Doing the Public's Business in Public

Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson usually spends his days tracking events at the California stem cell agency, but recently he attended a meeting of the Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research.

That group is even less well known than CIRM, which sometimes worries that its name does not tell the full story of a $3 billion California human embryonic stem cell research effort.(see item below)

The IASCR, as the alliance is known, indirectly grew out of Prop. 71, the ballot measure that created CIRM in 2004. The research effort in California spawned similar ones by other states, raising concerns about scientific and bureaucratic chaos in research standards.

Thinkers at the National Academy of Sciences and elsewhere decided that something must be done to keep everybody on sort of the same track. Otherwise research would be impaired. Thus the IASCR came about.

Earlier this week, Simpson participated in two days of meetings by the IASCR in Baltimore and reports that the meeting seemed to be a success. The group decided to develop a model form for states to use in helping to certify that stem cells have been ethically derived.

Simpson writes on his organization's blog that it was a good decision, one that was debated and decided in public. That is significant since Simpson a couple of years ago was kicked out of a meeting of the group in Irvine, Ca., despite an earlier invitation to attend.

The current openness of the IASCR is healthy, Simpson writes, and adds credibility to the organization and the entire stem cell research effort. We agree.

'Doing It Right,' Cerberus Simpson Says

Both the California stem cell agency and the Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research have come in for some praise from Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson, who has followed California stem cell issues closely for several years.

Simpson, who was once thrown out of a meeting of the interstate group, lauded it for an early posting an agenda for its meeting April 9-10 in Washington. He also remarked that CIRM has done better recently on posting materials for some of its meetings. He particularly cited Rick Keller, senior officer for Scientific and Medical Research Facilities.

Writing on the Consumer Watchdog's blog, Simpson said,

"Public policy should always be made in public. And the public must have timely advance access to what's being discussed. That's how policy-makers actually build true support for their actions. Perhaps after a few -- sometimes less than gentle -- nudges from folks like me that message is getting across in these two cases."

Tackling Stem Cell Collaboration

Last week, the Mission Bay conference center at UC San Francisco was the scene of a meeting to discuss issues related to stem cell research. We asked one of those involved in organizing the event, Krishanu Saha, to give us a summary of the session. Here is Saha's report.

"In a successful workshop on Feb. 6 organized by the Berkeley Stem Cell Center and the Berkeley Science, Technology and Society Center, scientists, lawyers, ethicists, academic leaders, and patient advocates across California and the US gathered in San Francisco to discuss collaboration in stem cell research (see the "research roadblocks" item on Feb. 2).

"The morning consisted of three panels that described the problems in three interacting domains - the technical, proprietary, & ethical - of California's stem cell research climate. The need for sharing data on stem cell lines themselves was raised by a panel of practicing scientists, and later echoed by panels of intellectual property experts and ethicists.

"Intellectual property in stem cell tools was debated by both members of academia and industry, especially in regard to CIRM's policy. Legal experts and ethicists detailed the challenges of practicing within a patchwork of regulations across states and with tissue/cell donors.

Patient advocates and industrial leaders stressed their involvement in developing better healthcare during lunch, and in the afternoon, discussion shifted to how institutions could collaborate to deal with the problems laid out earlier. Both within stem cell research and other life sciences, several models of collaboration across states, academic institutions, and hospitals were discussed in an open forum.

"Participants agreed that there was a clear need for collaboration among stem cell research institutions and that California institutions will likely be intensely involved. Creating a database among institutions was seen as a potentially feasible first step, however further conversations will be necessary to determine the membership, costs, incentives, and types of data to include.

More information, including an important policy paper regarding this issue and a summary of the workshop, can be found at http://stsc.berkeley.edu/Events/2008StemCellResearchFeb6.htm.

No Interstate Stem Cell Cookbook

The Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research has decided not to offer model policies for openness and transparency throughout the nation or any other model regulations for that matter.

According to Warren Wollschlager, chair of the group, it will focus on compiling and sharing information from various states involved in stem cell research programs. He told the Boston Globe that there will be no national "cookbook." Wollschlager also said the group will not engage in direct advocacy efforts.

Wollschlarger reported that about 24 persons attended the group's two-day meeting last week in Boston, including a handful of public attendees. He said,

"As planned, we did discuss governance issues during the meeting, and clarified that the method by which the IASCR will meet its mission of fostering interstate collaboration is by compiling and sharing information about state specific statutes, regulation and policies. This commitment to collecting and sharing state information is reflected by the focus and charge of the various working groups. Working subcommittees are charged with compiling state specific information, checking out the accuracy of the information with the various states, and summarizing the data for the full committee. All final products of the IASCR will be posted on the IASCR website. I wanted to clarify that the IASCR will not be issuing policy recommendations or developing model statutory or regulatory language."

In an email to the California Stem Cell Report, Wollschlager said that all future meetings of the group will be open to the public.

He also said that the group's web site should be online about Dec. 3 and that the next meeting of the group will be in March or April of next year, probably in Washington, D.C.

Pluripotent Possibilities at Interstate Conference on Stem Cell Research

A California watchdog organization is calling for national guidelines on government-funded stem cell research that would ensure openness, transparency and accountability in the multi-billion dollar state programs.

The appeal came from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) in Santa Monica, Ca. The organization's recommendations came as the Wall Street Journal reported on a Congressional inquiry into transparency and conflict issues in another area of government-funded science – this one involving lung cancer research.

Simpson said in a letter to the Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research, which begins a meeting Wednesday(Oct. 24) in Boston, that it should commit to holding public meetings for all future sessions. Simpson was ousted from a meeting of the interstate group last May in California, although he had been invited to its first session. A representative of the National Academy of Sciences, which is backing the meetings of the interstate group, told Simpson the meeting was not open to the public despite the fact that it involved public officials and public money.

Simpson commended the group for holding a public session in Boston. He said,

"I fully expect the Interstate Alliance will have a major influence on rules and regulations in all the states that are represented. That means it is imperative that the public have access to your deliberations and the ability to offer input and comments. Given the potentially contentious nature of publicly funded stem cell research, the need for the utmost transparency is even greater than would otherwise be the case."

Simpson urged the alliance to create a working group to draft model regulations to ensure openness, transparency and accountability in the various state stem cell programs. He said,

"Such a working group should go beyond members of the state stem cell agencies and include representatives of organizations committed to public access in government operations."

Simpson's letter was directed to Warren Wollschlager, chairman of the interstate group. Simpson told the California Stem Cell Report that Wollschlager said he would bring up the openness issue at the Boston meeting.

The Wall Street Journal article highlighted some of the issues involved in openness and transparency in even relatively non-controversial research, much less the heated debate over human embryonic stem cell research.

The piece by David Armstrong said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees medical-research issues,

"...was concerned that potential conflicts of interest 'could damage the credibility' of the decade long, $200 million National Lung Screening Trial. The results are expected to have a significant impact in standards for lung-cancer screening and who will pay for it.

"Two of the trial's principal investigators have testified as paid experts for tobacco companies facing lawsuits seeking to force them to pay for smokers' annual CT scans."

Our comment: The interstate alliance has an extraordinary opportunity to influence the ESC research activities across the country. National standards are needed. And for the foreseeable future, they are not likely to be forthcoming from our friends at the federal level. Embryonic stem cell research IS pluripotent. As it exists today with the many states involved, major opportunities exist and changes are possible in non-productive grant review processes that currently hobble creative endeavors. The growth of the state research efforts has great promise. It also has great peril -- if the state endeavors become closed-door, secret activities that enable anti-science forces to foster suspicion and fear. It would be a shame for the Interstate Alliance and the states involved in stem cell research not to take advantage of what is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to begin to chart new and better courses.

Interstate Stem Cell Issues Coming Up in Public Session Next Week

The Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research, which once ousted a member of the public from a meeting in California, will hold two days of open public meetings in Massachusetts next Wednesday and Thursday.

The agenda (see item below) for the group, operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, includes a host of major issues that states are grappling with across the country. They include model language for the term "acceptably derived," payment issues and health care for egg donors, certification of stem cell lines from other states and countries and the grant review process.

We applaud the decision to make the meeting public. Billions of dollars in public resources are involved along with the need to maintain confidence in embryonic stem cell research. Closed door meetings and secret processes generate suspicion and encourage the worst sort of speculation.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, was the man ousted from last May's meeting. He says,

"I'm glad to see the change of heart. Too often the scientific establishment has displayed a paternalistic 'trust-us-we-know-best' attitude that in fact undercuts public support for science. Scientists need to engage and educate, otherwise we end up with the know-nothing attitude too often exemplified by the current administration."

Agenda for Public Meeting on Interstate Stem Cell Issues

Here is the agenda for next week's public interstate stem cell meeting.

Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research

British Consulate
Cambridge, MA
October 24-25, 2007
Agenda


October 24

12:00 pm Lunch (at Consulate)

1 pm Welcome and Introductions
Warren Wollschlager, Chair, Office of Research and Development, State of Connecticut and Fran Sharples, National Academies’ Secretariat for IASCR

Introduction of other participants

The purpose of this meeting is to review progress on the working group assignments made at the May 23-24 Irvine, CA meeting and to identify additional issues the IASCR needs to address.

1:15 pm Governance Issues - preliminary discussion: Warren Wollschlager

1:30 pm Report of Working Group on the development of a Glossary of Stem Cell Terms: William Lensch (Tab 1)

2:15 pm Report of Working Group on an IASCR Website: Fran Sharples, Susan Stayn, Eli Zupnick (Tab 2)

3:00 pm Break

3:15 pm Report of Working Groups on Developing Model Language for “Acceptably Derived;” Payment Issues and Health Care for Donors; and Certification of Stem Cell Lines from Other States and Countries (formation of standing committee): Marianne Horn, Geoff Lomax, Melissa Lopes, Susan Stayn, Ann Willey, Eileen Naughton, and Alta Charo (by phone) (Tab 3)

5:15 pm Adjourn meeting for the day

6:00 pm Reception (on site)



October 25

8:30 am Breakfast (at Consulate)

9:00 am Report of Working Group on Grant Reviews: Marianne Horn, Warren Wollschlager (Tab 4)

9:45 pm Report of Working Group of Legal Counsels on Role of Regulations vs. Guidelines and Policy Documents: Marianne Horn (Tab 5)

10:30 am Break

10:45 am Summary discussion of Working Group next steps

12:00 pm Working Lunch: Roles of International Society for Stem Cell Research: Jonathan Auerbach and Heather Rooke (Tab 6)

1:15 pm Governance Issues
Officers
Membership in IASCR
Budget
Roles of IASCR: information resource vs. policy development
Product branding

2:00 pm Recruitment of additional states and other members: discussion

2:30 pm Break

2:45 pm Working Group breakouts

3:30 pm Other agenda items TBD

4:00 pm Adjourn

Trounson Expands on His International Perspective

The new president of the California stem cell agency, Alan Trounson, is expressing a strong interest in engaging scientists elsewhere in the world and nation in the state's $3 billion research program, although he said such an effort may require funding from outside the agency.

In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, the Australian scientist (see photo) elaborated via email on his statements at the time of his selection as the head of the world's largest single funding source for human embryonic stem cell research.

Trounson had said his new assignment at CIRM provided an opportunity to engage internationally with other groups to avoid duplication of effort and speed development of cures. However, state law concerning CIRM requires virtually all of its efforts to be focused within California, requirements that earlier this year surfaced in connection with approval of a $2.6 million research grant to a non-profit, Los Angeles subsidiary of a South Korean organization, CHA Health Systems.

The CHA grant is still apparently under an administrative compliance review along with many others approved at the same time in March. The grant was not mentioned in the questions we submitted to Trounson nor did he speak specifically to it. We asked him only to elaborate on his statement concerning efforts with other nations and states. Trounson said,

"I would like to engage research groups working in other states and particular countries in collaborations with Californian scientists and clinicians. This might be achieved by having jointly funded workshops, study programs, scientific exchanges, research projects and clinical trials. I need to find out whether CIRM funds can be used in this way or whether we need to find other mechanisms to do this. The aim is to avoid duplication and accelerate the application of discoveries into the clinic - this is the primary outcome sought and needed by Californians."

Other questions and Trounson's responses:

CSCR: What are the three greatest challenges facing you at CIRM?

Trounson:
"1. Integrating the pipeline of stem cell discovery, translation and application in the clinic
"2. Demonstration of therapeutic benefit in a variety of applications
"3. Achieving a full comprehension by education, of the nature and potential benefits of stem cells throughout the whole community."

CSCR: Working in California state government also means dealing with open records and open meeting laws which sometimes have given pause to others new to such requirements. What is your comfort level with such laws?

Trounson: "Transparency is a simpler form of conducting an activity such as that involving the CIRM, where the entire community has an interest. I welcome the open format."

CSCR: Other observations you feel are important?

"I need time to focus on and analyze the efficiency of delivery of the CIRM strategy and to format priorities for the CIRM building on the very sound base achieved by the founders."

Wisconsin and California: Dueling Views on Stem Cell IP

Cyberspace is sizzling between California and Wisconsin in a stem cell contrempts involving Tom Still, president of the Wisconsin Technology Council, and John M. Simpson, the stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca.

Well, sizzling might be a little strong. But these two former newspaper editors are whacking each other around a bit.

It all started Aug. 11 with an opinion piece that Simpson wrote for the web site of the Wisconsin Technology Network.

In it, he argued that a basic question is being left not entirely answered as states step up to the stem cell funding plate. He wrote:

"Who should control, profit, and otherwise benefit from discoveries made in state-funded laboratories across Wisconsin? How you settle such matters are known as intellectual property policy, and like most states, Wisconsin apparently doesn't have a coherent, across-the-board policy."

On Aug. 20, Still responded, also on the Wisconsin Technlogy Network:

"Not only does Simpson think the historic Bayh-Dole Act has been a colossal waste of time and money, even though many experts believe it unchained the innovative potential of the nation's research universities, but he doesn't understand the basics about 'technology transfer' on those same campuses."

Simpson responded in a comment filed Tuesday below Still's column:

"I never said the Bayh-Dole Act 'has been a colossal waste of time and money.' I said that it was 'flawed.' That means it has problems that need fixing. I also would assert that it ought not serve as the model for state funding programs without appropriate modification."

Simpson's final paragraph in his response to Still:

"Again, I do appreciate your thoughtful and carefully reasoned analysis of my first column. I'd ask you to ponder what I've just suggested and look forward to your comments."

NAS Opens Session of Public Officials on Stem Cell Cooperation

Following a flap over closed door meetings, the National Academy of Sciences is opening to the public the next meeting of its group looking at interstate cooperation on stem cell research.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said the next session will be held in Boston in October. He attributed the information to Warren Wollschlager of the Connecticut Department of Health, who will chair the session.

Simpson was thrown out of a California meeting of the group earlier this year by an official from the National Academy of Sciences, who said the session was private. The group consisted mainly of public officials who are associated with state programs funding stem cell research with public funds.

Simpson said in a news release:

"I’m glad to see the change of heart. Too often the scientific establishment has displayed a paternalistic 'trust-us-we-know-best' attitude that in fact undercuts public support for science. Scientists need to engage and educate, otherwise we end up with the know-nothing attitude too often exemplified by the current administration."

Our view: The academy is moving in the right direction. This is public business and should be conducted openly. Anything less only feeds the anti-science forces. Closed door meetings and secrecy breed suspicion.

For earlier stories on this subject, click below on the label "interstate cooperation."

NAS Letter Arrives

We have received word from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, that he has now received (on June 21) a response from the National Academy of Sciences regarding his letter of protest about his ouster from a stem cell meeting in May. The NAS letter to him was dated June 13 and postmarked June 15. Copies of it were also sent to some other parties, one of whom received it as early as June 14. We carried an item on the NAS response last week based on the copy of the letter.

If It Can't Stand the Light of Day...

Attention Scientists! Want to keep the gravy train moving and the research grants flowing? Want to see more shiny new labs with the latest in sparkling equipment?

Build public confidence. Open the doors and explain the mystery. Don't shut out the people. Don't feed the anti-science Luddites.

Much has been written about distrust of scientists and their arcane ways. Most people are more concerned about the pedestrian issues of daily life than the esoteric issues that researchers probe. The public turns its attention to scientific matters in times of major achievement but also in times of scandal and suspicion. And when little is known about a subject, bad information can easily carry the day in the court of public opinion.

Which brings us to the National Academy of Sciences and its closed door sessions on the seemingly innocuous subject of interstate cooperation on embryonic stem cell research. We have written a few times about how the academy ousted a member of the public from its meeting on the matter last month in California. The academy apparently plans to continue this dubious policy.

Today the question is: Why should you care? The answer: If you favor good science, well-funded by government, you have something at stake.

Can scientists be trusted with public money? Are they open to public concerns? High-handed tactics, closed door meetings and secret agendas generate negative responses to those questions and play into the hands of those who fear science and seek to bring it to heel. No good reason exists for barring the public from the meetings on interstate cooperation. The meetings are attended by public officials discussing public policy about billions of dollars in public money.

The NAS itself owes its existence to an act of Congress. Many of its proceedings are already public, including such sessions as one dealing with adverse biological and health effects of cell phones and another dealing with "The 1,000-ship Navy -- A Distributed and Global Maritime Network." Is interstate cooperation on stem research more "sensitive" than those issues? We think not.

In many cases, the NAS has the legal right to close its doors. But the various state stem cell officials should not be party to such proceedings concerning interstate cooperation. We have queried a number of participants in May's closed door meeting to see if they planned to continue to attend meetings that bar the public. None has responded although we promised to carry their comments verbatim. Several possible reasons exist for the non-response. The officials may feel that this flap -- a relatively minor matter in many ways at this point -- will go away. They may feel uncomfortable as public officials in stating that they approve of closed door meetings. And they may be unwilling to publicly offend the National Academy of Sciences.

The NAS itself has not responded to our repeated queries. It also has not responded even to questions about the date for the next interstate meeting. And its written response to the man ousted from the May meeting was delivered to him one week after it went to agencies that were copied in on the letter.

When we worked in the California governor's office years ago, we were sometimes asked by top appointees about public meetings. Our response was, "If it can't stand the light of day, don't do it." That is good advice also for the National Academy of Sciences and its meetings on stem cell cooperation.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this contained slightly different information re the NAS response to the ousted man. This item has been updated to reflect the latest information.)

Stem Cell Research State by State

Stateline.org today carried a detailed overview of embryonic stem cell research efforts state by state, including the case of a woman who unsuccessfully tried to donate a leftover embryo from her IVF treatment in Michigan.

She was told she had to go to another state because Michigan law bans research on human embryos.

Writer Christine Vestal put together the piece, which goes into some detail on each state with links to the agencies that do the work.

Here is an excerpt:

"Seven states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin — are providing seed money for the fledgling science, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) in May called on lawmakers in his state to follow suit.

"Six other states — Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota — ban the research. Three states — Iowa, Massachusetts and Missouri — have affirmed its legality but do not offer funding.

"In Florida and Texas, lawmakers are deadlocked on the issue. Most states have steered clear of it altogether."

Lawyer Critical of California Stem Cell Report

Patent attorney Lawrence Ebert covers considerable ground this morning in a post called "National Academy of Sciences Attacked."

Ebert has written extensively on the WARF stem cell patent issues, disputing the assertions of critics challenging the WARF patent.

Today Ebert takes on this blog(the California Stem Cell Report), the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. A sample:

"Although the californiastemcellreport is ripping into NAS, the stemcellreport is rather silent on the mediocre reporting of the San Diego Union-Tribune on past attempts of California stem cell workers to obtain broad patent coverage on embryonic stem cells and on the superficial reporting of the Los Angeles Times on the Cha duplicate publication matter."

Ebert is deeply concerned about the legal issues concerning the patents. Our perspective is somewhat broader. While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. An extreme non-science example: Racial segregation used to be the law of the land in many areas of the United States.

Ebert appears to be well-schooled in patent law. Others equally well-schooled differ with him. We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find. But that is a value judgement -- not law.

Nonetheless we encourage you to read Ebert's comments. He may be right.

The National Academy of Sciences: Feeding the Anti-Science Movement

The National Academy of Sciences has not distinguished itself with its response to the flap about barring the public from a meeting of public officials discussing interstate cooperation on billions of dollars in stem cell research financed with taxpayer funds.

We have not heard from the academy concerning the hooha but it finally responded to a letter of protest from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., who was ousted from the meeting in California last month. An academy official said the meeting was "private" although state officials were there at taxpayer expense discussing issues of public import in at least 10 states.

The letter from the NAS demonstrated a fundamental failure to grasp that secrecy on this subject is not in the best interests of the public or of the academy. Closing the door only generates suspicion and distrust and unnecessarily feeds the anti-science movement in this country.

Here is the text of NAS letter to Simpson and Simpson's response. First the letter of E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the NAS.

"I am responding to your letter of May 24 regarding the meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on May 23 and 24 involving representatives of states involved in stem cell research. That meeting was an invitation-only planning session, which we were requested to convene, to discuss the potential interest of states regarding sharing information and improving coordination in the future. As the states decide how and when to move forward with information sharing and interstate coordination activities, I expect that there will be ample opportunities for public involvement."

Simpson's reply:

"Thank you for your June 13 response to my letter of May 24 expressing concerns about the private meeting of representatives of state stem cell research programs. You give me great comfort.

"Any doubts that I had about earlier characterization of the National Academy of Sciences as a paternalistic organization that believes the public cannot be trusted to understand science have been put to rest.

"Moreover, your suggestion that 'there will be ample opportunities for public involvement' in the future misses the point.

"The meeting in Irvine, CA, was of representatives of publicly funded stem cell research programs talking about public policy. The public should have been involved from the beginning, not at some vague future date at the convenience of the scientific bureaucracy.

"You should apologize for closing the meeting, and any future sessions of this group must be open to the public.

"The National Academy of Sciences' paternalistic approach only serves to undercut public confidence in any policies that may emerge from the interstate meetings. This does not serve the interests of the states, the National Academy nor stem cell research."

As we mentioned earlier, public officials from any state should not attend any further closed-door meetings on this matter. No good reason exists for banning the public. All of the issues can and should be discussed in public. Airing differing views early is one good way to write intelligent policy and build public support.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this incorrectly quoted Simpson's letter as saying xxxx at the convenience of the scientific democracy (instead of bureaucracy).

Public Matters, Public Money Topic of "Secret" Agenda

For a look at what one might call the "secret" agenda discussed during last month's closed-door session promoting interstate cooperation on stem cell research, you can find the documents posted on the web site of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

The National Academy of Sciences barred the public from the California meeting. An academy official said the session was private despite the fact that it involved public officials, dealing with public matters and public money.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the foundation, received the documents before he was ousted by the academy official.

Topics discussed at the Irvine, Ca., session included intellectual property (not a small matter for California taxpayers), reciprocity between states, model legislation and research oversight. All are clearly part of the public agenda on embryonic stem cell research.

Ironically, also on the table was a draft mission statement, calling for the nascent "Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research" to promote "efficient and responsible use of public funds." Ironic because private, closed door meetings discussing how to use billions of dollars in taxpayer funds can hardly be called responsible.

For more on this subject, see the "Fails Responsibility" below.

National Academy of Sciences Fails Public Responsibility Test on State Stem Cell Issues

"Absolutely outrageous," "outmoded, elitist" complete with a "public-can’t-understand-science attitude" -- the National Academy of Sciences.

That is the description of the group as provided by John M. Simpson, the normally mild-mannered stem cell project director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., who has trekked north and south through California for a couple of years following and influencing California's $3 billion stem cell research effort.

Simpson was justifiably irked when he was barred last month from a NAS-supported meeting of public officials by Fran Sharples, life sciences director of the the NAS. Simpson had been invited to the first meeting of the group in Connecticut, but could not attend. When he showed up for a follow-up meeting in Irvine, Ca., Sharples said that it was private and he could not attend despite having being invited earlier.

But invitation or not, Simpson's point is that this is public business – not some private, secret affair.

Attending the session in May were representatives of 10 state public stem cell research programs from across the nation. The two-day session was aimed at creating the Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research. Among its goals would be "creating opportunities for collaboration among different states' stem cell programs and harmonizing regulations."

All of which is of great importance to state research efforts, which are funded by public money – not NAS funds – and which are generally required to operate in public under open meeting and open records laws.

Simpson wrote a letter of protest to Ralph J. Cicerone and E. William Colgazier, respectively president and executive officer of the academy, concerning its egregious behavior.

Simpson said,

"When the public is shut out of the process, we can only wonder what is being done behind closed doors. For instance, in the quest to 'harmonize' regulations between states will only the lowest common denominator in regulations be adopted?"

And again this month, Simpson said,

"We completely support efforts to foster co-operation among the states, but the notion that the National Academy of Sciences would close such a meeting to the public is absolutely outrageous. It is the outmoded, elitist, public-can’t-understand-science attitude, that ultimately undermines the public’s willingness to fund research. It’s time NAS moved into the 21st century. Their current behavior is exactly what prompts the know-nothing attitude of our president and his right-wing base."

The National Academy of Sciences is a nonprofit organization created by Congress. The intent of Congress was to create an organization that serves the public, albeit indirectly. The Federal Advisory Committee Act which deals with the NAS seems intended to open rather close the academy's proceedings. The action last month in Irvine barring the public from an important stem cell meeting violates the intent if not the letter of that law.

We have asked the NAS for a response or justification (including information on its funding sources) but it has not responded. Nor has it yet responded to Simpson's letter of 18 days ago. We will carry the group's statement verbatim when we receive it.

For now, however, the academy should be embarrassed by its highhanded conduct. Moreover, closing the doors on the public is harmful to the academy and defeats its purpose of advancing the cause of science. Instead the NAS is breeding suspicion and distrust.

The California stem cell agency, as well as those in the other states, should boycott any further meetings of the NAS on the subject of interstate cooperation unless it is willing to open the sessions.