No proposed criteria will be available prior to the public meeting. They may not be available at the beginning of the meeting either. Instead, the only advance, online offerings are likely to be marginally useful, Power Point presentations that will summarize issues and suggestions presented during previous four public sessions of the Facilities Working Group.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Monday said in an email to California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein,
"This facilities RFA is one of the most important and potentially contentious RFAs that CIRM will issue. It's supposed to be based on the input of four public hearings held around the state.Simpson added that not having the information in advance also makes it difficult for members of the working group to take intelligent action.
"The ICOC is to be commended for authorizing those hearings to gather public input about the policies.
"However, not making a draft of the policies to be discussed available with ample time for review by the public so they can make intelligent comments at the meeting makes a mockery of the entire process. It forces one to conclude that there was no real interest in meaningful public input and that your process was nothing more than a public relations sham."
The only documents available online until late Monday afternoon were two facilities group transcripts from May 31 and June 4. Transcripts from hearings June 11 and June 19 were not available until Simpson called -- in his email to Klein -- for them to be posted forthwith.
The failure to post important material well in advance harkens back to earlier days of CIRM, when even members of its Oversight Committee complained publicly about not getting background material in advance. Some of that can be chalked up to growing pains.
But problem is obviously continuing. It has been compounded by not allowing enough time at meetings -- called by Klein or other committee chairs -- to cover all the necessary ground. In this case, for example, 11 persons sit on the Facilities Working Group. If each took only 10 minutes asking questions or making comments, that would consume nearly two hours. Then there is a staff presentation, questions and comments from representatives of California universities and institutions as well as from the general public. All with no draft criteria to actually read and study ahead of time.
Encumbering the process of handing out research lab grants fits with what one might call a modified stonewall strategy. CIRM does not have to make grants for lab construction. If it did not, CIRM would would have more money for research, which seems to be a priority of patient advocates on the Oversight Committee. On the other hand, executives from institutions represented on the committee could understandably take a different view although grants for their researchers are certainly important to them.
Whatever the case, the facilities group's hearings on the research lab criteria have been one of CIRM's more heavily attended series of events – mainly by folks from universities and nonprofit institutions.
It is a disservice to them, the public and CIRM itself not to provide a better opportunity for comment as well as thoughtful consideration by the working group.
No comments:
Post a Comment