Torres Says He Needs Salary From CIRM

IRVINE, Ca. -- Art Torres, chairman of the California state Democratic Party, says he will need a salary if he is to serve as vice chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

In an item by Shane Goldmacher for Capitol Alert, the online service of The Sacramento Bee, Torres was quoted as saying:

"'I do need a salary because I am not a wealthy person,' he said, adding that 'what that compensation should be is up to the board.'"

The vice chair is eligible for as much as $332,000 annually.

Goldmacher also reported:

"He (Torres) touted his connections - he was first elected to the Assembly in 1974 - as beneficial for promoting the mission of the stem-cell agency.

"'That's over 34 years of relationships and experience that is important to communicate the needs of this mission,' he said.

"Torres is also building upon those connections to win the vice-chairmanship. (Lt. Gov. John) Garamendi's nomination letter states that Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have all endorsed Torres for the post.

"Torres appears to have some support on the board, as well.

"'I'm keeping an open mind, but (Torres) is well-qualified for this position,' said David Serrano Sewell, who fills the patient advocate slot for multiple sclerosis on the stem-cell panel. 'He has the legislative, business and volunteer experience. Just as important he has the relationships with legislators in Sacramento and Washington D.C., built over 20 years, that will greatly benefit our mission.'"

Once rejected $1.7 million grant is resurrected

In "a highly unusual" situation, directors of the California stem cell agency this week are likely to approve a $1.7 million grant application that was pulled off a previous round after scientific reviewers turned it down.

In June, CIRM President Alan Trounson removed the application from the list of those being considered for new cell line grants. During a brief exchange at the June meeting of CIRM directors, Chairman Robert Klein said that "there was a problem with it, that it technically has to be re-reviewed." Trounson said he directed that the application be reexamined after he discussed it with the chairman of the review group, Stuart Orkin of the Dana Farber Institute.

There was no further comment in June by CIRM directors on the proposal, numbered 642-1 and labeled "derivation of new ICM-stage hESCs."

In the initial consideration of the application, reviewers raised several scientific questions and concerns about the proposal, according to the summary posted on the CIRM web site. No scientific score for the application was disclosed by CIRM, which considers scores for rejected proposals not suitable for public release.

One member of the Grants Working Group, Chad Cowan of Harvard, was barred from participating in review or discussion of the applicant because of a conflict of interest. CIRM did not specify the nature of the conflict.

The latest summary of the review of the application says that its "technologies and methodologies are not novel and not particularly innovative." But the review also said other aspects of the proposal are "laudable" and that it has "significant potential."

The application was given a scientific score of 80 out of a possible 100. No reviewers were excluded from participation in the most recent review of the application. Cowan is currently listed as an alternate member of the Grants Working Group. It is not known whether he participated in the latest review of 642-1.

The identity of the applicant and his affiliated institution is being withheld by CIRM. The agency makes a practice of withholding the names of successful applicants until the full board acts, although exceptions to the policy have come up. Names of rejected applicants are never released.

Last July, we asked Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer , for more information on the re-review, which may be the first such public case.

Our questions included:

"Is the grant being re-examined in connection with provisions in the grant administration policy that state that appeal grounds are 'strictly limited to circumstances in which a demonstrable financial or scientific conflict of interest' played a role?

"If not, what sort of additional information justified redoing the review?

"Did the information come to CIRM first? Who generally provided the information: the applicant or ??? Was it forwarded with or without a recommendation to the chairman of the Grants Working Group? What action did he take?"

Gibbons replied at the time that it was the "president's decision." Gibbons said,

"This grant was a highly unusual circumstance; something that has not happened before and something we don’t expect to happen much, if ever, in the future. We are not treating it as an appeal through the GAP. New information came to us, and the president, in consultation with the chair of the working group, decided that it merited sending the grant back to the working group for further review."

Following approval of the grant Tuesday or Wednesday, CIRM is expected to release the name of the researcher and the institution.

(Correction: An earlier version of this item identified the chairman of the Working Group as Dana Orkin. His correct first name is Stuart.)

Penhoet Resigns as Vice Chairman of CIRM

The vice chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, Ed Penhoet, has resigned from his post, but CIRM announced Monday afternoon that he will remain as one of the 29 members of the board of directors.

The statement by CIRM came only hours after the California Stem Cell Report said that Penhoet "denied scuttlebutt in the California stem cell community that he is leaving the board." However, the item also said incorrectly that he denied he "is stepping down as its vice chairman." That item was based on a one-sentence response from Penhoet that did not address all the questions we asked him on Saturday. (More on that below.)

We also queried CIRM early this morning on the matter, asking Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, for comment on reports that Penhoet was stepping down. No response was forthcoming from Gibbons on the matter.

CIRM's press release, which has not yet been posted on its website, said Penhoet was stepping down because of "the time constraints of this leadership position."

CIRM said:

"However, Penhoet has accepted the appointment by Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi to one of the board’s member positions designated for the life sciences commercial sector."

Penhoet was not quoted in the CIRM press release on the leadership change, which said that the co-founder of Chiron will continue to head the CIRM IP Task Force.

The move clears the way for nomination of a new vice chair by the state's constitutional officers, such as governor and lieutenant governor. It is likely that CIRM Chairman Robert Klein will make suggestions for possible nominees. Former CIRM board member Tina Nova has been mentioned as a candidate, but she said earlier today that no one has approached her about serving in that capacity. She also said she has "no plans to return to the CIRM board."

The full CIRM board must vote on the vice chair, selecting from the nominees. The post carries a salary of up to $332,000 annually. Penhoet did not accept a salary, raising a question whether the next vice chair will. If so, it also raises the possibility that Klein, who also has not accepted pay, will seek the $508,750 salary for which he is eligible. He has repeatedly said he may seek a salary at some point.

Some of you may wonder about some of the details involved in preparing our original item below that reported incorrectly that Penhoet said he was not stepping down. Our email query to Penhoet on Saturday said,

"I am planning on writing an item that will say that California stem cell scuttlebutt has it that you are resigning as vice chair of the ICOC. Is that correct?"

Penhoet's response:

"I have no intention of leaving the board, David."

We then asked,

"I may be parsing this too finely, but do you intend to imply that you would remain on the board but give up the vice chair position? Thanks."

Penhoet did not respond to that question. We notified him early this afternoon that our original item had been posted but have received no further communications.

CIRM was queried at 7:35 a.m. California time today about the subject but has not responded to us as of this writing.

Big Money Issues Come Up Next Week at CIRM

A key panel of directors of the California stem cell agency next week will tackle three hefty financial topics, ranging from its proposed $500 million biotech loan program to the amount of money available for grants and loans.

No details of what is to be considered are yet available on the CIRM website for the Sept. 12 meeting of the Finance Subcommittee. But here is the text of the three items to be considered: "Consideration of portfolio policies for CIRM Loan Program," "Consideration of business review processes for CIRM Loan Program" and "Informational presentation on CIRM program budget and funds available for research grants and loans."

The meeting will take place at CIRM headquarters in San Francisco with teleconference locations in Menlo Park, La Jolla, Irvine and Berkeley.

If you have any interest in the biotech loan program, this is a meeting that you should attend at any of the locations(addresses on the agenda). Comments and suggestions can be made at the teleconference locations. If you have specific recommendations, send a letter as soon as possible to CIRM, explaining them and their rationale in detail.

The latest discussion of the biotech loan program can be found in the transcript of the August directors meeting.

CIRM Says No to Auditor's Conflicts Concerns

Elaine Howle, the California state auditor, knows a great deal about the mischief that goes on in state government. And make no mistake about it, mischief does occur even when the multibillion dollar battle ground is in public and the economic interests are on full display.

She also knows that the mischief can grow even greater when the doors are closed and the financial interests of the major players are hidden from the public, such as in the case of grants awarded by California's $3 billion stem cell agency.

So Howle (photo above) recommended last spring that the California stem cell agency, with its $3 billion research effort, do more to ensure that its conflict of interest code is followed. Her suggestion was rather modest considering the stakes: CIRM should ask the state attorney general for an opinion about whether the men and women who make the basic decisions on hundreds of millions in dollars in grants should be required to publicly disclose their economic interests.

CIRM's answer to the state auditor came last month: No.

"It is not appropriate," said the agency in letter to Howle. The letter came only 10 days before one institution withdrew its request for $2.6 million, a pitch that was approved by grant reviewers in secret last March without turning up the fact that the applicant was tied to an international scientific flap.

Richard Murphy, interim president of CIRM, wrote to the state auditor,

"We have given careful consideration to your recommendation and have decided it is not appropriate to implement at this time. In almost three years of operation and approval of four rounds of grants, the recommendations of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and/or regularly adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected, the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges."

Murphy has some interesting lines of reasoning here, ones that clearly had the influence of a skillful attorney.

One part of his response refers to "routine and regular" actions. Another says the whole matter is hypothetical, implying that hypothetical possibilities are not worthy of public action. Let's examine CIRM's contentions.

First, should hypothetical situations to be ignored by government agencies? The possibility of contracting small pox or polio is hypothetical. Does that mean that children should not receive vaccinations against those diseases? Or that the government should not require them to be vaccinated in certain situations? The possibility of a terrorist boarding a plane with a bomb is hypothetical. Does that mean inspections of passengers boarding aircraft should cease?

The point about PUBLIC disclosure of the economic interests of grant reviewers is to prevent serious problems. A scandal involving conflicts-of-interests among persons who make critical judgments on the requests for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds could be crippling to the stem cell agency. It is in the agency's best interests to inoculate itself against that possibility. It is most certainly in the public's best interest.

As for the routine ratification of reviewer recommendations, the Oversight Committee, which has ultimate legal authority on grant approval, has modified the reviewers' recommendations from time to time. We are sure that CIRM's able legal staff has counted the occasions and is prepared to make the case that the Oversight Committee does not routinely give grants a rubber stamp.

However, from seeing the board in action and reviewing transcripts, we come to a different conclusion, although we have not yet counted and assessed each individual vote. Reviewers are making de facto decisions. Most grants are routinely approved with little discussion by the Oversight Committee. Only a relative handful have been changed by that group.

Asking for a formal opinion from the attorney general is a serious matter. Such opinions have the force of law, for most purposes. CIRM would not want to seek such an opinion if it were uncertain of a favorable result. It is also fair to say that unless something changes, CIRM is not likely to ever detect a pattern of "routine and regular" approval of reviewer recommendations. To do so would open the agency to other legal perils, such as lawsuits alleging that the Oversight Committee is failing to perform its duties as required by law.

(The CIRM response on this matter is part of a document filed as part of the six-month response to the entire state audit. The response is not available on the Internet. If you would like a copy, please send an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.)

Sacramento Bee: CIRM Grants 'Needlessly Shrouded'

The Sacramento Bee today endorsed sunshine at the California stem cell agency.

In an editorial headlined "grant process is needlessly shrouded," the newspaper called for legislative changes to open up CIRM. Here is an excerpt:

"Scientists from outside states do much of this review work, and are not required to publicly disclose their potential conflicts of interest. Undoubtedly, some of those scientists have outside consulting work, or personal relationships with researchers seeking funding, that could affect their grant decisions. Yet under the institute's shrouded procedures, it is impossible for anyone -- including researchers applying for grants -- to be assured that grant reviewers are recusing themselves at the proper times.

This lack of public disclosure is the single most glaring problem with the Institute for Regenerative Medicine. While it is momentous that California is now on the leading edge of financing embryonic stem cell research, the institute still hasn't adopted a transparent procedure for policing potential conflicts. Lawmakers, in this session of the Legislature, need to correct that."

The Bee editorial had received two comments from readers as of this morning. Both were generally opposed to ESC research. One asked, "Can we do a recall on ballot initiatives."

We want to assure curious minds that The Bee editorial and our item below, "CIRM Money Machine," only coincidentally appeared within less than 24 hours of each other. No collusion existed. But being a skeptic ourselves, we know that the denial will do no good.

The CIRM Money Machine and Potential Scandal

Giving away millions is not always easy.

Eighteen months ago, the talk included references to rubber stamps, "re-reviewing" not to mention honesty and legality.

The scene was Sacramento, Sept. 9, 2005, when the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency awarded its first-ever grants, which went for training programs for stem cell scholars at California schools.

The 29-member panel was whipping through the list of soon-to-be recipients when they ran out of applicants with really high scores. It was then that discussion surfaced about whether the board was merely rubber-stamping decisions of its grant reviewers or doing something more.

And it was then that Philip Pizzo, dean of the Stanford School of Medicine, said,

"In a sense our job was to really choose or approve the people who are going to be reviewers, and by way of delegated authority, we're asking them to make recommendations which are really decisions because we don't have all the data."

Pizzo's comment and similar ones by other CIRM overseeers 18 months ago are critical to understanding questions of conflicts-of-interest, openness and transparency at the grant review level. CIRM has imposed a lid of secrecy on virtually all of the doings of the grant review group. Not even the Oversight Committee members, for example, are supposed to know the names of the institutions seeking grants, although it was relatively straight forward to identify a goodly number of the applicants in 2005 based on the bowdlerized information available then. You just needed to be conversant with California institutions involved in stem cell research.

CIRM conceals the names of the applicants lest it embarrass the losers. CIRM says that encourages good science by encouraging potentially rewarding but risky ventures – ones that the authors might not want to vet in public. Moreover, CIRM says the Oversight Committee actually makes the grant decisions – not the grant review committee. Thus such matters as the economic interests of the grant reviewers and their closed-door meetings to give away tens of millions of public dollars are not really important in terms of openness and transparency.

Eighteen months ago, the Oversight Committee only turned down a couple of grant applications that were recommended by the grant review group(the number is not entirely clear from the transcript of the session). The Oversight group is not likely to reject any significant number of recommendations this Friday for SEED grants. If it does, it soon will not have anybody willing to serve on the grant review committee. Moreover, the CIRM directors simply do not have enough information to perform any sort of significant second-guessing of its hard-working reviewers, all of whom are from out-of-state.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, in 2005, bridled at Pizzo's remark that reviewers were actually making decisions, which Pizzo conceded was an impolitic choice of words although they clearly reflected the sentiment of a number of committee members. Klein commented again later when Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA medical school, said, "What is the purpose of discussing everything on an individual basis? Why don't we just vote en bloc? We're just going through this on an individual basis, but it has no meaning."

Klein, who is an attorney, replied,

"We have to go through this on an individual basis because of the laws of the state of California. And to observe the very high standard of conflicts adopted by this board, we have to make sure we have roll call votes on every application. That is the challenge and it is a new process for California as well as a nation."

It IS a challenging and new process, one that does not have to follow the well-trod but not necessarily applicable procedures of older institutions that are fundamentally different than CIRM. The NIH is often cited as a precedent for CIRM's secrecy on grants. But the NIH can easily be controlled by Congress and the President. CIRM is virtually immune from control by the California Legislature and governor.

The California stem cell agency should rethink its policies on financial disclosure and transparency. Opening the doors will help to protect the agency from the suspicions that will certainly surface as the CIRM money machine begins to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars. Not to mention helping to prevent an outright scandal that would be relished by opponents of embryonic stem cell research.

Twenty-five Secret Applicants for $48.5 Million in Public Funds

On the surface, the odds look pretty good in CIRM's $48.5 million grant program for "shared" stem cell labs.

The institute plans to hand out as many as 15 grants, and only 25 institutions have filed letters of intent. Of course, their names are secret by order of CIRM, even though every major University of California campus is certain to have filed. Include Stanford, USC, the Burnham and Salk Institutes, etc., and it is not hard to come up with something close to 25 non-profit and academic institutions. That number may shrink by the deadline for formal applications.

The reason for the secrecy is concern that losing institutions would be embarrassed. Nonsense, we say. Moreover, this is public money that is being given away, and it should not be done behind closed doors any more than absolutely necessary.

According to CIRM's press release, the institutions must provide a 20 percent match of the total cost for renovation and equipment.

CIRM also said,

"The Shared Research Laboratory Grant Program will fund dedicated laboratory space for the culture of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), particularly those that fall outside federal guidelines. (Current federal policy prohibits research involving hESCs isolated after August 2001 from being conducted in laboratories constructed with any federal funding.) CIRM’s grants will support the development of core laboratories to be used by multiple investigators and shared by multiple institutions, and provide an environment for scientific research on hESCs under CIRM’s medical and ethical standards."

The grants are expected to be awarded this June.

Do you think the names of the applicants should be secret? You can respond by using the "comments" function below. Anonymous comments are permitted.

CIRM Guide to the $100 Million Grant Process

The California stem cell agency has posted on its Web site a useful guide to its plans for handing out more than $100 million in research grants, including timelines and other procedures.

Much of the information has been available before but it was scattered and hard to find. Now it has been compiled in a tidy package. Some of the information is fresh. For example, the memo said:

"In the first week of February, we will release a list of all the SEED Grant applications. That list will include the title of the research proposal, the numeric score (1 to 100) it received from the Grants Working Group, and the Working Group’s recommendation (Recommended for funding, Recommended if funds available, or Not recommended for funding at this time). From our Web site, viewers can click on the application number to open a public abstract of the proposal, a statement of its benefits to California, the applicant’s proposed budget, and a summary of the Working Group’s review."

The memo also reiterated the agency's intention to maintain its secrecy concerning the names of those seeking millions of dollars in government funds – a dubious practice adopted because that it is the way it always been done (at least on the federal level) to protect rejected applicants from embarrassment. We should note that some of the applicants have already disclosed that they have applied, making the attempt at secrecy a bit ineffectual and raising questions about why the applicants disclosed when the granting agency prefers secrecy.

The memo was prepared originally for use by the ink-stained wretches of the media, but it has value for anyone interested in the grants. You can clip it and post it on the outside of your petri dish.

FTCR: No to Research and 'Big Name' for Next CIRM President

The California stem cell agency should not hire a "big name" as its new president, and he or she should not be allowed to conduct research on the side, according to one of CIRM's watchdogs.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for the Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, sent a letter to CIRM today and issued a press release on the subject, following the ealier item ("Move with Dispatch") below in the California Stem Cell Report. (Also see Simpson's comment on that item in which he quotes an unidentified Oversight Committee.)

In his letter, Simpson said:

"The next president must be an extremely competent hands-on scientific administrator, who can set up and maintain transparent and accountable management systems. He or she must be able to interact with the public, state officials, legislators and the media in a transparent, honest and accountable fashion.

"In the past there has been some suggestion that the president might continue to maintain research laboratory as part of the president's role. This should not be allowed. The presidency of CIRM is more than a full-time job. A person trying to manage CIRM's activities and conduct meaningful research simultaneously would do justice to neither activity.

"Members of the search committee should avoid the temptation of seeking a 'big name' scientists known for his or her discoveries. The emphasis must be on the individual's skill in scientific management and administration."

Simpson's statement came as CIRM posted a seven-page document on its Web site describing proposed criteria for the new president. That document, coming only one day before the meeting of the presidential search subcommittee, will serve as the framework for that panel's discussion. Other background information relating to hiring a search firm, whether that process should be open to bids, timetable for hiring and "interim action" was not available. The lack of that information makes it extremely difficult for the public to comment intelligently and belies CIRM's ostensible commitment to openness and transparency.

Much of what is contained in the presidential criteria document, which presumably emanated from the office of stem cell Chairman Robert Klein, is predictable. A preliminary look, however, raises suspicions about whether it is a first step in shifting the existing balance between the president and the chairman (see the section on management reporting lines of authority). The overlapping, dual leadership at CIRM has been a troubling aspect of the agency since its earliest days, surfacing in public conflicts involving Klein and current President Zach Hall, who is retiring by about mid-year. Prop. 71 codified the dubious executive structure in a state law that is nearly impossible to change without another vote of the people.

The 3 p.m. meeting of the search subcommittee will be in San Francisco, but remote locations are available to the public in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, UC San Francisco, UC Berkeley, La Jolla, Ca., Carlsbad, Ca., Stanford University and the San Francisco city attorney's office. The agenda does not indicate specific room numbers in some cases. Email CIRM directly, info@cirm.ca.gov, or phone the agency at 415-396-9100 if you would like more details on the locations.

CIRM's Presidential Search: Time to Move with Dispatch

Should the next president of the $6 billion California stem cell agency also conduct research? Should he or she receive a higher or lower salary than the current CEO? Can a suitable successor be on board by June? Can good candidates be found who also can work in the dual leadership environment at CIRM?

Those are some of the questions likely to be addressed as CIRM's presidential search committee convenes on Wednesday with remote sites for the public available from Washington, D.C., to Chico, Ca.

The specific agenda for the meeting is a bit sketchy as of this writing, reminiscent of CIRM meetings of yore in which background material was not available until the day of the meeting, making it difficult for even CIRM Oversight Committee members to comment intelligently much less the public.

On the table are job summary and criteria, the search process and possible competitive bidding for a search firm, the time table and "interim actions." The last item would seem to involve a temporary appointment while the search for a permanent replacement for Zach Hall continues. The 69-year-old Hall has indicated he wants to be off the job no later than June.

The last presidential search in 2005 failed to produce a result until September of that year, three or four months after it had been expected. And that was a man, Zach Hall, already filling the spot on a temporary basis.

The tenuous legal position of CIRM, which then faced the lawsuit now on appeal, was one of the reasons for the apparent difficulty in hiring a president. Another matter of concern among some candidates was whether they could conduct research and whether CIRM would provide facilities. That came up in August 2005 at a meeting of the search subcommittee.

Issues involving the dual leadership at CIRM – a president and chairman with overlapping responsibilities – surfaced early in 2005 with the search subcommittee. It is likely to be a continuing concern although stem cell Chairman Robert Klein has indicated he may give up his post in 2008. But even if he does, another question arises: Who would replace him and can the next president hammer out a new working relationship with the next chair?

California is an expensive place to live, especially the San Francisco Bay Area, where CIRM is headquartered. So compensation becomes especially important for those from out of state. The CIRM salary scale drew protests as excessive in 2005, but it is not likely to be revised downward.

Most involved with CIRM seem to agree that Hall's performance has set a high standard. He laid the difficult groundwork that may have deterred some early candidates. His performance has also clarified for the the Oversight Committee what is needed in a president and creates certain expectations. CIRM is a tiny organization with about 20 employees, substantially fewer than the 29-person Oversight Committee that oversees it. Leadership changes are always difficult for any enterprise. But smaller organizations are more susceptible to disruption than larger ones with substantially more momentum or, for that matter, inertia. CIRM could suffer if too much time passes without a permanent replacement for Zach Hall.

CIRM and Its Embarrassing Secrecy

The California stem cell agency rather foolishly conceals the identity of applicants for its multibillion dollar grant program, contending that unsuccessful scientists and their employers would be embarrassed if the public were to know that they failed to receive funds.

We say foolish because CIRM's rules are a nonsensical exercise as well as poor policy(see the "more disclosure" item below). The institutions themselves are free to release the information that they have applied, and they do. The most recent example is USC. Last fall, UC Irvine did so.

One can only speculate about why the schools release the information, although the process of applying for grants in other areas is often very much a public process. Some cynics have surmised that the release of the information by the schools could be an attempt to serve notice on CIRM and its Oversight Committee that these mighty institutions should not be overlooked when the checks are handed out. Both USC and UC Irvine have representatives on the Oversight Committee, which makes the final decision on who shares in the largess, although those committee members are barred from voting on their own school's grant applications. Of course, more benign reasons exist for universities to tell the public they are seeking grants. But CIRM's secrecy only fuels the fire of conspiracy theories.

USC's item said the school submitted 29 applications for the round of applications reviewed last fall and for the round being reviewed this week.

"'The competition for this funding will be tough, but USC scientists have put together some very exciting proposals,'" said Martin Pera, director of USC's Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine (CSCRM) and a professor of cell and neurobiology."

The item continued:

"Pera said that researchers from CSCRM and its Stem Cell Core Laboratory 'were pleased to lend our expertise in support of these grant efforts in this first round of CIRM grants.'

"The exercise 'brought together many groups throughout USC, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and the California Institute of Technology for the first time,' he added. 'As a consequence, a number of new interdisciplinary collaborations have emerged with the potential to develop into world class research programs in stem cell biology and therapeutics.'"

Given the dearth of ESC research funding, any California institution making an effort in the area can be expected to seek grants. Likewise, institutions with stem cell aspirations. But their names and the names of the scientists as well as the general nature of the application should be part of the public record.

Why CIRM persists in concealing the identities of applicants is hard to understand. If it truly wanted to maintain secrecy, it could disqualify an institution whose application became public knowledge, for whatever reason. Then nobody would be embarrassed.

More Disclosure in Billion Dollar Giveaway Is In CIRM's Best Interest

California's $3 billion stem cell giveaway program began another important step today – one that is cloaked in nearly total secrecy despite the fact that it involves public funds.

Scientists in San Francisco are reviewing applications for $80 million in major grants. CIRM says their actions are only recommendations. However, the reality is that they are defacto decisions that are unlikely to be overturned by the agency's Oversight Committee.

A certain amount of confidentiality is to be expected, but the agency has gone overboard to protect the tender sensitivities of those seek the funds. It is a practice that will serve the agency poorly should questions arise – as they are certain to do over the next decade – about the propriety of its grant-making process.

We have written repeatedly about failings in transparency and disclosure at the agency. It is also a topic of concern to a number of newspapers and watchdog groups. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, Ca., authored an op-ed piece that appeared today in the Oakland Tribune and other California newspapers.

He wrote:

"Everyone concerned claims they want a transparent process to ensure that awards are based on scientific merit, not favoritism and cronyism. Despite mouthing high-minded slogans, the institute's leaders too frequently miss the mark whenever there is a clear opportunity to build faith in its processes by being completely open.

"In California we don't know who applied for the grants or their affiliations. Our stem cell institute need only look to Connecticut where applicants' names and pertinent details are public record for a model of how to conduct the public's business.

"Fortunately at least one California scientist understands the importance of a completely transparent process when dealing with public funds. Connecticut's stem cell peer review committee — the equivalent of California's grants working group — is chaired by Dr. Leslie P. Weiner, professor of neurology at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.

"The California stem cell institute won't identify the 70 researchers from 23 unidentified institutions vying for 25 grants under the Comprehensive Research Grants program.

"In my personal life, I don't give money to people unless I know who they are, why they want it and what they plan to do with it. It shouldn't be any different with the taxpayers' $3 billion. Another opportunity for transparency and to build public faith in the institute's procedures is being squandered."

So wrote Mr. Simpson, who has followed CIRM's activities for more than a year and is a supporter of ESC research.

As for us at the California Stem Cell Report, if we were one of the scientists making decisions on the grants, we would want to have the maximum amount of openness, including disclosure of the financial interests of our fellow reviewers. Without transparency, it is all too easy for enemies of embryonic stem cell research to impugn the integrity of reviewers and to insuinate – as they most certainly will do -- that something other than good science is playing a role in handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in California taxpayer funds.

Embryonic stem cell research generates more than enough controversy. It is past time for the California stem cell agency to take steps to protect itself and its grant reviewers -- all of whom come the tiny circle of stem cell scientists around the world -- from the inevitable charges of self-dealing, cronyism and favoritism.

Newspapers Take a Whack or Two at CIRM

During a week when the California stem cell agency might think it should be receiving some kudos, it has taken a couple of stiff shots in the media.

On Thursday CIRM's Oversight Committee is expected to approve its strategic plan for spending $3 billion on embryonic stem cell research. It is a remarkable document, the result of many months of work and involving ideas and suggestions from hundreds of persons, including the top scientists in the field and patient groups. The plan is a key bench mark in the life of an extraordinary agency that is unlike any other state department in the United States. In addition, CIRM represents the single largest source of embryonic stem cell funding in the world.

But some of that is what irritates its critics. Perhaps the harshest view came from Investors Business Daily, a financial newspaper with about 211,000 national circulation. In an editorial headlined "Fool's Gold Rush," the newspaper said,

"Californians were promised wonder cures if they passed Proposition 71 to fund stem-cell research in 2004. Turns out they have bought a $3 billion jug of snake oil."

The editorial continued:

"Activist complaints about the private sector's focus on adult and umbilical-cord stem cells have driven the state to spend $3 billion on embryonic stem-cell research — something the market won't touch, even though you can find plenty of liberal venture capitalists out there willing to pay for political campaigns with celebrity endorsers.

"The only thing this amounts to is a boondoggle for voters — fool's gold the private sector had already panned for and rejected, having found the truth out first."

The emphasis on the results of adult stem cell research echoes the party line from the foes of ESC research. The newspaper also quotes the LA Times piece earlier this week. That article has been widely cited online around the country by ESC opponents. The business newspaper piece is also surfacing rapidly on anti-ESC web sites.

The Sacramento Bee, which has not said much recently about CIRM, published an editorial today that pressed for more public disclosure from the agency, a theme the paper was early to emphasize. The Bee, which has about 331,000 circulation in California's capital, said,

"...(I)t remains baffling why the institute can't be completely transparent and publicly reveal the financial interests of its grant reviewers. Scientists regularly disclose such conflicts when presenting papers at conferences. They should do so when making recommendations on grants that involve millions -- and potentially, billions -- of taxpayer dollars.

"The institute has made some good progress this year, including adoption of a strategic plan that sets realistic goals and lowers the inflated expectations of the Proposition 71 "countdown for cures" campaign. If institute leaders could take another step and come clean about internal conflicts, they could go a long way toward securing the trust they have risked squandering the last two years."

Moral Seduction and CIRM's $24 Million Grant Giveaway

Some of the top stem cell scientists in the nation today began the arduous task of sifting through more than 200 pleas for about $24 million in research grants from the California stem cell agency, a process that is being conducted in secret with no public disclosure of the financial interests of the reviewers.

Is the process fair? Who is seeking the money? Do the reviewers have conflicts of interest? Will grant applicants with ties to CIRM's benefactors receive special treatment? Are applicants with representatives on the CIRM Oversight Committee moving to the head of the line? All of this is impossible to tell. And it all places CIRM in an unnecessarily vulnerable position because the agency has assumed responsibility for policing the secret statements of economic and other professional and personal interests of the scientists who review the grant applications.

Alternatives exist. Applicant names and their institutions could be publicly identified. The statements of economic interests by grant reviewers could be made public.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, today told the grant reviewers in San Francisco that Connecticut is leading the way in terms of openness and transparency on the grant reviews. Simpson said in a statment:

"California's stem cell institute will tell you that they epitomize a transparent and publicly accountable operation, but it's simply not true. In fact they won't even tell you who applied for public money or with whom they are affiliated."

The foundation's press release "contrasted California's policy, where only grant recipients are identified, to Connecticut's process that discloses all applicants identities and affiliations and other key information."

The press release continued:

"Last week (Connecticut's) Stem Cell Advisory Committee awarded $20 million in research grants. There were 21 grants awarded from a pool of 70 applications. The grants were discussed and awarded at a public meeting where pplicants were identified by name. A proposed project's scientific score was listed along with comments from peer reviewers.

"Applications for grants are public records when they are made, except that proprietary information can be redacted.

"'California's stem cell overseers talk about transparency and public accountability,' said Simpson. 'Connecticut's leaders don't just talk the talk; they walk the walk. We should be ashamed of ourselves.'"

Recently we discussed, via email, some of the issues of openness and transparency at CIRM with Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and one of the key authors of California's public disclosure law.

Stern told the California Stem Cell Report:

"I totally agree with you that the statements of economic interests (of grant reviewers) should be public. It is the only way that Californians can have confidence that there are no conflicts of interest."(For more from Stern see the item below.)

No one is talking about outright corruption on the part of the reviewers or CIRM. At this point, the issue is more subtle.

Some top thinkers on conflicts of interest call it "moral seduction," a process "that encourages complacency among professionals" and is "illustrated by the common assertion that 'we aren’t doing anything wrong.'"

In a working paper on conflicts, Don A. Moore of Carnegie Mellon University, Philip E. Tetlock of the Haas School of Business and Lloyd Tanlu and Max H. Bazerman, both of the Harvard Business School, also write:

"Although it is tempting to be cynical about motivation, and to assume that professionals always realize when they are succumbing to conflicts of interest, we suggest this judgment is too harsh. Putting the most Machiavellian fringes of professional communities to the side, we suggest that the majority of professionals are unaware of the gradual accumulation of pressures on them to slant their conclusions, a process we characterize as moral seduction. Most professionals feel that their conclusions are justified and that they are being unfairly maligned by ignorant or demagogic outsiders who raise concerns about conflicts of interest."

Last week the identities of foundations and individuals (see item below) that are loaning CIRM tens of millions of dollars were released. Is it ridiculous to wonder whether grant applicants linked to those CIRM benefactors might receive some special consideration? Only CIRM will know, based on its current rules. Will the agency act to intervene to prevent an abuse of the review process but at the same time offend a multimillion dollar donor? No one can tell.

Embryonic stem cell research is already fraught with controversy. California's $3 billion stem cell agency is riddled with built-in conflicts of interest – all legal. It operates like no other state department, uncontrolled by the governor or the legislature. And this week involves only the first look at applications for research grants, which are expected to pour out at a rate of $300 million annually. It behooves CIRM to go beyond its existing disclosure rules and open its important grant decision-making process to more public scrutiny.

Looking Closely at CIRM's Disclosure Rules

Are CIRM's disclosure rules for its grant reviewers good enough? Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, found some weaknesses. Keep in mind that the only disclosure the reviewers make is basically to CIRM itself – not the public, which Stern believes is necessary once the agency clarifies some of its rules. You can find the text of the rules here.

Here is what Stern told the California Stem Cell Report:

"The CIRM requirements are too broad and too vague, and I would not make their disclosures public until they are made more specific. Some examples: what is a 'common financial interest' and what is a 'financial benefit of any amount?' They are not defined.

"Are former students for all-time considered professional associates? There needs to be a time period.

"What is the distinction between 'long-standing personal differences' and 'long-standing scientific differences or disagreements?'

"These are examples of terms that are very subjective and thus difficult to understand and comply with.

"Perhaps other agencies in other states or at the federal level have used these terms and have interpreted them. If so, it would be helpful to have their guidance.

"One further point, if these terms are interpreted in advice letters or
regulations, are the interpretations and advice letters public?"