UN IVERS ITY OF CALIFORN IA, S AN FRAN CIS CO

BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO CRUZ SANTA BARBARA SANTA

PUI-YAN KWOK, M.D., PH.D. PROFESSOR OF DERMATOLOGY HENRY BACHRACH DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AND INVESTIGATOR CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE TELEPHONE" #$ 1 5 % 5 1 $ -3 8 & FACSIMILE" #$ 1 5 % 5 1 $ -1 1 ) 3

SMITH CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH BLDG 5 5 5 MISSION BAY BLVD SOUTH, MC-3 1 1 8 ROOM 5 ! SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ' $ 1 5 8 - 1 5 ( EMAIL" PUI.KWOK*UCSF.EDU

January 24, 2014 California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Independent Citizens Oversig t Co!!ittee "ear Co!!ittee Me!#ers$ I a! %riting regarding t e recent evaluation of proposals in response to t e CIRM R&' 12(0)$ *te! Cell +eno!ics Centers of ,-cellence '%ards. Over t e past 24 ours, it as #eco!e apparent t at c anges to t e scoring !et od !ay ave unfairly penalized so!e proposals. *pecifically, t e original R&' clearly outlined t e process for revie%ing and scoring t e applications$ /'s eac application %ill propose !ultiple Center(initiated 0ro1ects, revie%ers %ill assign separate scores for eac of t e proposed Center(initiated 0ro1ects %it in an application. 2 ese pro1ect scores %ill #e %eig ted proportionally to t e funds re3uested for eac pro1ect, and t en co!#ined to deter!ine a score for t e Center(initiated 0ro1ect co!ponent of t e application.4 2 e actual process, o%ever, %as conducted in a very different !anner, as stated in t e CIRM 'genda ite! 56$ /Revie%ers could propose re!oval of individual Center Initiated 0ro1ects.4 2 us, instead of giving t e Center(initiated 0ro1ect co!ponent of t e application an aggregate score, as %as descri#ed in t e original R&', t ere %as a su#se3uent decision to eli!inate t e lo%est scoring center(initiated pro1ects fro! t%o of t e center proposals 7+C1R(0))68 and +C1R(0)609:. 2 e net effect %as to significantly increase t e overall scores of t ese proposals, placing t e! at t e top of 2ier 1. If t e original scoring !et odology ad #een used, it is very li;ely t at t e poor scores of t e center( initiated pro1ects t at %ere eli!inated %ould ave placed t e entire center proposal into 2ier 2. Re!oval of poorly scored pro1ects fro! t e final scoring of a proposal is %it out precedent, and certainly not consistent %it any <I= grant revie%ing procedure, giving t e appearance of preferential treat!ent of particular proposals. 2 erefore, I re3uest t at t e original scoring !et odology #e applied. I note t at t ere %ere ot er center proposals ran;ed in 2ier 1 7reco!!ended for funding: % ose scores %ere not raised #y selective eli!ination of %ea; co!ponents. I feel strongly t at t e relative !erits of all t e proposals s ould #e 1udged on a level playing field. *incerely,

0ui(>an ?%o;, M."., 0 .". 7on #e alf of t e entire center tea!: =enry @ac rac "istinguis ed 0rofessor 0rogra! "irector of +C1R()602