A special task force of directors met last week
for the second time to discuss the likely alterations. Kevin McCormack, spokesman for the agency, said
the group made no decisions. Another meeting will be held later at a
date to be determined. The task force's recommendations will then go
before the full board, probably in late January.

McCormack said members of the panel
have asked for “more details regarding the process that would be
employed if the appeals and extraordinary petition processes were
merged.”

The agency has an odd, bifurcated
appeals process. Early in its existence, the agency said appeals of
reviewer decisions could be based only on conflicts of interest.
However, researchers have a right under state law to speak to the
governing board in public on any issue whatsoever. As some
researchers began to use that avenue to ask for reconsideration of
their applications, the CIRM board created what it called
“extraordinary petitions” in an effort to control the process and
limit appeals. Both the “appeals” and “extraordinary petitions”
are, in fact, appeals but on different grounds and employing different
mechanisms.

The task force was created in September
after directors complained about “arm-twisting” and “emotionally charged presentations” in connection with a record number of
appeals earlier this year.

Here is a link to an item about the task force's first meeting. Here is a link to an agency summary of the task force's deliberations prior to last week's meeting. The
transcript of the session should be available on the CIRM web site
within the next two weeks. It will be found under the meetings
section of the web and then under the heading for the task force's
November session.