Responding to accusations of improper procedures, $ 3 billion research fund cancer Texas agreed to re -consider marketing a controversial $ 20 million award made in March for two institutions Houston. But it is unclear whether the plan will satisfy the critics, who ask a rigorous scientific review.
Meanwhile, according to emails obtained by a newspaper in Texas, a Nobel scientist who resigned in part to its price on concerns about the grant was forced to leave after he complained that the exams had become politicized.
The grant of the Institute of Prevention and Cancer Research of Texas (CPRIT) provides $ 20 million in one year to be split between Rice University and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, who split-up of the lion to $ 18 million of his Institute of applied science Cancer (IACS). CPRIT Scientific Director, Alfred Gilman, announced earlier this month that he resign in part because he believes IACS, which plans to discover and develop drugs, is a research program "disguise [d]" the marketing to avoid scientific scrutiny. Scientific Review Board CPRIT shared these concerns.
Other questions about the allocation process have since come: Some members of the review of the marketing of CPRIT Council, which approved the granting of the incubator, have links with the rice or MD Anderson, for example. And from MD Anderson does not go through the office of the Provost of the University, which looks at potential conflicts of interest and have identified one in this case, because the lead researcher Lynda Chin is married to MD Anderson President Ronald DePinho. Critics allege that CPRIT and MD Anderson bypassed normal procedures.
Yesterday DePinho CPRIT sent a letter calling the allegations "inaccurate" and "false," but said it is "understandable" why scientists would be involved "in the absence of all the facts." The letter says MD Anderson is ready to submit its proposal for a "reconsideration." But the letter denies that the grant must go through the provost MD Anderson. Because it is a business plan, the proposal will be considered by "business affairs" department of MD Anderson, said the letter.
CPRIT Executive Director William Gimson wrote back the same day DePinho that CPRIT accepts the offer to re-examine the IACS part of the proposal of the incubator. (He refused the offer of MD Anderson to delay funding for a year, because it would be incompatible with CPRIT policies.) The letter also indicates that, in accordance with the incubator Request for Applications (RFA) has approved the last year by the Board CPRIT, the proposal will be considered by the review of the marketing CPRIT board. At the same time, Gimson wrote, "the incubator RFA is designed for commercial and any proposal must comply with this criterion."
What is not clear is whether the marketing examiners see the IACS project in the same way the scientific critics. They argue that because IACS objectives such as the study of "target biology" and did not identify the products or business, it is about marketing, not on science. Depending on how soon MD Anderson resubmits its proposal, the board exam marketing could make a decision before the next meeting of CPRIT board in July.
The Gilman concerns about the review process CPRIT led to pressure from, according to an online report today The Dallas Morning News . The article cites April 1 Gilman email to colleagues in which he said Gimson told him to resign because the board CPRIT "has no faith in your ability to do your job." Gilman wrote that he replied that "I will not resign, they would need to fire me."
More from the article:
The resignation request by Bill Gimson, executive director of the Institute of Prevention and Cancer Research of Texas, or CPRIT is came after Gilman wrote four pages letter in which he warned that "political considerations" should not be held to decide how public dollars should CPRIT award.
E-mail and letters Gilman were among hundreds of pages of documents published by CPRIT in response to a public records request by The Dallas Morning News. Reached for comment this morning, Gilman declined to answer questions.
Dozens of emails focus on Gilman position that the system of CPRIT "peer review" in which out-of-state scientific review applications to avoid potential conflicts of interest, is attacked by enemies, including some members of the monitoring committee agency that Gilman called "people really badly."
0 Komentar