SF Sentinel

Tomorrow, the state's troubled $3 billion stem-cell institute will decide whether members of its working groups should be required to publicly disclose any conflicts of interest before they review grant applications and make recommendations to the agency's governing board for final approval.

More disclosure is a good thing, so we are for it.

So far, though, the staff has recommended the agency vote against full public disclosure.

They're concerned top-level scientists won't be willing to participate in the voluntary process if they have to make complete financial disclosures of any potential conflicts.

So, as this Mercury News editorial points out, the agency wants to settle for internal disclosure of potential conflicts that could then be reviewed, but not publicly disclosed, by the Legislature or an independent auditor.

The trouble is, with lawsuits filed to stop this agency's activities, in part because of its secrecy and questions about oversight, anything short of full disclosure may further fuel public skepticism -- which could stall the dogged agency even longer.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.siliconbeat.com/cgi-bin/mt331/mt-tb.cgi/1779

Links to blogs that reference this entry: