General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientists Quit Texas Cancer Institute in Flap
AUSTIN, TexasThirty-three scientists resigned from a state-funded cancer research institute this month, with some publicly complaining that political appointees were trying to improperly influence how its money was doled out.
(snip)
Known as CPRIT and financed with public bonds, the institute has disbursed $755 million in cancer funding over the last three yearssecond in the U.S. only to the National Institutes of Health. Lance Armstrong, the now-disgraced cyclist, cancer survivor and Austin resident, had campaigned across the state to persuade voters to pass the ballot proposition that created it. But the institute has been battered by infighting between the panel of scientists who provide advice on research-grant requestswhich numbered 140 before the 33 resignedand its oversight committee, which includes laypeople appointed by state political leaders.
Some of the departing scientistswho include Nobel laureates Phillip A. Sharp and Alfred Gilman, who had been the institute's chief scientific officersaid in resignation letters and interviews with The Wall Street Journal that they were protesting a willingness by the oversight committee to fund commercial projects aimed at developing new cancer therapies, regardless of whether the projects had been thoroughly vetted by the scientists.
The dispute reflects a larger debate in the cancer-research world between groups who want to focus on scientific research to answer basic questions about the disease, and those who favor investment in commercial projects such as drug companies that can bring products quickly to market.
More..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203937004578079033293231440.html
patrice
(47,992 posts)sadbear
(4,340 posts)but I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I can't read the rest of the article.
question everything
(47,517 posts)as a "trial" subscription. At least, I opened it from google news.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)I really don't need to read the rest of the article. I'm pretty sure I know how it went down.
question everything
(47,517 posts)only that some of the criticism was favoritism toward the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
Perhaps Texan DUers can shed more light.
Here is also a story from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/texas-embattled-3b-cancer-fighting-agency-out-to-repair-image-this-week-after-bruising-year/2012/10/24/40dd7218-1dab-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas opened its annual meeting under a cloud of scrutiny brought by the mass resignation of nearly three dozen scientists, some of whom criticized the fund for hucksterism and suspicion of favoritism on their way out the door.