California stem-cell agency comes under scrutiny - September 29, 2008
Posted on behalf of Erika Check Hayden
Tussles over the structure of the world’s largest funder of embryonic stem cell research continue, with a bipartisan commission saying it will scrutinize the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
On Friday, a California state oversight board, the Little Hoover Commission, said it will “explore the transparency and accountability of [CIRM’s] existing governance structure.” The commission told blogger David Jensen that it will also look at other issues, “including a discussion on ways to insure the most effective use of bond money”. The move had been requested by a watchdog group and by state legislators, who have largely remained impotent to do anything to influence the institute’s operations, thanks to masterful drafting of the ballot measure that created CIRM.
Scientists may be wondering whether this just another political move to slow embryonic stem cell research. But since CIRM’s creation, there have been concerns about the structure and operation of the agency that have nothing to do with politics, ranging from the unwieldy nature of agency’s 29-member board to the potential conflict created by the fact that many of the institutes receiving money from the agency also sit on that board (Nature).
Bob Klein, chair of the CIRM board, has headed off any major changes to the agency’s structure, although there have been minor tweaks, such as a grant review appeals process approved by the board on 25 September (CIRM, San Diego Union-Tribune). The Little Hoover Commission’s investigation into CIRM will be the most thorough and far-reaching yet, and the commission has a lot of clout. But some reforms would still have to go through the California legislature – a famously dysfunctional body. A public hearing in November should give a first taste of the inquiry’s intended scope and tone.
Comments
I continue unhearded to suggest to all Authorities
saying they will scrutinize the right behaviour for Regenerative Medicine using stem cells, , and also those who are looking at a lot of issues, “including a discussion on ways to insure the most effective use of bond money”, to consider another, central aspect of the use of stemm cell. As a matter of fact, we all agree with considering stem cells as the therapy of future. As a consequence, all around the world, scientists are working on the possible utilization of these cells, in spite of their origin. However, we have to pay great attention to the FACT that every stem cell, including human blood progenitor cell, (not red blood cells, i.e., erythrocytes, which are lacking DNA!)is furnished by both n-DNA and mit-DNA, and thus - in case of biophysical-semeiotic constitutions - such as cell can transmitt the related predisposition to diseases,if there is associated the Inherited Real Risk, I discovered: diabetes, arteriosclerosis (CAD), cancer, a.s.o., as I referred in former comments also in this website:
http://blogs.nature.com/reports/theniche/2008/04/stemcell_skin_creams_a_san_die.html#comments
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/full/451511a.html?q=2#last-comment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007041101736&start=41
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080822/full/news.2008.1060.html?q=2#last-comment
http://blogs.nature.com/reports/theniche/2008/06/pfizer_dips_a_toe_into_cell_th.html#comments
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080604/full/news.2008.875.html?q=2#last-comment
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/09/obama_speaks_on_science.html#comments
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/09/californias_new_stem_cell_supr.html
Posted by: Sergio Stagnaro MD | September 30, 2008 06:51 AM
CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM OUTSTANDING
Dear Editors:
I attended probably 90% of the public meetings of the California stem cell program, so I can say that it is working extremely well.
At first, I was worried. 29 members, all leaders of their field? I figured egos would get in the way. But that has not been the case. Everybody there seems to know this is the most important work they will ever do, and they leave their egos at the door.
In regards to conflict of interest, prevention of that was written into the the law itself. A dean of a college, for example, cannot vote or attempt to influence a decision which would directly benefit his or her institution.
But we do have experts on the board. Their knowledge and experience is irreplaceable. Should we remove them, because of a "perception" of conflict of interest, (in other words an opinion) that there might be conceivably a possibility of a problem?
It is sometimes hard to believe in something that is just plain successful.
But it is. One small example: the building budget was $272 million. But the board required any institution that wanted to try for some of those funds-- to provide matching money of their own-- which is how California's $272 million was leveraged into $1.15 billion. Show me another government program that brings in more money than it began with!
California built something beautiful and useful. As the father of a paralyzed young man, this matters to me.
From the efforts of this program, people's lives will be bettered. Future generations will look back and be proud.
But don't take my word for it. Come and see for yourself. Just go to the website www.cirm.ca.gov, click on upcoming meetings, and come and participate.
Sincerely,
Don C. Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com
Posted by: Don C. Reed | October 1, 2008 12:51 PM