Most of them came during the July and
September meetings of its 29-member governing board and were related to strenuous efforts by researchers to win approval of awards of up to
$20 million each. Several firsts involved the agency's former
chairman, Robert Klein, who could be considered the father of the
state's stem cell research effort.

So here is the California Stem Cell
Report's list of firsts at the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine (as CIRM, the stem cell agency, is formally known) for the
summer of 2012.

It was the first time that a single
company – in this case, StemCells, Inc. , of Newark, Ca. –
received two awards in the same round.

It was the first time any company has
been awarded as much as $40 million. Again, StemCells, Inc.

It was the first time that Klein has lobbied his former board (see here and here) on
behalf of a particular grant application. That occurred in both July
and September with one of StemCells, Inc.'s application.

It was the first time that the board
has approved an application that has been rejected twice by
reviewers, again the StemCells, Inc., proposal backed by Klein.

It was the first time that board has
received such a large outpouring of appeals by rejected applicants.

It was the first time that the board
has received such lengthy presentations of emotional appeals by
patient advocates on behalf of rejected applicants.

It was the first time that action on a
grant round has been extended over three months(see here and here). The disease team
round began in July. Action will not be completed until the end of
October.

It was the first time that the
governing board has sent so many applications back for re-review –
five, six if the one to be acted on in October is included.

It was also the first time that the
board has ordered a full-blown review of its grant appeal process
with an eye to making making major changes in it.

Several reasons exist for the number of
firsts racked up by CIRM. One is the high stakes involved in the
disease team round that began in July and the low number approved by reviewers – six compared to the 12 approved by the board, as of
today, out of 21 applications. Another reason involves the
increasing understanding on the part of many scientists that they can
appeal directly to the board when reviewers reject their
applications. However, it is also clear that not all applicants
grasp the full range of appeal possibilities. A third reason involves
the agency's muddled appeal process, which has been a problem for
years. And a fourth reason involves the board's push to drive research into
the clinic and commercialization, which applicants are quickly
learning how to exploit.

Readers should feel free to add their
own firsts to this list. They can do so – even, anonymously – by
clicking on the word “comments” at the end of this item.