CIRM grant process reveals deep flaws
Posted by Jesse Reynolds February 22, 2007
Biopolitical Times
Last week, the California stem cell research program awarded its first research grants. Although the media coverage was universally laudatory, this milestone was not without significant shortcomings.
What's more, the program is not releasing the names or institutions of the applications that were denied funding. By only knowing part of the story - the funded part - it's impossible to see any biases.
Finally, during the most high-profile meeting of the ICOC since the inception of the stem cell research program, the board struggled to maintain a quorum. It was not met at all on the first day of the two-day meeting, during which grants were approved by "provisional votes." These were confirmed en masse the next day, when there was barely a quorum. This is embarrassing. The ICOC needs to adopt attendance standards.
First, this round of grants represents the first public funding of cloning-based stem cell research in the US. (Two such grants were funded, at Stanford and Burham.) Yet the program's research standards remain inadequate. Oversight of the research will be left in the hands of institutionally-formed, institutionally-affiliated boards that are dominated by researchers themselves.
Second, the grant review process remains deeply flawed. The members of the grant review panel are still not required to publicly disclose their personal financial interests, leaving the door open for conflicts of interest. (The agency, however, did take the step of indicating which members of the review panel were recused from which application review.) This panel is supposedly advisory, because the program's governing board, the ICOC, is required to give final approval of the grants. But in fact, the ICOC voted on many of them in blocks and did little more than demarcate a funding line in the ordered rankings of the "advisory" review board. This makes the grant review panel a de facto decision-making body, which by California law must disclose personal financial interests.
Second, the grant review process remains deeply flawed. The members of the grant review panel are still not required to publicly disclose their personal financial interests, leaving the door open for conflicts of interest. (The agency, however, did take the step of indicating which members of the review panel were recused from which application review.) This panel is supposedly advisory, because the program's governing board, the ICOC, is required to give final approval of the grants. But in fact, the ICOC voted on many of them in blocks and did little more than demarcate a funding line in the ordered rankings of the "advisory" review board. This makes the grant review panel a de facto decision-making body, which by California law must disclose personal financial interests.
What's more, the program is not releasing the names or institutions of the applications that were denied funding. By only knowing part of the story - the funded part - it's impossible to see any biases.
Finally, during the most high-profile meeting of the ICOC since the inception of the stem cell research program, the board struggled to maintain a quorum. It was not met at all on the first day of the two-day meeting, during which grants were approved by "provisional votes." These were confirmed en masse the next day, when there was barely a quorum. This is embarrassing. The ICOC needs to adopt attendance standards.
Although the stem cell research program may have made significant progress since its clumsy and arrogant inception, this is still no way to manage a $300 million per year agency.