Analyst: Stem cell agency reforms fall short

With little money and time left to repair its legacy, California's controversial stem cell agency is falling short in its response to a federal committee's recommendations for an overhaul, the committee's chair said Thursday.

The stem cell agency's reform plan does not go far enough to fix all that has been chipping away at the agency's credibility, said Harold Shapiro, chair of the Institute of Medicine committee hired to evaluate the agency.

"There certainly is a gap between what we recommended and what they responded with," said Shapiro, president emeritus at Princeton University. "I wish they had moved closer to our recommendations."

The committee presented sweeping recommendations in its December report, emphasizing the need for new blood on a governing board that has been plagued by the appearance of conflicts of interest, cronyism and sluggishness in getting stem-cell products to market.

Time is of the essence, Shapiro said, noting that the stem cell agency risks running out of funding soon and, by 2017, must have in place a self-sustaining financial formula to replace its bond allocations.

The CIRM has just $859 million remaining from the pot of $3 billion voters approved by passing Proposition 71 in 2004. Californians embraced the idea of turning the Golden State into a hub for embryonic stem-cell research while the administration of George W. Bush was restricting the flow of federal funds.

But because of the way the initiative was drafted by Bob Klein, a real estate mogul from the Bay Area, the stem cell agency was vulnerable from the start to charges of conflict of interest. The law requires 23 of the 29 board members to represent California universities, research institutes or other entities the same organizations funded by the CIRM.

The report by the Institute of Medicine established in 1970 as an arm of the National Academy of the Sciences attacked this problem directly, specifically proposing the elimination of a number of board positions reserved for grant-receiving institutions.

"Almost all members of the (board) are interested parties with a personal or financial stake in the allocation of CIRM fundings," the IOM report stated.

"Such a dynamic erodes confidence that the board is capable of making broader strategic decisions that go beyond awarding research dollars."

View post:
Analyst: Stem cell agency reforms fall short