For those interested in how the
California stem cell agency is going to spend its next $95 million,
you can check out short digests today of the 19 research grant applications, including reviewer comments, that are virtually certain of receiving the cash. 

The applications came in what CIRM
calls its "early translational III" round, which is
scheduled to be acted on by the CIRM board May 24 in San Francisco.

Digests of reviewer comments are
part of the directors' meeting agenda. They include scientific
scores, a statement from the applicant and a summary of what
reviewers had to say during their closed door sessions. But you won't
find the names of the applicants, their institutions or businesses.
The stem cell agency conceals the names of the winners until after
the board acts. Names of the unlucky ones are not disclosed by CIRM.
The agency says it does not want to embarrass anybody including the
institutions involved.

However, persons familiar with the area
of science involved may well be able to discern at least some of the
names of applicants from the information contained in the summaries.

Scientific scores of the successful
applicants ranged from 88 to 53. Nine grants scored higher than 53
but were rejected by reviewers(the Grants Working Group). The panel
turned down 22 applications overall. The CIRM board has final
authority on applications, but has almost never rejected a positive
decision by reviewers. Sometimes, however, it will overrule a
negative decision.

One successful application that was
scored at 53 involved ALS. The $1.7 million proposal was approved
for "programmatic reasons," according to the summary.
Often, programmatic motions for approval are made by CIRM board
members sitting on the review panel. However, the summary did not
disclose who made the motion or the vote. The summary said,

The other successful application that
scored at 53 sought $6.3 million for research involving heart
disease. The summary did not clearly identify the specific reason for
approving the grant on a programmatic motion. But it said,

Again CIRM withheld the vote on the
motion and the name of the person who made the motion.

Applicants who have been rejected by
reviewers can appeal to the full board. So far no appeals have been
publicly posted by CIRM. The success rate on such appeals is mixed.

The translational round was open to
both academics and businesses, which have received a tiny fraction of
CIRM's $1.3 billion in spending so far. Some businesses have
complained publicly and, as well, to a panel of the Institute of
Medicine that is evaluating CIRM's performance.

The California Stem Cell Report
yesterday asked CIRM for the number of businesses that applied in the
translational round, including the pre-application process, which is
used to whittle down the total number of applications. The request included total numbers as well. CIRM spokesman
Kevin McCormack declined to produce the figures prior to the CIRM
board meeting, saying they "won't be ready" until after the
session.