California's $1 billion stem cell lab construction program will be under scrutiny on March 9 as the state's stem cell agency weighs a request for changes in one approved grant while other recipients report difficulty in raising the required matching money to build their labs.
It all comes as CIRM itself faces a looming cash shortage. It will run out of money next fall unless it is successful in privately marketing state bonds – its only significant source of funding – as opposed to their general market sale by the state.
The Buck Institute of Novato, Ca., the Sanford Stem Cell Consortium in San Diego (UC San Diego, Scripps, Burnham and Salk) and UC Santa Barbara have already reported difficulties in completing financing arrangements.
But UC Merced had a bit of good financial news in its bid to change its grant. The proposed changes, which will be presented at the CIRM facilities group March 9 meeting, would reduce the cost from $7.5 million to $6.1 million, $3.8 million of which comes from CIRM. However, the space is about 20 percent smaller.
Merced is requesting that it be allowed to build its stem cell instrumentation foundry on its campus instead of on the former Castle Air Force Base. In a Feb. 9 letter to CIRM, the campus said the old military base has problems with utility service and backup capabilities. UC Merced also cited unspecified issues with the county, which leases the space to UCM.
John Robson, CIRM vice president; Marie Csete, CIRM chief scientific officer, and Ray Groom, a facilities consultant hired by CIRM at a cost of $15,000, are scheduled to visit the campus on Friday to be briefed on the new plans and view the site.
Another item on the March 9 agenda is a status report on all the lab construction projects around the state. No background material on that subject has yet been posted by CIRM on its website.
An additional topic is funding for GMP facilities. Csete has prepared a report on the matter, and her conclusion is that CIRM does not need to fund such facilities at this point. In her Feb. 23 memo, she said that “CIRM grantees have adequate options and access for GMP cell manufacturing.”
But she also said that a “critical lack of workers” exists and that CIRM should provide for training in another round of grants. CIRM hired Biologics Consulting Group of Alexandria, Va.,for $15,000 to assist in the GMP survey.
The facilities group meeting will be in San Francisco. Currently the agency has not posted any plans for teleconferencing access to the meeting. Even if it does, our recommendation is that institutions with something at stake should be at the session in San Francisco and be prepared to comment authoritatively.
Here is a link to Ron Leuty's piece in the San Francisco Business Times on problems at Buck and our item on Terri Somers' article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about the consortium, Buck and UC Santa Barbara. Here is a link to what consortium told us more recently.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query csete. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query csete. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Friday, October 31, 2008
Conflicts of Interest, CIRM and Transparency
Do conflicts of interest exist among the scientists who make the de facto decisions on hundreds of millions of dollars in California grants for research related to embryonic stem cells?
The answer? Yes.
Even the California stem cell agency acknowledges that fact. Because of conflicts, the agency regularly excuses some of the scientists who review the grant applications from participating in specific cases.
But CIRM stoutly maintains that the financial and professional interests of reviewers are not suitable for release to the public or applicants. The agency contends the reviewers are only making recommendations. However, the reviewers' decisions are almost never rejected by CIRM's board of directors. The agency also has turned down a recommendation by the state auditor that it seek an opinion from the state attorney general on whether it should publicly disclose the reviewers' interests.
Trust us, the agency says. We will police the conflicts and assure that no abuses occur.
Rarely do rejected applicants raise conflict issues publicly. No one wants to offend the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research. In August, however, one scientist brought up the question of conflicts at a meeting of the CIRM board of directors.
Steven Kessler, a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology of Los Angeles, was not happy with the response he received from CIRM staff on a letter he wrote concerning what he said was a conflict of interest on the part of a unnamed reviewer.
According to the transcript of the meeting, here's how Kessler summarized his position for CIRM directors:
Kessler said,
Kessler's comments followed a discussion in which Klein and other directors expressed concern about reviewers quitting if they were subject to public complaints.
Klein said,
Initially, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said there was a question of redaction of material from the letter. Then he said our inquiry was lost by CIRM's interim general counsel. Ultimately, on Oct. 22, Gibbons said,
CIRM's overriding concern has been the care and feeding of reviewers. We acknowledge that they need considerable attention. However, the main issue here is the stewardship of public funds and the integrity of a state government process involving billions of dollars. From its birth, CIRM has wrestled with problems spawned by the ballot initiative that created the research program. CIRM was deliberately cobbled together with built-in conflicts starting at the very top. The chief beneficiaries of CIRM's largess sit on its board of directors and set the rules for grants and control the process.
The bounty from CIRM is huge. Here is a list of CIRM recipient institutions (with grant totals) which have or had employees or representatives on the CIRM board of directors: Stanford, $94 million; UC San Francisco, $82 million; UCLA, $51 million; UC Irvine, $51 million; USC, $48 million; Sanford (San Diego) Consortium, $43 million; UC Davis, $36 million; UC San Diego, $33 million; UC Berkeley, $29 million; UC Santa Cruz, $17 million; Burnham, $18 million; Salk Institute, $16 million; Scripps, $9 million; UC Merced, $8 million; UC Santa Barbara, $7 million; UC Riverside, $6 million; Caltech, $2 million, and City of Hope, $2 million.
The built-in conflicts at CIRM are not likely to change, short of another ballot measure. They are enshrined in the state Constitution, a move by Prop. 71 writers who wanted to make CIRM immune to normal government oversight.
However, handing out billions behind closed doors with no outside scrutiny is a recipe for abuse. State ethics officials are already looking into the attempt by one CIRM director to influence CIRM staff on behalf of his institution. Should a major scandal erupt, it would ill serve the agency, the people of California and the cause of science.
If only to protect itself, the agency should comply with its repeated promise to adhere to the highest standards of openness and transparency and publicly release the statements of the economic and professional interests of its reviewers.
(Further note: Kessler also declined to release his letter to us. The CIRM grant review committee meets next Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco to review applications for $66 million in public funds. The review sessions are closed but the public may comment on Wednesday morning.)
The answer? Yes.
Even the California stem cell agency acknowledges that fact. Because of conflicts, the agency regularly excuses some of the scientists who review the grant applications from participating in specific cases.
But CIRM stoutly maintains that the financial and professional interests of reviewers are not suitable for release to the public or applicants. The agency contends the reviewers are only making recommendations. However, the reviewers' decisions are almost never rejected by CIRM's board of directors. The agency also has turned down a recommendation by the state auditor that it seek an opinion from the state attorney general on whether it should publicly disclose the reviewers' interests.
Trust us, the agency says. We will police the conflicts and assure that no abuses occur.
Rarely do rejected applicants raise conflict issues publicly. No one wants to offend the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research. In August, however, one scientist brought up the question of conflicts at a meeting of the CIRM board of directors.
Steven Kessler, a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology of Los Angeles, was not happy with the response he received from CIRM staff on a letter he wrote concerning what he said was a conflict of interest on the part of a unnamed reviewer.
According to the transcript of the meeting, here's how Kessler summarized his position for CIRM directors:
"If a grant reviewer has a financial relationship with company "X"...that is, he's receiving funding from that organization or he's expecting royalty income from some company by virtue of having licensed technology to that company and that reviewer is sitting in on reviews from other for-profit organizations...and doesn't recommend those for funding, to us, from a business perspective, that's a conflict of interest."Kessler said he had cited "numerous instances" of conflicts on the part of the reviewer, where there would be "every incentive to help impede the competition for the company that he has a relationship with.".
Kessler said,
"I was told that the way CIRM interprets its own conflict of interest policy, the example I gave you was not a conflict of interest."At that point CIRM Chairman Robert Klein cut off Kessler, declaring that the directors needed to discuss the names for CIRM-funded labs before going to lunch.
Kessler's comments followed a discussion in which Klein and other directors expressed concern about reviewers quitting if they were subject to public complaints.
Klein said,
"To the extent that (applicants) are criticizing peer reviewers, which is sometimes common, we're going to lose our peer reviewers."On Sept. 14, we asked CIRM for a copy of Kessler's conflict-of-interest letter. On Oct. 22, more than five weeks later and after repeated follow-up queries, the agency declined to release the letter.
Initially, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said there was a question of redaction of material from the letter. Then he said our inquiry was lost by CIRM's interim general counsel. Ultimately, on Oct. 22, Gibbons said,
"Our interim general counsel has determined that the Kessler letter is part of the grant application process and as such is not a public document."We asked for the legal reasoning behind that statement. On Oct. 29, Gibbons quoted interim counsel Ian Sweedler as saying,
"Applicants need to know that they can contact CIRM with information about potential conflicts, and that they can do that without leveling public allegations against a professional colleague."Obviously conflicts of interest can at times involve judgment calls. CIRM also places a burden on its reviewers, all of whom come from out-of-state and cannot apply for CIRM grants. Marie Csete, now CIRM's chief scientific officer, commented last year on the situation when she was a reviewer prior to her employment at CIRM. Among other things, she said that she and the other reviewers were being asked to fund the work of their competitors.
CIRM's overriding concern has been the care and feeding of reviewers. We acknowledge that they need considerable attention. However, the main issue here is the stewardship of public funds and the integrity of a state government process involving billions of dollars. From its birth, CIRM has wrestled with problems spawned by the ballot initiative that created the research program. CIRM was deliberately cobbled together with built-in conflicts starting at the very top. The chief beneficiaries of CIRM's largess sit on its board of directors and set the rules for grants and control the process.
The bounty from CIRM is huge. Here is a list of CIRM recipient institutions (with grant totals) which have or had employees or representatives on the CIRM board of directors: Stanford, $94 million; UC San Francisco, $82 million; UCLA, $51 million; UC Irvine, $51 million; USC, $48 million; Sanford (San Diego) Consortium, $43 million; UC Davis, $36 million; UC San Diego, $33 million; UC Berkeley, $29 million; UC Santa Cruz, $17 million; Burnham, $18 million; Salk Institute, $16 million; Scripps, $9 million; UC Merced, $8 million; UC Santa Barbara, $7 million; UC Riverside, $6 million; Caltech, $2 million, and City of Hope, $2 million.
The built-in conflicts at CIRM are not likely to change, short of another ballot measure. They are enshrined in the state Constitution, a move by Prop. 71 writers who wanted to make CIRM immune to normal government oversight.
However, handing out billions behind closed doors with no outside scrutiny is a recipe for abuse. State ethics officials are already looking into the attempt by one CIRM director to influence CIRM staff on behalf of his institution. Should a major scandal erupt, it would ill serve the agency, the people of California and the cause of science.
If only to protect itself, the agency should comply with its repeated promise to adhere to the highest standards of openness and transparency and publicly release the statements of the economic and professional interests of its reviewers.
(Further note: Kessler also declined to release his letter to us. The CIRM grant review committee meets next Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco to review applications for $66 million in public funds. The review sessions are closed but the public may comment on Wednesday morning.)
Thursday, July 02, 2009
California Stem Cell Agency to Hit Staffing Cap
SAN FRANCISCO – The California stem cell agency has added two new positions to support its 29-member board in a move that is likely to push its staffing to its legal limit of 50 for the first time ever.
CIRM President Alan Trounson provided the additional staff after some members of the board complained at a meeting in June that they could not get adequate back-up from CIRM staff. The contentious session in San Diego also highlighted what several board members called “festering” issues dealing with governance and the limitations of Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency and is virtually impossible to change.
One of those limitations is the 50-person cap on staff, which CIRM could reach this fiscal year. The agency was scheduled to hit 47 under the budget approved last month. However the spending plan did not include the two additional staffers for the board nor did it include a high level finance specialist that the agency is planning to hire.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein told directors at a special teleconference meeting that the two new board staff positions will terminate at the end of 2010 because of the staff limit. He explained that the agency will then need to hire two additional scientific officers to help handle its burgeoning grant load. By the end of this year, the agency is expected to have approved $1 billion in grants.
Although Wednesday's meeting did not specifically discuss hitting the 50-person cap, Klein said the agency plans to come up with alternative means of financing the board positions after 2010.
Klein also raised the possibility of having the board vote on the move to add the two staffers. Several board members said that was not necessary because hiring the persons was entirely within Trounson's authority.
Board member Jeff Sheehy, who raised the board staffing issue at the June meeting, said adding the new staff still did not provide adequate support for CIRM's big board. Only one person has had primary responsibility for dealing with the board, although additional help is provided by others.
Sheehy, a communications manager for UCSF, alluded to criticism by some board members that the board was micro-managing by seeking additional support. He said,
Following the brief public meeting, the board went into executive session to discuss personnel matters, including the recent resignation of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer.
CIRM President Alan Trounson provided the additional staff after some members of the board complained at a meeting in June that they could not get adequate back-up from CIRM staff. The contentious session in San Diego also highlighted what several board members called “festering” issues dealing with governance and the limitations of Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency and is virtually impossible to change.
One of those limitations is the 50-person cap on staff, which CIRM could reach this fiscal year. The agency was scheduled to hit 47 under the budget approved last month. However the spending plan did not include the two additional staffers for the board nor did it include a high level finance specialist that the agency is planning to hire.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein told directors at a special teleconference meeting that the two new board staff positions will terminate at the end of 2010 because of the staff limit. He explained that the agency will then need to hire two additional scientific officers to help handle its burgeoning grant load. By the end of this year, the agency is expected to have approved $1 billion in grants.
Although Wednesday's meeting did not specifically discuss hitting the 50-person cap, Klein said the agency plans to come up with alternative means of financing the board positions after 2010.
Klein also raised the possibility of having the board vote on the move to add the two staffers. Several board members said that was not necessary because hiring the persons was entirely within Trounson's authority.
Board member Jeff Sheehy, who raised the board staffing issue at the June meeting, said adding the new staff still did not provide adequate support for CIRM's big board. Only one person has had primary responsibility for dealing with the board, although additional help is provided by others.
Sheehy, a communications manager for UCSF, alluded to criticism by some board members that the board was micro-managing by seeking additional support. He said,
“If the board can't suggest a minimal level of support for the board, the board is not in control of the agency.”One of the two persons will be assigned to Vice Chairman Art Torres, who deals with bond financing and legislative issues. That position has been filled. The other position will be an administrative assistant for board executive director Melissa King. That job is expected to be posted shortly.
Following the brief public meeting, the board went into executive session to discuss personnel matters, including the recent resignation of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
CIRM's Grant Review Process: Complaints About Errors and Appeals
California's stem cell agency has pumped out more than $554 million in awards for stem cell research, but this year grumbling has emerged about its secretive awards process, which officially does not permit rebuttal in the case of errors and allows appeals only in the case of conflicts of interest. On Sunday, reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune became the first mainstream media writer to examine the issue in some detail.
Somers used June's meeting of the CIRM board of directors to discuss the subject, including additional interviews with researchers.
Somers wrote that CIRM is
"...basing its funding decisions on recommendations from panels of scientists who sometimes make significant factual errors in their reviews of grant requests, some applicants say.
"Yet there is no way for applicants to point out or rebut the errors – at least not through a formal appeals process, such as the one used by the National Institutes of Health.
"'I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to get turned down for a grant and have no recourse other than to shred it and all the time you spent doing it,' said Jeanne Loring(see photo), a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla.
Somers said CIRM has no plans to change its policies concerning appeals or error. She quoted CIRM Chairman Robert Klein as saying the NIH appeal process is too slow for CIRM. He said an NIH appeal can take as long as two years.
Somers did not raise the closed-door nature of the grant reviews as an issue, but applicants do not have access to the proceedings. Nor do apparently many of them know that they can appear publicly before CIRM directors and ask them to change the recommendations of scientific reviewers or even write a letter to that effect.
Directors have final authority on grant approval but generally ratify decisions of the scientific reviewers, without even officially knowing the identities of the research applicants. Their identities are withheld but in many cases can be discerned through the public summary of reviewers' comments.
Somers quoted one CIRM director, Jeff Sheehy of the University of California, San Francisco, about the review process. Sheehy is also a patient advocate member of the CIRM grant review group and played a role last month in airing concerns by one scientist, Fred Gage of the Salk Institute.
Sheehy told Somers:
"We may have missed some good science, but I don't think we have funded (bad science)."
While CIRM does not plan changes in its review process, Klein did tell Somers about one option for disgruntled applicants. She wrote:
"If a scientist wants to rebut an error of fact of great scientific importance, he or she should point it out to institute President Alan Trounson or Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, Klein said.
"Those scientists could then sort out the issue with the reviewers and decide whether it needs to be brought to the board's attention, he said."
Our take: If that is CIRM policy, all applicants should be informed about that possibility as they apply. Fairness and the appearance of fairness are critical to CIRM's credibility.
Here is a link to a detailed critique by one applicant and our report from the June meeting of CIRM directors.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Trounson Resigns as President of $3 Billion California Stem Cell Agency
The California stem cell agency today announced the resignation of
Alan Trounson, who has served for nearly six years as president of
the $3 billion research enterprise.Trounson, an internationally known pioneer in IVF research, said he was resigning so that he could rejoin his family in Australia, where he has spent most of his personal and professional life.
Trounson's wife and youngest son moved back to Australia from California about three years ago. In a news release from the stem cell agency, Trounson said,
“(T)he agency needs a full-time president, and I need to spend more time with my family. The two needs are incompatible, so it is necessary for me to step down as president."In an email to the California Stem Cell Report, Trounson said,
“I have a 12-year old son who misses me terribly for the last 2.5 years we have been separated (as do the other 3 older children). I have sacrificed considerable personal family rewards to continue to commit to driving CIRM's vision.”Trounson joined the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, in late 2007. He was personally recruited by Robert Klein, the first chairman of the stem cell agency, during a trip to Australia. Trounson also said today that then Gov. Schwarzenegger asked him to serve.
During Trounson's tenure, the agency's portfolio has soared from $283 million and 156 awards to its current $1.9 billion and 570 awards. It has about $600 million remaining in uncommitted funds.
Trounson's departure comes at a critical moment for the agency, which is trying to find a way to continue with major operations beyond 2017, when the money for new grants will run out. It is also pressing hard to commercialize stem cell research, the primary goal of Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created the agency in 2017.
CIRM said Trounson has agreed to stay on as the agency begins its search for a new president. The agency said it is discussing the possibility of some sort continued affiliation for Trounson with the stem cell effort.
Members of the agency's governing board had high praise for Trounson today. Jonathan Thomas, chairman of the board, said in the CIRM news release that Trounson helped established the agency as a “world leader.”
“He has led us through some challenging times, been the driving force behind some truly innovative ideas – such as the Bridges and Creativity Training Programs, the Alpha Clinic model for delivering new therapies to patients, a stem cell genomics program and an iPS cell bank for interrogating the cause and developing new treatments for really serious and complex diseases.”Sherry Lansing, chair of the directors' Governance Subcommittee and a former Hollywood studio head and former chair of the University of California regents, described Trounson as an “irresistible force.” She said,
“We are much, much closer to cures, thanks to his efforts."Trounson's years at CIRM were not without controversy. In 2009, Marie Csete left the agency as its chief scientific officer. She told the journal Nature her advice was “not respected” at the agency.
This year, news surfaced on the California Stem Cell Report concerning Trounson's conduct in connection with a $21,630 gift from Klein to the agency along with a conflict-of-interest case involving a scientific grant reviewer who Trounson recruited.
The stem cell agency has had difficulties recruiting candidates for president in the past -- for among other reasons -- the early legal challenges and because of its dual executive arrangement legally dictated by Prop. 71. The dual CEO situation means that the chairman and president have overlapping responsibilities. CIRM is also an unusual mix, at least for a state agency, of science, academia, business and politics. Previous presidential searches also have become enmeshed in an internal debate over whether the president should be a big name scientist or more of an administrator.
The agency currently has new challenges that include creation of a“strategic road map” for its future and tough decisions on which projects to back for commercialization – not to mention the agency's short life span if it cannot find new financing.
In response to a query, Kevin McCormack, a spokesman for the agency said no severance is being provided to Trounson. The spokesman said Trounson's current salary is $490,008, the same as when he joined the agency.
You can find the CIRM press release here. Here is the text of Trounson's email to the California Stem Cell Report.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
LA Times Column Rips CIRM as Riddled with Conflicts and Sucking Up Precious Dollars
The first sentence in the article in the Los Angeles Times, California's largest circulation newspaper (1.2 million readers), says, "In the annals of wrongheaded things done with the best intentions, the California stem cell program has always been in a category of its own."
And that's just the beginning. Next come rife conflicts of interest, spotty public disclosure, a "persistent ethical morass" and a multiplying potential for waste. Not to mention the 2004 ballot initiative that created CIRM through a political campaign of "exceptional intellectual dishonesty," led by the man who is now chairman of the $6 billion research program, Robert Klein (see photo).
The scathing piece was written by Times columnist Michael Hiltzik for Monday's edition of the Times, which says it has 1.2 million daily, generally well-educated readers. The home page of Times website, which has more than 11 million unique visitors a month, also linked to the article.
The activities of the California stem cell agency have rarely graced the pages of the Times. So CIRM is likely to be new subject to many, if not most of its readers, making it easier for a column such as Hiltzik's to have a significant, opinion-shaping impact.
Hiltzik makes his point of view abundantly clear. He writes that CIRM "threatens to suck up precious fiscal resources of a state with none to spare and is rife with conflicts of interest."
He continues,
"The institute is tangled in a persistent ethical morass. From the start, its safeguards against conflicts of interest by members of its 29-person governing board were sketchy, and provisions for vigorous debate over its goals and methods were nil."Hiltzik says CIRM director John Reed should have been ousted from the board for attempting to overturn rejection of a grant to the organization he heads, the Burnham Institute. Hiltzik quotes figures from the California Stem Cell Report that show 18 institutions with representatives on the board (past and present) have received $552 million in CIRM grants as of last October.
Hiltzik writes,
"Lacking any truly independent members, the board is dominated by Klein and devoid of 'genuine debate,' observes UC Berkeley Law professor Kenneth Taymor, who spent months studying the body. Indeed, reading transcripts of the board's sessions, one sometimes gets the impression that the only vigorous debate among the members involves which historical figure Klein more resembles, Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Gandhi."Hiltzik also discusses the ongoing shift at CIRM towards product development. He quotes Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco as saying he fears the move is motived by a "desire to come up with a real clinical triumph they could claim credit for. I'm concerned that in the rush to get there they may be spending a fair amount of funds on projects that are just not ready yet."
There is much more, including a defense of CIRM's strategy by its chief scientific officer Marie Csete.
Hiltzik's observations cannot be written off as the frothings of a journalistic lightweight. The author of three nonfiction books, he shared a Pulitzer Prize in 1999 for reporting on corruption in the entertainment industry. In 2004, he won a Gerald Loeb Award, one of the top national honors in financial journalism, for his columns. Earlier this month, he was a co-winner of another national business reporting prize for a Los Angeles Times series called "Shedding Risk."
It is safe to say that Hiltzik's latest column will not be warmly received by CIRM. It will add fuel to the state's Little Hoover Commission's investigation of CIRM. It will feed legislative efforts to ensure that Californians have affordable access to stem cell therapies that result from CIRM-funded research. And it will hamper both Klein's efforts to privately market state bonds to bail out CIRM and his lobbying efforts for a $10 billion federal, biotech stimulus package.
(Editor's note: What do you think about the Hiltzik column? You can make your comments by clicking on the word "comment" below. The comments are unmoderated and can be totally anonymous. Google, which houses this blog, makes it impossible to identify the authors in such a case. Or you can send your comments to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com for posting.)
Friday, March 14, 2008
The ICOC Plays The Crest
The board of directors of the California stem cell agency met earlier this week in a restored movie house (see photo) in downtown Sacramento. The location was a bit unusual for a CIRM meeting, but the affair triggered the imaginations of some board members. Here is a report from John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpaper and Consumer Rights, who attended the meeting.
ICOC members took note of their unusual surroundings as they took to the stage of the Crest Theater in Sacramento this week, a venue that has seen performances ranging from Cab Calloway to Kurt Cobain.
These days the Crest often shows classic movies like "Gone With The Wind." Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Robert Klein noted the entertainment industry backgrounds of board members Sherry Lansing and Leeza Gibbons and declared the Crest "an adequate stage for our tremendous talent."
Lansing objected that she was only a "bit player."
Introducing new President Alan Trounson, Klein suggested that the Crest's marquee should have billed the meeting as "Starring Dr. Alan Trounson, straight from Australia."
Trounson began his president's report by confessing to snapping a few photos of the Crest "because they won't believe me at home."
In fact, to the bemusement of several passersby who didn't seem to know what to make of it, the huge letters on the marquee spelled out:
Wed March 12
CA Institute For Regenerative Medicine
8:15 AM Spotlight on Deafness
9:00 AM ICOC Meeting
Open to The Public
For the most part the unusual message didn't draw a larger or different crowd than usual when the meeting is held in a hotel or academic setting.
Not usual for an ICOC meeting, however, Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, and Sen. Mark Weyland, R-Escondido, showed up to speak for adoption of a regulation that would define a "California supplier" that was presented by John Valencia, attorney for Invitrogen. You can be sure that had nothing to do with the marquee.
The ICOC ended up at the Crest this way: The date and general location of the meeting were set before a venue was booked. It turned out when Klein's aide Jena Pryne tried to nail down a site, virtually everything in Sacramento was booked for conventions and activities relating to the legislative session. She sought advice from Scott Tocher, interim associate legal counsel to the vice chair, who grew up in Sacramento.
Tocher, who remembered the Crest hosting graduations and citizenship ceremonies, thought it could work. Pryne booked it and the ICOC's name was, if not up in lights, on the marquee.
Appropriately during the board's closed executive session when members decided to hire Dr. Marie Csete as Chief Scientific Officer at a salary of $310,000, Melissa King, CIRM executive director, passed out free popcorn to those waiting for the board to return and make the action official in public.
The seats were the most comfortable I've been in at any ICOC meeting. Let's play the Crest again next year.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Clinic vs. Basic Research: CIRM Funding Priorities
This item is part of the continuing coverage today of the board meeting of the California stem cell agency based on its audiocast.The California stem cell agency today set a goal of raising roughly $240 million by privately selling state bonds over the next two years, preserving both its touted efforts to push development of therapies in the clinic and basic biological research.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein told the board that one of those therapeutic efforts, a $210 million disease team program, is a critical piece in marketing the bonds and is unique to the agency. Without it, he said raising the funds not only will be more difficult but would turn the agency's back on its main mission.
Funding priorities came up today during the CIRM board meeting in Sacramento as a result of the financial plight of the agency, which will run out of cash next fall unless it sells bonds, virtually the only source of funding for the program.
Klein wrote the measure that created CIRM in such a fashion that it puts the agency outside the normal budget allocation processes involving the legislature and the governor.
Directors debated the virtues of funding grants for basic biology versus higher profile enterprises aimed at developing potential therapies at a more advanced stage of research.
Marie Csete(see photo), chief scientific officer for CIRM, told the board that scientists at recent hearings on CIRM's strategic plan were emphatic in stressing the importance of basic research, whose grant round sizes have already been cut.
Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications officer at UC San Francisco and a patient advocate representative, said the disease team project is already a year behind schedule. He said,
"We do not want to hamstring the disease team."Requests for preliminary applications in that round have already gone out. It is scheduled to be awarded in September or October.
The goal set by the board of directors is just that. Klein will come back in late April with more information on his efforts to sell the bonds. The budget and funding priorities are expected to be reviewed again then.
Monday, November 02, 2009
CSCR Withholds Names of Terminated Grantees to Avoid Unnecessary Harm
The California Stem Cell Report is not naming the three scientists whose grants were terminated by the state's stem cell agency because doing so would unnecessarily damage their reputations.
It is our understanding that none of the issues involved malfeasance. Additionally, CIRM's progress monitoring appears to be more rigorous than the standards applied by the NIH, whose practices have set benchmarks in the scientific community.
Publication of the names could create erroneous, negative perceptions about the individuals involved.
We made the decision not to publish their identifies after discussions with a number of individuals, including two of the researchers. In our past occupation as an editor at a mainstream newspaper, publication of their identities would have been pretty much of a foregone conclusion. But given that we are no longer constrained by newspaper standards, some of which are very good and some not so good, we did not want to mindlessly do something that would unnecessarily harm the three.
We also asked CIRM director Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine and executive director, science communication at Scripps, for his thoughts on publication of the names. Here is how he responded.
It is our understanding that none of the issues involved malfeasance. Additionally, CIRM's progress monitoring appears to be more rigorous than the standards applied by the NIH, whose practices have set benchmarks in the scientific community.
Publication of the names could create erroneous, negative perceptions about the individuals involved.
We made the decision not to publish their identifies after discussions with a number of individuals, including two of the researchers. In our past occupation as an editor at a mainstream newspaper, publication of their identities would have been pretty much of a foregone conclusion. But given that we are no longer constrained by newspaper standards, some of which are very good and some not so good, we did not want to mindlessly do something that would unnecessarily harm the three.
We also asked CIRM director Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine and executive director, science communication at Scripps, for his thoughts on publication of the names. Here is how he responded.
“For NIH grants, after the grant is awarded, one writes a 'progress report' annually in what is termed a 'non-competitive' renewal. For the duration of the award, the investigator is free to follow leads, change directions, convert personnel into equipment funds, and essentially re-program the proposed project. Only if the PI seeks to renew that grant must the changes be justified.
“In process described to us in June by Marie Csete, the scientific staff are in frequent contact with our CIRM-supported PIs, assessing their progress towards the goals they were approved to pursue, and for several of our competitions with stated milestones, assessing whether that progress will get them to their milestones. Lack of progress can be sufficient grounds to terminate the funding, and apparently those are the 3 cases you mention. Since we are kept blind to the PI names and institutions when we decide to award funding, I don't see that it is constructive to CIRM or those PIs to disclose names after termination.”
Monday, March 22, 2010
CIRM Moving to Hire VP at More Than $332,000
The California stem cell agency may well have a new vice president of research and development by the end of this month and at a salary exceeding the $332,000 allotted for the position.
CIRM directors will meet one week from today to consider raising the existing pay range for the position. CIRM President Alan Trounson obviously has a candidate that wants more than $332,000, and the board is not likely to reject Trounson's choice. To do so would indicate a lack of confidence in Trounson.
CIRM has not disclosed exactly what the new salary will be or explained why it is needed. Don't look for that information until the day of the meeting and probably only if you are in attendance at one of the telephonic meeting locations around the state. CIRM generally has not posted such sensitive salary information in advance of meetings.
Trounson was eager to find someone with industry experience. Last July, Trounson told directors that he wanted “someone with the skill base to have more of a focus in their role with biotech/pharma – translation – clinical applications, which is where we are moving with our translational, disease teams and clinical grants and where we are thin in capacity.”
Trounson hired Levin and Company at a cost of $100,000 to help with the search.
The new position was created by Trounson after Marie Csete resigned suddenly last June as CIRM's chief scientific officer. She said her advice was not respected. Her position will not be filled, but her responsibilities are being parcelled out to the new VP and Patricia Olson, executive director of scientific activities, who has been with the agency since its early days. Under a new structure announced last August, Olson reports directly to Trounson as will the new VP. Previously Olson reported to the chief scientific officer.
The compensation for the new post was scheduled to come up at the CIRM board meeting earlier this month in the State Capitol. CIRM chairman Robert Klein took the matter off the table the day of the meeting, saying negotiations were not at the right stage.
The move came on the same day as The Sacramento Bee carried a front page story that said California state workers received 4 percent less pay last year than in 2008 as a result of the state's financial crisis. Approval of a salary beyond $332,000 creates a public relations risk for CIRM, given the severe cutbacks elsewhere around the state. CIRM's salaries are already quite generous compared to other state agencies.
Salaries are easy for the public to criticize and to understand, especially compared to arcane scientific studies that may not seem immediately relevant to many people. Additionally, boosting a $332,000 salary without telling the public in advance why or specifying the size of the increase plays into the hands of those who are critical of CIRM's lack of transparency and openness.
The new VP will have a financial impact on CIRM beyond the salary. He or she is expected to have at least two or more staffers assigned to work for him or her. They will be new hires at CIRM, which is already chafing under the legal limit of 50 employees. In fact, Trounson has warned that the quality of work could slip unless a way is found to circumvent or repeal the cap.
Another matter is on the table as well next Monday. The item says,
"Consideration of guidance and CIRM’s Medical and Ethical Standards regarding use of previously NIH approved lines in CIRM-funded research and additional lines that are comparable to CIRM’s recommendations to the NIH and/or would be grandfathered or approved under those recommendations.”
No further explanation was offered by CIRM.
Interested parties can take part in the board proceedings at teleconference locations throughout the state including San Francisco(4), Los Angeles(2), La Jolla(2), San Diego, Duarte, Berkeley, Sacramento, Pleasanton and Healdsburg. More locations could be added in the next few days. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.
CIRM directors will meet one week from today to consider raising the existing pay range for the position. CIRM President Alan Trounson obviously has a candidate that wants more than $332,000, and the board is not likely to reject Trounson's choice. To do so would indicate a lack of confidence in Trounson.
CIRM has not disclosed exactly what the new salary will be or explained why it is needed. Don't look for that information until the day of the meeting and probably only if you are in attendance at one of the telephonic meeting locations around the state. CIRM generally has not posted such sensitive salary information in advance of meetings.
Trounson was eager to find someone with industry experience. Last July, Trounson told directors that he wanted “someone with the skill base to have more of a focus in their role with biotech/pharma – translation – clinical applications, which is where we are moving with our translational, disease teams and clinical grants and where we are thin in capacity.”
Trounson hired Levin and Company at a cost of $100,000 to help with the search.
The new position was created by Trounson after Marie Csete resigned suddenly last June as CIRM's chief scientific officer. She said her advice was not respected. Her position will not be filled, but her responsibilities are being parcelled out to the new VP and Patricia Olson, executive director of scientific activities, who has been with the agency since its early days. Under a new structure announced last August, Olson reports directly to Trounson as will the new VP. Previously Olson reported to the chief scientific officer.
The compensation for the new post was scheduled to come up at the CIRM board meeting earlier this month in the State Capitol. CIRM chairman Robert Klein took the matter off the table the day of the meeting, saying negotiations were not at the right stage.
The move came on the same day as The Sacramento Bee carried a front page story that said California state workers received 4 percent less pay last year than in 2008 as a result of the state's financial crisis. Approval of a salary beyond $332,000 creates a public relations risk for CIRM, given the severe cutbacks elsewhere around the state. CIRM's salaries are already quite generous compared to other state agencies.
Salaries are easy for the public to criticize and to understand, especially compared to arcane scientific studies that may not seem immediately relevant to many people. Additionally, boosting a $332,000 salary without telling the public in advance why or specifying the size of the increase plays into the hands of those who are critical of CIRM's lack of transparency and openness.
The new VP will have a financial impact on CIRM beyond the salary. He or she is expected to have at least two or more staffers assigned to work for him or her. They will be new hires at CIRM, which is already chafing under the legal limit of 50 employees. In fact, Trounson has warned that the quality of work could slip unless a way is found to circumvent or repeal the cap.
Another matter is on the table as well next Monday. The item says,
"Consideration of guidance and CIRM’s Medical and Ethical Standards regarding use of previously NIH approved lines in CIRM-funded research and additional lines that are comparable to CIRM’s recommendations to the NIH and/or would be grandfathered or approved under those recommendations.”
No further explanation was offered by CIRM.
Interested parties can take part in the board proceedings at teleconference locations throughout the state including San Francisco(4), Los Angeles(2), La Jolla(2), San Diego, Duarte, Berkeley, Sacramento, Pleasanton and Healdsburg. More locations could be added in the next few days. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
CIRM Salaries Approved Along with Action on 'California Suppliers'
Here some of the highlights from today's meeting of the directors of the California stem cell agency, in addition to the appointment of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer.
They were provided by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, at our request. Simpson attended the session. Here is what he wrote.
Simpson also reported that there was little discussion of the biotech loan program and that a policy may be presented in June.
They were provided by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, at our request. Simpson attended the session. Here is what he wrote.
"Despite (CIRM General Counsel) Tamar Pachter's recommendation, the board approved the proposed definition of a California supplier after John Valencia, an attorney for Invitrogen, made it clear that this would merely start a 45-day public comment process and the proposed regulation would be subject to change after that period taking comment into account. I was among those speaking in favor of passage.We are querying Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, specifically what salary ranges were approved.
"After lengthy discussion they adopted the Proposed Tools and Technical RFA with one substantial modification: Companies will be allowed to submit four applications like universities and research institutes. The staff recommendation would have limited companies to two applications.
"The Board also approved revised salary ranges as submitted. Top ranges were trimmed from what had been proposed at governance meeting.
"During public comment I noted that neither (CIRM Chairman Robert) Klein nor (Vice Chairman Ed) Penhoet take a salary and asked if approval of ranges for those positions indicates they intend to take a salary. He responded that after five years not doing so he may have to assess the situation and that it would be up to the board but that he 'knows of no such plans at this time.'"
Simpson also reported that there was little discussion of the biotech loan program and that a policy may be presented in June.
Friday, July 02, 2010
$250,000, Six-Month Contract for CIRM's Lewis
The new interim vice president for research and development at the California stem cell agency holds a $250,000, six-month contract that calls for him to push hard to develop clinical applications that CIRM hopes will demonstrate the success of its $3 billion effort.
The hiring -- as a consultant -- of Alan Lewis (at right), onetime head of ViaCyte, Inc. of San Diego (formerly Novocell) and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, brings at least a temporary halt to the search to fill the new VP post that was created after Marie Csete resigned suddenly as chief scientific officer. The CIRM Web site no longer lists the VP position as available.
CIRM President Alan Trounson sought unsuccessfully for a nearly a year to fill the job. This spring he appeared to have run afoul of resistance to his plans for compensation for the post, which would normally top out at $332,000 annually if the position were filled by a regular CIRM employee.
Under the terms of Lewis' contract, he is expected to work about 24 hours a week and meet with CIRM officials at least once a week at the agency's San Francisco headquarters. (CIRM provided an unsigned copy of the contract, which is a public document, at the request of the California Stem Cell Report.)
Lewis is the third top executive of CIRM to be working on a part-time, paid basis. The others are CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who receives $150,000 for half-time work, and co-Vice Chairman Art Torres, who is paid $225,000 for four days a week. By way of contrast, CIRM President Alan Trounson receives $490,008 annually for fulltime work.
Lewis' agreement runs from June 21 through the end of this year at a rate of $2,500 a day, “with pro-ration (sic) for less than four hours.” The contract is capped at $250,000 not including travel expenses.
On June 23, Trounson told the CIRM governing board that Lewis would be serving as a consultant two or three days a week "to help us with the clinical, preclinical programs." Trounson did not mention that Lewis would carry the title of interim vice president for research and development nor did he mention the size of the contract. If it had been above $250,000, it would have required director approval.
Lewis is expected to travel widely and possibly internationally. Trips from his home in Solana Beach near San Diego in Southern California to CIRM's headquarters will be paid for by CIRM.
Lewis has had a long business career, which raises questions about possible conflicts of interest. In addition to Novocell, he worked for Signal Pharmaceuticals and Celgene in the San Diego area. He left Novocell in 2008 to work for the diabetes group. The CIRM contract said Lewis affirmed that “there exists no actual or potential conflict between the consultant's family, business or financial interest and the services provided under this agreement.”
ViaCyte is the recipient of more than $26 million in awards from CIRM.
Lewis must file a statement of economic interests that is required of most state officials. We have asked CIRM for a copy of that document.
Here is how the contract describes Lewis' responsibilities:
(Photo from San Diego Union-Tribune)
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly said that Lewis' contract was not mentioned by Trounson at the June CIRM board meeting.)
The hiring -- as a consultant -- of Alan Lewis (at right), onetime head of ViaCyte, Inc. of San Diego (formerly Novocell) and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, brings at least a temporary halt to the search to fill the new VP post that was created after Marie Csete resigned suddenly as chief scientific officer. The CIRM Web site no longer lists the VP position as available.CIRM President Alan Trounson sought unsuccessfully for a nearly a year to fill the job. This spring he appeared to have run afoul of resistance to his plans for compensation for the post, which would normally top out at $332,000 annually if the position were filled by a regular CIRM employee.
Under the terms of Lewis' contract, he is expected to work about 24 hours a week and meet with CIRM officials at least once a week at the agency's San Francisco headquarters. (CIRM provided an unsigned copy of the contract, which is a public document, at the request of the California Stem Cell Report.)
Lewis is the third top executive of CIRM to be working on a part-time, paid basis. The others are CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who receives $150,000 for half-time work, and co-Vice Chairman Art Torres, who is paid $225,000 for four days a week. By way of contrast, CIRM President Alan Trounson receives $490,008 annually for fulltime work.
Lewis' agreement runs from June 21 through the end of this year at a rate of $2,500 a day, “with pro-ration (sic) for less than four hours.” The contract is capped at $250,000 not including travel expenses.
On June 23, Trounson told the CIRM governing board that Lewis would be serving as a consultant two or three days a week "to help us with the clinical, preclinical programs." Trounson did not mention that Lewis would carry the title of interim vice president for research and development nor did he mention the size of the contract. If it had been above $250,000, it would have required director approval.
Lewis is expected to travel widely and possibly internationally. Trips from his home in Solana Beach near San Diego in Southern California to CIRM's headquarters will be paid for by CIRM.
Lewis has had a long business career, which raises questions about possible conflicts of interest. In addition to Novocell, he worked for Signal Pharmaceuticals and Celgene in the San Diego area. He left Novocell in 2008 to work for the diabetes group. The CIRM contract said Lewis affirmed that “there exists no actual or potential conflict between the consultant's family, business or financial interest and the services provided under this agreement.”
ViaCyte is the recipient of more than $26 million in awards from CIRM.
Lewis must file a statement of economic interests that is required of most state officials. We have asked CIRM for a copy of that document.
Here is how the contract describes Lewis' responsibilities:
“• Consult Senior Management on biotechnology, pharmaceutical and investment sectors to enable and enhance the development of clinical applications in CIRM’s scientific portfolio.The contract differs somewhat from the CIRM news release on Lewis. It said that he would “take direction” from the executive director of scientific affairs – not work in collaboration. This is of significance because their duties overlap and could be a source of friction if not carefully managed.
“• Consult on the preclinical and clinical development phases of CIRM’s programs and projects involving not-for-profit and for-profit teams, including assembling and working closely with CIRM advisory committees to provide oversight of these programs and make go/no go recommendations to the President for continuation of CIRM support.
“• Work in close collaboration with the Executive Director of Scientific Activities.
“• Integrate basic discoveries where possible into the translational and preclinical pipeline and identifies gaps in CIRM’s scientific program for delivery of cell therapies and related products.
“• Develop and implements strategies to aid clinical applications such as in the critical areas of manufacturing, drug and cell product safety and efficacy.
“• Consult Senior Management regarding interface approaches with national and international regulatory organizations”
(Photo from San Diego Union-Tribune)
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly said that Lewis' contract was not mentioned by Trounson at the June CIRM board meeting.)
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
CIRM's Finances and Budget to be Examined Next Week
The financial condition of the $3 billion California stem cell agency will come under scrutiny next week at a meeting of Finance Subcommittee of its board of directors, along with CIRM's $500 million biotech loan program.
Leading the agenda is the proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1. Also scheduled to be discussed are funding sources and financing stretching into the first half of 2010-2011.
Following a severe financial scare earlier this year, CIRM is currently in safe financial shape for the next 18 months, despite the state's huge $24 billion deficit. That's because CIRM relies on bond financing and received a $500 million booster this spring as a result of a state bond sale. CIRM also cannot be cut by the state legislature or governor because it is constitutionally outside their control as a result of the ballot initiative that created it.
That is not to say CIRM is out of the longer-term woods. Its funding will only last for another 18 months, absent another bond sale.
The agency has approved $761 million in grants, which extend over several years. Its operations budget is tiny in comparison -- only $13.4 million for the current fiscal year.
The largest component of the budget -- $7 million -- goes for the salaries and benefits for CIRM's 40 staffers. The next largest component -- $2.7 million -- is for outside contracts, necessary because of the small staff and special needs of the agency.
Last year, the budget was missing significant details concerning outside contracting and travel, triggering complaints by the Consumer Watchdog group of Santa Monica, Ca.
When some of the details were produced -- days after CIRM directors routinely approved the budget -- John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, reported that they showed that CIRM Chairman Robert Klein would be out of the state on CIRM business 88 days, CIRM President Alan Trounson 68 days and Chief Science Officer Marie Csete 75 days. The budgeted dollars -- $558,000 -- were up 287 percent from the previous year.
The latest budget documents from CIRM show that it has spent only $104,000 of the $558,000 as of the end of March. In fact, as of that date, CIRM had spent only $6.7 million of the $13.4 million budgeted for operations this year. CIRM officials tout this as indicative of management frugality, which is to be lauded. But the magnitude of the difference raises questions about CIRM's budget justifications last year. It also raises a question about whether CIRM should fill out its staff to the 50 person limit. The small band appears to be overworked, based both on expressions from some board members and top management as well.
Last June, Michael Goldberg, chair of the Finance Subcommittee and general partner of the venture capital firm of Mohr, Davidow Ventures of Menlo Park, Ca., told his fellow directors to expect a more thorough-going budget document than was presented at that time.
The biotech loan program will come up in connection with a review of the response to an RFP for underwriters for the effort. CIRM staff does not have the expertise to run the effort so outside help is needed. The agency hopes to have more than one underwriter because of the conflicts involved in what is a very small financial community.
June 8 is the deadline for proposals with possible award on June 15, only four days after the Finance Subcommittee meeting.
The RFP did not specify an amount that CIRM would expect to pay for handling the $500 million loan program, but it certainly could be lucrative for the successful applicants.
The public can hear and participate in the meeting at a number of teleconference locations including San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Pleasanton and Menlo Park. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda, which does not yet contain any links to background material to be presented at the meeting.
Leading the agenda is the proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1. Also scheduled to be discussed are funding sources and financing stretching into the first half of 2010-2011.
Following a severe financial scare earlier this year, CIRM is currently in safe financial shape for the next 18 months, despite the state's huge $24 billion deficit. That's because CIRM relies on bond financing and received a $500 million booster this spring as a result of a state bond sale. CIRM also cannot be cut by the state legislature or governor because it is constitutionally outside their control as a result of the ballot initiative that created it.
That is not to say CIRM is out of the longer-term woods. Its funding will only last for another 18 months, absent another bond sale.
The agency has approved $761 million in grants, which extend over several years. Its operations budget is tiny in comparison -- only $13.4 million for the current fiscal year.
The largest component of the budget -- $7 million -- goes for the salaries and benefits for CIRM's 40 staffers. The next largest component -- $2.7 million -- is for outside contracts, necessary because of the small staff and special needs of the agency.
Last year, the budget was missing significant details concerning outside contracting and travel, triggering complaints by the Consumer Watchdog group of Santa Monica, Ca.
When some of the details were produced -- days after CIRM directors routinely approved the budget -- John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, reported that they showed that CIRM Chairman Robert Klein would be out of the state on CIRM business 88 days, CIRM President Alan Trounson 68 days and Chief Science Officer Marie Csete 75 days. The budgeted dollars -- $558,000 -- were up 287 percent from the previous year.
The latest budget documents from CIRM show that it has spent only $104,000 of the $558,000 as of the end of March. In fact, as of that date, CIRM had spent only $6.7 million of the $13.4 million budgeted for operations this year. CIRM officials tout this as indicative of management frugality, which is to be lauded. But the magnitude of the difference raises questions about CIRM's budget justifications last year. It also raises a question about whether CIRM should fill out its staff to the 50 person limit. The small band appears to be overworked, based both on expressions from some board members and top management as well.
Last June, Michael Goldberg, chair of the Finance Subcommittee and general partner of the venture capital firm of Mohr, Davidow Ventures of Menlo Park, Ca., told his fellow directors to expect a more thorough-going budget document than was presented at that time.
The biotech loan program will come up in connection with a review of the response to an RFP for underwriters for the effort. CIRM staff does not have the expertise to run the effort so outside help is needed. The agency hopes to have more than one underwriter because of the conflicts involved in what is a very small financial community.
June 8 is the deadline for proposals with possible award on June 15, only four days after the Finance Subcommittee meeting.
The RFP did not specify an amount that CIRM would expect to pay for handling the $500 million loan program, but it certainly could be lucrative for the successful applicants.
The public can hear and participate in the meeting at a number of teleconference locations including San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Pleasanton and Menlo Park. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda, which does not yet contain any links to background material to be presented at the meeting.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
CIRM Executive Salaries Take a Hit
Should the president of the California stem cell agency, with roughly 26 employees, be paid $300,000 more annually than the director of the National Institutes of Health, which has nearly 19,000 staffers?
No, according to the Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca. Its stem cell project director, John M. Simpson, says,
"Elias Zerhouni, Director, NIH: $191,300 (increased in January from $186,600)
John Niederhuber, Director, National Cancer Institute: $247,500
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute: $300,000
Story Landis, Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes: $260,000"
Simpson's figures come via reporter Jim Downing of The Sacramento Bee, who obtained them from the NIH.
Simpson compares them to the $490,000 salary earned by CIRM President Alan Trounson and the $310,000 being paid to Marie Csete, recently hired as CIRM's chief scientific officer.
The salaries have recently come under increased fire because of the state's budget crisis. Salaries of public servants are always lightning rods, even in the best of times. They are far easier for the media and the public to understand than some of the financial inequities created by Prop. 13, the property tax initiative approved years ago and that now, in many ways, cripples local government in California.
The CIRM salaries are also dwarfed by the pay of some physicians within the University of California system, who earn more than $750,000 a year. And they are tiny compared to the wages earned by some of the men at UC who supervise boys running and throwing balls. Their pay can approach $2 million annually.
Nonetheless the salaries at CIRM are a perception problem, at the very least. The agency must develop a stout defense for them, which it does not seem to currently have. Otherwise, CIRM will continue to suffer attacks from critics who find the pay levels extreme.
No, according to the Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca. Its stem cell project director, John M. Simpson, says,
"CIRM's salaries are ridiculously out of whack."Writing on the blog of the Consumer Watchdog, a group once known as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Simpson offers as the chief support for his view the following salaries for NIH executives:
"Elias Zerhouni, Director, NIH: $191,300 (increased in January from $186,600)
John Niederhuber, Director, National Cancer Institute: $247,500
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute: $300,000
Story Landis, Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes: $260,000"
Simpson's figures come via reporter Jim Downing of The Sacramento Bee, who obtained them from the NIH.
Simpson compares them to the $490,000 salary earned by CIRM President Alan Trounson and the $310,000 being paid to Marie Csete, recently hired as CIRM's chief scientific officer.
The salaries have recently come under increased fire because of the state's budget crisis. Salaries of public servants are always lightning rods, even in the best of times. They are far easier for the media and the public to understand than some of the financial inequities created by Prop. 13, the property tax initiative approved years ago and that now, in many ways, cripples local government in California.
The CIRM salaries are also dwarfed by the pay of some physicians within the University of California system, who earn more than $750,000 a year. And they are tiny compared to the wages earned by some of the men at UC who supervise boys running and throwing balls. Their pay can approach $2 million annually.
Nonetheless the salaries at CIRM are a perception problem, at the very least. The agency must develop a stout defense for them, which it does not seem to currently have. Otherwise, CIRM will continue to suffer attacks from critics who find the pay levels extreme.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Support for Public Health Care Option, but "Nyet" to Hoover
SACRAMENTO – The California stem cell agency appears to be on track to reject nearly all of the recommendations for improvements in its operations made by the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission.
Meeting yesterday in a teleconference session, the directors' Legislative Subcommittee concluded its discussion of the Hoover report with a consensus “nyet” to the commission.
The panel earlier last month rejected the most sweeping recommendations, including reducing the size of the board of directors from 29 to 15 and trimming the powers of its chairman. The action was taken based on an opinion from the CIRM's outside counsel that the legislature could not make those changes.
Yesterday, the subcommittee went along (no vote was taken) with the CIRM staff response, which can be found here and here. The panel did agree to poll its scientific grant reviewers on whether they would resign if their statements of economic interests were made public. It also agreed to post vote tallies in the future by the board of directors on grant applications.
Art Torres, chairman of the subcommittee and a former state legislator, will prepare a report on the group's discussion and present it to the full board at its meeting Aug. 19-20 for ratification.
The Legislative Subcommittee, on a 6-3 vote, also expressed support for a public option in the national health care reform legislation. Director Jeff Sheehy, a UC San Francisco communications manager and AIDs activist, and Torres backed the effort.
Sheehy said access to health care and future stem cell therapies is critical to CIRM's mission. Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the board of directors, opposed the endorsement, citing problems elsewhere in the world with government-run health care plans.
The endorsement will come before the full board at its meeting later this month.
Also meeting yesterday was the full CIRM board, again in a teleconference session, to discuss a proposal by President Alan Trounson connected to finding a replacement for Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, who has resigned.
Trounson plans to create a new vice president for research and development to enhance CIRM's engagement with industry. The title and additional responsibilities could also make it more appealing to possible job candidates.
Trounson's proposal does not require board approval but he is obviously taking care to ensure support from the CIRM board.
The plan hit a bump when Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, raised questions about reporting ambiguities in Trounson's organizational chart, which seemed to conflict with the reporting lines in the job description dealing with basic science research.
Sherry Lansing, chairperson of the Governance Subcommittee and former head of a Hollywood film studio, indicated that the plan seemed to justify the creation of a third VP. In that case, the executive director of scientific activities would be designated as a vice president.
In other action, the board added Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Ted Love, a Bay Area biomedical businessman, to the newly created Evaluation Subcommittee. Levey was then elected chairman of the committee and Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, vice chairman.
The full list of committee members can be found here, minus the Levey and Love additions.
For the record, we should note that some of the material for yesterday's two meetings was posted extremely late on the CIRM web site. One memo dealing with the Hoover report was not available at teleconference location in Sacramento, although it may have been posted on the Web at the time of the meeting. The staff's discussion draft of the Hoover report did not appear until the day before the meeting. Likewise for the organizational chart.
Meeting yesterday in a teleconference session, the directors' Legislative Subcommittee concluded its discussion of the Hoover report with a consensus “nyet” to the commission.
The panel earlier last month rejected the most sweeping recommendations, including reducing the size of the board of directors from 29 to 15 and trimming the powers of its chairman. The action was taken based on an opinion from the CIRM's outside counsel that the legislature could not make those changes.
Yesterday, the subcommittee went along (no vote was taken) with the CIRM staff response, which can be found here and here. The panel did agree to poll its scientific grant reviewers on whether they would resign if their statements of economic interests were made public. It also agreed to post vote tallies in the future by the board of directors on grant applications.
Art Torres, chairman of the subcommittee and a former state legislator, will prepare a report on the group's discussion and present it to the full board at its meeting Aug. 19-20 for ratification.
The Legislative Subcommittee, on a 6-3 vote, also expressed support for a public option in the national health care reform legislation. Director Jeff Sheehy, a UC San Francisco communications manager and AIDs activist, and Torres backed the effort.
Sheehy said access to health care and future stem cell therapies is critical to CIRM's mission. Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the board of directors, opposed the endorsement, citing problems elsewhere in the world with government-run health care plans.
The endorsement will come before the full board at its meeting later this month.
Also meeting yesterday was the full CIRM board, again in a teleconference session, to discuss a proposal by President Alan Trounson connected to finding a replacement for Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, who has resigned.
Trounson plans to create a new vice president for research and development to enhance CIRM's engagement with industry. The title and additional responsibilities could also make it more appealing to possible job candidates.
Trounson's proposal does not require board approval but he is obviously taking care to ensure support from the CIRM board.
The plan hit a bump when Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, raised questions about reporting ambiguities in Trounson's organizational chart, which seemed to conflict with the reporting lines in the job description dealing with basic science research.
Sherry Lansing, chairperson of the Governance Subcommittee and former head of a Hollywood film studio, indicated that the plan seemed to justify the creation of a third VP. In that case, the executive director of scientific activities would be designated as a vice president.
In other action, the board added Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Ted Love, a Bay Area biomedical businessman, to the newly created Evaluation Subcommittee. Levey was then elected chairman of the committee and Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, vice chairman.
The full list of committee members can be found here, minus the Levey and Love additions.
For the record, we should note that some of the material for yesterday's two meetings was posted extremely late on the CIRM web site. One memo dealing with the Hoover report was not available at teleconference location in Sacramento, although it may have been posted on the Web at the time of the meeting. The staff's discussion draft of the Hoover report did not appear until the day before the meeting. Likewise for the organizational chart.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Attention Scientists: CIRM Proposes Triage on Research Plans
The California stem cell agency is proposing a form of scientific triage on research proposals, weeding them out even before they get into the peer review process.
Up for consideration at tomorrow afternoon's CIRM board meeting, the pilot project could have major implications for stem cell researchers in California, allowing them to bypass screening committees at their institutions. The proposal also would create another layer in the closed-door CIRM grant approval process, vest major, new authority with the CIRM staff and push the CIRM board even further away from the de facto decisions on grant applications.
The plan has yet to be published by CIRM on its web site. However, Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, made an electronic copy of the Power Point presentation available to the California Stem Cell Report. If you would like a copy, please email the California Stem Cell Report (djensen@californiastemcellreport.com) or CIRM (info@cirm.ca.gov).
The proposal would involve a "pre-application review" of proposals that would involve CIRM staff and two members of the grants review group. It is patterned after "comparable procedures from from the Gates Foundation/MJFF/NIH/Genome Canada."
Some members of the CIRM board of directors balked at the proposal earlier this month. CIRM staff is bringing it up again tomorrow with changes aimed at addressing directors' concerns.
One key reason behind the proposal is to help ease the workload of the scientists who come from out-of-state to review applications. Sometimes the number of applications have run into the hundreds, creating time-consuming situations where scientists are reluctant to devote their time.
It is also designed to ferret out applications that are nixed by institutions prior to coming to CIRM. Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, said the agency has received complaints that the best science is not always getting to CIRM.
She told directors earlier this month that CIRM may "not be seeing the full range of science from young scientists."
The public can participate in the meeting from locations in San Francisco (3), Berkeley, Elk Grove, Healdsburg, Los Angeles (3), Koloa, Hi., Beverly Hills, Irvine (2), La Jolla (2), Stanford, Cornelius, NC, Sacramento, Philadelphia and Chicago. The out-of-state locations are presumably where some CIRM directors will be tomorrow afternoon but they are still legally public as far as CIRM meetings go. The specific addresses can be found on the meeting agenda.
Up for consideration at tomorrow afternoon's CIRM board meeting, the pilot project could have major implications for stem cell researchers in California, allowing them to bypass screening committees at their institutions. The proposal also would create another layer in the closed-door CIRM grant approval process, vest major, new authority with the CIRM staff and push the CIRM board even further away from the de facto decisions on grant applications.
The plan has yet to be published by CIRM on its web site. However, Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, made an electronic copy of the Power Point presentation available to the California Stem Cell Report. If you would like a copy, please email the California Stem Cell Report (djensen@californiastemcellreport.com) or CIRM (info@cirm.ca.gov).
The proposal would involve a "pre-application review" of proposals that would involve CIRM staff and two members of the grants review group. It is patterned after "comparable procedures from from the Gates Foundation/MJFF/NIH/Genome Canada."
Some members of the CIRM board of directors balked at the proposal earlier this month. CIRM staff is bringing it up again tomorrow with changes aimed at addressing directors' concerns.
One key reason behind the proposal is to help ease the workload of the scientists who come from out-of-state to review applications. Sometimes the number of applications have run into the hundreds, creating time-consuming situations where scientists are reluctant to devote their time.
It is also designed to ferret out applications that are nixed by institutions prior to coming to CIRM. Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, said the agency has received complaints that the best science is not always getting to CIRM.
She told directors earlier this month that CIRM may "not be seeing the full range of science from young scientists."
The public can participate in the meeting from locations in San Francisco (3), Berkeley, Elk Grove, Healdsburg, Los Angeles (3), Koloa, Hi., Beverly Hills, Irvine (2), La Jolla (2), Stanford, Cornelius, NC, Sacramento, Philadelphia and Chicago. The out-of-state locations are presumably where some CIRM directors will be tomorrow afternoon but they are still legally public as far as CIRM meetings go. The specific addresses can be found on the meeting agenda.
Friday, July 18, 2008
A Critical Look at CIRM's Stem Cell Globe-Trotting
The Consumer Watchdog group is taking a dim view of the travel plans of the top executives of the California stem cell agency, describing as "bafflegab" the justification for spending much of the $558,000 in what CIRM describes as its "other travel" budget.John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the non-profit advocacy group, made his comments on his organization's blog. They were based on previously undisclosed documents that he requested from CIRM.
Among other things, the CIRM documents showed that its chairman, Bob Klein(pictured), is scheduled to be outside of California for 88 days at state expense in 2008-09. That does not include his travel within California, such as his trip today to Santa Barbara.
Chief Science Office Marie Csete will be out of California 75 days, CIRM President Alan Trounson 68 days, Chief Communications Officer Don Gibbons 32 days. All of which amounts to a 287 percent increase (in terms of dollars) in "other travel" by CIRM officials.
China, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, the United Kingdom, Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Korea, Australia, Italy, South Africa and Canada are among the destinations.
To a CIRM travel justification that said in part that some of the trips were necessary "in order to have an integrated picture of state of the art and forward-looking research agendas," Simpson retorted, "bafflegab."
He continued,
"After crunching the numbers I checked with some scientists. All agreed there is a need for the hard-working science staff to attend some conferences to stay abreast of the latest developments. Perhaps one or two a year, suggested one.Still undisclosed, as far as we can tell, are travel expenses that are not classified as "other travel."
"Another scientist reported traveling 4-5 days a month to to give seminars, attend meetings and review grants and then said about CIRM's travel plans:
"'Is the travel necessary? No. Useful for CIRM? Probably not very much. Good for Bob and Alan? Absolutely.'
"Voters passed Proposition 71 because they wanted to pay for vital stem cell research in California that the federal government would not fund. They did not intend to send Bob Klein around the world as a stem cell research advocate."
Simpson has posted the documents in question on his website. Links to them are contained in his blog.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Niche Comments on CIRM Conflicts
The Niche stem cell blog today picked up on the the Nature coverage of the California stem cell agency and briefly discussed the conflict of issues that are built -- by law -- into the $3 billion government program.
Monya Baker, whose blog is part of Nature Reports Stem Cells, wrote:
Monya Baker, whose blog is part of Nature Reports Stem Cells, wrote:
"What does seem unique to CIRM are the multiple sources of 'two-masters' tension: it must support basic science and clinical applications ( see my interview with Marie Csete) ; it must succor biotech companies but make sure that patients and other scientists can access their technology (see my article on CIRM grants to businesses ). Even its organizational structure is split. (See my article on CIRM’s search for a president .)
"I’ve asked CIRM officials about this before. I’m told that such strains are indeed difficult to balance, but done right they are a source of strength. I’ve asked non-CIRM experts about it too. They tell me it’s easy to make bad investments in hot new fields, but good ideas often wither early because they can’t prove their worth. And I've asked everyone whether CIRM’s funds are a good use of money, and they say what journalists hate to hear: time will tell."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
CIRM Pulls a Grant, Aggressive Monitoring Reported
In what appears to be a first, the California stem cell agency has pulled at least one grant from one of its researchers, apparently because of a lack of progress.
Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, confirmed the action in response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report.
Gibbons refused to disclose the identity of the researcher or the institution, declaring that more details would be forthcoming in a report to the CIRM board of directors from President Alan Trounson at its meeting in San Diego on Wednesday and Thursday.
We asked CIRM about the withdrawal after we were told by another source that one grant had, in fact, been been pulled and some “push-back” was coming from institutions. At the last CIRM board meeting in April, a report on grant monitoring was on the agenda but was removed with no explanation.
Here are the questions we directed to Gibbons last week.
Gibbons has not responded to an additonal question on June 10 seeking the identity of the researcher and the grant number, both of which are public record.
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, and her staff have been aggressive in checking progress on CIRM grants, we have been told. Some grantees have been surprised and have complained that the NIH does not follow the same practice.
CIRM is to be lauded for monitoring the grants carefully. While strong oversight of grants may be bothersome to some researchers, institutions and perhaps some CIRM directors, it is a healthy practice that should stand CIRM in good stead when it faces its skeptics.
Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, confirmed the action in response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report.
Gibbons refused to disclose the identity of the researcher or the institution, declaring that more details would be forthcoming in a report to the CIRM board of directors from President Alan Trounson at its meeting in San Diego on Wednesday and Thursday.
We asked CIRM about the withdrawal after we were told by another source that one grant had, in fact, been been pulled and some “push-back” was coming from institutions. At the last CIRM board meeting in April, a report on grant monitoring was on the agenda but was removed with no explanation.
Here are the questions we directed to Gibbons last week.
“Can you confirm or deny that a grant has been pulled?Gibbons replied,
“Are institutions pushing back in any form whatsoever?
“Are any of the board members involved in any way whatsoever in reactions to monitoring of grantees' progress?
“What was the reason for removal of the monitoring item from the agenda last month?
“Will it be rescheduled?
“Do you have any other comments on this general subject? “
“Yes, we have pulled at least one grant, but the leadership of the science office uniformly reports they are not getting push back from the institutions. No board members were involved in the process. The last board agenda was jammed so plans were made to include the progress reports in the President’s Report for the upcoming meeting. You can hear the details then.”(The last board meeting ended at 1:24 p.m. on April 29, which is early for most board meetings.)
Gibbons has not responded to an additonal question on June 10 seeking the identity of the researcher and the grant number, both of which are public record.
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, and her staff have been aggressive in checking progress on CIRM grants, we have been told. Some grantees have been surprised and have complained that the NIH does not follow the same practice.
CIRM is to be lauded for monitoring the grants carefully. While strong oversight of grants may be bothersome to some researchers, institutions and perhaps some CIRM directors, it is a healthy practice that should stand CIRM in good stead when it faces its skeptics.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Millions Cut from CIRM Lab Grant Requests, Millions More Approved
California's unprecedented $758 million stem cell lab construction program completed another chapter this weekend, but fell $48 million short of fulfilling the desires of 12 universities and research institutions.
All of the 12 saw their requests cut by millions as their applications cleared CIRM's Facilities Working Group during a two-day meeting in San Francisco. None was eliminated, however, and none is likely to be eliminated when the grants come up for final action by CIRM directors (the Oversight Committee) May 6 and 7.
CIRM directors have never reversed a recommendation for funding made by their working groups.
The 12 California institutions had sought $336 million from CIRM. The Facilities Working Group approved $289 million, compared to the $262 million budgeted by CIRM. The stem cell lab construction program proposed by applicants totals $832 million, including matching funds. CIRM has proposed funding that would total $758 million, including matching funds.
CIRM said in a news release that the Oversight Committee will address at its May meeting the difference between the $289 million approved this weekend and the $262 million budgeted.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog (formerly known as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights), attended the facilities meeting. In an email, he said the main question was how to cut money from the requests.
"At (CIRM President Alan) Trounson's suggestion the FWG (Facilities Working Group) score, which was on a scale of 100, was treated as a percentage, so for example, Stanford with a score of 95 will get 95% percent of its request. Using this method, they cut $47 million.
"Interestingly most of the applicants there seemed to think this could work. Some had been worried that entire programs would be cut."
Some of the cuts were rather large. UCLA saw its $30 million request cut by $8 million. The $50 million request from the San Diego stem cell consortium (UC San Diego, Scripps, Burnham and Salk) request was slashed $7 million. UC Irvine lost more than $7 million out of a $37 million request. (A full list of the applicants, the amounts requested, amounts recommended and total project cost can be found here.)
The Oversight Committee decisions on the funding will ultimately be made by only a handful of its 29 members, perhaps as few as eight or less. The reason is that about 18 of the directors have financial ties to institutions seeking the taxpayer funds. Those directors will be barred by law from even discussing the issue.
The CIRM news release touted the economic benefits of the construction program. Marie Csete, the agency's new chief scientific officer, said the grants will help to build "optimal facilities for our scientists and will extend California's leadership in stem cell science."
As far as we can tell, no mainstream news media carried reports on the weekend action. The agency continues to receive little notice from California newspapers and even less from the electronic media.
The Facilities Group met in public session, as it did on a previous round of lab grants. However, scientific reviews of the programs were conducted behind closed doors by scientific reviewers who do not publicly disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
(Editor's note: Our figures differ slightly from CIRM's. The discrepancies appear to be related to rounding.)
All of the 12 saw their requests cut by millions as their applications cleared CIRM's Facilities Working Group during a two-day meeting in San Francisco. None was eliminated, however, and none is likely to be eliminated when the grants come up for final action by CIRM directors (the Oversight Committee) May 6 and 7.
CIRM directors have never reversed a recommendation for funding made by their working groups.
The 12 California institutions had sought $336 million from CIRM. The Facilities Working Group approved $289 million, compared to the $262 million budgeted by CIRM. The stem cell lab construction program proposed by applicants totals $832 million, including matching funds. CIRM has proposed funding that would total $758 million, including matching funds.
CIRM said in a news release that the Oversight Committee will address at its May meeting the difference between the $289 million approved this weekend and the $262 million budgeted.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog (formerly known as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights), attended the facilities meeting. In an email, he said the main question was how to cut money from the requests.
"At (CIRM President Alan) Trounson's suggestion the FWG (Facilities Working Group) score, which was on a scale of 100, was treated as a percentage, so for example, Stanford with a score of 95 will get 95% percent of its request. Using this method, they cut $47 million.
"Interestingly most of the applicants there seemed to think this could work. Some had been worried that entire programs would be cut."
Some of the cuts were rather large. UCLA saw its $30 million request cut by $8 million. The $50 million request from the San Diego stem cell consortium (UC San Diego, Scripps, Burnham and Salk) request was slashed $7 million. UC Irvine lost more than $7 million out of a $37 million request. (A full list of the applicants, the amounts requested, amounts recommended and total project cost can be found here.)
The Oversight Committee decisions on the funding will ultimately be made by only a handful of its 29 members, perhaps as few as eight or less. The reason is that about 18 of the directors have financial ties to institutions seeking the taxpayer funds. Those directors will be barred by law from even discussing the issue.
The CIRM news release touted the economic benefits of the construction program. Marie Csete, the agency's new chief scientific officer, said the grants will help to build "optimal facilities for our scientists and will extend California's leadership in stem cell science."
As far as we can tell, no mainstream news media carried reports on the weekend action. The agency continues to receive little notice from California newspapers and even less from the electronic media.
The Facilities Group met in public session, as it did on a previous round of lab grants. However, scientific reviews of the programs were conducted behind closed doors by scientific reviewers who do not publicly disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
(Editor's note: Our figures differ slightly from CIRM's. The discrepancies appear to be related to rounding.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)