The $13 Million Matter of DR3-07201: Allegations of Conflict of Interest at the California Stem Cell Agency

In an unusual move last December, the California stem cell agency removed – with no public explanation – an application for $13 million from consideration by its governing board.

That application is now back before the board on Thursday and is almost certain to be rejected.

What is missing, however, are important specifics about the matter. They are cloaked by the agency's rules that conceal most of the CIRM grant review process, including the names of applicants along with the identities of reviewers and their economic and professional interests. Also shrouded are the details of any complaints about conflicts of interest as well as any other appeals.

Nonetheless, since the proposal was listed on the agenda of a public meeting of a state agency, it is known that it involves application DR3-07201. The unidentified applicant, according to a CIRM summary, sought $13 million for research into a treatment for heart failure, a therapy that is labeled by the applicant in all capital letters as “DYNAMIC.”

The agency's scientific reviewers last year recommended rejection of the request for funding. The agency's review summary said,

“The major serious criticism and flaw stems from the fact that the applicant is currently evaluating the same cellular product in a Phase 1/2 trial in a different subgroup of cardiac patients. Since the objectives of the proposed and currently enrolling trials are similar, reviewers agreed that the proposed Phase 1 trial does not add value and should be re-evaluated after completion and analysis of data from the current trial .”

No scientific score was released for the review but it was last on the list of all applications in this particular round. The agency usually lists the applications in order of their scores.

Following the removal of the application from the board agenda, the California Stem Cell Report in December inquired about the reason. Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications, replied via email,

“We received a last-minute appeal based on an alleged conflict of interest.  In order to allow time to review the claim, we deferred action.  We have done this previously, though I don’t have an exact count.”

When the application popped up on the agenda for this week's meeting, we inquired again, seeking more information. That was seven days ago.

The answer came in the form of a posting yesterday on the CIRM Web site of a one-page memo dated March 7 from Gil Sambrano, CIRM's associate director, review. In the note to the CIRM board, Sambrano said a conflict of interest allegation was raised by the applicant on the morning of Dec. 12, 2013, the day on which the application was to be considered. Sambrano said,

“The applicant alleged that the GWG (grant working group) review of the proposed project may have been 'tainted' by the 'perceived lack of objectivity' of one member of the GWG. There was no specific basis to support a financial, professional or personal conflict as defined in the GWG conflict of interest policy.”

Sambrano said the investigation into the complaint determined there was no violation of the agency's conflict of interest rules. He said,

“We found no evidence that the reviewer had any significant influence on the score or the recommendation. The reviewer was not an assigned reviewer and therefore did not contribute a written critique to the panel. Consistent with the recollection of the review chair and CIRM science officers in attendance, the discussion notes suggest that this reviewer did not provide any comment either in favor or against the proposal. The individual score given by the reviewer was very close to the mean score and thus did not contribute to the broad standard deviation.”

Sambrano continued,

“The applicant also submitted a request for reconsideration based on material new information. Although the applicant provided some information that is new, it did not directly address the main concern of reviewers and therefore did not provide adequate grounds for reconsideration. The request was denied.”

Sambrano said the agency took an additional step of seeking the opinion of two new expert reviewers and the chair of the grant review group. He said they did not find the new information “compelling.”

Reviewer Joyce Frey-Vasconcells was barred from participating in the review of the application, according to its CIRM review summary. Other reviewers in the round who could participate in assessing the application included Joy Cavagnaro, Raj Chopra, Derek J. Hei, Hassan Movahhed and Andrew Balber. Their names were listed on review summaries on other applications in the round where they had conflicts of interest, either professional or economic.

The applicant's appeal does not necessarily end with the CIRM staff decision. The applicant can appear before the board in public on Thursday and seek to overturn the action or ask for further investigation. It can also send material to the agency for delivery to all board members. 

As mentioned previously, the name of the applicant was withheld by the stem cell agency. But it could likely be discerned by a knowledgeable stem cell researcher based on information contained in the review summary. If the applicant would like to send both of its appeals to the California Stem Cell Report, we would be glad to carry their full text and any additional commentary that the applicant would like to make. Other applicants have done so in the past. The agency has no prohibition against such an action and actually has a term for it – self-disclosure.

Our take: The stem cell agency's appeal process ill serves the California public, grant applicants and CIRM itself. The $3 billion agency's reliance on secrecy only raises more questions about cronyism and unfairness, some of which have dogged CIRM since its inception. The recent flap over the $40 million genomics round is only the most recent example. Roughly 90 percent of all the cash handed out by CIRM has gone to institutions that are represented on its governing board, which sets the rules for the grant-making process and determines the nature of the grants. The board's conflicts are built in by Prop. 71, the measure that created the agency in 2004. The only genuine way to ameliorate the issue is with more transparency.