Here is a list of articles from the California Stem Cell Report and California Institute of Regenerative

Medicine documents dealing with the grant appeal process at the institute. The list was prepared on
Sept. 20, 2010, by David Jensen, editor of the California Stem Cell Report.

Articles from the California Stem Cell Report

Aug. 10, 2010

Emotionalism and Potential Favoritism Cited as Need for Changes in CIRM Grant
Appeals
Passion and favoritism, democracy and gamesmanship – all are part of the ongoing discussion among directors of
the $3 billion California stem cell agency as they try to fix what some of them call a “broken” grant appeal process.

July 19, 2010

UC Davis Scientist Praises CIRM Appeals Change

A stem cell researcher at UC Davis today said a change in the CIRM grant appeals procedure makes “a lot of
sense.” Writing on his blog in regard to "extraordinary petitions," Paul Knoepfler said,
“I think the proposed change makes a lot of sense and would greatly improve the process. Sometimes
the reasons in the petitions are clearly not meritorious and as it now stands, they end up
wasting CIRM's time. The last time CIRM received 9 petitions as well, which represented a
remarkably large fraction of the total applications. A stricter process would discourage the submission
of large numbers of petitions, an important issue given that the number of petitions received by CIRM
continues to grow.”

CIRM Finally Discloses Grant Appeal Proposals

The California stem cell agency early today belatedly posted a two-page memo on proposed changes in how it will
deal with appeals by scientists whose grant applications have been rejected by reviewers.

July 18, 2010

Sticky, Troubling Appeals by Rejected Researchers Targeted by Stem Cell Agency

A key step in the process for awarding billions of dollars in research grants is “broken,” according to many directors
of the California stem cell agency, and major changes are looming that will affect hundreds of scientists.

June 22, 2010

Immunology Grants: CIRM Gives $25 Million to 19 Researchers

Directors of the California stem cell agency today approved $25 million for immunology research, overturning four
negative decisions by its grant reviewers.

Directors faced a record nine public petitions to reverse its reviewers. After some grumbling, the directors, who see
only a summary of the application and reviewer comments, okayed the four.

June 19, 2010

More Grant Appeals Filed: Yamanaka Invoked

The California stem cell agency has set another benchmark, although this is one that it may not want to trot out at
international stem cell gatherings.

Eight scientists whose applications were rejected for funding by the CIRM grants working group and scientific
reviewers are seeking to overturn those decisions at the agency's board meeting in San Diego on Tuesday.
It is the largest number of “extraordinary petitions” ever filed and amounts to more than one out of every four
applications that were turned down. The total number of applications received was 44. Fifteen were approved.
Some of the researchers are likely to appear at the board meeting and make a personal pitch.

May 18, 2010

Competing for California Stem Cell Cash: Rules of the Game Coming Under
Scrutiny
Every California stem cell scientist and researcher looking to join the field – be they from academia or business –
should pay very close attention to a meeting next week of a key group of directors of the $3 billion California stem
cell agency.

They plan to discuss possible changes in how scientists compete for stem cell cash, which is no small matter
since CIRM has another $2 billion to hand out over the next several years.

CIRM documents
Pre-application review – CIRM report (Jan. 2010) on the process

Extraordinary petition policy – Version as of 5/25/10

Appeal policy – Version as of 5/25/2010

Transcript of July 20, 2010, meeting of CIRM directors Science Subcommittee. Discussion of petitions begins on
page 40.

Transcript of the June 22, 2010, CIRM directors meeting. Discussions of extraordinary petitions begin on pages 24
and 67

Transcript of 5/25/10 Science Subcommittee meeting dealing with appeals issue