The California stem cell agency today
issued a press release touting “dramatic changes” at the agency in response to critical recommendations by the Institute of Medicine.

• “The 13 Board members appointed from
  institutions eligible for funding from the stem cell agency, such as
  those in the University of California system, would no longer vote on
  any grants brought before the Board but would instead abstain
• “All members of the Board would
  be able to participate in discussions on applications but only
  patient advocates and independent members of the Board would be able
  to vote on funding issues (members would continue to refrain from
  any discussion of specific applications from their institutions)
• “Patient Advocates would
  continue to be members of the Grants Working Groups but would not
  vote on individual applications
• “Programmatic review, aimed at
  balancing the agency’s portfolio, would take place at public Board
  meetings where members have a chance to make changes to
  recommendations from the Grants Working Group
• “Industry involvement would
  increase, where appropriate, on the Grants Working Group, and also
  feature in a newly constituted Scientific Advisory Board; the
  structure and membership of this group is still under discussion
• “Appeals on applications not
  recommended for funding will be handled by science staff who will
  evaluate them, determine if they merit further review by the Grants
  Working Group, and ultimately make recommendations to the Board.
  Staff will also be allowed to advocate for additional grants not
  recommended for funding by the Grants Working Group that they
  believe should be considered in programmatic review
• “The Chair and President would
  share a division of responsibilities with the President supervising
  all scientific operations and internal operational responsibilities.
  In addition the Chief Financial Officer would report to the
  President. The Chair would handle the ‘external affairs’ aspect
  of the agency, things such as financial sustainability to raise
  additional funds, state legislative relations, bond financing,
  public communications etc.
• “IOM recommendation on the
  creation of a Scientific Advisory Board to provide counsel on such
  issues as funding priorities and portfolio strategy will be
  implemented by staff
• “IOM recommendations on
  Intellectual Property will be referred to the agency’s IP
  subcommittee which will review and report back to the full board
  with options and recommendations
• “IOM recommendations on
  Sustainability: Chair, working with the President, will develop a
  plan to address this and present to the Board when ready

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/MHSytXHG-zU/stem-cell-agency-adds-fresh-details-to.html

The California stem cell agency is
planning an editorial road show with major California newspapers to
explain its new plan to deal with the recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine(IOM) for major changes at the agency.

“The opportunity is ripe.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/sN7GVoQPGjA/california-stem-cell-agency-to-pitch.html

The journal Nature today said on its
web site that the California stem cell agency plans to make a “few
changes” in response to a critical report from the Institute of
Medicine(IOM).

"Other IOM recommendations were only
indirectly addressed by (CIRM Chairman J.T.) Thomas’ plan. The IOM report had stated
that the board should restrict itself to an 'oversight' role
rather than an 'operational' role. Thomas’s recommendations
instead described ways to avoid overlapping duties. His own role as
chair is to handle 'external affairs' whereas CIRM’s president
will be to handle scientific and internal affairs."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/JU2zXAO4Q1Q/nature-on-iom-and-california-stem-cell.html

Here is the roll call vote yesterday on the plan to deal with the findings of the Institute of Medicine
concerning the California stem cell agency. The vote was 23-0 with
one abstention. The board has 29 seats. Not all board members were in attendance,
and it is not entirely clear whether all the board members in attendance
voted. Among other things, the plan calls for members with links to
institutions that could benefit from CIRM awards to voluntarily refrain from
voting on any applications for funding – not just those to their
institutions. The roll call was provided by a spokesman for the
agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/DYyBzk0Er5g/roll-call-vote-on-thomas-plan-dealing.html

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency seemed all but invisible this morning in terms of mainstream
media coverage.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/8q4FDQb-BUk/meager-meager-coverage-of-yesterdays.html

Directors of the $3 billion California
stem cell agency today approved a far-reaching plan aimed at resolving long-standing
conflict of interest issues involving the agency's governing board
and also at helping to maintain credibility with the public.

Jonathan Thomas CIRM photo

“This is one of those times that we must move forward and compromise.” 

• Have 13 members of the 29-member board
  refrain from voting on specific grant applications. The 13 would be from institutions that could benefit from CIRM grants. They would be
  allowed to participate in discussions. Thomas said this would deal
  with financial conflict of interest questions. 
• Increase industry participation of
  industry in grant application review and step up business involvement
  internally at CIRM, including development of RFAs.
• Redirect all scientific appeals to
  staff to evaluate for possible re-review before they go to the full
  board.
• Move “programmatic” review of
  grants to public sessions of the full board instead of being held
  behind closed doors during grant review sessions. Patient advocate
  directors now sitting on the grant review group would no longer be
  allowed to vote during the closed-door review sessions, but they
  could participate in the discussion.

It appears, however, that the Thomas
plan would do little to deal with the dual-executive problems identified
by the IOM.

 "It looks like
the message is finally getting through to California's stem cell
agency board....
Part of what is driving the new
approach is the realization that CIRM will need to find a new source
of funding -- possibly going back to the voters -- if it is to
continue.  As Thomas told the board today, 'If we don't
have credibility, we won't have a chance of sustaining the agency.'"

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/Phybdqb0SV0/iom-california-stem-cell-directors.html