The agency posted on its web site a 4 ½ page plan to curb the free-wheeling pitches that reached a record level at last month's governing board meeting. Some of the changes
would formalize ad hoc procedures that have emerged over the last
several years. The plan would also make it clearer exactly what can
and cannot be done or expected under the agency's appeal process,
which is poorly understood by at least some researchers.

The agency's proposal, due to be acted
on at the CIRM board meeting next Wednesday and Tuesday, is heavily
nuanced, dealing with such matters as “supplemental information,”
an “additional analysis option,” “criteria for material dispute
of fact,” “criteria for material new information” – not to
mention the old standby – “extraordinary petition.”

CIRM also reiterates in a footnote its
distinction between an “appeal” and an “extraordinary
petition.” However, it is a distinction without a difference except
to those in thrall of bureaucratic jargon. Both are appeals. Their
purpose is to provide a method for overturning reviewers' decision under certain conditions.

Details on CIRM's proposed changes came
only four business days prior to next week's governing board meeting
– a little late to generate thoughtful comment and constructive
suggestions from those most likely to be affected by the changes –
the 500 or so recipients of $1.6 billion in CIRM funding. Before final action on the changes, the board may well want to send out the proposal to all of its grant recipients and ask them for written comment that could then be considered at a public meeting of its Science Subcommittee.

The CIRM board has been bedeviled by
the appeal process for more than four years, including the
presentations at its public meetings by scientists. Ironically, the
first such public appearance was made by Bert Lubin, who is now a member of the CIRM
board  and CEO of Childrens Hospital in Oakland, Ca..

As the California Stem Cell Report
wrote at the time, the pitch by Lubin, who was unsuccessful,
disturbed some board members. Gerald Levey, then dean of the UCLA
medical school and a member of the board, said,

Lubin was later quoted in the journal
Nature as saying that his rejected application did not come from “the
in crowd” of stem cell researchers or organization.

A final note: CIRM's proposal for changes in
the appeal process also uses language that obfuscates exactly what
researchers can do under state law. The document says that scientists
“may” make oral and written comments to the board, which is a
state government entity. In fact, state law makes it clear that
researchers as well as any member of the public have the “right”
to comment. The board legally cannot prevent them from speaking or
making comments. And the board, to its credit, has always allowed
ample public comment even when it slows the board's work.