whose applications for millions of dollars were turned down by
reviewers at the California stem cell agency are asking its governing
board this Wednesday to overturn the rejections.
and Sophie Deng of UCLA, who are seeking $3.1 million and $3 million
respectively.
as extraordinary petitions, which a blue-ribbon report by the
Institute of Medicine last week said should be abandoned. The study on the
performance of the $3 billion agency said the petitions
“undermine the credibility and independent work” of grant
reviewers. However, under state law stem cell researchers and
the public have the right to address the CIRM board on any issue
whatsoever.
petitions, the IOM cited the flap in Texas concerning its $3 billion
cancer research program. Reviewers there resigned en masse to protest what
they considered abuse of the grant review process.
agency is already examining ways to tighten up its free-wheeling appeal process, which this year has seen a record number of appeals,
backed by emotional presentations from patients and lobbying by the
former chairman of the agency, Bob Klein.
Wednesday, reviewers have approved 12 applications out of 27 generated by the
“New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research” RFA. The approved grants have scientific scores ranging from 87 to 65. Positive decisions
by reviewers are almost never overturned by the CIRM board. The
approved applications total $36.2 million, according to California
Stem Cell Report calculations. The agency budgeted $80 million for
the round. One application, the proposal that scored 65, was approved for
what CIRM calls “programmatic” reasons, which have been defined as “issues beyond scientific merit, such as disease representation and societal impact.”
reviewers' remarks that her proposal was not worthy of funding
because it is “not exceptionally novel.”
 |
| Sophie Deng UCLA photo |
“This comment reflects a
misunderstanding of translational research. There is a huge gap
between a novel discovery and delivering a new therapy to the clinic;
translational research is about bridging this gap, not the novelty of
the discovery. If the discovery is not translatable, it is
meaningless for patient care....Our approach might not be the most
novel, but it has the highest potential to bring a new therapy to the
clinic.”
criticisms” in her review “reflected flawed understanding” of
its clinical aspects.
review failed because “CIRM was already funding AMD (age-related macular degeneration), and that
significant progress was being made elsewhere in the world.”
 |
| Jonathan Lin UCSD photo |
“I contest these claims because CIRM
has not funded AMD-related research in prior New Faculty Physician
Scientist Translational Research RFAs. Furthermore, stem cell
research to treat AMD remains in basic science, preclinical research,
and clinical safety phases in California. Significant research and
clinical studies are still ahead before stem cells can be approved
for therapeutic use in patients with AMD.”
either Lin or Deng. Only the scores of approved applications were
listed for this meeting. In some cases in the past, scores of some
rejected grants have been listed on the CIRM web site. The agency did
not disclose the names of the other applicants or their institutions.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/Y659b1P3s04/california-stem-cell-agency-two.html
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
