Directors of the California stem cell
agency are expected to give away $80 million next week to 20
fortunate researchers in addition to exploring a “commercialization
and industry engagement plan.”

“This award will fund promising
physician scientists in the critical early stages of their careers as
independent investigators and faculty members establishing their own
laboratories and programs.” 

• More money – no amount yet specified
  – for Viacyte, Inc, of San Diego, which has received more than $36
  million from CIRM.
• An update of the agency's response to
  the only performance audit conducted at the agency. The audit
  identified 27 areas where improvement is needed, but the governing
  board has not discussed the results publicly since they were
  disclosed last May.
• Approval of the concept plan for
  another round of basic biology grants and adoption of conflict of
  interest code changes.

Interested parties will be able to take part at the meeting location in Los Angeles and teleconference locations in La Jolla, Oakland and UCSF. If you are interested in
the teleconference locations, you will need to contact the agency for more specific directions than are provided on the agenda.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/RU_xC86oAyw/80-million-in-grants-money-for-viacyte.html

Directors of the $3 billion California
stem cell agency are still mulling details of changes in their
free-wheeling and sometimes emotional appeals process for grant applications
that are rejected by the agency's reviewers.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/Hkq7zcXyMsQ/update-on-move-to-curb-researcher.html

Jonathan Thomas CIRM Photo

Jonathan Thomas, the Los Angeles bond
financier who is chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, has
weighed in at more length on the sweeping recommendations from the
Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/HmbrFtBzcs4/stem-cell-agency-chairman-says-iom.html

The Institute of Medicine's
recommendations for major changes at the California stem cell agency
today received generally high marks from independent observers and
critics.

“The institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009."

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

“The IOM Committee and its staff have
done an impressive job.  The report recognizes the scientific
value and achievements of the CIRM and, at the same time, makes
cogent recommendations that, if taken seriously, will further improve
the quality and the public credibility of the Institute. The
committee and staff deserve the thanks of the scientific community
and all California citizens for their careful and thoughtful work.” 

“It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,” 

“Given the agency’s shortcomings
and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong to ask
Californians to give it more public money. If the agency acquires new
funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must recognize that
it has ongoing obligations to the people of California.” 

 “CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2009 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yyZ0TAisMZQ/iom-proposals-for-overhaul-at-cirm-win.html

Here is the full text or the essential
elements of comments sought by the California Stem Cell Report on the
Institute of Medicine report that recommended sweeping changes at the
California stem cell agency. Consumer Watchdog and the Center for
Genetics and Society put their comments in the form of news releases,
which contained redundant material.

“CIRM initiated the Institute of
Medicine review, which is to its credit.  The Institute of
Medicine took a scrupulous and rigorous approach to its review of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and in its report,
notes CIRM’s many achievements and accomplishments.

“The Institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009. The
institute graciously acknowledged the commission’s work, which
clearly is as relevant now as it was in 2009.

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

“Consumer Watchdog Thursday welcomed
a report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) calling for
sweeping reforms in governance at California’s stem cell agency and
an end to the board’s built-in conflicts of interest. 

“The report said that 'far too many
board members represent organizations' that receive funding or
benefit from the stem cell agency. The IOM said that the board’s
oversight function should be separated from the day-to-day management
of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). 

“'The IOM's critical report echoes
what every independent evaluator has said in the past,' said John
M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Stem Cell Project director.
'As we have repeated from the beginning, CIRM suffers from built-in
conflicts of interest and needs to separate the board's oversight
function from day-to-day management.'

“'It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,' Simpson said.”

“The Center for Genetics and Society,
a nonprofit policy research and advocacy organization, welcomed the
report on the California stem cell agency released today by the
Institute of Medicine and called for stronger protections for  the interests of Californians as
the agency continues its disbursement of public funds.

“CIRM is nearing the end of the
billions of dollars of public funding allocated to it in
2004. The agency is currently considering how to extend
its operations after the money runs out. CGS Associate Executive
Director Marcy Darnovskysaid, “Given the agency’s
shortcomings and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong
to ask Californians to give it more public money. If the agency
acquires new funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must
recognize that it has ongoing obligations to the people of
California.”

“She continued, 'CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2008 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.' 

“'Today’s report from the IOM
reaffirms the significance of the conflicts of interest and
structural flaws that were built into the stem cell program from the
beginning, and that continue to threaten its credibility and
effectiveness. These are serious problems that the Center for
Genetics and Society and other public interest voices pointed out
even before the agency was approved by the 2004 ballot measure on
which backers spent some $35 million. 

“'Many aspects of these early
concerns remain directly relevant,' Darnovsky said. 'There is
still no way for elected officials to provide oversight because the
measure that created CIRM requires a 70% vote by both houses – more
than a supermajority. The agency’s governing board is still tainted
by its built-in conflicts of interest, and still includes no
representation of the public beyond disease advocates. Members of the
agency’s powerful Working Groups, including the one that reviews
grant applications, are still not required to publicly disclose their
individual financial interests.'”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/iu4DrhoewYo/text-of-comments-reacting-to-iom-report.html

Additional coverage emerged this morning,
including stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Nature web site and
Businessweek. on a blue-ribbon report that recommended sweeping changes
at the the $3 billion California stem cell agency

"Stem cell
agency board criticized for conflicts of interest."

"The board of California's stem cell
funding agency is rife with conflicts of interest and should be
restructured to improve the integrity of its grant-making process,
according to a new report from independent experts convened by the
national Institute of Medicine."“

“It’s unclear what effect the
report will have. Many of these recommendations run counter to
requirements enshrined in the legislation that created CIRM, and the
board of CIRM has heard similar recommendations before and failed to
act on them.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yk8zuHF6IKA/more-iom-cirm-coverage-one-story-notes.html

News coverage has been light so far
today of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for an overhaul
at the $3 billion California stem cell agency. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist from the Los Angeles Times took a sharp knife to the agency's press release on the IOM report.

Michael Hiltzik, who is a regular critic of the agency, asked,

 "So how did CIRM react to the report? Even before the review panel's conference call with the press was completed, the agency issued a news release stating that the panel had 'praised' the agency 'for its ground breaking work in helping advance the science of stem cell research.'"If you wanted to know about the committee's criticisms, the first mention of those was in paragraph 9 of the news release. It quoted board Chairman Jonathan Thomas as promising to 'work on establishing a process to enable us to consider how best to proceed with reviewing the recommendations.' 

"By my count, that's seven steps it will take before actually acting on the recommendations. 

"As it happens, the panel's recommendations, which include creating a majority of independent board members without any potential conflicts of interest, track very closely to recommendations made by several previous outside reviews of CIRM, especially a 2009 study by the state's Little Hoover Commission.

"CIRM rejected almost every one, and it looks to be preparing to circle the wagons again against sensible improvements in the way it does business."

“A review of California's stem cell
research funding agency proposed changes to the agency's governing
structure and commercial goals while praising its results so far. The
124-page report from the Institute
of Medicine recycles many conflict of interest and
intellectual property concerns that have dogged the San
Francisco-based” agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/XpN8S2N2-iw/coverage-of-iom-report-light-but-column.html

Here is the text of comments on the IOM study of CIRM from J.T. Thomas, chairman of the agency. 

"We deeply appreciate all the hard work of the IOM committee in compiling  long and detailed report and the IOM clearly put considerable thought into compiling it. This has just been released so our Board and our staff has not had a chance to look at it yet, let alone digest its findings and recommendations, so it’s premature for us to offer any opinions. We are looking forward to the IOM presentation at the next meeting of our board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC) where we’ll have a chance to talk with the IOM directly about the report. After that we’ll put together a process on how best to proceed so that we can respond in as thoughtful a manner to the recommendations as the IOM did in making them."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/YkRTcgnXNqU/text-of-cirm-comments-on-iom-report.html