About ninety percent of the $209 million handed out so far by the California stem cell agency has gone to institutions that have "representatives" on the board that approves the funding.
The grants have gone for training new stem cell scientists, funding research and remodeling laboratories.
The group that approves the money is the 29-member
Oversight Committee. Fourteen members of that committee have close links to the institutions that have received about $190 million in grants.
None of this is illegal but it illuminates the nature of the built-in conflicts of interest on the board.
Prop. 71 created the situation. Nearly all the institutions in California that could be suitable recipients of stem cell research have some sort of representation on the decision-making board. The measure spelled out, for example, that five executive officers from University of California medical schools have seats on the board. It also stipulated that four executive officers from California research institutions sit on the Oversight Committee. The group would be hard pressed to come up with a long list of other institutions that would make suitable candidates for hefty stem cell funding.
Members of the Oversight Committee are barred from voting on grants to their institutions, and
CIRM goes to considerable lengths to make sure that does not happen. However, all members of the committee can vote on the rules and standards for making the grants. And this week, a working group of CIRM is scheduled to devise rules for $220 million in grants for major labs at California institutions. Those standards will help establish, among other things, whether the money will be accessible to smaller institutions and spread geographically around the state or even whether that is a good idea.
While some have deplored the conflicts on the board, the situation is not likely to change soon. Prop. 71 can only be modified by another vote of the people or by a super, supermajority vote in the legislature and approval of the governor.
In the absence of a change, the Oversight Committee's structure and actions make it even clearer that CIRM should operate with a maximum of disclosure and openness, something the committee sometimes feels uncomfortable with.
Here are the names of the members of the Oversight Committee with links to institutions that have received grants and the size of the grants. Some members directly represent their institutions, such as the deans. Others, such as
Sherry Lansing, have close links to an institution but serve as the result of some other designation. Lansing is a
University of California regent, but serves on the board as a patient advocate.
David Baltimore, president emeritus
Caltech, $2 million;
Robert Birgeneau, chancellor
UC Berkeley, $5.5 million;
David Brenner, dean
UC San Diego medical school, $17.7 million;
Susan V. Bryant, dean
School of Biological Science UC Irvine, $17.5 million;
Michael A. Friedman, president
City of Hope, $357,978;
Brian E. Henderson, dean
USC medical school, $9 million;
David A. Kessler, dean
UC San Francisco medical school, $30 million; Sherry Lansing, UC regent, 10 UC campuses have received grants;
Gerald S. Levey, dean
UCLA medical school, $15.8 million;
Richard A. Murphy, president
Salk Institute, $8.9 million;
Philip Pizzo, dean
Stanford medical school, $31 million;
Claire Pomeroy, dean
UC Davis medical school, $11 million;
John C. Reed, president
Burnham Institute, $17 million, and
Oswald Steward, chair of the
Reeve, Irvine Research Center, UC Irvine, as noted under Bryant, the campus has received $17. 5 million.
The amounts could be larger, for example, if we included the $8 million in grants to
Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, which has close ties with USC. Or the $10 million to the
Gladstone Institute, which has ties to UC San Francisco.
Short biographies of members of the Oversight Committee can be
found here. More specifics on the size and nature of the grants can be
found here(see the list at the end of the press release.