The latest appeals come in what the
agency calls its basic biology round. The agency's governing board
meets next Wednesday and Thursday to hand out as much as $35 million
to as many as 25 scientists competing for the research dollars.

The four appeals follow a record outpouring last month of attempts at reconsideration in another
round. One upshot has been a proposal that would tighten the review process. That plan also comes before directors next week.

In three of the latest appeals, the
applications were given scientific scores that exceeded those of some
proposals that were approved by reviewers. The lower scoring
proposals were given the go-ahead on the basis of “programmatic
review,” which one CIRM document says is designed to allow
“consideration of issues beyond scientific merit, such as disease
representation and societal impact.” 

The latest appeals – formally known
as extraordinary petitions – were filed by Michael Teitell of UCLA,
Deborah Lieu of UC Davis, Tony Hunter of Salk and Hanna Mikkola, also
of UCLA. In all, their applications seek nearly $6 million from CIRM.

Hunter's $1.8 million application had the highest scientific score, 70,  of the four appeals. It ranked above three grants approved by reviewers. 

In his appeal, Hunter said “no major scientific issues were found” by reviewers concerning his application. He also reported new data involving a “major concern” of reviewers. Hunter said the information was developed after the application was submitted April 25.

In the case of Lieu, reviewers
said she was “relatively inexperienced.” Lieu's appeal said she
has “24 publications with over 6 years of experience in the
differentiation of cardiac muscle cells from human pluripotent stem
cells, 12 publications (3 co-corresponding author) on human
pluripotent stem cells and their cardiac derivatives, and 3
publications on the engineering of pacemaker cells” in addition to
other related professional experience.

She is seeking $1.3 million. Her
application received a score of 68, ranking it above two other grants
approved by reviewers and equal to a third also approved by
reviewers.

Mikkola said her application built on work previously funded by CIRM. She also cited new data that the
reviewers did not have access to. Mikkola's application for $1.4 million
received a score of 65, which ranks it above one grant approved by
reviewers.

Teitell's letter to the board also cited new data that is scheduled to published in November that deals with one of the concerns of reviewers. Teitell additionally disputed some of the critical information in the summary of reviewer comments.

He is seeking $1.4 million. CIRM did not release a score on his application, although it appears to be below 63, the lowest score disclosed publicly by the agency.