BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Directors of the California stem cell agency Thursday night approved $23 million for research grants to develop new cell lines, including reprogramming efforts.
However, they put off until today approval of about $1 million in disease planning grants.
The agency did not announce the names of the 16 winners out of the 50 applicants for new cell line grants. But all of those recommended for funding by scientific reviewers were routinely ratified. Another two grants that reviewers did not think warranted approval for scientific reasons were also approved.
The directors of the $3 billion agency decided to give cash to the two on the basis of "programmatic" and other reasons.
All of the recipients and their grant reviews
can be found here, minus their names. The approved applications are color-coded with either white or grey.
The new stem cell round of grants was the first opportunity for businesses to receive research cash from CIRM. Twelve firms applied. But scuttlebutt at the meeting was that none of the businesses won grants. CIRM Chairman
Robert Klein declined even to say whether any businesses were in the "recommended for funding" category, when asked by
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the
Consumer Watchdog group.
Ken Woolcott, chief business officer of
Cascade Life Sciences of San Diego, Ca., appeared before CIRM directors to express dismay about the grant process. His firm was not recommended for funding. While he did not ask for reconsideration, he said "reviewers simply did not read our application
(No. 656) very carefully." He said that with NIH grants, applicants get a chance to respond to reviewers' comments prior to final action – something that CIRM does not formally provide. Woolcott said the firm's "experience was very different from our expectations."
The public review of the Cascade application said the research was "based on a collaboration between the applicant and the only group known to have successfully cloned primate cells." Reviewers expressed concerns that the firm could not get enough human eggs for its work, among other comments.
The two "programmatic" grants won approval after two unusual pitches were made on their behalf. One emotional appeal came from
Judy Robertson of Sacramento, Ca., a Huntington's Disease advocate. She has lost four members of her family, including her husband to the disease. The family has donated $500,000 to
UC Davis for a Huntington's clinic.
She complained that the review was "factually incorrect." The board discussed the assertion at some length, including comments from audience and staff, without reaching a conclusion on the accuracy of the information. Ultimately, the board approved the grant because it appeared to want to include Huntington's in CIRM's "program."
CIRM Director
Jeff Sheehy made an appeal for funding the other of the two "programmatic" proposals. He read a letter from
Fred Gage of the
Salk Institute, stoutly defending the application. Directors had the letter before them but it was not available to the public, which Klein said was a mistake. Sheehy carried the day, and the Gage grant was approved on a 9-7 vote with one abstention. (The committee officially has 29 members, but only 17 were present and qualified to vote Thursday night.)
Sheehy's reading triggered a discussion not only of the merits of the application but of the sanctity of the review process, which was reminiscent of
the flap in January when
Childrens Hospital of Oakland Research Institute was the first applicant to publicly appeal a negative decision by scientific reviewers. Childrens was ultimately unsuccessful in that effort
By law, directors have the right to make the final decision on grants. However, they have approved 168 grants since 2004 and rejected only one recommended by scientific reviewers. Any applicant may appear before directors or write an appeal, a fact not well known to applicants. Few have appealed. Presumably they have not done so either out of ignorance or because they do not want to offend an agency which holds the key to their professional lives.
Some CIRM directors were uncomfortable with the Childrens Hospital appeal, and some were still uncomfortable Thursday night.
Oswald Steward, a CIRM director and chairman of the
Reeve, Irvine, Resarch Center, UC Irvine, raised the issue of fairness in connection with Sheehy's reading of the Gage letter. Steward said other rejected applicants may not have understood that they could also seek to overturn a negative decision by scientific reviewers.
Marcy Feit, a CIRM director, president of
ValleyCare Health Systems of Livermore, Ca.,and a member of the Grants Working Group, said she would "hate to see us redo those reviews." She said was against an "extensive rebuttal process" because it would "undermine" reviewers.
CIRM President
Alan Trounson told directors they should accept that reviewers do a "reasonable job" and that disappointed applicants will naturally find fault with the system, which may sometimes include incorrect information. He warned that overturning scientific reviewers decisions could mean the loss of the reviewers, who are already being worked hard.
In January, directors seemed to be looking to CIRM staff for a proposal on how to deal with appeals from applicants. However, other chores, including a $1.1 billion lab building effort, have consumed a great deal of time. We suspect the appeal process may gain more attention in the very near future.
As for the names of the grant recipients and CIRM's take on Thursday night's soirée(It was a thrill a minute!), look for a press release on the CIRM website later today.
