Asking questions about how Texas is spending its cancer research windfall

Have you been following the imbroglio involving the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas?

Let’s start at the beginning. In 2007 Texas voters approved the creation of CPRIT, funded by $3 billion in state bonds, for “groundbreaking” cancer research and prevention programs in Texas.

(Gilman)

Of the funds, most were to be spent on cancer research in order to find cures for the disease. To oversee the administration of the funds CPRIT hired Nobel laureate Al Gilman as its chief scientific officer. Work proceeded and grants were given in a manner similar to federal science research review processes.

Fast forward to about a week ago, when Gilman resigned. One of the biggest reasons he cited is concerns about the review process that allocated $20 million of taxpayer money to a joint proposal by Rice University and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. (see his resignation letter here).

His concerns were then echoed by the panel of eminent scientists that evaluates scientific grant applications for CPRIT.

At issue is a $20 million grant to create a joint Rice-M.D. Anderson “incubator” that will, in its words, “bring new technologies and therapies to market sooner to prevent, treat and cure cancer.”

The scientists are concerned because this grant application didn’t come before the scientific review committee, even though they believe it definitely was a research proposal. In their letter to CPRIT’s oversight committee, the scientists wrote:

Apparently, the absence of a specific research plan was taken by CPRIT leadership as the justification for bypassing any review by CPRIT’s panel of reviewers. As we understand it, CPRIT leadership determined that incubator proposals were to be considered under the category of commercialization, not research. However, no product candidates are mentioned in the IACS proposal, nor is a company involved.

After concluding that this proposal should be considered under the rules governing incubators, CPRIT followed the letter of their own law, in that incubator proposals were not to be reviewed for scientific content. We are surprised and disappointed by the failure of proposals of this sort to receive scientific (research) peer review. The $20M one-year award is by far the biggest that CPRIT has ever made.

As members of the body that has been authorized to pass judgment on the merits of scientific proposals made to CPRIT, we will be viewed tohave approved this award, and the failure to include us in the process calls into question our roles and the integrity of the review program in general.

In other words, why wasn’t a very large grant subject to scientific peer review, just as it would be in the case of a National Institutes of Health or other standard fund-granting process?

It’s a good question. In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday CPRIT executive director Bill Gimson tried to explain, saying this proposed incubator was not a research program, and therefore not subject to scientific review.

With that noted here are some outstanding questions I have about this:

  • If CPRIT is funding business plans, as Gimson apparently believes the Rice-M.D. Anderson incubator is, is this consistent with the proposition Texans voted for to advance cancer research?
  • Why did CPRIT bypass its own process during the review of the incubator plan, and skip the in-person presentation as part of the grant review?
  • What will this incubator do that, say, BioHouston is not already doing?
  • Should we have any conflict-of-interest concerns that the M.D. Anderson-Rice incubator is being led by the wife of M.D. Anderson president Dr. Ronald DePinho, Dr. Lynda Chin?
  • Should we be surprised that putting $3 billion into the hands of a quasi-state agency to disburse at its pleasure will, in time, raise questions about the propriety of said distributions?

In any case, I do know that Gilman is really upset by this situation, upset enough that he resigned. Moreover he’s not alone. Here’s the view of the incubator proposal from a senior biomedical scientist in the Texas Medical Center with much experience on National Institutes of Health review panels:

“Any group of medical/research institutions in any major U.S. city could hire a consulting firm and put together a glossy propaganda piece like this and promote it as the future of medical science. It reduces to how great and wonderful and talented we are, and what remarkable marketing plans we have. Give us the money. Funding this is a travesty. No wonder Gilman is apoplectic.”

So there you have it. Taxpayers should be, at the very least, asking questions about how these funds are being spent.

Eric Berger