CIRM and the shape of stem-cell science
Nature has just posted a thoroughly reported feature on how the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and its billions of dollars will change the shape of stem-cell science and infrastructure. (For a more personal view from a Texas scientist, see our commentary by Peggy Goodell .)
One point the feature makes is that CIRM’s board members also serve the institutions that receive funding from the institute. There are, of course, a welter of rules aimed at avoiding conflicts of interest, but CIRM has still found itself subject to strong criticism. One retired journalist has even started a blog devoted to the institute’s scrutiny. An editorial accompanying the Nature feature calls for strong governance.
Still, CIRM is not the only stem-cell agency facing such charges. A report this week from Integrity in Science reports that “at least 11 of the 25 voting-members of Health and Human Services’ Advisory Council of Blood Stem Cell Transplantation have financial ties to cord blood-banking and transplantation industry despite a committee charter stating that such conflicts should be limited.”
What does seem unique to CIRM are the multiple sources of “two-masters” tension: it must support basic science and clinical applications ( see my interview with Marie Csete) ; it must succor biotech companies but make sure that patients and other scientists can access their technology (see my article on CIRM grants to businesses ). Even its organizational structure is split. (See my article on CIRM’s search for a president .)
I’ve asked CIRM officials about this before. I’m told that such strains are indeed difficult to balance, but done right they are a source of strength. I’ve asked non-CIRM experts about it too. They tell me it’s easy to make bad investments in hot new fields, but good ideas often wither early because they can’t prove their worth. And I've asked everyone whether CIRM’s funds are a good use of money, and they say what journalists hate to hear: time will tell.