California Stem Cell Face-Off: CIRM Directors Wrestle with Tough IOM Recommendations

At 9 a.m. next Wednesday, the governing
board of the state research effort will begin a critical, two-day
public session. On the table will be the $700,000, blue-ribbon
report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM). The study
recommends sweeping changes in the structure and operations of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem
cell agency is formally known.

The IOM report alone poses major
challenges for the agency. But the recommendations are freighted with
even more significance. Below the surface lies the hard fact of
CIRM's dwindling resources and possible demise. In less than four
years – without either renewed public support or private
contributions – the research effort will begin a shriveling,
downward spiral.

California's major newspapers already have editorially backed the IOM proposals. Indeed, if the
directors choose to ignore the major IOM recommendations, they will
hand opponents a devastating weapon, one that could be used to convince voters to reject
any proposal for continued funding. The board
would also give private investors more major reasons to say no to
CIRM pitches for cash.

Under Klein's leadership, the 29-member
board has rejected similar proposals for changes in the past. When
the IOM presented the study to the board just last month, the
reception was not much different. Several board members bristled. One
influential board member, Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of
California board of regents, said the directors' “hands are tied”
because some of the recommendations might require a vote of the people. Her comments echoed similar statements from Klein in 2009,
when he said board members would violate their oath of office if they
supported recommendations for changes that he opposed.

The IOM discussion in December,
however, was relatively brief and less than definitive. Klein has
been off the board since June 2011, replaced by Los Angeles bond
financier Jonathan Thomas, who is regarded as a welcome change by a
number of board members.

Nonetheless, the recommendations of the IOM could mean that some members of the board would lose their seats; others would lose important roles in the grant-award process or
within the agency itself. Conflict of interest rules would be
tightened. In some ways, the board would lose power, which would be
shifted to the president. The board would no longer vote on
individual applications – only a slate recommended by reviewers.
Applicants for CIRM awards would be directly affected, being barred
from making the sort of direct and public appeals that clogged the
CIRM board meetings last year. And that would be just the beginning.

Thomas, the CIRM chairman, is expected
to make his recommendations for action on the report, although they
have not yet been posted on the CIRM web site. Under what might be considered “normal” leadership, Thomas would be testing sentiment
among board members via personal conversations and phone calls.
However, in California that would be illegal – a violation of open
meeting laws that bar what are called “serial meetings” at nearly
all public agencies.

Thomas' task is not easy. Rounding up a
majority vote for anything significant among 29 strong-minded
individuals is not simple. But it is even more difficult when facing
a board that has a tradition of consensus management and
oversight.

The site of next week's meetings is
interesting. The nearly 100-year-old, iconic Claremont hotel has a
troubled financial history. It was up for sale for $80 million last
spring but there were no takers. In the early 20th century, the
property on which it is located was lost and won in a checkers game
in Oakland, or so the story goes.

The stakes are also high for the
California stem cell agency. Moves next week by directors could
easily determine whether CIRM becomes nothing more than an
interesting scientific footnote or establishes a path that will lead
it to long-lasting leadership in regenerative medicine.