UC Davis Stem Cell Researcher: ‘Ivory Tower’ IOM Recommendations Harmful to California Stem Cell Agency

By Dr. Matthew Watson

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency has funded in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 scientists and
institutions, reviving and starting careers and stimulating
construction of $1 billion in new research labs around the state.

None of those recipients, as far as we
know, has come forward to comment publicly on the sweeping recommendations by Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.
Until today, that is.

UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler, who
may be the only stem cell scientist in the United States with a stem
cell blog, weighed in with his thoughts today, which do not align
with those of the blue-ribbon IOM panel.

“Harmful” is one word that Knoepfler, who is a stem cell agency grant recipient, used to describe the recommendations. He predicted “extremely negative repercussions” that “would
actually make CIRM less effective and less responsive to patients and
California citizens.”

He wrote that the IOM report, which
will come before stem cell agency governing board next week “...seems more like an ivory tower
intellectual exercise than an operative, realistic guide to a dynamic
agency that must operate in the real world.”

He defended the CIRM governing board,
which came under fire from the IOM for conflicts of interest.
Institutions linked to board members have received about 90 percent
of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded, according to compilations by the California Stem Cell Report. The IOM said,

“Far too many board members
represent organizations that receive CIRM funding or benefit from
that funding. These competing personal and professional
interests compromise the perceived independence of the ICOC,
introduce potential bias into the board’s decision making, and
threaten to undermine confidence in the board."

Knoepfler said,

“(The) IOM itself admits there is no
evidence that any conflicts of interest have ever guided (the agency's governing board) decisions. Not one example.”

Knoepfler also wrote,

“Interestingly, highlighting the
extremely sensitive nature of this issue, while I’ve been talking
with many bigwigs about this, at this point no one is wiling to go on
the record with an opinion about it except one courageous soul, Don
Reed (see
his piece here).”

There is a reason for that. The IOM is the most prestigious organization of its sort. Its studies are
described as the gold standard. And it has a rareified membership
that many scientists seek to join. So few are ready to give the
organization a smack on the nose. Likewise, California researchers
are loath to publicly criticize the stem cell agency because it
holds the strings to the purse that finances their careers.

California scientists, however, should
be asking themselves a bottom-line question. Do they want to see the
stem cell agency continue for another 10 to 20 years? Under the best
of circumstances, that may be unlikely given the other pressing needs
that the state faces. But if CIRM directors do not forthrightly
address the recommendations of the IOM panel, the fate of the stem
cell agency is exceedingly uncertain.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/pW_1A2nkyrM/uc-davis-stem-cell-researcher-ivory.html