register shortly after the IOM report was released.

“The agency has used more than half of its funding and one day will almost certainly want to ask taxpayers for more. It should remember that voters will look for evidence of public accountability as well as respected research,” said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial in December 2012.

The IOM report itself said, “Far too many board members represent organizations that receive CIRM funding or benefit from that funding. These competing personal and professional interests compromise the perceived independence of the ICOC (the CIRM governing board), introduce potential bias into the board’s decision making, and threaten to undermine confidence in the board.”

The IOM said the composition of the board makes it neither “independent” nor capable of “oversight,” although the board is legally dubbed the Citizens Independent Oversight Committee (ICOC).

Placing deans of medical schools and patient advocates on the board who are linked to specific diseases “raises questions about whether decisions delegated to the board—particularly decisions about the allocation of funds—will be made in the best interests of the public or will be unduly influenced by the special interests of board members and the institutions they represent. Such conflicts, real or perceived, are inevitable….”

The situation involves more than legalisms. “Properly understood,” the IOM said, “conflict of interest is not misconduct, but bias that skews the judgment of a board member in favor of interests that may be different from or narrower than the broader interests of the institution.”

The IOM study additionally surveyed board members about conflicts of interest and reported, “While a majority of respondents stated that personal interests did not play a role in their work on the ICOC, some responses were more equivocal. One respondent replied that it was ‘hard to tell’ given that so many decisions take place off camera in secret meetings,’ while another acknowledged that ICOC members are human, and, of course, their decisions are influenced by personal beliefs and interests.”

The ‘inherent’ conflicts
The conflicts were built in by Proposition 71, which dictated the composition of CIRM’s 29-member board. CIRM’s general counsel, James Harrison, once described the situation as “inherent conflicts of interest.”

Under Proposition 71, representatives from virtually all the California institutions that stood to benefit were given seats at the table where spending plans are approved and awards handed out. Directors are not allowed to vote on specific awards to their institution. But they control the direction of the agency and what CIRM calls “concept” plans, including specific elements and budgets for the award rounds. Some of those rounds run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

One of the “concept” plans created a $47 million program to help California institutions recruit star scientists to the Golden State. Another plan created the $50 million Alpha Clinic Network at five academic centers all connected to board members.

Following the IOM report, the CIRM board did remove most institutional directors from meetings where awards are ratified. Jonathan Thomas, chair of the board, declared then that financial conflict issues were “put to bed once and for all,” a position that the agency holds today. In May 2019, Thomas told directors that several “authoritative entities” have studied CIRM and produced written reports that dealt with conflict matters.

Thomas said, “Each had in it sort of quite vehement language about the conflict of interest issue, which has always been just perceived…..With respect to any given funding award, there’s never been an actual conflict.”

During the 2019 meeting, the board did not discuss issues involving board action on “concept” plans. They continue today to modify and approve “concept” plans.

Beyond the CIRM board
Conflicts of interest at CIRM go beyond the 29-member board. In 2014, the agency was shocked by a case involving a former president of the agency, Alan Trounson, and StemCells, Inc., a company that was awarded $40 million while he was serving as the top executive at CIRM. (The company later declined one of the awards.) Only seven days after his final day at CIRM, Trounson was named to the board of directors of StemCells, Inc.

He served on the company’s board for about two years and received $443,500 in total compensation, including stock options, according to StemCells, Inc., documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Following the announcement of the Trounson appointment, CIRM looked into some of Trounson’s work at CIRM. In July of 2014, the agency said that its “severely” limited investigation found no evidence that its former president attempted to influence action on behalf of StemCells, Inc., during the previous month. The state’s political ethics agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, said in a Feb. 6, 2015, letter to Trounson that there was “insufficient evidence to demonstrate” a legal violation.

Even before the agency was created, critics warned of conflict-of-interest problems. Writing in an opinion piece in October 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle, David Winickoff, then a professor at UC Berkeley, said, “Contrary to what its name suggests, the ICOC is neither ‘independent’ of interest-group politics nor does it include any ‘citizen’ members. Hard- driving university scientists, disease group advocates and private industry executives who will make up the ICOC all have vested interests in how the money is to be used.”

A sampling of conflicts
The California Stem Cell Report, which calculated the percentage of awards linked to institutional directors, has chronicled the conflicts issues at CIRM over the past 15 years. In 2012, its analysis showed that 92 percent of awards had been collected by institutions tied to past and present directors. The figure dropped to 79 percent by this summer as the types of grantees have widened. Here is a sampling of conflict issues that have surfaced publicly over the years.

In 2007, violations involving five board members resulted in voiding applications from 10 researchers seeking $31 million. The applications included letters of support signed by deans of medical schools who also sat on the CIRM board of directors. Directors are barred from attempting to influence a decision regarding a grant. The agency blamed its employees for the problem.

In 2008, public complaints by one applicant from industry about conflicts of interest on the part of a reviewer were briefly aired at a public board meeting. The then chair of the CIRM board, Robert Klein, told the applicant the board needed instead to discuss naming CIRM-funded labs and then go to lunch. CIRM later refused to release the letter from the applicant detailing the problem.

In 2009, board member John Reed, then CEO of the Sanford-Burnham Institute, was warned by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission about his violation of conflict of interest rules. Reed intervened with CIRM staff on behalf of a $638,000 grant to his organization. Reed took his action at the suggestion of then CIRM Chair Klein, an attorney who led the drafting of Proposition 71.

Also in 2009, then board member Ted Love, who had deep connections in the biomedical industry, served double duty for the agency. He was the interim chief scientific officer and helped to develop the agency’s first, signature $225 million disease team round while he was still serving on the board. As chief scientific officer, Love would have had access to proprietary information and trade secrets in grant applications.

When questioned, CIRM said that Love would serve only as a part-time advisor to the agency president, not as chief scientific officer. Nonetheless, in 2012, the board adopted a resolution with high praise for Love and his performance specifically as the chief scientific officer.

Beginning in 2010, a stem cell firm, iPierian,Inc., whose major investors contributed nearly $6 million to the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency, received $3.9 million in awards from the agency. The contributions were 25 percent of the total in the campaign, which was headed by Bob Klein. (See here and see here.)

In 2011, the chairman of the CIRM grant review group resigned from his position as the result of another violation, which the agency felt necessary to report to the California legislature. John Sladek, former president of Cal Lutheran University in Los Angeles, co-authored scientific publications with a researcher who was listed as a consultant on a CIRM grant application.

In 2012, StemCells, Inc., was awarded $40 million by the CIRM board despite having one of its $20 million applications rejected twice by grant reviewers. The action came after the board was vigorously lobbied by Klein, who had left his post as chair the previous year. Klein, who ran the Proposition 71 campaign, had campaign connections to researcher Irv Weissman of Stanford, who founded StemCells, Inc., and was on its board. Weissman was featured in a TV campaign ad for Proposition 71 and helped to raise millions for the 2004 ballot campaign.

The StemCells, Inc., awards were the first time that CIRM had approved that much money for one company, and the first time Klein lobbied his former board.

In 2012, an incident surfaced that illustrated how non-profit, disease-oriented organizations sometimes expect increased funding as the result of the appointment of sympathetic individuals to the board. That occurred when Diane Winokur was appointed to the board as a patient advocate. The chief scientist for The ALS Association, said Winokur will be “a tremendous asset in moving the ALS research field forward through CIRM funding.”

The IOM study identified as a problem the personal conflicts of interest involving the 10 patient advocates on the board. It said, “(P)ersonal conflicts of interest arising from one’s own or a family member’s affliction with a particular disease or advocacy on behalf of a particular disease also can create bias for board members.”

In 2013, internationally renowned scientist Lee Hood, winner of a National Medal of Science, violated the conflict of interest rules of the California stem cell agency when he was involved in reviewing applications in a $40 million round to create genomics centers in California. The conflict involved connections between Hood, Weissman and Trounson. It was not discovered by the agency during the closed-door review and was raised by another reviewer at the end of the review. The review had to be redone later in the year.

Hood never commented publicly, but CIRM said he acknowledged the conflict.

In January 2014, the genomics round surfaced again. The applications were by then before the CIRM board for public ratification of reviewers’ decisions. The reviewers’ actions are taken behind closed doors with no public disclosure of reviewers’ personal, professional or economic conflicts.

The genomics round riled some researchers who complained publicly in letters to the agency’s board about unfairness, apparent preferential treatment and manipulation of scores.

Only seven of the 29 members of the 29-member board could vote on the applications. Conflicts of interest and CIRM rules barred the rest from voting. The final vote on the award was 6-1 for a group led by Stanford. Two years earlier, however, when the “concept” plan was approved by the CIRM board, no directors were disqualified, even though some of their institutions were likely to benefit. The plan was approved on a show of hands. The transcript of the meeting does not indicate any negative votes or absentions.

The hidden review process
Under CIRM’s rules, the scientists who review the applications must come from out-of-state. They do not have to disclose publicly their economic, personal or professional conflicts despite the fact that they make the de facto decisions on the applications. The board rubber stamps nearly all of the reviewers’ actions to approve funding. A CIRM examination of the practice in 2013 showed that 98 percent of reviewers’ decisions were ratified by the board. Since then, the agency has not produced a similar report. Occasionally, however, the board will approve an application that was not recommended for funding.

The CIRM governing board has resisted requiring public disclosure of the interests of reviewers. The subject has come up several times, but board members have been concerned about losing reviewers who would not be pleased about disclosing their financial and other interests.

Nonetheless, public disclosure of economic interests among researchers is routine in scientific research articles. Many universities, including Stanford, also require public disclosure of financial interests of their researchers.

At the time of Hood-Weissman-Trounson flap, Stanford’s policy said, “No matter what the circumstances — if an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual’s professional actions or decisions are determined by considerations of personal financial gain, the relationship should be disclosed to the public during presentations, in publications, teaching or other public venues.”

Proposition 71 placed the legal authority for grant approvals in the hands of the CIRM board. Traditionally in the world of science, other scientists (“ peer reviewers”), however, are deemed to be the most capable of making the scientific decisions about grant applications. The traditional practice calls for the reviewers to be anonymous and meet in private, which is also CIRM’s practice.

If the CIRM board concedes the decisions to the grant reviewers, state law is likely to require public disclosure of their financial interests, a move that the board has opposed for years. Former CIRM Chairman Klein repeatedly advised the board during its public grant approval processes that reviewers’ actions were only ”recommendations,” and that the board was actually making the decisions.

Proposition 14 implicitly recognizes, however, that a problem exists with directors approving “concept” plans for awards that could benefit their institutions.

To ease that problem legally, Klein inserted language in the new proposition that excludes adoption of “strategic plans, concept plans and research budgets” from being considered as matters involving conflicts of interest.

The measure does nothing to deal with matters involving the de facto, closed-door approval of awards by researchers who are unknown to the public and who do not have to publicly disclose their interests.

At the time the IOM report was released nearly eight years ago, some board members complained that its recommendations were unrealistic because of the likely, lengthy difficulties of altering a state law that had been created by the initiative. But since then, directors have not asked state lawmakers to change the structure of the board or to comply with the other $700,000 worth of IOM recommendations.

CIRM directors, however, missed an opportunity last year to seek conflict-easing changes through the $5.5 billion stem cell measure now on the ballot, Proposition 14.

Some board members have said they discussed the initiative privately with Bob Klein, who crafted the proposal last year.

Revision of CIRM’s conflict rules was discussed at a board meeting in May 2019. Several board members expressed concerns about the loss of valuable insights from board members who cannot vote on applications. Some also expressed concerns about whether loosening the rules would damage the possibility of voter approval of a ballot measure to refinance the agency. Several, including CIRM Chair Thomas, also said “there’s never been a conflict” involving a funding award and a board member. No action involving conflicts was taken at the meeting.
—
Editor’s Note: David Jensen is a retired newsman who has followed the affairs of the $3 billion California stem cell agency since 2005 via his blog, the California Stem Cell Report. He has published thousands of items on California stem cell matters in the past 15 years. This story is an excerpt from his book, California’s Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures, which is available for pre-order on Amazon.