CIRM red-faced over grant to Cha?

Australasianbioethics presented an unsympathetic look at CIRM's grant to Cha:

--The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [CIRM], the tax-payer funded body which will dispense US$3 billion for stem cell research, is red-faced over a grant to a nearly unknown Los Angeles institute. -- The post identifies the grant recipient as Jang-Won Lee (not Chung Hyung Min).

The post also quotes Marcy Darnovksy, of the Center for Genetics and Society: "Being that the CHA conglomerate has both a fertility centre and this experimental research arm, how are you going to make sure there aren't conflicts of interest there between the medical people who are actually extracting the eggs and giving the hormones and the researchers?"

The issue of how the individual researchers at CHA-RMI might benefit financially from the grant is not raised. Also, no one is discussing that the grant amounts to a re-make of Hwang Woo Suk's efforts in human SCNT.

See the earlier IPBiz post:

Further fulminations in CIRM's Cha-Gate

***
In view of a recent post by Kim on californiastemcellreport, it appears that Lee's actions both at KSOG/KJOG and at Fertility & Sterility were in violation of policies AT BOTH JOURNALS against multiple publication. Separately, by deleting Kim's name from the Fertility & Sterility paper, Lee took work, which she knew to have been written by another (Kim) and represented it as NOT having been written by Kim. This brings us back to Posner's conjecture: do custom and practice in a field excuse plagiarism, as Posner would do in the area of legal writing? May senior workers (and employers) in science substitute their names for the name of the actual author? In the realm of United States patent law, the answer to this is a strong NO; the true inventor must be named.