Charles Halpern Letter to ICOC
By Charles Halpern
| 09. 08. 2005
September 8, 2005
Dear Chairman Klein and Members of the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee:
I reviewed the agenda for the September 9 ICOC meeting with interest and concern. My comments are addressed to Agenda Item 8, to the criteria for grants and for the procedure by which they have been processed. At this meeting, the ICOC should devote its time to genuine deliberation on the criteria for awarding grants-both training grants and research grants. The fact that these are Interim Criteria should not obscure the fact that the early rounds of grants will shape the Prop. 71 stem cell initiative for years to come. The criteria recommended by the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group (WG), while a good starting point, are woefully incomplete. The ICOC should also reconfigure the process by which grant recommendations are presented to the ICOC in a manner which permits true deliberation on grant awards by the ICOC.
In particular, the ICOC should assure that none of the work in California laboratories and none of the training it funds will benefit those who...
Related Articles
By Katherine Long, Ben Foldy, and Lingling Wei, The Wall Street Journal | 12.13.2025
Inside a closed Los Angeles courtroom, something wasn’t right.
Clerks working for family court Judge Amy Pellman were reviewing routine surrogacy petitions when they spotted an unusual pattern: the same name, again and again.
A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental...
By David Jensen, The California Stem Cell Report | 12.11.2025
California’s stem cell and gene therapy agency today approved spending $207 million more on training and education, sidestepping the possibility of using the cash to directly support revolutionary research that has been slashed and endangered by the Trump administration.
Directors...
By Sarah Kliff, The New York Times | 12.10.2025
Micah Nerio had known since his early 30s that he wanted to be a father, even if he did not have a partner. He spent a decade saving up to pursue surrogacy, an expensive process where he would create embryos...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
