{"id":1063448,"date":"2013-02-24T02:53:29","date_gmt":"2013-02-24T07:53:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.longevitymedicine.tv\/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial-interests-of-stem-cell-agency-reviewers\/"},"modified":"2024-08-17T20:29:36","modified_gmt":"2024-08-18T00:29:36","slug":"time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial-interests-of-stem-cell-agency-reviewers-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/stem-cell-therapy\/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial-interests-of-stem-cell-agency-reviewers-2.php","title":{"rendered":"Time For Public Disclosure of Financial Interests of Stem Cell Agency Reviewers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Should the scientists who evaluate<br>and score the applications for $3 billion in taxpayer funds be<br>required to publicly disclose their financial interests?<\/p><div><\/div><div>No, says the California stem cell<br>agency, despite concerns by the state auditor and the state's <b>Fair<br>Political Practices Commission (FPPC)<\/b> that date back at least six<br>years. The agency says that its governing board makes the decisions<br>on the applications &ndash; not the grant reviewers &ndash; and that the<br>members of the board fully disclose their economic interests.<\/div><div><\/div><div>However, last month the agency produced<br>a document that sheds new light on the issue. The document confirms<br>that the board rubber-stamps virtually all the reviewers' decisions,<br>going along with their actions 98 percent of the time. The board<br>exercised independent judgment on 28 out of 1,355 applications.<\/div><div><\/div><div>Why is this important?  Here is <a href=\"http:\/\/californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com\/2007\/02\/cirms-conflicts-beware-warf-syndrome.html\">what the state auditor said in 2007<\/a>,<\/div><blockquote><p>&ldquo;(T)he FPPC believes that, under<br>state regulations, working group members (including grant reviewers)<br>may act as decision makers if they make substantive recommendations<br>that are, over an extended period, regularly approved without<br>significant amendment or modification by the committee. Thus, as<br>decision makers, working group members would need to be subject to<br>the conflict-of-interest code. This would mean that working groups<br>would be subject not only to the (public) financial disclosure requirements of<br>the Political Reform Act but also to the prohibition against a member<br>participating in a government decision in which that member has a<br>disqualifying financial interest and may be subject to the penalties<br>that may be imposed on individuals who violate that act.&rdquo;<\/p><\/blockquote><div>The auditor recommended that the stem<br>cell agency seek an attorney general's opinion on the matter, a<br>recommendation the agency agency summarily dismissed seven months later..<\/div><div><\/div><div>Then interim <b>CIRM<\/b><br>President <b>Richard Murphy<\/b>, a former member of the agency's board and<br>former  president of the <b>Salk Institute<\/b>, <a href=\"http:\/\/californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com\/2007\/10\/cirm-says-no-to-auditors-conflicts.html\">replied to the auditor:<\/a><\/div><blockquote><p>\"We have given careful<br>consideration to your recommendation and have decided it is not<br>appropriate to implement at this time. In almost three years of<br>operation and approval of four rounds of grants, the recommendations<br>of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and\/or regularly<br>adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected,<br>the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is<br>entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for<br>submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such<br>a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges.\"<\/p><\/blockquote><div>In the four rounds mentioned in<br>Murphy's response, 100 percent of reviewer decisions were<br>rubber-stamped by the board. In the other two rounds, the percentage<br>was 95 and 96 percent.<\/div><div><\/div><div>Currently, scientific grant reviewers at the stem cell agency, all of whom are from out-of-state, disclose financial and professional conflicts<br>of interest in private to selected CIRM officials. (<a href=\"http:\/\/cirm.ca.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/files\/board_meetings\/Reg100003_Conflict_of_Interest.pdf\">See policy here<\/a>.)<br>From time to time, grant reviewers are excused from evaluating<br>specific applications.<\/div><div><\/div><div>The CIRM governing board has resisted<br>requiring public disclosure of the interests of reviewers. The subject<br>has come up several times, but board members have been concerned<br>about losing reviewers who would not be pleased about disclosing<br>their financial interests. &nbsp;Nonetheless, disclosure of interests among researchers is becoming routine in scientific research articles. Many universities, including<br><b>Stanford<\/b>, also require public disclosure of financial interests of<br>their researchers. <a href=\"http:\/\/rph.stanford.edu\/4-1.html\">Stanford says, <\/a><\/div><blockquote><p>&ldquo;No matter what the circumstances --<br>if an independent observer might reasonably question whether the<br>individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by<br>considerations of personal financial gain, the relationship should be<br>disclosed to the public during presentations, in publications,<br>teaching or other public venues.&rdquo;<\/p><\/blockquote><div>The latest version of CIRM's conflict<br>of interest rules are under review by the FPPC.  They do not include<br>any changes in public disclosure for grant reviewers.  In view of the<br>new information that confirms that reviewers are making 98 percent of<br>the decisions on who gets the taxpayers' dollars, it would seem that it is long past due for public disclosure of both financial and professional<br>interests of reviewers.  Indeed, given the nature of scientific<br>research and the tiny size of the stem cell community, disclosure of<br>professional interests may be more important than financial<br>disclosures.<\/div><div><\/div><div>As <b>Francis S. Collins<\/b>, head of the NIH,<br><a href=\"http:\/\/chronicle.com\/article\/NIH-Proposes-Tougher-Rules-\/65636\/\">said concerning his organization's own strengthening of disclosure requirements,<\/a><\/div><blockquote><p>\"The public trust in what we do is<br>just essential, and we cannot afford to take any chances with the<br>integrity of the research process.\"<\/p><\/blockquote><div>Here is the CIRM document concerning<br>reviewers' decisions and governing board action. The table has not<br>been posted on the CIRM website, but it was prepared for last month's<br>meeting dealing with the <b>Institute of Medicine's <\/b>recommendations for<br>sweeping changes at the agency, especially related to conflicts of<br>interest.<\/div><div><div><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/125957570\/CIRM-Board-s-Record-on-Reviewer-Grant-Decisions\" title=\"ViewCIRM Board's Record on Reviewer Grant Decisions on Scribd\">CIRM Board's<br>Record on Reviewer Grant Decisions<\/a> by   <a href=\"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/undefined\" title=\"View's profile on Scribd\"><\/a><\/div><\/div><div><\/div><p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/www.longevitymedicine.tv\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-o-matic\/cache\/89cb5_oma-MLcANoY\" height=\"1\" width=\"1\" style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;\">Source:<br><a href=\"http:\/\/feedproxy.google.com\/~r\/blogspot\/uqpFc\/~3\/oma-MLcANoY\/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial.html\">http:\/\/feedproxy.google.com\/~r\/blogspot\/uqpFc\/~3\/oma-MLcANoY\/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial.html<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Should the scientists who evaluateand score the applications for $3 billion in taxpayer funds berequired to publicly disclose their financial interests?No, says the California stem cellagency, despite concerns by the state auditor and the state's FairPolitical Practices Commission (FPPC) that &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/stem-cell-therapy\/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial-interests-of-stem-cell-agency-reviewers-2.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[25,1246878],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1063448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-stem-cell-therapy","category-stem-cells"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1063448"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1063448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1063448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1063448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1063448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1063448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}