CIRM prejudiced against funding SCNT work?
In a post titled Cascade LifeSciences Critiques CIRM Grant Review Process; Questions Raised about Fairness and Facts, californiastemcellreport presents evidence that CIRM may be prejudiced AGAINST funding SCNT work. Comments from Cascade:
"Cascades Experience with the Grant Review
"Grant review comments were factually incorrect. Not a matter of subjective scientific debate. Hence, the conclusions were fundamentally flawed. For example, reviewer #1 comment was 'lack of novelty, pure translation of the non-human primate work into humans.' This seems to defy logic and the mission of human therapeutics. Moreover, this does not seem to be consistent with the objectives published by CIRM in its RFA, which specifically calls out the 'hurdle' of human SCNT as a fundable goal.
[IPBiz: ironically, sort of like the argument made by FTCR. Trounson, and Loring, against WARF, which argument failed rather badly at the USPTO. Appears to have worked against Cascade!]
"Moreover, at the CIRM IROC meeting Dr. Uta Grieshammer, specifically presented the review committees grant criteria and noted specifically that the review team was advise that 'novelty' was NOT a priority for these types of grants. Also at the meeting, Dr. Trounson announced that no SCNT grants had been made due to some sort of vague policy concern about access to human oocytes and the challenges this had created in other countries. First, this was 'moving the goal posts' after we had submitted our grant application. Second, we appreciate the challenge of securing oocytes but we at Cascade had been fortunate enough to secure commitment from LJ IVF clinic to supply all the oocytes we need to proceed with our effort. Moreover, if this was truly the reason for flagging our grant application as non fundable, CIRM should have just told us that in writing and explain how they were going to proceed, if at all, in the area of SCNT.
[IPBiz to Cascade: CIRM still hasn't articulated a thorough IP policy, and, in fact, retained an attorney NOT registered before the USPTO to render IP advice. What exactly did you expect from CIRM?]
There was another interesting comment from Cascade:
Comparing not-for-profit grants (institutions that are grant writing machines) with the grant applications of fledgling biotech companies is fundamentally unfair.
"Cascades Experience with the Grant Review
"Grant review comments were factually incorrect. Not a matter of subjective scientific debate. Hence, the conclusions were fundamentally flawed. For example, reviewer #1 comment was 'lack of novelty, pure translation of the non-human primate work into humans.' This seems to defy logic and the mission of human therapeutics. Moreover, this does not seem to be consistent with the objectives published by CIRM in its RFA, which specifically calls out the 'hurdle' of human SCNT as a fundable goal.
[IPBiz: ironically, sort of like the argument made by FTCR. Trounson, and Loring, against WARF, which argument failed rather badly at the USPTO. Appears to have worked against Cascade!]
"Moreover, at the CIRM IROC meeting Dr. Uta Grieshammer, specifically presented the review committees grant criteria and noted specifically that the review team was advise that 'novelty' was NOT a priority for these types of grants. Also at the meeting, Dr. Trounson announced that no SCNT grants had been made due to some sort of vague policy concern about access to human oocytes and the challenges this had created in other countries. First, this was 'moving the goal posts' after we had submitted our grant application. Second, we appreciate the challenge of securing oocytes but we at Cascade had been fortunate enough to secure commitment from LJ IVF clinic to supply all the oocytes we need to proceed with our effort. Moreover, if this was truly the reason for flagging our grant application as non fundable, CIRM should have just told us that in writing and explain how they were going to proceed, if at all, in the area of SCNT.
[IPBiz to Cascade: CIRM still hasn't articulated a thorough IP policy, and, in fact, retained an attorney NOT registered before the USPTO to render IP advice. What exactly did you expect from CIRM?]
There was another interesting comment from Cascade:
Comparing not-for-profit grants (institutions that are grant writing machines) with the grant applications of fledgling biotech companies is fundamentally unfair.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home