In their spare time, Edward W. Holmes, John C. Reed and Richard A. Murphy oversee the state’s $3 billion stem cell research program. At their day job, the men try to figure out how to get a piece of that pie.

If this isn’t a conflict of interest, it’s hard to imagine what would be.

As UCSD’s vice chancellor of health sciences, it’s only fitting for Holmes to sit on the independent citizen oversight committee created by Proposition 71. What isn’t fitting is his role in heading the campus’ effort to create a new stem cell research consortium with three private San Diego institutions — two of which are also led by Murphy and Reed.

For the much-beleaguered bond initiative, already in disrepute and fighting to survive a legal challenge, more ethics controversy is the last thing needed. Already seen as dominated by industry insiders, the oversight committee must now more than ever demand the most rigorous standards of independence. Holmes, Reed and Murphy fall far short.

Though the three men are barred from considering research requests involving the new consortium, they can still play an active role in the drafting of guidelines for grant awards, and maintain considerable clout over other board members. It is this perception — not actual worry about the men’s motives — that hurts the state’s stem cell agency.

Holmes would be well-advised to pick only one hat, and wear it well. Of course, it doesn’t help that he can’t find a good role model in the campus’ chancellor, who’s facing a conflict-of-interest controversey of her own.