“That's because by law, 23 of the 29
members must be representatives of California institutions eligible
for CIRM grants or of disease advocacy groups with their own interest
in steering money toward their particular concerns. 

“As a remedy, the panel proposed
eliminating some board slots reserved for grant-receiving
institutions by Proposition
71, the 2004 initiative that created the agency. The idea
was to fill those slots with truly independent members free of any
stake in CIRM funding, even indirectly.”

“Let's stipulate that Thomas has, in
CIRM terms, moved a mountain by jostling the board even this far.
Since its inception, the board has set records for arrogance. That's
a direct legacy from Proposition 71, which exempted the stem cell
program, uniquely among California government bodies, from any
practical oversight by the Legislature or elected officials.”

“Shapiro told me from his Princeton
office that Thomas' proposals were 'a significant step in the right
direction, which at least indicates that they haven't ignored the
report.' But he doesn't share Thomas' view that voluntary recusals
solve the conflict of interest problem. That can be done, Shapiro
said, only by replacing stake-holding board members with
independents.

"'The more you can reduce the
inherent conflicts, the better off everyone is going to be,' he said.
The board will 'have to go further over time, in my view.'"

“The Shapiro panel said it didn't
find any instances of inappropriate behavior by board members or
specific conflicts, but there are two reasons for that: It didn't
search for any, and Proposition 71 defined certain conflicts out of
existence. The measure states that it's no conflict for a board
member to also be an officer of an academic institution or private
corporation that might be applying for grants.

“One of the CIRM board's enduring
self-delusions is that its conflicts of interest are purely a matter
of 'perception.' But there have been documented instances
of favoritism shown to well-connected grant or loan applicants, and
at least one overt attempt by a board member to overturn a rejection
of his institution's project. So much of the board's discussion takes
place behind closed doors or informally that the opportunities for
mutual back scratching are incalculable.

“Thomas' 'draconian' proposals won't
change this state of affairs. Special interests will still dominate
the board. Will barring 13 members from voting on grants while giving
them full rein to participate in discussions really eradicate even
the perception of conflicts? You'd have to be terminally naive to
think so.”