Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Hearing Changed to March 9
The legislative hearing on the California stem cell agency has been changed from March 2 to March 9 at 1:30 p.m. in room 4203 of the Capitol. See item Feb. 7 on this blog for more details.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Bedtime Reading Posted at CIRM
For those of you who have trouble getting to sleep, the California stem cell agency has posted its first cure.
Go to the site and download the 218 page transcript of its February oversight committee meeting. If that isn't enough, try 266 pages from January. For the capper, dig into 99 pages from the accountability working group meeting.
But seriously, this an excellent step in the right direction in keeping the agency open to interested parties. It also serves the agency well. More information on the Web means fewer direct calls to harried staffers and demonstrates its commitment to openness.
Good work, CIRMers.
Go to the site and download the 218 page transcript of its February oversight committee meeting. If that isn't enough, try 266 pages from January. For the capper, dig into 99 pages from the accountability working group meeting.
But seriously, this an excellent step in the right direction in keeping the agency open to interested parties. It also serves the agency well. More information on the Web means fewer direct calls to harried staffers and demonstrates its commitment to openness.
Good work, CIRMers.
Whither Melissa?
Melissa Carpenter of Canada's Robart Research Institute may have taken herself out of the running for the post of interim head of California's stem cell agency. Then again she may be right at the top of the list.
The London Free Press is reporting, in an article by John Miner, that she is leaving the institute to work for an unnamed biotech firm in San Diego to research the use of stem cells in the treatment of diabetes.
While she may be eager to return to California and start work in her new position, it certainly would not hurt her or her new firm for the good doctor to take a brief leave before actually reporting in San Diego. Spending six months setting up CIRM would provide invaluable experience and contacts for future endeavors.
The London Free Press is reporting, in an article by John Miner, that she is leaving the institute to work for an unnamed biotech firm in San Diego to research the use of stem cells in the treatment of diabetes.
While she may be eager to return to California and start work in her new position, it certainly would not hurt her or her new firm for the good doctor to take a brief leave before actually reporting in San Diego. Spending six months setting up CIRM would provide invaluable experience and contacts for future endeavors.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The Washington Post Strikes
Reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha of the Washington Post weighed in on Sunday with a piece on California's stem cell agency that is likely to help shape the national view of the fledgling insitute.
And that is not good news for the agency.
The Page One headline said “Struggling Science Experiment.” The third paragraph of the article said:
“The initiative has been tainted by accusations that those who pushed hardest for the money stand to benefit from it the most. Advocates question the pell-mell pace organizers have set to get the program up and running; they worry that in their haste, program leaders are taking too many shortcuts, leaving the initiative vulnerable to being taken advantage of by private profiteers and unscrupulous scientists.”
The piece contained little that has not already been reported. But it reaches an important audience of opinion and policy makers. It will also likely set the tone for other national coverage of the agency as other media read the piece.
And that is not good news for the agency.
The Page One headline said “Struggling Science Experiment.” The third paragraph of the article said:
“The initiative has been tainted by accusations that those who pushed hardest for the money stand to benefit from it the most. Advocates question the pell-mell pace organizers have set to get the program up and running; they worry that in their haste, program leaders are taking too many shortcuts, leaving the initiative vulnerable to being taken advantage of by private profiteers and unscrupulous scientists.”
The piece contained little that has not already been reported. But it reaches an important audience of opinion and policy makers. It will also likely set the tone for other national coverage of the agency as other media read the piece.
About $90 million in First Round Grants
California's stem cell agency is preparing to ladle out something in the neighborhood of $90 million in grants in the first cycle of what some call the stem cell gold rush.
Based on “conceptual blueprints” prepared by CIRM, most of the money –roughly $60 million – will go for grants for “centers of excellence.” Another $20 million or so will aim at creating 'intellectual infrastructure.” Up to $10 million is slated for seed grants.
Barred from consideration during the first cycle of grants are large “individual initiated” proposals as well as proposals from commercial firms and proposals for clinical research. Those apparently will be considered after standards for research, conflict of interest and intellectual property are developed.
The outline of the first cycle of grants is “evolutionary,” according CIRM documents. What that seems to means is that all of this information is subject to change without notice and probably is already out-of-date. The timetable for proposals is not available but CIRM officials have said they want to distribute some cash by May.
In fact, the document on which this article is based is no longer available on the CIRM site. It was removed with no explanation posted on the web site nor was it replaced with more recent information.
That said, here is a summary of the various categories:
Centers of excellence: Annual grants of $5-$7 million each, including costs of leasing. Bidders are expected to be consortium of institutions or a team of scientists at a single institution.
Intellectual infrastructure: Grants aimed at training post-docs, medical students, young faculty “to populate the field of stem cell research with excellent scientists and physicians.”
Seed grants: Individual grants of about $50,000 to $150,000 for new or established scientists so they can “gather preliminary data on a new idea.” These grants are also aimed at “scientists established in a field other than stem cell research who have promising ideas that, subject to documentation, would justify refocusing their efforts in the stem cell research field.”
If you are interested in receiving the full document, which is a one-page PDF file, please email us at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
---------
Comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be published. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Based on “conceptual blueprints” prepared by CIRM, most of the money –roughly $60 million – will go for grants for “centers of excellence.” Another $20 million or so will aim at creating 'intellectual infrastructure.” Up to $10 million is slated for seed grants.
Barred from consideration during the first cycle of grants are large “individual initiated” proposals as well as proposals from commercial firms and proposals for clinical research. Those apparently will be considered after standards for research, conflict of interest and intellectual property are developed.
The outline of the first cycle of grants is “evolutionary,” according CIRM documents. What that seems to means is that all of this information is subject to change without notice and probably is already out-of-date. The timetable for proposals is not available but CIRM officials have said they want to distribute some cash by May.
In fact, the document on which this article is based is no longer available on the CIRM site. It was removed with no explanation posted on the web site nor was it replaced with more recent information.
That said, here is a summary of the various categories:
Centers of excellence: Annual grants of $5-$7 million each, including costs of leasing. Bidders are expected to be consortium of institutions or a team of scientists at a single institution.
Intellectual infrastructure: Grants aimed at training post-docs, medical students, young faculty “to populate the field of stem cell research with excellent scientists and physicians.”
Seed grants: Individual grants of about $50,000 to $150,000 for new or established scientists so they can “gather preliminary data on a new idea.” These grants are also aimed at “scientists established in a field other than stem cell research who have promising ideas that, subject to documentation, would justify refocusing their efforts in the stem cell research field.”
If you are interested in receiving the full document, which is a one-page PDF file, please email us at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
---------
Comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be published. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Facilities Meeting on Feb. 22
The search subcommittee of the Scientific and Medical Research Facilities Working Group Sunday scheduled a meeting for Feb. 22 to discuss criteria and processes for selecting members of the full facilities working group.
Also on the agenda is “consideration of cost effectiveness for facilities grants including discussion of prototype development, renovation of existing facilities and specialized facilities.”
The meeting will be at 9 a.m. at UCLA with teleconference locations at UC Davis, Stanford and the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.
The full agenda should be available at the CIRM website.
Also on the agenda is “consideration of cost effectiveness for facilities grants including discussion of prototype development, renovation of existing facilities and specialized facilities.”
The meeting will be at 9 a.m. at UCLA with teleconference locations at UC Davis, Stanford and the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.
The full agenda should be available at the CIRM website.
Finding a Focus
Stuart Spencer, the San Francisco search firm hired to help fill “one of the highest-profile leadership positions now being advertised in the scientific world,” may have a little trouble focusing on the task.
That's because it is also bidding to become the search firm to find the new CEO at Hewlett-Packard.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of difference, the Wall Street Journal last week had several front page stories (more inside) on the HP vacancy. It had none on the California stem cell agency.
The HP position is also likely to pay something in the range of $5 to $10 million annually. The CIRM position is more like $500,000 or less. Stuart Spencer is being paid $150,000, plus expenses, for its job with the state of California. No word on the size of the HP contract.
That's because it is also bidding to become the search firm to find the new CEO at Hewlett-Packard.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of difference, the Wall Street Journal last week had several front page stories (more inside) on the HP vacancy. It had none on the California stem cell agency.
The HP position is also likely to pay something in the range of $5 to $10 million annually. The CIRM position is more like $500,000 or less. Stuart Spencer is being paid $150,000, plus expenses, for its job with the state of California. No word on the size of the HP contract.
Stuart Spencer reports that it has 300 "consultants" who are available to find execs. It also reports that it "conducted nearly 4,000 assignments" last year.
Writer Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle came up with the description of the CIRM chief's position as the “one of the highest profile....”
Just Call Him Scoop
Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle seems to have beaten his rivals at other California newspapers with a story that Zach W. Hall of the University of Southern California is the leading candidate to become the interim executive of the California stem cell agency.
Hall – the potential big cheese for CIRM, not the writer – is currently the medical research dean at USC. The Chronicle's report describes him as “a veteran neuroscientist, medical-school administrator and biotech entrepreneur.”
Also in the running is cell biologist Melissa Carpenter, a principal investigator at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ontario.
According to writer Hall, Dean Hall was one four scientific founders and the former chief executive of a Massachusetts company called EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. It was created in 2001 to develop new treatments for diseases of the nervous system.
“The company apparently has no projects involving stem cell research,” Hall reported.
The Chronicle also quoted colleagues of the 67-year-old Hall as describing him as a “gifted administrator.”
“Hall was recruited to California from Harvard in 1976 to join the faculty at UCSF, where he was head of neurobiology and chair of the physiology department. From 1994 to 1997, Hall took a leave from UCSF to serve as director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a part of the NIH.
“He returned to full-time duty at UCSF and became vice chancellor for research in 1998. Hall helped direct the gargantuan planning effort that went into UCSF's Mission Bay campus, a 43-acre project along San Francisco's southern bay shore. Mission Bay is one of several possible locations around the state for the new stem cell institute's headquarters,” the Chronicle said.
Writer Hall said that the dean is not expected to be selected as the permanent chief of the agency. It was not clear whether there was any relationship between the writer and the dean but unlikely.
Hall – the potential big cheese for CIRM, not the writer – is currently the medical research dean at USC. The Chronicle's report describes him as “a veteran neuroscientist, medical-school administrator and biotech entrepreneur.”
Also in the running is cell biologist Melissa Carpenter, a principal investigator at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ontario.
According to writer Hall, Dean Hall was one four scientific founders and the former chief executive of a Massachusetts company called EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. It was created in 2001 to develop new treatments for diseases of the nervous system.
“The company apparently has no projects involving stem cell research,” Hall reported.
The Chronicle also quoted colleagues of the 67-year-old Hall as describing him as a “gifted administrator.”
“Hall was recruited to California from Harvard in 1976 to join the faculty at UCSF, where he was head of neurobiology and chair of the physiology department. From 1994 to 1997, Hall took a leave from UCSF to serve as director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a part of the NIH.
“He returned to full-time duty at UCSF and became vice chancellor for research in 1998. Hall helped direct the gargantuan planning effort that went into UCSF's Mission Bay campus, a 43-acre project along San Francisco's southern bay shore. Mission Bay is one of several possible locations around the state for the new stem cell institute's headquarters,” the Chronicle said.
Writer Hall said that the dean is not expected to be selected as the permanent chief of the agency. It was not clear whether there was any relationship between the writer and the dean but unlikely.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Tough CIRM Application Disappears
California's stem cell agency has dropped its probing and perhaps invasive job application form from its web site. Instead the institute now posts a standard state employment application document.
The disappearance of the application form came after the California Stem Cell Report on Feb. 1 wrote about the nature of the inquiries on the original application. The change on the CIRM web site also occurred after the California Stem Cell Report began to query the appointing authorities, from the governor to UC chancellors, about whether they had asked appointees to the Oversight Committee the same questions posed in the application for CIRM employees.
The original application form vanished from the CIRM web site by Feb. 9, the last time it was checked by the California Stem Cell Report, and was replaced by a plain vanilla form.
In response to an inquiry about the change, Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, “As was discussed at the last ICOC meeting, the initial employment application was taken directly from the Governor's web site. In terms of getting up to speed quickly, the Institute staff utilized the Governor's existing application as a foundation to start from. The application has been edited as you pointed out.”
The Feb. 1 item on this web site about the now retired job application said in part:
“California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no. Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.”
Our conclusion was that these questions should be asked, in one form or another, by CIRM of all applicants, ranging from clerks to president. The reason being is that genuinely big money is at stake. And there is a history of successful temptation in other big money venues.
The questions on the application form, however, raised other questions about whether appointees to the Oversight Committee faced the same interrogation. So we addressed the appropriate appointing powers. But some statewide constitutional officers, including the governor, seem terribly timid about making themselves available to public inquiries via email. The email addresses of some of their press offices, which, in theory, would be the most accessible, are virtually impossible to find. If a reporter is part of the Capitoil press contingent, those email addresses are undoubtedly accessible. But if you are a reporter for the Imperial Valley Press, for example, forget about ever sending an email to the governor's press office. You may never find the address.
An exception was the website and office of the state treasurer, Phil Angelides, whose public spokesman, Dan Newman, responded quickly and professionally. The UC campuses were also generally accessible.
Based on the responses to our query, it appears that none of the appointees to the Oversight Committee have been asked the type of questions that CIRM wanted to ask its potential employees with two possible exceptions, including perhaps the governor.
Here is the question that we posed on Feb. 2 to all the appointing entities: “Were the appointees to the oversight committee asked the questions contained in the application prior to their appointment? (We) plan to publish an item on your response next week. Please send it to us by 3 p.m. PST Wednesday Feb. 9. The other appointing powers for the committee are also being asked the same question.”
Here are the responses by office.
Governor – Did not respond. The application form that Hutton mentioned could not be downloaded at the time of this writing, which may have something to do with our Internet link.
Lt. Gov.-- “The Lieutenant Governor did not ask the questions on that list of prospective CIRM candidates and no one provided him with a list of recommended questions. We took the step of providing each potential candidate with a Form 700 (state economic disclosure form) so they could see just what they would need to declare. We also advised them that they should be prepared to recuse themselves from any votes concerning matters that might pose a potential conflict. Dr. Richard Murphy suggested in the interview that subcommittees that screen grant applications should be staffed by people from other states to minimize conflicts. The Lieutenant Governor liked that idea,” said Stephen Green, a spokesman for Bustamante.
Treasurer – “We had those we were considering fill out our standard State Treasurer's Office appointee application, so, no, we didn't use the application that the CIRM is using,” Dan Newman said. The treasurer's application (sent by email) is close to what CIRM had, which is not unexpected considering the sensitive nature of the billions of dollars of investments handled by the treasuer's office. The questions on the treasurer's form include whether the applicant has been involved in an “appearance” of a conflict of interest, has written letters-to-the-editor on controversial subjects and whether the applicant has anything in his or her background that could reflect negatively on the treasurer and more along those lines. (Send us an email if you would like to us to send you the entire application, which is not available online.)
Controller --.Did not respond.
Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, now out office – Could not be reached.
Assembly Speaker – Did not respond.
UC Chancellors – Lisa Lapin, assistant vice chancellor at UC Davis answered first. Her response then became the response of all the chancellors. (For newsgatherers, that is one of the perils of asking questions with a long lead time for response. Everybody's response is easily coordinated, ducks can be aligned, candidness is lost and so forth. But if they aren't given a long lead time for a response, our public information officers often yip like wounded coyotes.)
Here is the UC answer:
“Because the five ICOC members appointed from the UC medical schools are, by virtue of their UC positions, (public officials under the Political Reform Act, they had already filled out state disclosure forms listing their economic interests (Form 700), even before their appointment to the ICOC. Before announcing our appointments, UC reviewed with each member the interests listed on their form and discussed with them the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and of recusing themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial interest, as required by law.
“The CIRM employment application form was just recently posted to CIRM's website. It is not something we had seen prior to the appointment of the University'ss ICC representatives. UC Davis Medical School Dean and Vice Chancellor of our health system, Claire Pomeroy, our appointee, has not subsequently been asked by Institute staff to respond to the questions listed on the CIRM application form.”
-------
Your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be posted. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
The disappearance of the application form came after the California Stem Cell Report on Feb. 1 wrote about the nature of the inquiries on the original application. The change on the CIRM web site also occurred after the California Stem Cell Report began to query the appointing authorities, from the governor to UC chancellors, about whether they had asked appointees to the Oversight Committee the same questions posed in the application for CIRM employees.
The original application form vanished from the CIRM web site by Feb. 9, the last time it was checked by the California Stem Cell Report, and was replaced by a plain vanilla form.
In response to an inquiry about the change, Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, “As was discussed at the last ICOC meeting, the initial employment application was taken directly from the Governor's web site. In terms of getting up to speed quickly, the Institute staff utilized the Governor's existing application as a foundation to start from. The application has been edited as you pointed out.”
The Feb. 1 item on this web site about the now retired job application said in part:
“California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no. Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.”
Our conclusion was that these questions should be asked, in one form or another, by CIRM of all applicants, ranging from clerks to president. The reason being is that genuinely big money is at stake. And there is a history of successful temptation in other big money venues.
The questions on the application form, however, raised other questions about whether appointees to the Oversight Committee faced the same interrogation. So we addressed the appropriate appointing powers. But some statewide constitutional officers, including the governor, seem terribly timid about making themselves available to public inquiries via email. The email addresses of some of their press offices, which, in theory, would be the most accessible, are virtually impossible to find. If a reporter is part of the Capitoil press contingent, those email addresses are undoubtedly accessible. But if you are a reporter for the Imperial Valley Press, for example, forget about ever sending an email to the governor's press office. You may never find the address.
An exception was the website and office of the state treasurer, Phil Angelides, whose public spokesman, Dan Newman, responded quickly and professionally. The UC campuses were also generally accessible.
Based on the responses to our query, it appears that none of the appointees to the Oversight Committee have been asked the type of questions that CIRM wanted to ask its potential employees with two possible exceptions, including perhaps the governor.
Here is the question that we posed on Feb. 2 to all the appointing entities: “Were the appointees to the oversight committee asked the questions contained in the application prior to their appointment? (We) plan to publish an item on your response next week. Please send it to us by 3 p.m. PST Wednesday Feb. 9. The other appointing powers for the committee are also being asked the same question.”
Here are the responses by office.
Governor – Did not respond. The application form that Hutton mentioned could not be downloaded at the time of this writing, which may have something to do with our Internet link.
Lt. Gov.-- “The Lieutenant Governor did not ask the questions on that list of prospective CIRM candidates and no one provided him with a list of recommended questions. We took the step of providing each potential candidate with a Form 700 (state economic disclosure form) so they could see just what they would need to declare. We also advised them that they should be prepared to recuse themselves from any votes concerning matters that might pose a potential conflict. Dr. Richard Murphy suggested in the interview that subcommittees that screen grant applications should be staffed by people from other states to minimize conflicts. The Lieutenant Governor liked that idea,” said Stephen Green, a spokesman for Bustamante.
Treasurer – “We had those we were considering fill out our standard State Treasurer's Office appointee application, so, no, we didn't use the application that the CIRM is using,” Dan Newman said. The treasurer's application (sent by email) is close to what CIRM had, which is not unexpected considering the sensitive nature of the billions of dollars of investments handled by the treasuer's office. The questions on the treasurer's form include whether the applicant has been involved in an “appearance” of a conflict of interest, has written letters-to-the-editor on controversial subjects and whether the applicant has anything in his or her background that could reflect negatively on the treasurer and more along those lines. (Send us an email if you would like to us to send you the entire application, which is not available online.)
Controller --.Did not respond.
Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, now out office – Could not be reached.
Assembly Speaker – Did not respond.
UC Chancellors – Lisa Lapin, assistant vice chancellor at UC Davis answered first. Her response then became the response of all the chancellors. (For newsgatherers, that is one of the perils of asking questions with a long lead time for response. Everybody's response is easily coordinated, ducks can be aligned, candidness is lost and so forth. But if they aren't given a long lead time for a response, our public information officers often yip like wounded coyotes.)
Here is the UC answer:
“Because the five ICOC members appointed from the UC medical schools are, by virtue of their UC positions, (public officials under the Political Reform Act, they had already filled out state disclosure forms listing their economic interests (Form 700), even before their appointment to the ICOC. Before announcing our appointments, UC reviewed with each member the interests listed on their form and discussed with them the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and of recusing themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial interest, as required by law.
“The CIRM employment application form was just recently posted to CIRM's website. It is not something we had seen prior to the appointment of the University'ss ICC representatives. UC Davis Medical School Dean and Vice Chancellor of our health system, Claire Pomeroy, our appointee, has not subsequently been asked by Institute staff to respond to the questions listed on the CIRM application form.”
-------
Your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be posted. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Reaction to Chiron-Wareham Link Piece
The California Stem Cell Report asked both CIRM and Wareham Development for responses to the item posted earlier this week concerning links that Wareham say its has with Chiron, one of whose founders is vice chairman of the oversight committee.
Here is the comment from Tim Gallen, a spokesman for Wareham:
“Wareham has been one of Chiron’s landlords since the company was founded. So, in the past, Chiron leased research space from Wareham and still does -- along with 27 other research companies in Emeryville, Berkeley and Richmond. But, as 'financial links' go, we both know that a common lease is hardly the kind of relationship I believe Mr. Klein was addressing in his remarks to San Diego journalist, Terri Somers.”
The agency has not replied to our inquiry. However, it posted on its web site either late Monday, Feb. 7, or today, Feb. 8, a press release dated Feb. 3. The item said:
“The lessor(Wareham) does not have any interest in firms or agencies competing for grants to be awarded by the Institute. The Institute staff worked through the State Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the State Controller’s Office to audit available office space and ultimately select the Horton Street location(in Emeryville).”
Here is the comment from Tim Gallen, a spokesman for Wareham:
“Wareham has been one of Chiron’s landlords since the company was founded. So, in the past, Chiron leased research space from Wareham and still does -- along with 27 other research companies in Emeryville, Berkeley and Richmond. But, as 'financial links' go, we both know that a common lease is hardly the kind of relationship I believe Mr. Klein was addressing in his remarks to San Diego journalist, Terri Somers.”
The agency has not replied to our inquiry. However, it posted on its web site either late Monday, Feb. 7, or today, Feb. 8, a press release dated Feb. 3. The item said:
“The lessor(Wareham) does not have any interest in firms or agencies competing for grants to be awarded by the Institute. The Institute staff worked through the State Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the State Controller’s Office to audit available office space and ultimately select the Horton Street location(in Emeryville).”
CIRM Web Site Developments
CIRM's web site is changing. The information is about the same as two days ago, but it does have a press release dated Feb. 3 that was not there on the afternoon of Feb. 7.
The press release contains information that was widely reported in the media on Feb. 4 although with a few more details, depending on what you read.
The changes in the site seem to make it conform to the format and graphics of most California state web sites. It now includes a mug shot of Arnold and a link to his page, for example.
The next step, we hope, is to provide background information packets well in advance of meetings as is the practice of most local and state government bodies in California.
The press release contains information that was widely reported in the media on Feb. 4 although with a few more details, depending on what you read.
The changes in the site seem to make it conform to the format and graphics of most California state web sites. It now includes a mug shot of Arnold and a link to his page, for example.
The next step, we hope, is to provide background information packets well in advance of meetings as is the practice of most local and state government bodies in California.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Legislative hearings scheduled for March 2
California State Sen. Deborah Ortiz today scheduled a hearing to look into the California stem cell agency, covering everything from conflicts-of-interest to intellectual property rights.
The three-way "informational hearing" will include members from both the Senate and Assembly Health Committee as well as the newly created Senate Subcommittee on Stem Cell Research Oversight.
The hearing will be held on March 2, from 1:30 – 5:00, in Room 4203 of the State Capitol.
The Democratic senator's office said topics of the hearing will include:
"Policies and standards to ensure diversity in Prop. 71 appointments, hiring, and contracting;
"Treatment of intellectual property rights arising from research funded by the ICOC(the oversight committee);
"Application of open meeting laws and standards to ICOC working groups and subcommittee;
"Adoption of conflict of interest and economic disclosure standards for members of the ICOC and its working groups;
"Development of standards to protect research subjects and donors; and
"Prop. 71 auditing and public accountability functions."
Persons interested in testifying should contact the senator's aide at the following email address: Peter.Hansel@sen.ca.gov.
The three-way "informational hearing" will include members from both the Senate and Assembly Health Committee as well as the newly created Senate Subcommittee on Stem Cell Research Oversight.
The hearing will be held on March 2, from 1:30 – 5:00, in Room 4203 of the State Capitol.
The Democratic senator's office said topics of the hearing will include:
"Policies and standards to ensure diversity in Prop. 71 appointments, hiring, and contracting;
"Treatment of intellectual property rights arising from research funded by the ICOC(the oversight committee);
"Application of open meeting laws and standards to ICOC working groups and subcommittee;
"Adoption of conflict of interest and economic disclosure standards for members of the ICOC and its working groups;
"Development of standards to protect research subjects and donors; and
"Prop. 71 auditing and public accountability functions."
Persons interested in testifying should contact the senator's aide at the following email address: Peter.Hansel@sen.ca.gov.
The Bee Stings CIRM
“Rife with questionable entanglements” is how The Sacramento Bee describes California's new stem cell agency.
The language was contained in an unsigned editorial in The Bee on Sunday. That means it represents the institutional opinion of that newspaper's ownership.
The Bee's editorial was strong. It remarked on the new standards at the NIH and said California's agency should learn from the controversies that have unsettled the NIH.
The Bee was not happy with the conduct of CIRM so far. It said that at the meeting of the oversight committee last week, “comittee member Leon Thal asked if members themselves could apply for grants. To everyone's amazement, the oversight committee started to entertain this idea. After journalists started raising questions, committee members quickly re-adjourned and put the kibosh on granting grants to themselves.”
“If the committee wants to retain a semblance of credibility, it needs to set ethics standards that are as strong, if not stronger, than those of the NIH,” The Bee declared.
One thing to keep in mind about newspaper editorials is that surveys show that they are read by a small segment of readers, as opposed to the percentage who read the front page. That said, politicians and other community leaders often think newspaper editorials are meaningful.
(My apologies to The Bee and the readers of this blog for the headline on this item. I could not help myself.)
The language was contained in an unsigned editorial in The Bee on Sunday. That means it represents the institutional opinion of that newspaper's ownership.
The Bee's editorial was strong. It remarked on the new standards at the NIH and said California's agency should learn from the controversies that have unsettled the NIH.
The Bee was not happy with the conduct of CIRM so far. It said that at the meeting of the oversight committee last week, “comittee member Leon Thal asked if members themselves could apply for grants. To everyone's amazement, the oversight committee started to entertain this idea. After journalists started raising questions, committee members quickly re-adjourned and put the kibosh on granting grants to themselves.”
“If the committee wants to retain a semblance of credibility, it needs to set ethics standards that are as strong, if not stronger, than those of the NIH,” The Bee declared.
One thing to keep in mind about newspaper editorials is that surveys show that they are read by a small segment of readers, as opposed to the percentage who read the front page. That said, politicians and other community leaders often think newspaper editorials are meaningful.
(My apologies to The Bee and the readers of this blog for the headline on this item. I could not help myself.)
Sunday, February 06, 2005
CIRM Landlord Says It Linked to Chiron
The California stem cell agency's new landlord, Wareham Development, says it has links to Chiron Corp., one of whose founders is vice chairman of the state stem cell agency, Ed Penhoet.
The relationship to Chiron is touted on Wareham's web site and was discovered as part of research by the California Stem Cell Report.
Wareham's web site, on its "about" page, says, “Our history of fostering the newer, smaller, incubating company is exemplified in our relationship with Chiron Corporation, which began in the 1980s when we became one of Chiron's first landlords.”
Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said last week, however, that Wareham “is not connected to him, to any committee member or to any entity that might benefit from the stem cell grant money,” according to a report by Terri Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune.
Penhoet sits on Chiron's board and owns more than $1 million in Chiron stock, according to filings with the state.
While the statement on Wareham's site appears to indicate there is some sort of current financial link between it and Chiron, that could be marketing rhetoric based on past landlord-tenant relationships.
Nonetheless it seems likely that top management at Chiron, which is based in Emeryville, and Wareham, located across the bay in San Rafael, have an ongoing connection, given the Internet display of their history.
CIRM announced its decision last week to move into a Wareham site this coming Friday in Emeryville in the East Bay area of San Francisco. For the first seven months, CIRM will pay no rent on the lease of 7,416 square feet of office space. After that it will pay market rates on a month-to-month basis, according to a report by Judy Silber in the Contra Costa Times. Another report in the San Diego Union Tribune says, however, the rates will be below market. Furniture and building improvements will be also provided free, according to the San Diego Transcript (no link available).
The decision to house the agency temporarily in Emeryville does not mean that Wareham or Emeryville will have an edge in the tussle for the permanent headquarters, according to CIRM officials.
However, inertia can always play a factor in relocation decisions. It is time-consuming and expensive to move. Beyond that, Wareham has a track record with state agencies and should be comfortable in dealing with CIRM officials and with the state's legal requirements regarding office space.
The suitors for CIRM are waging an energetic courtship. San Diego is considering a $5 million pool to help with the “moving, housing and other costs” to bring stem cell super stars to its area, according to a report by Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune. Increasing the density of top researchers presumably would make the area more attractive as a headquarters location as well.
Something along those lines is likely to be offered by other competitors, given the extreme housing costs in California, which are among the highest in the nation. In fact, San Diego was recently ranked as one of the most least affordable places in the nation to buy a home. The Bay Area is not much better.
Klein and other CIRM directors have made it clear they are expecting major incentives from cities seeking the headquarters, which will house up to 50 employees. Likely to play a significant role as well are the preferences of the top candidates for the CEO position at CIRM (see the previous item on this blog called "CEO Reality" Jan. 27). Selection of that person is also underway as well.
So far the following areas have been mentioned in the media as potential locations for the headquarters: San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Central Valley and Riverside County.
The agency is working rapidly to decide on the location. It had plans to issue an RFP this week and make a selection next month.
Cities are keeping the details of their bids confidential lest they tip off competitors. But some information has emerged.
Here is a look at what has surfaced.
San Francisco – The package focuses on Townsend Center, a building at 650 Townsend St. owned by Bernard Osher, according to a report by Daniel S. Levine in the San Francisco Business Times. He said Osher contributed $250,000 to the Yes on Prop. 71 campaign. California State Sens. Carole Migden, Don Perata and Jackie Speier and U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein support either the Bay Area or San Francisco, according to Levine.
San Diego – Few details of the San Diego proposal have emerged except for the $5 million fund plan.
Sacramento – The city is offering 15,000 square feet of space at no charge for a certain period in a building on the Sacramento River in Old Sacramento, close to the state Capitol, according to a report by Dale Kasler in The Sacramento Bee. Discounted rates would apply thereafter. The building at One Capitol Mall is controlled by the Tsakopoulos family, which is very well connected in Democratic politics.
Little has been reported about bids by other areas.
-------
Comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
The relationship to Chiron is touted on Wareham's web site and was discovered as part of research by the California Stem Cell Report.
Wareham's web site, on its "about" page, says, “Our history of fostering the newer, smaller, incubating company is exemplified in our relationship with Chiron Corporation, which began in the 1980s when we became one of Chiron's first landlords.”
Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said last week, however, that Wareham “is not connected to him, to any committee member or to any entity that might benefit from the stem cell grant money,” according to a report by Terri Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune.
Penhoet sits on Chiron's board and owns more than $1 million in Chiron stock, according to filings with the state.
While the statement on Wareham's site appears to indicate there is some sort of current financial link between it and Chiron, that could be marketing rhetoric based on past landlord-tenant relationships.
Nonetheless it seems likely that top management at Chiron, which is based in Emeryville, and Wareham, located across the bay in San Rafael, have an ongoing connection, given the Internet display of their history.
CIRM announced its decision last week to move into a Wareham site this coming Friday in Emeryville in the East Bay area of San Francisco. For the first seven months, CIRM will pay no rent on the lease of 7,416 square feet of office space. After that it will pay market rates on a month-to-month basis, according to a report by Judy Silber in the Contra Costa Times. Another report in the San Diego Union Tribune says, however, the rates will be below market. Furniture and building improvements will be also provided free, according to the San Diego Transcript (no link available).
The decision to house the agency temporarily in Emeryville does not mean that Wareham or Emeryville will have an edge in the tussle for the permanent headquarters, according to CIRM officials.
However, inertia can always play a factor in relocation decisions. It is time-consuming and expensive to move. Beyond that, Wareham has a track record with state agencies and should be comfortable in dealing with CIRM officials and with the state's legal requirements regarding office space.
The suitors for CIRM are waging an energetic courtship. San Diego is considering a $5 million pool to help with the “moving, housing and other costs” to bring stem cell super stars to its area, according to a report by Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune. Increasing the density of top researchers presumably would make the area more attractive as a headquarters location as well.
Something along those lines is likely to be offered by other competitors, given the extreme housing costs in California, which are among the highest in the nation. In fact, San Diego was recently ranked as one of the most least affordable places in the nation to buy a home. The Bay Area is not much better.
Klein and other CIRM directors have made it clear they are expecting major incentives from cities seeking the headquarters, which will house up to 50 employees. Likely to play a significant role as well are the preferences of the top candidates for the CEO position at CIRM (see the previous item on this blog called "CEO Reality" Jan. 27). Selection of that person is also underway as well.
So far the following areas have been mentioned in the media as potential locations for the headquarters: San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Central Valley and Riverside County.
The agency is working rapidly to decide on the location. It had plans to issue an RFP this week and make a selection next month.
Cities are keeping the details of their bids confidential lest they tip off competitors. But some information has emerged.
Here is a look at what has surfaced.
San Francisco – The package focuses on Townsend Center, a building at 650 Townsend St. owned by Bernard Osher, according to a report by Daniel S. Levine in the San Francisco Business Times. He said Osher contributed $250,000 to the Yes on Prop. 71 campaign. California State Sens. Carole Migden, Don Perata and Jackie Speier and U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein support either the Bay Area or San Francisco, according to Levine.
San Diego – Few details of the San Diego proposal have emerged except for the $5 million fund plan.
Sacramento – The city is offering 15,000 square feet of space at no charge for a certain period in a building on the Sacramento River in Old Sacramento, close to the state Capitol, according to a report by Dale Kasler in The Sacramento Bee. Discounted rates would apply thereafter. The building at One Capitol Mall is controlled by the Tsakopoulos family, which is very well connected in Democratic politics.
Little has been reported about bids by other areas.
-------
Comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Coming Up
The contest for the HQ location of the California stem cell agency is on a fast track with a host of competitors offering big incentives. Look for a roundup on the situation in Monday's California Stem Cell Report.
Readers Write
Nuns and Ham-handed Questions
This comment comes from Jeff Raimundo, longtime political consultant in Sacramento:
"I have to disagree with you in part about your take on "bags of swag."
"Clearly, (Robert) Klein himself would have trouble getting past CIRM's
"'Might your income or investments present an 'appearance' of a
conflict of interest? Yes or no. Is there anything in your background
that could embarrass us? Yes or no.' -- Ya think!?
"If Klein can answer those questions in the negative, what applicant is going to think any differently? Those are the kinds of questions I think ARE entirely appropriate for later interviews, for the reasons you outlined. At the front end, however, they are imprecise, ham-handed and hypocritical.
"CIRM has great promise and probably should be excused for early
glitches on its maiden voyage. But such a public display of
holier-than-thou attitude by bosses who can't pass the test themselves
sets CIRM up as a too-easy target for critics."
The following comes from retired historian Tom Hall of Berkeley:
"The Bags of Swag is a nice piece that raises all kinds of interesting
questions about the realism of public expectations. Abe Lincoln would
never been elected president if he had to submit to such a test prior to
being nominated. The only ones who could pass the test are cloistered
nuns, and I'm not so sure they could."
Send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
This comment comes from Jeff Raimundo, longtime political consultant in Sacramento:
"I have to disagree with you in part about your take on "bags of swag."
"Clearly, (Robert) Klein himself would have trouble getting past CIRM's
"'Might your income or investments present an 'appearance' of a
conflict of interest? Yes or no. Is there anything in your background
that could embarrass us? Yes or no.' -- Ya think!?
"If Klein can answer those questions in the negative, what applicant is going to think any differently? Those are the kinds of questions I think ARE entirely appropriate for later interviews, for the reasons you outlined. At the front end, however, they are imprecise, ham-handed and hypocritical.
"CIRM has great promise and probably should be excused for early
glitches on its maiden voyage. But such a public display of
holier-than-thou attitude by bosses who can't pass the test themselves
sets CIRM up as a too-easy target for critics."
The following comes from retired historian Tom Hall of Berkeley:
"The Bags of Swag is a nice piece that raises all kinds of interesting
questions about the realism of public expectations. Abe Lincoln would
never been elected president if he had to submit to such a test prior to
being nominated. The only ones who could pass the test are cloistered
nuns, and I'm not so sure they could."
Send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Cannonade Leveled at CIRM
The Center for Genetics-and-Society has launched a sweeping broadside at the California stem cell agency. We haven't had a chance to read it all yet but will have more on it later. It is sure to be an item of interest at the Oversight Committee meeting today. Below is a quick summary from the center. You can see all that the center has to say by going to its website. The center's charges allege:
"Inadequate conflict of interest rules for members of the ICOC and the three working groups established by Proposition 71.
"Unjustified exemptions of the three working groups from state rules on open meetings, conflict of interest, and public reporting.
"Troubling overlaps and conflicts among CIRM, the California Research and Cures Coalition, the debts of the "Yes on 71" campaign, ICOC Chair Robert Klein's business operations, and his personal finances."
"Inadequate conflict of interest rules for members of the ICOC and the three working groups established by Proposition 71.
"Unjustified exemptions of the three working groups from state rules on open meetings, conflict of interest, and public reporting.
"Troubling overlaps and conflicts among CIRM, the California Research and Cures Coalition, the debts of the "Yes on 71" campaign, ICOC Chair Robert Klein's business operations, and his personal finances."
CIRM Sayings: Cowboys and Hell to Pay
What are people saying about the California stem cell agency? Here are a few quotes that seem of current interest. If you have any offerings for this intermittent feature on this blog, please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
"If the money is spent and there aren't effective treatments that result, I think there will be hell to pay."Joan Samuelson, CIRM oversight committee member, as quoted on MSNBC Jan. 21, 2005
"They (other states) are putting proposals together to retain people. It may cost more because all of a sudden these scientists are being competed for." Arnold Kriegstein, director of UCSF stem-cell research program, as quoted in the San Francisco Business Times Jan. 28, 2005, article by Daniel S. Levine
"We're going to have to do the science. We can't have cowboys out there doing things, especially when it comes to patients." Dr. David Kessler, oversight committee member, dean of the UCSF medical school and former head of the FDA, as quoted Jan. 21, 2005, MSBNC.
“I pledge to serve the interests of California citizens, its patients and its taxpayers. In doing so, I am committed to transparency in process, public oversight and accountability, and the highest ethical and medical standards possible.” Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight committee, in a statement issued Dec. 13, 2004.
"If the money is spent and there aren't effective treatments that result, I think there will be hell to pay."Joan Samuelson, CIRM oversight committee member, as quoted on MSNBC Jan. 21, 2005
"They (other states) are putting proposals together to retain people. It may cost more because all of a sudden these scientists are being competed for." Arnold Kriegstein, director of UCSF stem-cell research program, as quoted in the San Francisco Business Times Jan. 28, 2005, article by Daniel S. Levine
"We're going to have to do the science. We can't have cowboys out there doing things, especially when it comes to patients." Dr. David Kessler, oversight committee member, dean of the UCSF medical school and former head of the FDA, as quoted Jan. 21, 2005, MSBNC.
“I pledge to serve the interests of California citizens, its patients and its taxpayers. In doing so, I am committed to transparency in process, public oversight and accountability, and the highest ethical and medical standards possible.” Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight committee, in a statement issued Dec. 13, 2004.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Prop. 71 Campaign Spends nearly $35 million
The Los Angeles Times has reported on last fall's campaign spending. Here is what reporter Dan Morain had to say about the California stem cell measure:
"Promoters of Proposition 71, which authorized the state to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, spent $34.7 million.The Yes On 71 campaign reported a debt of almost $6.5 million.
"In the final days before the November election, venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann Doerr, lent the campaign a combined $1 million, as did Robert Klein, who since has been named chairman of the board overseeing the initiative's implementation.
"Altogether, Klein, a Palo Alto developer, gave or lent the campaign $2.1 million and spent an additional $200,000 on other state campaigns, placing him among the biggest individual spenders on state politics in 2004.
"A campaign spokeswoman said backers of the stem cell initiative intend to raise money to pay off the Doerrs, various vendors who worked for the campaign and possibly Klein — raising the possibility that entities and individuals seeking stem cell research money could make donations that would help Klein recoup some of the $1 million loan."
"Promoters of Proposition 71, which authorized the state to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, spent $34.7 million.The Yes On 71 campaign reported a debt of almost $6.5 million.
"In the final days before the November election, venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann Doerr, lent the campaign a combined $1 million, as did Robert Klein, who since has been named chairman of the board overseeing the initiative's implementation.
"Altogether, Klein, a Palo Alto developer, gave or lent the campaign $2.1 million and spent an additional $200,000 on other state campaigns, placing him among the biggest individual spenders on state politics in 2004.
"A campaign spokeswoman said backers of the stem cell initiative intend to raise money to pay off the Doerrs, various vendors who worked for the campaign and possibly Klein — raising the possibility that entities and individuals seeking stem cell research money could make donations that would help Klein recoup some of the $1 million loan."
Hiring and Appearances, Integrity and Bags of Swag
California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no.
Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.
The inquiries are part of the job application form on CIRM's web site. All are also on the same form for applicants for position of interim CEO of the agency.
The questions seem to be testimony to how seriously CIRM takes the concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability and integrity. They are tough questions, ones that would make many of us uncomfortable. They go way beyond inquiries that this writer dealt with in 1975 when he worked for the governor of California, who also happened to be the sponsor of the state's first and only major economic disclosure law. But that was before Enron and Worldcom, Irangate and Monicagate.
Some might regard the inquiries on the CIRM application as a personal invasion. Nonetheless, they are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of aspirants for top positions at the agency, which is likely to be subjected to excruciatingly close scrutiny by its foes. If you are doing the hiring for such jobs, you need to know the very worst about the people you are considering. One recent spectacular failure to do so came in the Bush administration with the former police commissioner from New York.
On the other hand, one must ask whether such questions discourage good candidates? The answer? Yes, they do. It is currently a major problem and an unfortunate reality that pervades all of public life. But, if you have bones in the closet, you or your agency's enemies are going to drag them into scandalous public view.
Should these employment questions apply as well to lower level employees, such as clerks? I am sad to say, yes. It is a terrible imposition to ask a $25,000-a-year or so employee to face such inquiries. But there is ample history of low level employees leaking sensitive information when properly primed by those seeking the information.
Little doubt exists that some not-so-ethical private sector folks are likely to tempt both the big and little cheeses at CIRM with large bags of swag for information. Extremely valuable intellectual property will be housed at the stem cell agency, including trade secrets and confidential research. The stakes are huge. CIRM will be giving away $300 million a year. But that is nothing compared to what the ultimate profits might be on a successful stem cell venture.
The questions on the application are a good first step at ensuring CIRM's integrity. The new agency is already under fire concerning conflicts of interest, an issue that CIRM will have to live with because it will never go away, given the nature of the law that created it.
That said, putting the questions on the application is not enough. The written responses must be buttressed by probing interviews with applicants by several persons. All too often, the formalities of applications become overwhelmed by a boss who wants a particular person, often with good reason.
One might also ask whether members of the oversight committee faced identical questions prior to their appointments. It is doubtful. You could argue that nearly all of them come from positions with high public visibility and have publicly known and respected track records. Thus they are safe appointments. However, that is what President Bush also thought about a certain police commissioner.
As for you readers out there, we would like to know whether you would answer these questions. If not, why not? Please send your replies to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com. We will publish at least portions of the responses.
Here are some additional samples of the actual questions from the application form, which can be found at this site. Look for it at the very bottom of the page.
“Do you own real property, personal property, financial holdings or receive income from any source which might present a potential conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest with your requested appointment?
“Have you been publicly identified, in person or by organizational members, with a particularly controversial national, state or local issue?
“Have you ever submitted oral or written views to any government authority or the news media, on any particular controversial issue other than in an official government capacity?
“Have you ever had any association with any person or group or business venture which could be used, even unfairly, to impugn or question your character and qualifications for the requested appointment?
“Do you know anyone who might take any steps, overtly or covertly, to oppose your appointment?
“Is there anything in your background which if made known to the general public through your appointment would cause an embarrassment to you and/or the administration?”
Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no.
Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.
The inquiries are part of the job application form on CIRM's web site. All are also on the same form for applicants for position of interim CEO of the agency.
The questions seem to be testimony to how seriously CIRM takes the concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability and integrity. They are tough questions, ones that would make many of us uncomfortable. They go way beyond inquiries that this writer dealt with in 1975 when he worked for the governor of California, who also happened to be the sponsor of the state's first and only major economic disclosure law. But that was before Enron and Worldcom, Irangate and Monicagate.
Some might regard the inquiries on the CIRM application as a personal invasion. Nonetheless, they are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of aspirants for top positions at the agency, which is likely to be subjected to excruciatingly close scrutiny by its foes. If you are doing the hiring for such jobs, you need to know the very worst about the people you are considering. One recent spectacular failure to do so came in the Bush administration with the former police commissioner from New York.
On the other hand, one must ask whether such questions discourage good candidates? The answer? Yes, they do. It is currently a major problem and an unfortunate reality that pervades all of public life. But, if you have bones in the closet, you or your agency's enemies are going to drag them into scandalous public view.
Should these employment questions apply as well to lower level employees, such as clerks? I am sad to say, yes. It is a terrible imposition to ask a $25,000-a-year or so employee to face such inquiries. But there is ample history of low level employees leaking sensitive information when properly primed by those seeking the information.
Little doubt exists that some not-so-ethical private sector folks are likely to tempt both the big and little cheeses at CIRM with large bags of swag for information. Extremely valuable intellectual property will be housed at the stem cell agency, including trade secrets and confidential research. The stakes are huge. CIRM will be giving away $300 million a year. But that is nothing compared to what the ultimate profits might be on a successful stem cell venture.
The questions on the application are a good first step at ensuring CIRM's integrity. The new agency is already under fire concerning conflicts of interest, an issue that CIRM will have to live with because it will never go away, given the nature of the law that created it.
That said, putting the questions on the application is not enough. The written responses must be buttressed by probing interviews with applicants by several persons. All too often, the formalities of applications become overwhelmed by a boss who wants a particular person, often with good reason.
One might also ask whether members of the oversight committee faced identical questions prior to their appointments. It is doubtful. You could argue that nearly all of them come from positions with high public visibility and have publicly known and respected track records. Thus they are safe appointments. However, that is what President Bush also thought about a certain police commissioner.
As for you readers out there, we would like to know whether you would answer these questions. If not, why not? Please send your replies to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com. We will publish at least portions of the responses.
Here are some additional samples of the actual questions from the application form, which can be found at this site. Look for it at the very bottom of the page.
“Do you own real property, personal property, financial holdings or receive income from any source which might present a potential conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest with your requested appointment?
“Have you been publicly identified, in person or by organizational members, with a particularly controversial national, state or local issue?
“Have you ever submitted oral or written views to any government authority or the news media, on any particular controversial issue other than in an official government capacity?
“Have you ever had any association with any person or group or business venture which could be used, even unfairly, to impugn or question your character and qualifications for the requested appointment?
“Do you know anyone who might take any steps, overtly or covertly, to oppose your appointment?
“Is there anything in your background which if made known to the general public through your appointment would cause an embarrassment to you and/or the administration?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)