Patient advocate Don Reed, declaring that the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 17-month study of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is "grossly misguided," this weekend nonetheless said the agency took "the high road" in its response to the study's recommendation.

Reed, of Fremont, Ca., was particularly incensed about the IOM's recommendations concerning patient advocates on the board. The IOM said that none of the board members, including patient advocates, should vote on grant applications secretly in grant review groups. The IOM said their votes should be recorded in public at full board meetings. Other patient advocates would still have seats on the grant review group, under the IOM recommendations. But they would not also be members of the governing board.

The IOM also said that CIRM should also revise its conflict of interest standards to regulate personal conflicts of interest, such as those involving particular diseases and patient advocates. Some members of the CIRM governing board bristled at the recommendation, and the board did not act on it last week.

Last Wednesday, the CIRM board acted to permit board members who are patient advocates to continue to participate in the closed door grant review sessions, but not vote on the grants at that stage. Previously patient advocates had two cuts at applications, one in the grant review group and one at the public board meeting.

Writing on the Daily Kos blog, Reed also said that no real conflicts of interest currently exist on the board, although 90 percent of the $1.7 billion that has awarded has gone to institutions tied to board members.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SmmFtyc1zXo/patient-advocate-reed-defends-patient.html

Additional mainstream media news
coverage surfaced last Friday involving the California stem cell
agency's response to the blue-ribbon report from the Institute of
Medicine(IOM), whose concerns about the agency ranged from conflicts of interest to grant
appeals by rejected researchers.

“'I’m encouraged by this,' Shapiro
told KPCC. 'Presumably in the future they’ll take other steps. But
these are steps they could take without any legislative approval and
…I think it does respond in a pretty significant way to the spirit
of the report.'
“But Shapiro expressed concern that
the agency is making only 'small moves' to address a recommendation
that CIRM separate operations from oversight. Currently, the ICOC
functions 'both as an executor and as an overseer—competing duties
that compromise the ICOC’s critical role of providing independent
oversight and strategic direction,' according to the December IOM
report.
“'But  I do understand… that
would be a move that they would have to take over time so we’ll
have to wait and see,' Shapiro said.
“Thomas agreed and said that while
CIRMs recommendations more clearly define the roles of chairman and
president, more refinements will be likely over time.”

“Changes may be on the way at
California’s stem cell funding agency.”

“I’m still not sure I’m a fan of
all of the proposed changes, but I would say the plan is bold and
creative.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/A2ayEbm2Se0/ioms-shapiro-wants-to-see-more-changes.html