Editorial: Tangled loyalties at top of stem cell institute
By Sacramento Bee,
Sacramento Bee
| 11. 25. 2007
Behind conflict-of-interest controversy is real problem: The chairman's leadership
Internal conflicts have hurt and hampered the oversight committee of California's $3 billion stem cell institute since voters created it in 2004 by passing Proposition 71.
As designed by Robert Klein, the author of that initiative, a majority of this 29-member oversight committee consists of administrators and scientists whose institutions have a stake in the taxpayer money the board hands out for stem cell research.
Although members of the "Independent Citizens Oversight Committee" are required to abstain from all decisions that could directly affect them or their institutions, at least one has now been caught using back channels in an attempt to influence a major grant.
//
//]]>
John Reed, a respected scientist and oversight board member who heads the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, became disappointed earlier this year when the institute's staff ruled that a Burnham-affiliated researcher was ineligible to receive a $638,000 grant. Institute reviewers and the oversight board (with Reed abstaining) had already approved the grant, but the institute's staff later determined the researcher was not a full-time Burnham employee.
In an Aug...
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...