Non-Transparent Pre-Application Invented by CIRM Directors – The Biggest Grant Review Loophole for Abuse & Corruption

On the day CA stem cell agency’s governing board proposes dramatic changes in response to IOM report, the darkest process in CIRM grant review procedure remains untouchable. It is called Pre-Application, invented by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) as the safe haven of CIRM directors’ wrong doings, because CIRM would not disclose any information of its pre-applications to the public, not even to IOM. However, understanding CIRM pre-application process is critical for understanding why > $1 billion of CIRM awards have gone into CIRM directors’ own financial interests, not to Prop 71 stem cell research. According to Gilberto Sambrano, who is CIRM Associate Director, CIRM pre-application selection is run by him, CIRM director Pat Olson and 3 or 4 others. They send out pre-applications to 3 outside reviewers they selected in CIRM directors’ favor, most likely CIRM directors’ conflict of interest (COI) alliances, like regular Journal editors do. And those outside reviewers score the word-space-information limited pre-applications based on their own opinions, not any scientific data or scientific merit, NOT like regular Journal or grant reviewers do. There is no procedure in CIRM pre-application to identify abuse & COI. There is no procedure in CIRM pre-application to ensure fair review & competition. And there is no appeal for CIRM pre-application, even it is a flawed grant review, even it has COI. Basically, the reviewers can say whatever they like about CIRM pre-applications and trash their competitors’ research and cell types such as hESC research of Prop 71, because they do not have to provide any scientific evidences to support their opinions, nor concern about any ethics or scientific conduct codes or public opinions or accountability or public scrutiny since no one would know about it, besides the very discouraged & frustrated applicant buried in the pre-application. In our case, the reviewers’ opinions favor trans-differentiation or direct differentiation [<0.5% efficiency, not useful for patients or translatable] of UCSF/Gladstone’s Deepak Srivastava & UCSD Larry Goldstein groups to intentionally give biased comments and low score to Prop71 & hESC research. Those pre-applications favored by reviewers’ opinions would do better to be selected by CIRM directors to recommend to CIRM board, those not favored by the reviewers’ opinions would not be selected, no matter what the scientific data or evidences say & no matter what the Prop 71 says. Just think about who select those reviewers, it is not too difficult to figure out who would be favored by CIRM reviewers and eventually selected by CIRM directors for $ millions awards, which is hard to believe not to be the definition of financial COI. Is Prop 71 written that all CIRM grants should be only scored by 15 members in CIRM board, not decided by a few outside reviewers or CIRM directors using biased non-transparent cheery-picking process? CIRM director Gilberto Sambrano, who seemed not respond to CA stem cell agency’s governing board proposed dramatic changes, was eager to defend CIRM pre-application process & reviewers’ biased comments & scores by agreeing with & elaborating the reviewers’ opinion without any scientific basis, discrediting scientific data/evidences as my own opinion, saying COI cannot be identified & changes cannot be done, discouraging any appeal or even discussion, discouraging any suggestions for fair review/transparency/improvement, then telling me that NIH is doing the same thing too. Although NIH grant review processes contain many loopholes too, at least, NIH allows any applicants to appeal, and the NIH program officials are bound by NIH policy & regulation not to discourage anyone to appeal or they cannot tell anyone not to appeal.

As accounted by Gilberto Sambrano, CIRM non-transparent pre-application process invented by CIRM directors maybe the biggest grant review loophole for abuse & corruption in government funding agencies. It allows CIRM directors to hand pick their own awards with financial COI ties without having to go through fair competition, scientific grant review process, accountability, and public scrutiny. What accounted by CIRM director Gilberto Sambrano would explain that > $1 billion of CIRM awards have gone into CIRM directors’ own financial interests with no Prop 71 scientific merit, hundreds of millions of public funds for stem cell research & cure have gone into stem cell frauds and wastes, the most potential hESC research have been buried in CIRM abusive grant review process, and towards clinical translation of hESC therapy derivatives and medical innovations designated by Prop 71 has not been able to receive a penny from CIRM, and there is zero result from > $1 billion of CIRM awards. According to Prop 71, only the 15 scientist members of the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group shall score grant and loan award applications for scientific merit. There is no such unaccountable pre-application in Prop 71. Pre-application procedure was invented by CIRM directors to counter-act transparency when CIRM began to allow appeal procedure in grant review under public pressure for transparency and accountability. If CIRM really wants to improve transparency and fairness in its grant making and review processes, there are many good & efficient government standards & procedures that they can easily adopt, such as having the applicants to speak and talk about their scientific data and proposal in public meetings, having independent grants appeal officers, having policy & guidelines for reviewers. With ~$ 1 M luxury salary to CIRM president and chair and ~ $ 20 M spending budget from the State, CIRM directors like Gilberto Sambrano would cry about that they could not handle ~ 150 grant applications every time I talk to them. Have we heard CA governor cry about that he cannot handle the state budget? Maybe CIRM should also hire someone who can handle the 150 grant applications to improve its efficiency and transparency as a state government agency. If CIRM cannot even follow and implement Prop 71, if CIRM president Alan Trounson can see no merit in Prop 71 stem cell research, if CIRM directors think they are above the law, it is hard to believe they will adopt any changes and increase transparency of grant making and review processes.