I'D LIKE TO EXTEND A WARM
WELCOME TO MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS, STAFF AND
GUESTS.
ESPECIALLY WARM WELCOME TO OUR
GUESTS FROM THE NCI, DR. LOWY
AND HIS COLLEAGUES.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY
WISH TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS
REGARDING ANY ITEM DISCUSSED
DURING THIS MEETING MAY DO SO BY
WRITING TO DR. PAULETTE GRAY,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE
BOARD, WITHIN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING
THE MEETING.
ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS OR
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC WILL RECEIVE
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.
AS BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE
TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU MUST
ABSENT YOURSELVES VIRTUALLY FOR
SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS WHENEVER
YOUR DELIBERATIONS ARE A
PARTICULAR PRIVATE PROGRAM
AND/OR SPECIFIC MATTER WOULD
CONSTITUTE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST OR CREATE THE
APPEARANCE OR PERCEPTION OF ONE.
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON OURSELVES
TO ADVISE THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY TO ABSTAIN FROM ANY
PARTICIPATION AND DISCUSSION OR
ACTIONS REGARDING THAT MATTER.
IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES
GOVERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
BASED ON FINANCIAL HOLDINGS OF
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
WHICH WE ALL ARE AS MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD, WE MUST DEPEND UPON
OURSELVES TO VOLUNTARILY ABSENT
DURING ANY AND ALL DISCUSSIONS
OF MATTERS THAT COULD
CONCEIVABLY IMPACT THE STATUS OF
THESE HOLDINGS.
WE TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT IN THESE
INSTANCES.
DURING ANY CLOSED SESSION, ANY
MATERIALS OR DISCUSSIONS OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE DELIBERATED
UPON TODAY ARE PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION AND ARE MADE
AVAILABLE TO YOU ON A NEED TO
KNOW BASIS.
SUCH DELIBERATIONS ARE PRIVATE
AND THEIR CONTENTS SHOULD NOT BE
DIVULGED.
FUTURE MEETING DATES WERE
PROVIDED TO US BY THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND ARE
LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
QUQUORUM, REQUIRED FOR EACH
INSTANCE IN WHICH A VOTE MAY
OCCUR WHETHER IN OPEN OR CLOSED
SESSION DURING THIS MEETING, A
MINIMUM OF NINE APPOINTED
MEMBERS MUST BE PRESENT TO VOICE
THEIR VOTES.
SINCE WE CANNOT REDICTIONARY THE
TIME OR OCCURRENCE OF ANY
MOTION, YOUR PRESENCE IN THE
VIRTUAL ROOM FOR ALL SEGMENTS OF
THE MEETING IS A MUST.
PAULETTE, DO WE HAVE QUORUM?
>> YES, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
>> TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO
INTERRUPTIONS DURING TODAY'S
MEETING, PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU
ARE MUTED AND REMAIN SO UNTIL
RECOGNIZED BY EITHER MYSELF,
PAULETTE, OR THE SPEAKER TODAY,
WHICH WILL BE DR. LOWY.
SO WE'LL BE BEGIN TODAY'S AGENDA
WITH A REPORT FROM NCI PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DR. DOUG LOWY.
DOUG.
>> THANKS SO MUCH.
I MADE SOME INITIAL REMARKS
DURING THE FIRST SESSION, AND I
THINK THAT -- I HOPE THEY SPEAK
FOR THEMSELVES.
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THAT
PEOPLE ASKED.
I DON'T HAVE MORE THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SAY RIGHT NOW.
TO ME, TO JUST EMPHASIZE REALLY
TWO IMPORTANT POINTS.
NUMBER ONE, IT'S GREAT THAT WE
ARE TOGETHER THAT REALLY THE JOB
AT HAND IS THE SECONDARY REVIEW
OF APPLICATIONS SO THAT WE CAN
TRY TO FUND THE MOST MERITORIOUS
OF THEM.
AND NUMBER TWO, WE'RE MAKING
PROGRESS AGAINST CANCER.
IT'S BEEN VERY CONSISTENT, BUT
WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT FEEDS INTO
THE NOTION OF TRYING TO SUPPORT
AS MANY MERITORIOUS APPLICATIONS
AS POSSIBLE.
>> THANKS FOR THOSE REMARKS,
DOUG, AND SO WE'LL OPEN UP THE
FLOOR FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
BOARD MEMBERS.
TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN RECOGNIZE
HANDS HERE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I OF COURSE HAVE ONE.
SO DOUG, YOU KNOW, IF THE ANSWER
IS I HAVE NOT YET OR THERE'S
NOTHING REALLY TO DISCUSS,
THAT'S FINE.
BUT I WAS WONDERING, HAVE YOU
HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH
DR. BHATTACHARYA?
HAVE YOU ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO MEET AND CHAT?
AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING, OF
COURSE, I WOULD ASSUME SOME OF
THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE
PRIVILEGED, BUT IF THERE'S
ANYTHING YOU'D BE WILLING TO
SHARE WITH THE BOARD IN TERMS OF
HIS THOUGHTS, HIS POTENTIAL
PRIORITIES OR INTERESTS OR
EXPECTATIONS, IT WOULD BE GREAT
TO HEAR THEM.
>> SURE.
DR. BHATTACHARYA AND I HAVE MET
ACTUALLY ON TWO DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS.
THE FIRST WAS THAT MY COLLEAGUES
AND I, FROM NCI, WANTED TO TELL
HIM ABOUT THE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME
OF A LARGE HPV VACCINE TRIAL.
WE HAD RECENTLY BROKEN THE CODE
FOR FIVE YEARS, TRYING TO SEE
WHETHER THE HYPOTHESIS OF ONE
DOSE VERSUS TWO DOSE OF THE
VACCINE, WHETHER ONE DOSE WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT, AND AS AMY KRAMER
PRESENTED AT THE AACR MEETING,
THAT ONE DOSE WAS AT LEAST 97%
PROTECTIVE, AND STATISTICALLY
THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE TBEEN
BETWEENONE DOSE AND TWO DOSES.
WHAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE HERE IS
THAT DR. BHATTACHARYA REALLY
REALLY PRIZES ACADEMIC FREEDOM,
AND WAS TOTALLY ENCOURAGING
ABOUT OUR MAKING THE
PRESENTATION.
OKAY.
THE SECOND TIME THAT WE MET, IT
WAS IN MY CAPACITY AS SERVING AS
THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NCI, AND
HE REALLY HAD A LOT OF POSITIVE
THINGS TO SAY, RECOGNIZING THE
IMPROVEMENT THAT HAS HAPPENED
OVER THE LAST FEW DECADE IN
TERMS OF THE OUTLOOK FOR PEOPLE
WHO GET CANCER, AND ALSO TO AT
LEAST SOME DEGREE CANCER
PREVENTION AND SCREENING.
THE INCIDENCE OF CANCER REALLY
HAS BEEN RELATIVELY STEADY.
FOR MEN, THE INCIDENCE HAS GONE
DOWN LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF LUNG CANCER AND
SMOKING CESSATION.
FOR WOMEN, IT HAS BEEN MORE
STABLE AND HAS ACTUALLY GONE UP
A SMALL AMOUNT, ABOUT .3% PER
YEAR.
AND THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OF
BREAST CANCER SCREENING.
MORE SCREENING MEANS MORE
CANCER, BUT MORE CANCER BY
SCREEN MEANS FEWER DEATHS.
>> FANTASTIC.
THANKS, DOUG.
THAT'S GREAT.
I GUESS ONE OTHER QUESTION IS,
YOU KNOW, WE KNOW REVIEWS ARE
GOING TO CSR, AND JUST WANTED TO
SORT OF, YOU KNOW, GET YOUR
THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.
ANY SURPRISES?
HOW IS THAT PROCESS GOING?
ARE THERE ANY THINGS THAT YOU
MIGHT BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT THE
BOARD COULD HELP WITH?
>> SURE, I THINK THAT AS YOU
MENTIONED, JOHN, ALL REVIEWS ARE
GOING TO BE HELD BY CSR.
AND THEY ARE ALREADY REVIEWING
ABOUT FOUR APPLICATIONS OUT OF
FIVE FROM THE NIH.
BUT NCI, UNDER THE -- REALLY THE
EXCEPTIONAL SUPERVISION OF
PAULETTE AND HER GROUP, HAVE
BEEN REVIEWING MORE COMPLICATED
APPLICATIONS, OR APPLICATIONS
THAT ARE MORE SPECIALIZED.
SO WE HAVE TRIED TO TALK WITH
CSR LEADERSHIP ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THOSE KINDS OF
REVIEWS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CANCER CENTER
SUPPORT GRANTS, THAT FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, HAVING THE
IN-PERSON REVIEWS ARE REALLY
VERY IMPORTANT, NOT SO MUCH FOR
GETTING A GOOD SCORE, BUT FOR
ALL OF THE OTHER MANY INTANGIBLE
ASPECTS THAT ARE VITAL TO THE
OVERALL VITALITY OF THE NCI
CANCER CENTER PROGRAM.
>> THANKS.
THANKS, DOUG.
I KNOW A LOT OF THE CANCER
CENTER DIRECTORS ARE, YOU KNOW,
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF SITE
VISITS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL,
AS THIS NEW PROCESS ADVANCES.
SO THERE ARE SOME HANDS, SO
LET'S START WITH EDJA.
WE CANNOT HEAR YOU, EVEN THOUGH
YOU'RE NOT MUTED.
I THINK WE HAVE A SIMILAR
PROBLEM DURING THE PREVIOUS
MEETING.
>> TRY IT ONE MORE TIME.
THERE YOU GO.
I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
>> GREAT.
SO THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
AND THANKS, DOUG, FOR SPEAKING
WITH US.
JUST A COUPLE THINGS.
ONE, THE MAIN QUESTION, THE
THEME OF THIS IS HOW WE CAN
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NCI, IF
THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN
COMMUNICATE OR THINGS THAT WE
MIGHT WRITE AS A BOARD TO, SAY,
THE SECRETARY, JUST REVIEWING
THE CHARTER FOR OUR BOARD AND
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE
SUPPOSED TO ADVISE NOT JUST
OBVIOUSLY THE NCI DIRECTOR BUT
THE HHS SECRETARY ON HOW THEY
APPROACH CANCER AND I WAS JUST
WONDERING IF THERE MIGHT BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE A DIE
DID LDIALOGUE WITH THE SECRETARY
REGARDING THE BUDGET PRIORITIES,
HOW WE'RE APPROACHING THINGS,
AND I GUESS RELATED TO THAT,
BECAUSE I THINK WE WOULD GET
SOME CLARITY ON THOSE THINGS IF
WE HAD AN ACTUAL NAMED DIRECTOR
FOR THE NCI.
OBVIOUSLY, DOUG, YOU'VE SERVED
IN THIS ROLE MANY TIMES AND IT
IS GREAT TO SEE YOU IN THIS
ROLE.
BUT I THINK WE MIGHT GET SOME
ADDITIONAL CLARITY FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE DIRECTION
THEY WANT TO GO WITH CANCER IF
THEY WERE PLANNING ON NAMING A
PERMANENT NCI DIRECTOR, AND I
JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU HAD
ANY THOUGHTS OR INFORMATION YOU
COULD SHARE ON THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY
ABOUT A NEW NCI DIRECTOR.
I HAVE TOLD DR. BHATTACHARYA AND
MANY OTHER PEOPLE THAT I'M HAPPY
TO SERVE AS ACTING DIRECTOR, BUT
I WOULD BE AT LEAST AS HAPPY FOR
THERE TO BE A NAMED -- AND WHAT
I CALL A SO-CALLED PERMANENT
DIRECTOR.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN
THE AGGREGATE, OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS, I HAVE BEEN THE ACTING
DIRECTOR FOR FOUR OF THOSE 10
YEARS DURING WHICH THERE HAVE
BEEN THREE PERMANENT DIRECTORS.
BUT SERIOUSLY, I THINK THAT IN
TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HELPING US,
TO ME BY FAR, THE MOST IMPORTANT
ISSUE IS TRYING TO SUPPORT THE
LARGEST AMOUNT OF MERITORIOUS
RESEARCH, WHICH IS WHY I VALUE
SO MUCH WHAT THE NCAB DOES WITH
ITS SECOND LINE OF REVIEW OF THE
APPLICATIONS.
WHAT YOU DID IN THE FIRST
SESSION AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
DO IN THIS SESSION.
>> GREAT, THANKS.
KAREN.
>> THANK YOU.
SO DOUG, YOU MENTIONED THAT
REALLY IMPORTANT ROLE THAT
TOBACCO CONTROL HAS PLAYED IN
THE REDUCTIONS OF CANCER
MORTALITY AND I THINK THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE.
PARTICULARLY IN THE MOMENT WHEN
A LOT OF THE FEDERAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ABOUT TOBACCO
CONTROL IS GOING AWAY.
AND SO THE NCI HAS PLAYED SUCH
AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN TRYING TO
REALLY PICK THIS UP NOT ONLY
THROUGH WHAT'S BEEN FUNDED BUT
ALSO EFFORTS BY CANCER CENTERS,
SMOKING CESSATION FROM THE
CANCER CENTERS HAS BEEN REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT TO HOW WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT ADDRESSING
TOBACCO CONTROL IN THE CONTEXT
OF A LOT OF -- A LOT HAS BEEN
GOING AWAY, IT'S WHITE IMPORTANT
IN MAINTAINING THAT AND IF WE
DON'T DO THAT, I THINK WE'RE AT
RISK OF SEEING THAT NUMBER GO
BACK UP.
>> SO KAREN, LET ME FIRST BACK
UP AND AGREE WITH YOU THAT
HISTORICALLY, TOBACCO CESSATION
OR TOBACCO CONTROL HAS BEEN THE
SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO
REDUCTIONS IN LUNG CANCER
INCIDENCE, BUT OVERALL, CANCER
MORTALITY RATES.
BUT THERE MORE RECENTLY HAVE
BEEN VERY IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANCER
SCREENING AND ALSO CANCER
TREATMENT.
AND I THINK THAT WE ARE ALL
PROUD OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT
WE HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO TOBACCO
CONTROL.
WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO NOW OR IN
THE FUTURE REALLY DEPENDS TO A
FAIR DEGREE ON WHAT THE
RESOURCES ARE THAT THE NCI IS
GOING TO BE GIVEN.
AND BEFORE I FINISH, ONE OF THE
REAL POSITIVES TO ME IS THAT THE
REDUCTIONS IN CANCER -- I'M
SORRY -- IN TOBACCO CESSATION
ARE HAPPENING WITH ALL SEGMENTS
OF THE POPULATION, WHETHER IT BE
RACIAL OR ETHNIC, AND IT BEEN
VERY GRATIFYING TO SEE HOW IT
HAS BEEN.
>> THANKS.
THANKS, DOUG.
WE HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS, IF
YOU CAN KEEP THEM SUCCINCT, THAT
WOULD BE GREAT.
SO LET'S GO TO ESABELLE AND THEN
FRED WILL BE THE LAST QUESTION.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M
UNMUTED?
>> YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> OKAY.
THANKS, DR. LOWY.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SORRY,
JOHN, MIGHT BE LONGER THAN IT
SHOULD BE, WE AS COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS AND PATIENT
ADVOCATES ARE, I THINK, EVEN
MORE UNSURE WHERE WE STAND, WHAT
WE CAN DO, HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY
CONTINUE OUR COLLABORATIONS WITH
WHAT I THINK ARE NOW UNSUPPORTED
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AND
RESEARCHERS OF COLOR.
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
GOING ON INSIDE, I'VE CERTAINLY
HEARD SOME THINGS.
WHAT I READ AS SOMEONE ASKED
WHAT'S TO BE BELIEVED, WHAT'S
NOT TO BE BELIEVED, BUT I AM
VERY CONCERNED THAT ALL OF THE
WORK, AND YOU WOULD KNOW THIS,
ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE
DONE TO BUILD COLLABORATION
BETWEEN RESEARCH AND ACADEMIA
AND SCIENCE AND COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IS GOING TO SUFFER
GREATLY AND THAT COMMUNITIES
LIKE MINE WILL FACE A HUGE
AMOUNT OF EXACERBATED
DISPARITIES.
WHAT CAN WE KNOW THAT WE CAN
TAKE BACK WITH OUR COMMUNITIES
WITH SURETY THAT, IN FACT, WE'RE
NOT GOING BACKWARDS, BUT, IN
FACT, ALLYSHIP AND ECONOMIC
ENGAGEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES IS
STILL GOING TO EXIST?
>> ESABELLE, THANK YOU.
LET ME SAY THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED
TO COMPLY WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS,
AND, THEREFORE, THERE END UP
BEING SOME DIFFERENT APPROACHES
FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IN
THE PAST.
I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD BE
USEFUL TO GO BEYOND THAT.
>> THANKS.
THANKS, DOUG.
LAST QUESTION, FRED.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> OKAY, THANKS.
A COUPLE QUESTIONS, DOUG.
I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEW
POSITION AT NCI, THE CHIEF
SCIENCE OFFICER.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS
CLARITY ON HOW THESE POSITIONS
RELATE TO THE NEW AD HOC
COMMITTEE THAT WE DISCUSSED IN
THE FIRST MEETING, HOW THAT WILL
BE SET UP AND HOW THIS POSITION
MAY RELATE TO A FUTURE NCI
DIRECTOR, IF THERE IS ANY
CLARITY YET ON THAT.
>> I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T THINK I
UNDERSTOOD YOUR FIRST QUESTION.
>> OH, THE FIRST QUESTION IS, I
UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEW
POSITION AT NCI, CHIEF SCIENCE
ADVISOR.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S
ANY CLARITY ON HOW THIS POSITION
INTERACTS WITH THE PROPOSED AD
HOC COMMITTEE THAT FROM THE FIT
MEETING PUT IN PLACE.
>> DR. GEORGE SEGUNAS HAS BECOME
THE CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR, AND
DR. SEGUNAS HAS A CONSIDERABLE
BACKGROUND IN HEALTH RESEARCH
AND HEALTHCARE.
DURING THE FIRST TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, HE WAS THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE HEALTH
RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION.
HE HAS A PH.D. IN CELL BIOLOGY,
WORKED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AT NIH,
AND HE HAS BEEN A PROFESSOR OF
MEDICINE AT EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY FOR QUITE A LONG
TIME, WHERE HE HELPED TO DEVELOP
THEIR BONE MARROW
TRANSPLANTATION PROGRAM, AND HE
ALSO STUDIED THE NOTCH PATHWAY
IN COLORECTAL CANCER.
HE IS ESPECIALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE
ABOUT RURAL HEALTH AND
HEALTHCARE FOR UNDERSERVED
POPULATIONS, AND I THINK HE HAS
ONLY BEEN HERE FOR A WEEK, AND
SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THE COLLABORATION
WILL BE LIKE, BUT I AM HOPEFUL
THAT AS WITH EVERYBODY AT NCI,
THAT THE WHOLE WILL BE GREATER
THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.
>> THANK YOU, DOUG.
AND THE SECOND QUICK QUESTION IS
JUST ABOUT THE RESTRUCTURING AT
NCI MORE GENERALLY.
IS THERE ANY CLARITY ON WHETHER
THE NCI MAINTAINS ITS OWN STATUS
AS A --
>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,
THERE ARE NO PLANS TO FOLD NCI
IN WITH OTHER INSTITUTES OR
CENTERS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DOUG.
THERE BEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS,
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE AND
CONCLUDE THE OPEN SESSION.