Statement of Task

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to convene a committee to produce a report providing an independent assessment of CIRM’s programs, operations, strategies, and performance since 2005. Specifically, the committee was charged with addressing the following questions:

  • CIRM’s initial processes—What can be learned from the history and process of building consensus in the public and scientific communities to support the inception and work of CIRM?
  • CIRM’s programmatic and scientific scope—Does CIRM have the portfolio of projects and grant opportunities necessary to meet its scientific goals? How can CIRM improve upon its existing array of programs? What additional programs and initiatives are recommended to meet its goals? What impacts have been seen from international agreements? Does CIRM’s scientific strategic plan address the range of relevant issues in regenerative medicine within CIRM’s mandated scope of work?
  • CIRM’s organizational and management systems—Are the internal organizational and management systems (in particular the board and working group structures and operations, the peer review system, the conflict of interest guidelines, and the grants management system) effective in working toward the Institute’s scientific goals? Are the systems that are in place scientifically and ethically valid and rigorous? Do they achieve the level of transparency and the level of stakeholder and scientific community involvement needed to meet the Institute’s public responsibilities and scientific goals?
  • CIRM’s funding model—Has the funding model for CIRM had an impact on the work of the Institute? What are the advantages of CIRM’s model for covering long-term costs of medical research? Could aspects of this funding model serve as a paradigm for other states or countries? What has been the economic impact of CIRM’s research and facilities awards and grants?
  • CIRM’s intellectual property policies—What are the strengths and weaknesses of CIRM’s policy for sharing revenue generated by intellectual property? How does this model compare to the model governing federally supported research?

The principal objective of this review was to ensure that all aspects of CIRM’s operations are functioning at peak performance. The committee was asked to provide recommendations regarding short-, medium-, and long-term actions that could improve the performance of CIRM.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement