The Institute of Medicine's
recommendations for major changes at the California stem cell agency
today received generally high marks from independent observers and
critics.
suggestions from California's Little Hoover Commission, the
state's good government agency. Asked for comment, Stuart Drown, the
commission's executive director, said,
“The institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009."
“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”
asked the agency's first president, Zach Hall, for his thoughts. Here
is the full text of what Hall, who was one of the peer reviewers on
the IOM study, had to say,
“The IOM Committee and its staff have
done an impressive job. The report recognizes the scientific
value and achievements of the CIRM and, at the same time, makes
cogent recommendations that, if taken seriously, will further improve
the quality and the public credibility of the Institute. The
committee and staff deserve the thanks of the scientific community
and all California citizens for their careful and thoughtful work.”
director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said,
“It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,”
director of the Center for Genetics and Society of Berkeley, Ca.,
welcomed the recommendations. But she said,
“Given the agency’s shortcomings
and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong to ask
Californians to give it more public money. If the agency acquires new
funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must recognize that
it has ongoing obligations to the people of California.”
“CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2009 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.”
queried most of the 10 patient advocates on the agency's governing
board for comment. Their roles could be altered in a major way by the
IOM recommendations. None of the advocates have yet responded.
full text of all the above comments is available here.)
Source:Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
