Howard Hughes Medical Institute Department of Tumor Cell Biology St. Jude Children's Research Hospital 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105 I (l 3" October 7, 2012 Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research institute of Texas 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Copies to: James M. Mansour, Chairman, and Joseph S. Bailes, M.D., Vice-Chairman Dear Mr. Gimson: The purpose of this letter is to tender my resignation as the Chair of the CPRIT Basic Science Cancer Research Committee-3 (BCRC-3) and as a member of the CPRIT review Council chaired by Dr. Sharp, effective immediately. In a separate email addressed directly to you on May 3rd, to which you did not directly respond, I communicated my personal displeasure regarding events that would soon lead to AI Gilman's resignation. Briefly stated, my previous letter concerned the manner by which Dr. Gilman had been inappropriately pressured to step down as Chief Scientific Officer and my dissatisfaction with the then emerging notion that a political agenda would subvert decisions about supporting only the very best medical science deemed most likely to accelerate prevention and effective treatment of cancer. These matters were soon echoed in a separate joint letter from the CPRIT Council addressed to members of the Oversight Committee and widely quoted in the press. Despite my unease, I thought it prudent to remain with CPRIT through the round of reviewjust completed in September 2012, thereby allowing those investigators in Texas who had formulated new proposals in the last months to receive careful consideration of their scientific initiatives by the BCRC-3 group. Having now completed these efforts, I feel free to step down. I had already alerted you to the fact that many other members of BCRC-3 were equally offended by the events of recent months, and I suspect that you may be hearing from others in this regard. There have been a series of widely publicized incidents that have been visibly documented, in particular by reporters at the Houston Chronicle and in issues of the Cancer Letter broadly circulated to cancer centers throughout the country. In my personal judgment, one of the most problematic events concerned the proposed funding of the Institute for Applied Cancer Science (IACS) at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Their short proposal of less than seven pages was reviewed solely as a commercial "incubator" project, but without rigorous scientific oversight by any of the more than 100 out-of-state experts already employed by CPRIT who could have offered informed opinions. The IACS proposal was approved within several weeks of its receipt, overriding Dr. Gilman's strong objections and even disregarding caveats offered by some of the persons who were asked to participate in its "'commercial" review. The level of funding of the IACS greatly exceeded that of proposals that had been previously adjudicated by our Council and review groups, underscoring preferential treatment given to this one application. As reported publicly, the IACS proposal's budget was not reviewed by the MDACC provost, Dr. DuBois, who recently resigned his post at MDACC. Despite your proclaimed enthusiasm and that of other CPRIT Overseers, but given widespread press coverage and criticism, the IACS proposal has been withdrawn pending re--review. New guidelines for Requests for Applications (RFAs) for "incubators" which were to be drawn up have yet to appear, and I wonder whether some persons believe that forward movement in funding the IACS would be facilitated by Dr. GiIman's departure and the possible elimination of other naysayers, myself included. when you phoned me last week, I reiterated that it has been an honor and a privilege to serve CPRIT under Dr. Gi|man's aegis, to participate in the deliberations of the CPRIT Council in recruiting top quality investigators to institutions in Texas (including Drs. Chin, Allison, and others to the MDACC), and above all, in leading a committee of highly distinguished scientists from outside the state who have worked diligently and with keen collective insight in adjudicating applications referred to our review panel. Indeed, the opportunity to work with esteemed colleagues on the Council and the BCRC-3 Committee has been the best such panel review experience of my scientific career, bar none. Our singular collective concern was that we would attempt to fund the very best transformative cancer science, whether clinical, translational, or basic. Investigators at different institutions throughout Texas were given a fair and balanced hearing by a coterie of national referees - our deliberations paid no attention to geography or political pressures within Texas, and we had no hidden agendas or conflicts of interest. I fully accept that it is the purview of the Overseers and, ultimately, the citizens of Texas to decide how their funds should be best spent. Under current circumstances, however, I cannot lend my approbation to the changing of the guard. Respectfully yours, Charles J. Sherr, M.D., Herrick Foundation Chairman Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Member, US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF CELL BIOLOGY J. Wade Harper, Harvard Medical School Vallee Professor of Molecular Pathology 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, Massachusetts 021 15 I -E Tel (617)432-6590 Fax (617)432-6591 October 7, 2012 Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Copies to: James M. Mansour, Chairman, and Joseph S. Bailes, M.D., Vice-Chairman Dear Mr. Gimson This letter is written to tender my resignation as a member of the CPRIT Basic Science Cancer Research Committee-3 (BCRC-3), effective immediately. Having spent 15 years as a faculty member at Baylor College of Medicine and a resident of Houston, I was very excited to be asked by Dr. Sherr to participate in his review panel. This was especially the case because I have admired Dr. Sherr's science and intellect for more than 2 decades. Recognizing that Texas institutions have significant promise, I felt that the CPRIT model and the funds available would truly be transformative, but only if the best science was fimded. I was strengthened in this feeling of promise upon the first meeting of the BCRC-3 study section, Where I discovered just how scientifically stellar the BCRC-3 study section actually was. Through Dr. Sherr's vision, he was able to establish a national panel of experts who judged each application based solely on the science and the ability of that science to transform cancer treatment in Texas. I have served on numerous other study sections, including NIH. The BCRC-3 study section was by far the most rigorous and fair study section I have ever been associated with. This is due in no small part to Dr. Sherr's efforts in bringing this incredible group together and keeping us together for 3 years. Having talked to members of the other scientific review panels, I believe that they all feel this way about their individual groups. Prior to joining CPRIT's review panel, I had not had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Gillman. Through the 3 years I have known him, I have NEVER heard him say anything that would sway reviewers in either direction toward ANY grant. I have never seen him display favoritism in any form. Thus, one of the most depressing things about the last 6 months has been the extent to which Dr. Gillman's integrity has been challenged. He has my utmost respect. Also, I must say that the new policy of having a monitor present during our discussions is one of the most insulting things that have happened to me in my professional career. In my view, the direction that CPRIT is going -- putting commercialization schemes in place at the expense of well-grounded scientific studies -- will ultimately degrade the process that CPRIT originally intended. Without appropriate and rigorous scientific review, those with the greatest hype, rather than the greatest science, will likely receive the lion's share of the fiinding, often I fear, with an outcome that is not in the best interest of the residents of Texas. There is much more of a chance, using this mechanism, for favoritism to be given, and for politics to be inserted into the process. I am very much afraid that the enormous efforts that all of the study sections have given to the review process with the hope of transforming cancer research in Texas during the last 3 years will possibly be for naught if strict and rigorous scientific review is not maintained. Given the dramatic changes in the approach being taken by CPRIT, I am unable to continue my support for this endeavor. Sincerely Wade Harper and Vallee Professor of Molecular Pathology Koc Phillip A. Sharp Institute Professor for Integrative Cancer Research gsharppafirnitedu Massachusetts Institute of Technology web. rnitedulsharplab 0 617-253-6421 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room 76-461 Cambridge. MA 02139 0 617-253-3867 October 8, 2012 Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 7th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Copies to: James M. Mansour, Chairman, and Joseph S. Bailes, M.D., Vice-Chairman Dear Mr. Gimson, I write to submit my resignation as Chairman of the Council of CPRIT effective October 12, which coincides with the effective date of the resignation of Dr. Al Gilman. I agreed to chair the Council to advance cancer research and cancer care in Texas after the State's wonderful decision to commit $3 billion to this purpose. A strong and objective peer review process is essential to achieve this end and the Council members and panelists assembled by Dr. Gilman were the best in the country. They all shared the same objectives for CPRIT and executed their duties in an exemplary fashion and free of conflicts of interests. It has been an honor to chair this group and work with Dr. Gilman. However, this past Spring the peer review system of CPRIT was dishonored by actions of administration when a set of grants were delayed in funding because of suspicion of favoritism. Further, a proposal based on science similar to that previously reviewed by the CPRIT council was selected for funding using other criteria. These events ultimately led to the resignation of Dr. Gilman. The same events motivate my decision to resign now. The promise of CPRIT requires an unswerving commitment to peer review. I would be willing to help future CPRIT leaders if convinced that this commitment is central to selection of cancer research to be supported. I believe that certain changes in CPRIT leadership would be essential to demonstrate such commitment. The past four years have greatly advanced cancer research in Texas and hopefully this record will continue. Sincerely yours, If -. Phillip A. Sharp Sandra Reyes From: Bill Gimson Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:07 PM To: Sandra Reyes Subject: FW: BCRC3 review panel From: Polyak, Kornelia,M.D.,Ph.D. [mailto:Korne1ia Polvak@dfci.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, October 98, 2612 1:06 PM To: Bill Gimson Cc: James M. Mansour; Joseph S. Bailes, Charles Sherr Subject: BCRC3 review panel Dear Dr. Gimson, In light of events that happened in the past few months, I would like to tender my resignation as a member of the CPRIT Basic Science Cancer Research Committee--3 (BCRC-3) chaired by Dr. Charles Sherr, effective immediately. This was by far the highest quality review panel I've participated largely due to the leadership of Gilman and Sherr, both in terms of selection panel members and also running the review meetings effectively striving to provide the highest quality and most fair peer review. Sincerely, Kornelia Polyak Kornelia Polyak, Professor of Medicine Department of Medical Oncology Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Harvard Medical School 456 Brookline Ave. D749C Boston, MA 62215 Office phone: (617) 632-2166 Cell phone: (617) 216-5788 Fax:(617) 582-8490 E-fax: (617) 249-1827 E-mail: kornelia po1vak@dfci.harvard.edu Lab web-page: "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke The information in this e--mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e--mail was sent to you in error and the e--mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at . If the e--mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e--mail. HHMI HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE October 9, 2012 Mr. Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 7870] Dear Mr. Gimson, As I indicated in my letter of May 14, I was willing to devote my time to CPRIT, despite having a wife who was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor, because I believed CPRIT could transform biomedical research in Texas and ultimately improve the diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients. CPRIT was a brilliant idea and both the Texas legislature and the people of Texas are to be commended for it. In that same letter, however, I expressed my concems regarding the events that eventually led to Al Gilman's resignation. These events included the circumvention of the peer review process by the MD Anderson/Rice "commercialization" proposal and the suggestion that Dr. Gilman (and by extension, myself and the members of my study section) was giving preferential treatment to grants submitted by UTSW investigators. I also indicated that the eyes of the scientific community were now on Texas to see which course CPRIT would take moving forward (as bome out by subsequent pieces in Nature, Science, and the Cancer Letter). Neither you nor any member of your staff responded to my letter to address my concems. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that the potential for "commercialization" is going to take on greater importance moving forward. For example, I recently learned that at least two scientific reviewers who had given non-fiindable scores to a commercialization project were asked by CPRIT to "reconsider" their scores so that they would be in harmony with those given by the commercial reviewers, who were far more favorable (both of the scientific reviewers are very sophisticated with respect to the needs of industry and correctly responded that trying to commercialize flawed science is a prescription for failure and waste). The recent posting on the CPRIT website landing the MD Anderson "moonshot" initiative also creates the impression that the future "winners" have already been chosen and that there will be increased focus on perceived short-term deliverables. In this environment I am not confident that scientific quality and rigor will triumph over grandiose promises and hucksterism. William G. Kaelin, M.D. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Investigator 450 Brookline Avenue. Mayer 457. Boston. Massachusetts O2l I5 Professor of Medicine 6l7.632.3975 0 Fax For these reasons I have chosen to resign from CPRIT effective October 12, 2012. I would be happy to discuss serving in the fiiture but only if you succeed in replacing Dr. Al Gilman with a person who, like Dr. Gilman himself, embodies scientific excellence and personal integrity and I can be convinced, through structural changes at CPRIT, that my concerns have been adequately addressed. Sincerely, William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D. Investigator, HHMI Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School Associate Director, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center cc: James. M. Mansour William G. Kaelin, M.D. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Investigator 450 Brookline Avenue. Mayer 457, Boston. Massachusetts MI I5 Professor of Medicine 6|7.632.3975 Fax 0 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Brian David Dynlacht, 522 First Avenue, Smilow 1 Professor New York, NY 10016-6481 Department of Pathology Telephone: (212) 263-6162 NYU Cancer Institute Facsimile: (212)263-6157 E-mail: brian.dynlacht@med.nyu.edu October 8, 2012 Dear Mr. Gimson, I am writing to formally resign my position as a scientific reviewer for the CPRIT Basic Science Cancer Research Committee-3, BCRC-3, effective immediately. By way of introduction, I have been a scientific reviewer for the CPRIT BCRC-3 committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Sherr. I have followed with much interest and, I must admit, substantial constemation, the series of events that have transpired at CPRIT over the past six months. I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard, and especially upset by both accusations against Al Gilman and the direction of CPRIT leadership has chosen, which is apparently to promote commercialization at the expense of rigorous scientific review. In all of my years in academia, I have never encountered two more honest, intellectually rigorous scientists than Al Gilman and Charles Sherr. I can say with complete certainty that their motives are, and always have been, completely free of bias. They are the absolute cream of the crop. I wholeheartedly agree with their stance on matters that have recently surfaced at CPRIT, in particular, those matters stipulated in Dr. Sherr's resignation letter, which I will not reiterate here. On that basis, I must follow them by submitting my resignation. I anticipate that you will be receiving an onslaught of letters similar in content and sentiment to my letter. In addition, I will forward this letter to Dr. Sherr, CPRIT review Council members, and, in all likelihood, The Cancer Letter and The Houston Chronicle. I have served on many federal and private scientific review committees, and I have 1 served with such an accomplished and outstanding group of scientists. The elite panel assembled by Dr. Sherr was intellectually rigorous, honest, and conscientious. Al Gilman oversaw each meeting with professionalism beyond reproach. You will not find a better group of human beings or scientists no matter how hard you search. Let me repeat that: Drs. Gilman and Sherr have done something remarkable here, by assembling this group, and it is unlikely that you will be able to reproduce their accomplishments without them no matter how hard you try. You may find that it was not worth subverting the entire scientific enterprise--and my understanding was that the intended goal of CPRIT was to fund the best cancer research in Texas--on account of this ostensibly new, politically- driven, commercialization-based mission. Indeed, I am of the opinion that such a policy--wherein science that is judged meritorious by a highly esteemed group of scientists is discounted at the expense of science that has not been methodically reviewed--will not only fail to recognize and extract the best possible science from your state, but it will in fact succumb to mediocrity and systematic abuses. It has been an honor to serve on this esteemed committee. It is a shame that it will be completely dismantled. While it was challenging and arduous work, it was indeed a genuine pleasure to work with this group of enlightened and brilliant scientists. It is extremely unlikely that I will serve with a better group of scientists in the future. Sincerely, Q4. Brian D. Dynlacht Professor NYU School of Medicine Sandra Reyes From: Bill Gimson Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:58 AM To: Sandra Reyes Subject: Fw: History rhymes, resignation from CPRIT BCRC3 keep these in an email file From: Scott Kern Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 07:49 AM To: Bill Gimson; James M. Mansour; Joseph S. Bailes, M.D. Cc: Charles Sherr Subject: History rhymes, resignation from CPRIT BCRC3 Dear Mr. Gimson and others, It is ironic that I again find myself in the undesirable position of resigning from a hard--working and highest-quality scientific study section. As Twain noted, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Ten years ago, I served on the scientific review board of a private philanthropic organization. In an unusual development, I was asked to review two special grant applications that had arrived out-of-cycle. After my review, I was informed by the organization that they had beforehand decided to fund the two grants, a decision made prior to obtaining the reviews from the scientific board. They had in this instance perhaps operated as a direct money conduit and not as a peer review- guided granting operation. Owing to the deprecated role of scientific review under such procedures, I regretfully resigned from their board. To my knowledge, subsequently they adhered to the procedures established in their founding document, pursued a stellar and constructive path, and remain a healthy organization. I now find that a somewhat similar situation exists at CPRIT. The irony is as follows. The PI of a grant receiving questionable dispensation ten years ago, and a PI of a grant recently under critical scrutiny for improper dispensation at CPRIT, were the identical person. For history to rhyme, I must resign. I wish CPRIT well. Scott Kern Johns Hopkins University Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center WARNING: E-mail sent over the Intemet is not secure. Information sent by e-mail may not remain confidential. DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may be used only in accordance with applicable laws. If you received this e-mail by mistake, notify the sender and destroy the e-mail. HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL 1 DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY BRIGHAM AND HOSPITAL DANA-FARB ER CANCER INSTITUTE MONICA M. BERTAGNOLLI, .D BRIGHAM AND HOSPITAL PROFESSOR OF SURGERY 75 FRANCIS STREET t.'H EF DIVISION OF SURGICAL 62-" BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02215 October 10' 1 2 TEL: FAX: 617-582-6177 MBERTAGNOLLIEPARTNERS.ORG Mr. Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 E. Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Gimson, I am writing to inform you of my decision to resign from my position on the CPRIT scientific review panel led by William Kaelin. MD, effective October 12. 2012. I do so with regret, as my work on the panel provided me with tremendous professional satisfaction. It was a great honor to work under the direction of Dr. Kaelin, whose grasp of basic and translational cancer research is truly remarkable. l-le led the committee to recognize and reward excellence where it was demonstrated, and to provide constructive feedback and encouragement to researchers whose proposals were not recommended for funding. Working with Dr. Al Gilman was one of the highlights of my professional career. He is not only one of the greatest scientists of our age, he also is one of the rare individuals who understand the real world strategies that must be employed to achieve success. In their service to CPRIT, both Dr. Kaelin and Dr. Gilman demonstrated the highest professional and ethical standards without exception, and their single goal was to serve the citizens of Texas by promoting cancer research of the highest possible scientific quality and integrity. The implication that reviews were biased toward or against a particular awardee institution is simply ridiculous. In fact, the committee ignored mention of the institution unless there was a specific reason to consider it, if the research required access to a specific resource that was only available in a particular location. It is similarly outrageous to consider that many detailed applications so painstakingly prepared by Texas researchers were reviewed and approved for funding in good faith, only to have this review negated by diverting funding to a briefly outlined "commercialization" proposal from MD Anderson/Rice. This shows an appalling lack of respect for the applicants as well as the reviewers. Finally, in awarding funding, I believe that it is critically important for commercialization potential to be secondary at all times to scientific quality. Many projects that have significant commercialization potential in the short term also lack scientific validity. Without placing scientific rigor above all else, the citizens of Texas risk supporting investments that ultimately prove wasteful, while diverting resources from important work that can improve the lives of cancer patients. I My experience on the committee was one of hard work, thoughtful deliberation, and respect for the goals set forth by CPRIT. Our committee reviewed a large number of outstanding proposals from Texas cancer researchers, and I am confident that those recommended for funding will benefit the state by achieving significant advances in the battle against cancer. Unfortunately, given the events of the past several months, I can no longer be certain that this will be the case going forward. I therefore respectfiilly submit my resignation. Sincerely yours, Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School Chief, Division of Surgical Oncology Group Chair, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology MEMORIA1 Q0 . 4" 333" v- John H.J. Petrini, PM) Member Molecular Biology Program Paul A. Marks Chair in Molecular Cell Biology Laboratory of Chromosome Biology October 10, 2012 Mr. Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Gimson I have served on the BRCR3 panel headed by Chuck Sherr since its inception. This letter is to infonn you and the administration of CPRIT of my intention to resign from this panel effective immediately. I do so with real regret. Until now, I have found the process of reviewing CPRIT grants to be the most edifying and enjoyable review process in which I have ever participated--this includes myriad NIH review panels, serving on the executive panel of the Science Foundation of Ireland, The Damon Runyon Foundation, and several others. The way in which CPRIT grants were reviewed exemplified the best aspects of academic interaction. The panel comprised leaders in our respective fields, each of whom brought complementary expertise to the analysis and evaluation of proposals. As a result, the level of knowledge, experience and sophistication brought to bear on each proposal was unparalleled. Without exception, it was the scientific merit of the work, and its relevance to CPRIT's mission rather than ancillary political exigencies that underpinned our decisions. Recent events suggest strongly that the standards of objectivity and scientific rigor imparted by the scientists on the review panel are no longer shared by the leadership of CPRIT. Rather, it appears that CPRIT leadership has begun to assert an agenda in which commercialization and salesmanship are rewarded and scientific quality devalued. This is a disservice to the people of your state that will inhibit the prosecution of fruitful scientific endeavors focused on cancer. I consider myself fortunate to have been a part of CPRIT, and regret that the priorities of the organization are no longer consistent the values that made it such an exemplary scientific enterprise. Sincerely, 5* Dr. John H.J. Petrini Cc: James M. Mansour and Joseph S. Bailes Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 12 75 Yorl:Avenue, New York, New York 10021 Telephone: 2l2-639-2927 Email.' org Comprehensive Cancer Center St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - Danny Thomas, Founder Findiugatres. Saviugchildun. October 2012 Mr. Bill Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 E. Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Gimson, As a result of events of the past few months, I am tendering my resignation as a member of the CPRIT Basic Science Cancer Research Committee-3 (BCRC-3), effective immediately. It was a pleasure to be part of an outstanding group of scientists that strived, without prejudice or conflict of interest, to support only the very best cancer biology in Texas. Sincerely, Martine F. Roussel, Endowed Chair of Molecular Oncology Co-director of the Cancer Center Signal Transduction Program Department of Tumor Cell Biology, Mail Stop #350 Danny Thomas Research Center, DTRC 5006C St. Jude Chiidren's Research Hospital 262, Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee, 38105 USA Tel: 901-595-3481 FAX: 901-595-2381 Cell: 901-335-9511 Email: martine.roussel@stiude.org Web: for integrative Cancer Research Tyler Jacks, Ph. D. |(ocH David H. Km :1 Professor oraroragy I I1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology>> web.mit.edu/ki I 7? Massachusetts Avenue E17 110< Cambridge, MA 02139 0 617_253_o253 0 617-253-9863 9 tjacks@mit.edu Mr. William Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 211 Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 October 11, 2012 Dear Mr. Gimson, I am writing to inform you that I am resigning my position as the Chair of the BCRC-1A Review Panel of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) effective immediately. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with Al Gilman, Phil Sharp, and my fellow panel chairs in helping to establish a system that set the highest standard for rigorous scientific review and deliberation. Sadly, this system was tainted by baseless accusations by members of the CPRIT Oversight Committee that our review of a series of multi-investigator grants in the spring was influenced by regional or institutional bias and the consequent failure to advance these grants for funding consideration in that cycle. These accusations, as well as the failure to mandate scientific review of so-called incubator grants during this period, served to undermine the careful work of my committee and the sanctity of the larger CPRIT scientific review process. Under the circumstances, I feel that I have no option than to resign my position. Over the past three years, I have been privileged to lead a group of outstanding scientists on my panel. They have work diligently to evaluate the merits of hundreds of grant applications from Texas investigators. Through their efforts, we approved the funding of many outstanding grants, which collectively hold the promise of important breakthroughs in our understanding of cancer development and new opportunities for treatment and prevention. I believe that the CPRIT current and future cancer benefited significantly by the efforts of this group. To date, three of my panelists have indicated that they are stepping down. I will communicate my decision to the entire panel shortly. They will decide for themselves as to whether to continue on, assuming they are welcome to do so. The citizens of Texas deserve tremendous credit for choosing to fund the CPRIT program and doing their part to support the discoveries that will lead to improvements in cancer care and prevention in the future. In turn, they should expect administrative and review systems that ensure that their tax dollars are used appropriately, without bias, political influence or conflict of interest. I believe that the actions of the Oversight Committee over the past several months corrupted this process. For the sake of the program and for all of those cancer patients who stand to benefit from the proper use of these funds, i hope that CPRIT manages to regain what it has lost. Sincerely, . Tyler Jacks David H. Koch Professor Director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY SANJIV SAM GAMBI-IIR, MD, PHD Tel: (650) 725-2309; (650) 725-6175 Virginia 8' D.K. Ludwig Professor of Cancer Research Fax: (650) 724-4948 Chair, Department of Radiology sgambhi.r@stan.forcl.edu Professor by courtesy, Departments offltoengmeerrng and Matertols Science 6' Engineering http:/ /racliology.stanl'ord.edu/ Director, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS) htl-p:/ /mips.stanIord.edu Director, Canary Center at Stanfordfor Cancer Early Detection ht-tp:I /ca.narycenter.sta.nford.edu Member, Bio-X Program October 10, 2012 Mr. William Gimson Executive Director Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas 21 1 Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Gimson: I am writing to inform you that I am resigning my position as the Chair of the Interfaces Review Committee (IRC) Review Panel of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) effective immediately. I will be available to help in the upcoming transition in any way that I can so that cancer researchers in the state of Texas as well as patients who have already been diagnosed and those yet to be diagnosed are not banned due to my resignation. It has been great to help in a small way by reviewing grants and to help the state of Texas attract the best minds from all over the country to the great Universities and medical centers throughout the state. I am highly thankful to my review committee of outstanding scientists and physician- scientists from all over the country who have carefully reviewed many grants over the last three years. Their hard work and dedication is matched only by that of the Texas cancer researchers. I only wish even more highly meritorious grants could have been funded. It is a highly challenging time for biomedical researchers everywhere, and I am so happy the Texas taxpayers have helped to support excellent biomedical research for such a deadly disease. The citizens of Texas are to be commended for their investments that will benefit cancer patients worldwide. 1 am also very thankful for the opportunity to have leamed from Drs. Al Gilman, Phil Sharp, and my fellow panel chairs. They have always worked with the highest principles to make decisions that are unbiased and at times quite difficult. I want to particularly thank Dr. Gilman for taking a finn stand against the CPRIT oversight committee for their actions that undermine the rigorous scientific review process that was championed by Dr. Gilman. Politics and science at times must mix, but at other times such as this, they should clearly not. Sincerely Sanjiv Sam Gambhir M.D., THE JAMES H. CLARK CENTER, 318 CAMPUS DRIVE, ROOM EISOA, STANFORD CA 94305-5427 William C. Hahn, M.D., DANA- FARBER BRIGHAM AND I A I I WOMEN HOSPITAL Deputy Chief Scientific Officer Chief, Division of Molecular Cellular Oncology Dana-Farbcr Cancer Institute I 5 I Associate Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School Senior Associate Member October 12, 2012 Broad Institute of Harvard and Department of Medical Oncology Mr. William Gimson ['00 inc VCTIUC Executlve Dlrector Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas fax . . . patient care 211 5- 7th Street, 3111"? 300 Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Gimson: I write to inform you that I am resigning from the BCRC-IA Review Panel of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) effective immediately. When I was asked to join this committee three years ago, I did so with enthusiasm for a program that I believed had real potential to accelerate cancer research and to eventually bring new treatments to patients. The citizens and legislature of Texas are to be applauded for their foresight and generosity to establish CPRIT as a bold statement of what can be done to improve the lives of patients affected by cancer. For the past three years, I thoroughly enjoyed working with top cancer scientists from around the country to provide CPRIT with rigorous and impartial review to ensure that these public fiinds would be allocated to those projects most likely to impact the prevention, diagnosis and/or treatment of cancer. These deliberations occurred in an environment created by Dr. Al Gilman and the chairs of the CPRIT review panels that was entirely free of political influence or institutional bias. I have served on numerous international and national study sections and can say with confidence that these CPRIT panels were models for high quality, unbiased review. Unfortunately, recent actions of the CPRIT Oversight Committee now undennine the basic tenets of this process. The accusation that applications were ranked by institutional bias rather than scientific merit is simply not correct and is an affront to all of us who participated in these reviews. At the same time, delaying the funding of highly ranked applications to fund incubator projects without scientific review emasculates the credibility of CPRIT and the entire review process. Moreover, I am troubled by the Oversight Committee's recent request that those of us that participated in the scientific review of commercialization applications reconsider our scoring in the absence of any additional substantive information or progress by the applicants to strengthen what were wholly naive and underdeveloped applications. These actions make it clear that the CPRIT Oversight Committee has elected to disregard scientific review to pursue a different agenda. IIANA-FARBERIHARVARD CANCER -9- Jompienensive Cancer Center Teaching Atliliates by the National Cancer lnsmure at Harvard Medical School Under these circumstances, I cannot continue to serve on this panel. The Texans who made CPRIT possible deserve an unbiased process that ensures that these funds are allocated based on merit. I still believe in the potential of CPRIT and would consider serving again in the future but only if the CPRIT Oversight Committee commits to the principles of scientific rigor, intellectual integrity and impartiality that formed the basis of these original peer review panels. If CPRIT Oversight Committee elects to bypass peer review, I fear that this will not only damage CPR1T's reputation but may also erode the public's confidence in cancer research. Sincerely, William C. Hahn, M.D., CANCER CENTER (E A Comprehensive Cancer Came: T. Designated by the Nat ma! Cancer Institute of Harvard Medina: School Sandra Reyes From: kwhunter@comcast.net Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:58 PM To: Bill Gimson Cc: kwhunter@comcast.net; Tyler Jacks; Rajan munshi Subject: CPRIT Review Panel BCRC-1A resignation Dear Mr. Gimson, In view of the recent events I believe it is no longer appropriate for me to continue my service on the BCRC-1A Grant Review Panel. I hereby submit my immediate resignation. I wish you and the CPRIT organization continued good fortune in the years to come. Sincerely, Kent W. Hunter,