WELCOME.
I WILL NOW OFFICIALLY CALL
THE -- I'M LAUGHING, SORRY.
THE 111th MEETING OF THE NIAMS
COUNCIL TO ORDER.
ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW
EXCEPT FOR REVIEW, DISCUSSION,
EVALUATION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
AND RELATED INFORMATION WHICH
WILL WE'LL BE ADDRESSING IN
CLOSED SESSION THIS AFTERNOON.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED WE'LL DO
INTRODUCTIONS.
WE'LL START WITH BOB CARTER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND WE'LL GO
AROUND THE TABLE HERE AND THEN
WE'LL GO TO A COUPLE FOLKS
JOINING VIRTUALLY.
BOB, KICK THINGS OFF.
>> THIS IS A TEST OF WHETHER
YOU CAN TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE.
GOOD MORNING, BOB CARTER, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR.
WELCOME AND SO FUN TO BE HERE
WITH ALL OF YOU.
>> ANN?
>> ANN ELDERKIN, AFFILIATED
WITH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE
AND MINERAL RESEARCH, FORMER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
>> DAVID BECK,
PHYSICIAN-SCIENTIST, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AT NYU SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE.
>> MARY BUCKSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF
ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY HARVARD
MEDICAL SCHOOL.
>> GOOD MORNING, PROFESSOR AT
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D.
ANDERSON CANCER CENTER.
>> GOOD MORNING, I'M BETH
McNALLY, PROFESSOR AT
NORTHWESTERN IN CHICAGO.
>> ELLEN GRAPHLISI, GRAPH OF
RHEUMATOLOGY INFORMATION BRIGHAM
AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, PROFESSOR
OF MEDICINE AT HARVARD MEDICAL
SCHOOL.
>> GOOD MORNING, STAR BOOKER,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, COLLEGE
OF NURSING, ALSO AN ESI.
>> GOOD MORNING, SUE SHRANT, A
RHEUMATOLOGY PATIENT AND PATIENT
ENGAGEMENT ENTHUSIAST, THAT'S
WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING IS BUILD
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT SOLUTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> GAIL LESTER, DIRECTOR OF
EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH NIAMS.
>> GOOD MORNING, DARREN
SLEDJESKI, NIAMS.
>> TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS JOINING
VIRTUALLY, STEWART?
>>GOOD MORNING, PROFESSOR OF
ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY,
BIOENGINEERING, STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.
>> AND ANDREW?
>> EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATOR,
NEUROLOGIST, WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS,
INTERESTED IN MUSCLE DISEASE.
>> OKAY.
THIS ISN'T WORKING.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'M
DELIGHTED TO INTRODUCE AS YOU
JUST HEARD DR. DARREN SLEDJESKI,
WHO STARTED AS NIAMS' NEW
DIVISION DIRECTOR OF THE
DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL
ACTIVITIES, DEA, IN MARCH.
DARREN ALSO SERVES AS COUNCIL'S
NEW EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND WILL
MAKE BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS IN JUST
A FEW MOMENTS.
AS NIAMS DEA DIRECTOR HE LEADS
INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND BIG
ASPECTS OF THE EXTRAMURAL
PROGRAM, ADVISES NIAMS SENIOR
LEADERS ON NIH-WIDE EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH POLICY, REPRESENTS
NIAMS ON OVERALL NIH EXTRAMURAL
AND COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM POLICY
COMMITTEES, AND COUNSELS
LEADERSHIP ON DEVELOPING AND
IMPLEMENTING NIAMS-SPECIFIC
EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH GRANTS,
CONTRACTS, AND TRAINING PROGRAM
POLICIES.
MOST RECENTLY HE SERVED AS THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE DEA AT
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES, NIGMS,
WHERE HE HELPED LEAD ALL
GRANT-RELATED ACTIVITIES.
PREVIOUSLY, HE WAS CHIEF OF THE
GENETIC MECHANISMS BRANCH
DIVISION OF GENETICS AND
MOLECULAR CELLULAR AND
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, NIGMS,
ALSO WORKED AS SCIENTIFIC
INITIATIVE MANAGER AND REVIEW
OFFICER AT NIAID, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND
INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
BEFORE HIS TENURE IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, HE WORKED AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO MEDICAL
CENTER, BOTH AN ASSISTANT AND
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY AND
IMMUNOLOGY.
AND HE EARNED A BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN BIOLOGY FROM COLLEGE
OF WILLIAM AND MARY, Ph.D. IN
MICROBIOLOGY FROM UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK.
HE CONDUCTED POSTDOCTORAL
RESEARCH IN NCI EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
IMPORTANTLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK
ERIC EDGERTON FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING JOB AS ACTING DEA
SINCE APRIL OF 2022 AND WOULD
LIKE TO RECOGNIZE DR. KATHY
SALIDA FOR FOR EFFORTS IN
OVERSEEING COUNCIL MEETINGS AND
GRANTS MANAGER SINCE APRIL OF
2022.
JOIN ME IN GIVING DR. SLEDJESKI
A VERY WARM WELCOME.
[APPLAUSE]
DARREN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> BEFORE THE BUSINESS ASPECTS
I WANT TO SAY I'M HAPPY TO BE
HERE AT NIAMS, HOW EXCITED I AM
TO BE HERE.
IT'S A GREAT GROUP.
I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE A COUPLE
MONTHS, I WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT
OUT TO MELINDA, SARAH NEIL AND
KATHY WHO PUT TOGETHER PREVIOUS
COUNCIL ALSO MY FIRST COUNCIL AT
NIAMS.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE
WITHOUT THEIR HELP AND GUIDANCE
ON HOW TO DO THIS.
SO THANKS TO ALL OF THOSE FOLKS.
I HATE TO GO OFF MY SCRIPT
BECAUSE IT MAKES THE STAFF
NERVOUS PROBABLY BUT I'M GOING
TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
SO, THIS IS OUR FIRST IN-PERSON
COUNCIL MEETING SINCE THE
PANDEMIC.
AND WE'VE SET IT UP AS A HYBRID
MEETING, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTENDING VIA ZOOM.
WE HAVE STAFF ATTENDING VIA ZOOM
AS WELL AS HERE IN PERSON.
ALSO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN
BE WATCHING VIA THE NIH
VIDEOCAST STREAMING SYSTEM.
IF ANY STAFF MEMBERS WATCHING ON
THE VIDEOCAST HAVE AN URGENT
COMMENT OR QUESTION E-MAIL NEIL
ROBERTS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES, NEIL IS
HERE OR YOU CAN E-MAIL HIM.
WE ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TO SUBMIT
COMMENTS IN WRITING UP TO 15
DAYS FOLLOWING THE MEETING.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL E-MAIL BOX TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS, SENT TO
NIAMSCOUNCILMAIL@NIAMS.NIH.GOV.
ANYONE ON THE ZOOM CALL MAY
SPEAK BUT PLEASE MAKE SURE TO
MUTE THE LINE WHEN YOU'RE NOT
SPEAKING.
YOU CAN ALSO RAISE YOUR HAND AND
WE CAN CALL ON YOU.
NEIL WILL HELP WITH THE MUTING
AND UNMUTING AS NECESSARY.
WHICH WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT AS
WE TAKE SOME VOTES.
IF YOU NEED COMPUTER SUPPORT,
THROUGH ELECTRONIC COUNCIL BOOK,
GO TO NEIL.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
GO TO NEIL.
MAYBE NEIL SHOULD BE AT THE
FRONT DESK HERE WITH ME.
A NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER, COUNCIL
MEMBERS ABSENT THEMSELVES IF
THEIR PRESENCE COULD CONSTITUTE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, MAY NOT
ENGAGE IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.
UPCOMING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
REPORTING DATES, YOU'LL BE ASKED
TO RENEW YOUR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST REPORTING IN JUNE,
OCTOBER, AND FEBRUARY.
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE REQUEST
RESPOND PROMPTLY SO WE CAN MAKE
SURE YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN
OTHER COUNCIL-RELATED
ACTIVITIES.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
REGARDING REGULATIONS WE POSTED
INFORMATION ON THE ELECTRONIC
COUNCIL BOOK AND IF HAVE YOU
QUESTIONS YOU CAN E-MAIL ME.
NOW I WANT TO GO TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT
CLINTONS FROM LAST COUNCIL
MEETING OF THE -- AND WE'LL TAA
VOTE, RAISE YOUR HAND OR UNMUTE
AND SAY YAY OR NAY.
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 31, 2023
COUNCIL, WERE POSTED ON THE
ELECTRONIC COUNCIL BOOK.
LET ME ASK IF ANYONE HAS
COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS.
NO?
HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE
THAT WE APPROVE THE COUNCIL
MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A SECOND.
INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR ALL THOSE
IN FAVOR I'LL SAY IS THERE
ANYBODY WHO IS NOT IN FAVOR OF
APPROVING THIS MOTION?
HEARING NONE, THEN WE'LL SAY
THIS WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED,
THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU.
MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NOW I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU ABOUT
THE DATES OF OUR FUTURE COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
THESE ARE POSTED IN THE ECB, AND
ON OUR WEBSITE.
NEXT MEETING IS AUGUST 29, 2023.
WE HAVE NOT DECIDED WHETHER IT
WILL BE IN PERSON, HYBRID, OR
VIRTUAL.
WE'LL SEE HOW THIS MEETING RUNS,
HOW IT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY, BUT
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW AS SOON AS WE
MAKE THAT DECISION.
GOING FORWARD WE DO PLAN ON
HOLDING THE WINTER MEETING AS
VIRTUAL ALL THE TIME SO THAT
WILL BE THE JANUARY 30 MEETING.
AND OF COURSE WE ALWAYS
APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION SO
PLEASE MAKE SURE THE DATES ARE
ON YOUR CALENDAR.
NEXT IS AUGUST 29, THEN JANUARY
30, MAY 29.
THESE ARE ALWAYS POSTED ON OUR
PUBLIC WEBSITE.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT FUTURE MEETINGS OR DATES
OR ANYTHING I'VE BEEN OVER?
NO?
THEN I'M GOING TO TURN THIS BACK
TO DR. CRISWELL TO HEAR HER
DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
>> OKAY.
SO, THANK YOU, DARREN.
WELCOME, EVERYBODY, AGAIN.
IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE.
WHEN WE MET IN JANUARY, I
MENTIONED A NEW NIAMS PROGRAM TO
HAVE RECIPIENTS OF THE MENTORED
CAREER DEVELOPMENT AWARDS
PARTICIPATE INOME SESSION OF
COUNCIL AS AD HOC MEMBERS.
SUSTAINEDEES WERE SELECTED FROM
THE POOL OF K01, K08, K23
AWARDEES WITH CLINICAL AND
NON-CLINICAL INVESTIGATORS
ELIGIBLE FOR SELECTION TO ALLOW
INPUT FROM INVESTIGATORS AT
EARLIER CAREER STAGE THAN FULL
COUNCIL MEMBERS TYPICALLY ARE.
I'M VERY DELIGHTED TO WELCOME
THE FIRST THREE AD HOC MEMBERS
UNDER THIS PROGRAM, DR. DAVID
BECK IS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR
PHARMACOLOGY, NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,
INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE
GENETIC DETERMINANTS OF DISEASE,
UTILIZING THIS INFORMATION TO
DEFINE MECHANISMS UNDERLYING
PATHOLOGIC PROCESSES WITH MAJOR
FOCUS ON AUTO-INFLAMMATORY
DISEASES.
YOU MAY HAVE READ ABOUT HIS
INTERESTING WORK RELATED TO THE
SYNDROME VEXAS.
B.A. FROM BROWN UNIVERSITY IN
HISTORY AND BIOLOGY, M.D. AND
Ph.D. DEGREES FROM NYU,
LABORATORY OF DR. DANNY
RYANBERG, CONTINUED IN INTERNAL
MEDICINE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
THEN COMPLETED CLINICAL GENETICS
TRAINING AT NIH AND JOHNS
HOPKINS COMBINED PROGRAM.
DR. BECK PERFORMED POSTDOCTORAL
RESEARCH WITH DR. DAN KASTNER AT
THE NIH.
NEXT UP DR. STAR BOOKER, NURSING
SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,
RESEARCH ON UNDERSTANDING
CHRONIC OSTEOARTHRITIS AND
MOVEMENT EVOKED PAIN IN OLDER
ADULTS AS WELL AS DEVELOPING
SMART TECHNOLOGIES FOR
SELF-ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION
DELIVERY TO REDUCE JOINT PAIN.
DR. BOOKER RECEIVED HER BS IN
NURSING FROM GRAMBLING, Ph.D.
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA.
DR. ANDREW FINDLEY, WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY OF ST. LOUIS
INTERESTED IN TRANSLATING
PATHOMECHANISMS INTO STRATEGIES
FOR HEREDITARY MUSCLE DISORDERS
SUCH AS MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND
AGE-ASSOCIATED MUSCLE DISORDER
SUCH AS SARCOPENIA, B.S. IN
BIOCHEMISTRY FROM U.C. SANTA
BARBARA, MEDICAL DEGREE FROM
UC-IRVINE, BOTH NEUROLOGY
RESIDENCY AND FELLOWSHIP
TRAINING IN NEUROMUSCULAR
MEDICINE AT WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE IN
ST. LOUIS.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
FROM NEW PARTICIPANTS AS WELL AS
SENIOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TODAY AND
WELCOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU AS THE
PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED.
I'LL COVER THE NIH AND NIAMS
BUDGETS FIRST FOR 2023, THE
CURRENT YEAR, AND 2024, AND
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF OUR
FISCAL YEAR 2022 INVESTMENTS.
THEN I'LL HIGHLIGHT PERSONNEL
CHANGES AT NIH AND NIAMS AND
MOVE TO NIH AND NIAMS ACTIVITIES
AND PLANS THAT WILL BE OF
INTEREST TO YOU.
SO WHEN WE SPOKE IN JANUARY,
NIAMS WAS HAVING INTERNAL
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT OUR
FUNDING PLAN SHOULD BE BASED ON
OUR FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET.
A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO WE POSTED
FUNDING PLAN ON THE NIAMS
WEBSITE AND SET THE R01 PAYLINE
FOR MOST INVESTIGATORS AT THE
10th PERCENTILE.
THIS SLIGHTLY LOWER PAYLINE
DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL BE PAYING
FEWER R01 GRANTS BUT RATHER IT
REFLECTS THE FACT WE'RE
EMPOWERING OUR PROGRAM DIRECTORS
TO LOOK CRITICALLY AT ALL
APPLICATIONS ABOVE 10th PER
PERCENTILE FOR FUNDING.
WE HAVE A MORE GENEROUS PAYLINE
FOR R01 APPLICATIONS FROM
EARLY-STAGE INVESTIGATORS, WHICH
WE SET AT THE 15th PERCENTILE.
ON MARCH 9 PRESIDENT BIDEN
RELEASED FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET
REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS.
THE AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR NIH
$51.01 BILL, AN INCREASE OVER
2023 ENACTED BUDGET, FOR NIAMS
THE AMOUNTED PROPOSED IN THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET IS $688
MILLION, WHICH REPRESENTS
NO CHANGE FROM 2023.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE WILL
DEVELOP BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024, WHICH WILL BE
RECONCILED AND A FINAL BILL WILL
GO TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
SIGNATURE.
THE NEXT TWO SLIDES SHOW DETAILS
ABOUT HOW NIAMS INVESTED ITS
FISCAL YEAR $2,022.
THE TWO PIECHARTS SHOW A
BREAKDOWN OF THE NIH ON THE
LEFT, AND NIAMS FOR FISCAL 202.
THE EXPENSES ARE ON PAR WITH
THOSE OF THE ENTIRE NIH AND
EXTRAMURAL INVESTMENTS ARE
SLIGHTLY LARGER COMPARED TO NIH
OVERALL.
AND THEN THIS SLIDE SHOWS
BREAKDOWN OF NIAMS BUDGET BY
ACTIVITY, WHICH INCLUDES
INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM,
SHOWN IN THE MEDIUM BLUE, IRP,
AS WELL AS FIVE SCIENTIFIC AREAS
IN EXTRAMURAL PROGRAM.
LAST MONTH PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCED HIS INTENT TO NOMINATE
DR. MONICA BERTAGNOLLI TO BE THE
17th DIRECTOR OF THE NIH.
SHE STARTED AS 16th DIRECTOR
AND FIRST FEMALE DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE LAST
FALL.
PREVIOUSLY, SHE WAS RICHARD
WILSON PROFESSOR OF SURGERY IN
THE FIELD OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, AS
WELL AS SURGEON AT THE BRIGHAM
AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL AND MEMBER
OF THE GASTROINTESTINAL CANCER
AND SARCOMA DISEASE CENTER AT
DANA-FARBER, MEDICAL DEGREE FRM
UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
THE APPOINTMENT REQUIRES
CONFIRMATION BY THE U.S. SENATE.
AT THIS TIME WE DON'T HAVE
INFORMATION ON WHEN THIS PROCESS
WILL BEGIN OR HOW LONG IT MAY
TAKE.
NOW MOVING TO NIAMS PERSONNEL
CHANGES, IN THE EXTRAMURAL
PROGRAM, WE WARMLY WELCOME DR.
MARY GARCIA-CAZARIN, FROM OFFICE
OF DISEASE PREVENTION, WAS A
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER FORETOBACCO
REGULATORY SCIENCE PROGRAM SINCE
2014, HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE
WORKING ACROSS AND WITHIN
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO IMPLEMENT
INITIATIVES RELATED TO DISEASE
PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
SERVE THREE YEARS AS BOARD
MEMBER FOR CHICANO AMERICANS IN
SCIENCE, AND MENTORS WORKING TO
INCREASE PARTICIPATION OF
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS IN
SCIENCE.
SHE ALSO WON THE NIH RUTH
KIRSCHSTEIN AWARD IN 2020,
RECEIVED HER Ph.D. IN
PHARMACOLOGY FROM UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY, WAS PREVIOUSLY AN AAAS
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
FELLOW IN OFFICE OF DIETARY
SUPPLEMENTS AT THE NIH.
SO WELCOME.
[APPLAUSE]
WE BID FAREWELL TO DR. HUNG
TSENG AND WISH HUNG A WONDERFUL
RETIREMENT AND HOPE TO HAVE AN
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR REPLACEMENT
SOON, AND DR. SHAHNAZ KHAN, WHO
WORKED CLOSELY WITH MANY OF YOU
ON THE CLINICAL TRIALS WORKING
GROUP OF COUNCIL, WILL BE
JOINING THE NHLBI CENTER FOR
TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE AS A
PROGRAM OFFICER.
WE THANK HER FOR HER DEDICATED
EFFORTS IN OVERSEEING THE
EXTRAMURAL CLINICAL TRIALS AND
VERY IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO
THE CLINICAL TRIALS WORKING
GROUP.
DR. SLEDJESKI WILL BE POINT OF
CONTACT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ASPECTS OF NIAMS EXTRAMURAL
CLINICAL TRIALS WHILE CONDUCTING
A SEARCH FOR THE NEW RESEARCH
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
CHIEF.
IN THE INTRAMURAL RESEARCH
PROGRAM I'M THRILLED TO SHARE
DR. JOHN O'SHEA WAS ELECTED TO
THE PRESTIGIOUS U.S. NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ACADEMY'S
160th ANNUAL MEETING.
THIS DESIGNATION CONSIDERED ONE
OF THE HIGHEST HONORS A
SCIENTIST CAN ACHIEVE RECOGNIZES
DISTINGUISHED AND CONTINUING
ACHIEVEMENTS IN ORIGINAL
RESEARCH, AND INDEED HIS
ACHIEVEMENTS HAVE BEEN
GROUNDBREAKING IN CYTOKINE
SIGNALING, DISCOVERY OF JAK 3
AND INHIBITORS AMONG MANY OTHER
ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
WE'VE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO HAVE
HIM AT NIH FOR 40 YEARS, 18
THOSE AS NIAMS SCIENTIFIC
DIRECTOR.
AND WITH THAT, IT'S BITTERSWEET
TO ANNOUNCE DR. O'SHEA'S
INTENTION TO STEP DOWN FROM THE
POSITION OF SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR.
WE THANK HIM NOT ONLY FOR HIS
CONSIDERABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMMUNE
SYSTEM AND TRANSLATION OF THESE
DISCOVERIES INTO GROUNDBREAKING
MEDICAL TREATMENTS, BUT FOR
AGREEING TO REMAIN AS SCIENTIFIC
DIRECTOR AS WE INITIATE A
NATIONWIDE SEARCH FOR THIS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP
ROLE.
DR.
DR. O'SHEA WILL CONTINUE EFFORTS
TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY, COMMITTED
MEANTOR, AND MAKING ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERS IN HIS BUSY LAB IN
ADDITION TO HIS EXTRACURRICULAR
MUSICAL ACTIVITIES.
I'M DELIGHTED TO ANNOUNCE DR.
ROBERT WALKER JR. HERE TODAY IN
THE BACK ON MY RIGHT HAS BEEN
SELECTED AS THE CHIEF DIVERSITY
OFFICER FOR NIAMS.
UNTIL APRIL, DR. WALKER SERVED
AS DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE FOR
SCIENTIFIC OPERATIONS WITHIN OUR
INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.
THERE HIS RESPONSIBILITIES
INCLUDED LEADING CAREER AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
POSTBAC INTRAMURAL RESEARCH
TRAINING AWARDEES, TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER, INNOVATION
DEVELOPMENT, AND SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNICATION POLICY DIVERSITY
AND INCLUSION AND LOGISTICS,
AMONG OTHERS.
IN HIS NEW ROLE, DR. WALKER WILL
LEAD THE DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH,
RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING,
TRAINING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT SCIENTIFIC
MISSION AND ENHANCE SCIENTIFIC
DIVERSITY, PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON SCIENTIFIC
DIVERSITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
TO ENSURE DIVERSITY IS
CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT,
FUNDING, ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT
AWARDS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS,
CONTRACTS.
IN ADDITION, HE WILL SERVE AS
NIAMS LIAISON WITH SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY AND PARTNER WITH THE
NIH CHIEF OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC
WORKFORCE DIVERSITY, OFFICE OF
EQUITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION,
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICERS FROM
OTHER NIH INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS.
BEFORE JOINING NIAMS IN 2013,
DR. WALKER COMPLETED A
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP AT
NIAID, PATHOGENESIS OF HIV-1,
SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETED SECOND
FELLOWSHIP IN NIAID OFFICE OF
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.
DR. WALKER HAS ALSO HELD ADJUNCT
PROFESSOR AND GUEST LECTURE
POSITION AT UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND, HOWARD UNIVERSITY,
TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY,
MEHARRY COLLEGE, AND CHAPEL
HILL.
Ph.D. FROM MEHARRY MEDICAL
COLLEGE.
[APPLAUSE]
NEXT, AN EXCITING ACTIVITY FROM
THE INTRAMURAL LABS, THE NIH
HOSTED THE WHITE HOUSE COVID-19
RESPONSE COORDINATOR AT NIH
BETHESDA CAMPUS.
DR. KAPLAN, CHIEF OF NIAMS
SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNITY BRANCHED,
DISCUSSED IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON
PEOPLE WITH SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASES AND ROLE OF NEUTROPHIL
DYSREGULATION IN COVID-19 AND
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON LONG COVID.
AT A TOUR OF DR. KAPLAN'S LAB,
HE MET AND SPOKE WITH SEVERAL
RESEARCHERS INCLUDING DR. BILL
AMBLER, AND POSTBAC ALEXANDRA
WU.
DR. JAH MET WITH RESEARCHERS AT
THE VACCINE CENTER AND NIH
CLINTON CENTER, QUITE AN HONOR
TO HOST HIS VISIT.
I WAS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE
WITH CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS AND
STAFF, THE FIRST BRIEFING,
VIRTUALLY, PART OF THE HILL DAY
ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY THE
COALITION OF SKIN DISEASES.
MY PRE-RECORDED REMARKS
HIGHLIGHTED EXTRAMURAL AND
INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
DR. BROWNELL, SENIOR
INVESTIGATOR IN DERMATOLOGY
BRANCH REPRESENTED IN PERSON.
A COUPLE WEEKS AGO I
PARTICIPATED ON THE HILL IN THE
FIGHT AGAINST LUPUS AND HIGH
COST HIGH BURDEN DISEASES.
I JOINED A PANEL OF SPEAKERS
REPRESENTING THE FULL SPECTRUM
OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONTINUUM, TO DISCUSS OUR ROLES
TACKLING RESEARCH INTO AND
TREATMENTS FOR LUPUS AND OTHER
DISEASES FROM BENCH TO BEDSIDE.
WE'RE GREAT FOLLOW HAVE THESE
OPPORTUNITIES TO HIGHLIGHT THE
OUTSTANDING WORK WE SUPPORT AND
EDUCATE CONGRESS ABOUT NIAMS.
I'LL NOW HIGHLIGHT A FEW NIH AND
NIAMS ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT BE
OF INTEREST TO YOU.
FIRST, EXCITED TO SHARE THE
FIRST PROGRAM FROM THE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCY FOR
HEALTH, ARPA-H.
THE NOVEL INNOVATIONS FOR TISSUE
REGENERATION IN OSTEOARTHRITIS,
NITRO, AIMS TO SOLVE TREATMENT
CHALLENGES IN OSTEOARTHRITIS,
THE FIRST SUCH PROGRAM LAUNCHED
BY ARPA-H.
SO NITRO WILL EXPLORE
TECHNOLOGIES FOCUSED IN THREE
AREAS.
INJECTABLE BONE REGENERATION,
INJECTABLE CARTILAGE
REGENERATION, AND REPLACEMENT
JOINTS BUILT FROM HUMAN CELLS.
NITRO WILL FUND SEVERAL RESEARCH
TEAMS TO DEVELOP AND LEVERAGE
INNOVATIVE FORMS OF REGENERATIVE
MEDICINE TO CREATE MINIMALLY
INNOVATIVE THERAPEUTICS THAT
REGENERATE DAMAGED JOINTS.
IMPORTANTLY THERE'S A PROPOSER'S
DAY FOR INTERESTED RESEARCH
TEAMS OR PERFORMERS SCHEDULED
FOR NEXT WEEK ON JUNE 15.
WE'LL BE FOLLOWING THIS
INITIATIVE CLOSELY.
AND LAST MONTH THE FOUNDATION
FOR NIH ANNOUNCED THE AMP BGTC,
BESPOKE GENE THERAPY CONSORTIUM,
SELECTED EIGHT RARE DISEASES FOR
ITS CLINICAL TRIAL PORTFOLIO.
ALSO A NEW PROGRAM.
THE SELECTIONS WERE MADE BY A
PANEL OF EXPERTS FOLLOWING
REVIEW USING THE BGTC
ESTABLISHED CRITERIA.
THE CRITERIA INCLUDED INCLUDEE
ADEQUACY OF GENE THERAPY,
EXISTENCE ESTABLISHED DISEASE
MODEL, LACK OF AVAILABLE
TREATMENT, AND OVERALL READINESS
FOR ENTERING INTO A CLINICAL
TRIAL.
AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE AT LEAST
TWO OF THE EIGHT DISEASES
SELECTED ARE OF GREAT INTEREST
TO THE NIAMS COMMUNITY.
ONE IS A LYSOSOMAL STORAGE
DISEASE, THE SYMPTOMS INCLUDE
SHORT STATURE, SKELETAL
DYSPLASIA, DENTAL ANOMALIES,
CORNEAL CLOUDING.
PROPIONIC ACIDEMIA IS INVOLVED
IN ENZYME WITH BREAKDOWN OF
AMINO ACIDS, APPARENT DURING THE
FIRST WEEKS OF LIFE, AND MAY
INCLUDE ABNORMALLY DIMINISHED
MUSCLE TONE, POOR FEEDING,
VOMITING, LETHARGY, DEHYDRATION,
SEIZURES.
WITH THE SELECTION OF THESE
EIGHT RARE CONDITIONS, THE BGTC
WILL BEGIN WORK OF STREAMLINING
GENE THERAPY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
TO DEVELOP TREATMENTS FOR THESE
CONDITIONS AND MAKE GENE THERAPY
MORE GENERALIZABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE SO THAT OTHERS CAN
BENEFIT.
AS I ANNOUNCED AT THE LAST
MEETING CONGRESS ALLOCATED THIS
YEAR $10 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH ON
WOMEN'S HEALTH TO ESTABLISH
OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
RESEARCH TO IMPLEMENT FUNDING OF
A NASEM REPORT.
AS A LEADING FUNDER, NIAMS IS
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE NEW
OFFICE AS IT BEGINS TO
ACCOMPLISH ITS SIX GOALS,
DERIVED FROM THAT REPORT.
DEVELOPING A MULTI-INSTITUTE AND
CENTER STRATEGIC PLAN,
IDENTIFYING EMERGING AREAS OF
INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT STRATEGIC
PLAN, COORDINATING AND FOSTERING
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ACROSS
THE INSTITUTES, PERFORMING
ANNUAL EVALUATION OF THE NIH
AUTOIMMUNE RESEARCH PORTFOLIO,
PROVIDING RESOURCES TO SUPPORT
PLANNING, COLLABORATION, AND
INNOVATION; DEVELOP AND OVERSEE
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE CENTRAL
REPOSITORY FOR AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASE RESEARCH RESULTS.
AND IN LINE WITH THE NEW OFFICE,
ORWH, NIAMS, AND OTHER
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS RECENTLY
PUBLISHED A NOTICE ON THE
EXPOSOME IN AUTOIMMUNE, EXACT
PLAN, AND THIS IS A
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
BETWEENORWH, NIAMS, NIEHS, AND
OTHER NIH INSTITUTES AND CENTERS
ENGAGED WITH AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
RESEARCH.
THE GOAL IS TO INVITE
APPLICATIONS FOR EXPLORATORY,
EARLY, CONCEPTUAL STAGE RESEARCH
PLANNING PROJECTS, AIMED AT
DEVELOPING A FUTURE TEAM SCIENCE
RESEARCH NETWORK.
SO THE IDEA WOULD BE TO CONDUCT
RESEARCH TO DISCOVER
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES THAT
INFLUENCE DISEASE
SUSCEPTIBILITY, ONSET, OUTCOMES,
AND THEN DEVELOP A SYSTEMS-LEVEL
APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING
MECHANISMS UNDERLYING HOW THOSE
EXPOSURES PERTURB CELLULAR,
ORGAN AND TISSUE FUNCTION ACROSS
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.
AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
COLLABORATION BETWEEN NIAMS AND
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
WOMEN'S HEALTH, OUR TWO NOFOs,
NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES,
THE NEW TERM THAT WE'RE NOW
USING, THAT WERE FROM ORWH AND
THAT WE SIGNED ON TO, THESE
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES INVITE R01
AND R21 APPLICATIONS ON CHRONIC
CONDITIONS UNDERSTUDIED AMONG
WOMEN AND/OR DISPROPORTIONATELY
AFFECT POPULATIONS OF WOMEN'S
UNDERSTUDIED AND UNDERREPORTED
IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, NOTICES
EXPIRE NEXT JUNE.
NEXT I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE AN
UPDATE ABOUT A PROGRAM THAT WAS
CREATED BY ORWH AND THAT NIAMS
AND MANY INSTITUTES HAVE BEEN
HAPPY TO SUPPORT OVER A NUMBER
OF YEARS.
THE BUILDING INTERDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH CAREERS IN WOMEN'S
HEALTH, BIRCWH, IS A MENTORED
PROGRAM DESIGNED TO CONNECT
JUNIOR FACULTY WHO ARE KNOWN AS
BIRCWH SCHOLARS TO SENIOR
FACULTY WHO HAVE SHARED
INTERESTS IN WOMEN'S HEALTH AND
SEX DIFFERENCES RESEARCH.
SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS CREATED IN
2000, OVER 700 JUNIOR FACULTY
HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS PROGRAM.
CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 19 ACTIVE
BIRCWH PROGRAMS, SHOWN BY THE
MAP ON THE SLIDE.
AND STARTING THIS YEAR, NIAMS
WILL BEGIN ADMINISTERING ON
BEHALF OF OUR NIH PARTNERS.
I SERVED AS A BIRCWH MENTOR WHEN
I WAS AT UCSF AND SAY -- SAW
FIRSTHAND THE IMPACT OF THE
PROGRAM AND AM PROUD OF NIAMS'
CONTINUED EFFORT.
I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT ANOTHER
TRANS-NIH COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
WHERE NIAMS HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
I WANT TO THANK SUSANA
SERATE-SZTEIN FOR HER EFFORT ON
THIS FRONT, WHICH HAS BEEN
TREMENDOUS.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD
HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT,
NICHD, ISSUED TWO NOTICES OF
INTENT TO PUBLISH FOR WHAT'S
CALLED THE HEAL KIDS PAIN
INITIATIVE, ONE OF THE NOTICES
IS FOR A PAIN RESOURCE AND DATA
CENTER, AND THE OTHER FOR
SUPPORTING AN ACUTE PAIN
CLINICAL TRIALS PROGRAM.
WITHIN THE NIAMS MISSION THIS
EFFORT COULD RELATE TO ACUTE
ORTHOPEDIC PAIN FROM COMMON
INJURIES, OR TO ACUTE PAIN
CAUSED BY DISEASE FLARES, NIAMS
IS WORKING WITH NICHD AND OTHER
PARTICIPATING INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS, WE'LL BE PROVIDING YOU
WITH UPDATES AS THIS EFFORT
PROGRESSES.
NOW, SWITCHING TO THE NIH UNITE
INITIATIVE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT ON A NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE NIH
RECENTLY ANNOUNCED ITS RESEARCH
WITH ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
DIVERSITY, REWARD PROGRAM, IN
MARCH, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS
PROGRAM FOR SOME UNIQUE
FEATURES, PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR
SCIENTISTS MAKING A SIGNIFICANT
CONTRIBUTION TO DIVERSITY,
EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND
ACCESSIBILITY, IN THE RESEARCH
ENTERPRISE, AND WHO HAVE NO
CURRENT NIH RESEARCH PROJECT
GRANT FUNDING.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS WILL
RECEIVE NIH SUPPORT THROUGH THE
R01 MECHANISM FOR BOTH RESEARCH
AND DEIA ACTIVITIES WHICH I
THINK MAKES THIS UNIQUE.
SO THE APPLICATIONS WILL BE
ACCEPTED THROUGH EARLY 2026 AS
SHOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
SLIDE.
SO REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY.
NOW, WE'LL BE HEARING FROM DR.
NONI BYRNES, DIRECTOR OF CENTER
FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW LATER
TODAY BUT I WANT TO CALL YOUR
ATTENTION TO A CURRENT CSR
EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE WAY
FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS ARE
REVIEWED.
IN RESPONSE TO A WORKING GROUP
CONCLUSION THAT THE NIH IS
POTENTIALLY LEAVING OUT HIGHLY
PROMISING SCIENTISTS BECAUSE THE
CURRENT PROCESS TOO HEAVILY
FAVORS ELITE INSTITUTIONS,
SENIOR WELL-KNOWN SPONSORS, AND
OVERLY NARROW EMPHASIS ON
TRADITIONAL MARKERS OF EARLY
ACADEMIC SUCCESS, THE NIH HAS
ISSUED THIS RFI, REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION, REGARDING REVISED
REVIEW CRITERIA AND
CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO
APPLICATIONS SO THEY ALIGN WITH
THE PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA.
COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL
JUNE 23, SO PLEASE SHARE THIS
INFORMATION WITH INTERESTED
COLLEAGUES WHO ARE EITHER SENIOR
MENTORS OR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS.
ONCE AGAIN, DR. BYRNES WILL BE
WITH US LATER TODAY AND YOU CAN
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO HER ABOUT
THIS OR OTHER THINGS SHE SHARES
WITH US.
SO AS YOU ALSO MIGHT RECALL FROM
OUR LAST MEETING IN JANUARY DR.
FAYE CHEN, ALSO WITH US HERE
TODAY, FROM OUR EXTRAMURAL
PROGRAM, SHARED AN EVALUATION OF
THE INSTITUTE'S R21 PORTFOLIO
AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO OUR
PARTICIPATION IN NIH-WIDE
PROGRAM.
AND THANKS TO HER INPUT WE'VE
ISSUED A NOSI, NOTICE OF SPECIAL
INTEREST, TO NOTIFY RESEARCH
COMMUNITY THAT NIAMS WILL NOW
ONLY ACCEPT THESE EXPLORATORY
DEVELOPMENTAL R21 GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOCUSED ON NIAMS
CORE MISSION AREAS THROUGH THIS
NOSI, AND NOT THROUGH THE
NIH-WIDE PARENT R21 FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT.
AS WE MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THESE,
MANY OF US AT NIAMS HAVE BEEN
THINKING CAREFULLY ABOUT GOALS
FOR EXTRAMURAL INVESTMENTS.
ULTIMATELY OF COURSE WE WANT TO
SUPPORT HIGHLY MERITORIOUS
SCIENCE, DIVERSE PORTFOLIO OF
RESEARCH ACROSS THE BROAD
SPECTRUM OF OUR MISSION AREAS,
PROJECTS THAT ALIGN WITH NIAMS'
VALUES AND PRIORITIES, AND HAVE
FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS EMERGING
AREAS OR UNIQUE SCIENTIFIC
CHALLENGES.
SO WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT HOW
TO ACHIEVE GOALS AT THE
LEADERSHIP LEVEL AND PART OF OUR
STRATEGIC PLANNING YOU'LL BE
HEARING ABOUT THIS FROM DR.
STEPHANIE BURROWS, REALLY
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE
ALL BEEN THINKING CAREFULLY
ABOUT.
TO ENGAGE OUR COLLEAGUES 50 OF
US GATHERED FOR A TWO-DAY
RETREAT TO DISCUSS EXTRAMURAL
STRATEGIES FOR FUTURE
INVESTMENTS.
THE FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION WAS
BASED ON NIAMS GOALS AND VALUES,
OUR VISION FOR HOW TO ACCOMPLISH
OUR GOALS, AND OUR APPROACH TO
IMPLEMENTING OUR VISION.
A SUMMARY WILL BE POSTED SOON TO
THE NIAMS WEBSITE BUT WE'D BE
INTERESTED IN HEARING COUNCIL
THOUGHTS ON SOME TOPICS WE
DISCUSSED AS SHOWN ON THIS NEXT
SLIDE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE DISCUSSED HOW TO
LEVERAGE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS
IN ORDER TO GROW OUR BUDGET FOR
EXTRAMURAL FUNDING WHICH AS YOU
KNOW HAS BEEN STRETCHED VERY
THIN.
WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT SUCCESSES
WITH TRANS-NIH AND
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SUCH
AS ACCELERATING MEDICINES
PARTNERSHIP.
HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS
EXPERIENCE AND EXPAND STRATEGIC
PARTNERS WITH THIS GOAL IN MIND,
OUR STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS?
WE ALSO DISCUSSED HOW TO BEST
USE OUR FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE
MOST IMPACTFUL RESEARCH WHILE
ALSO FOSTERING ROBUST SCIENTIFIC
WORKFORCE.
AS YOU KNOW, RESEARCH IS
BECOMING INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE,
SO HOW CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS
FACT WITHOUT DECREASING THE POOL
OF INVESTIGATORS THAT WE
SUPPORT?
NIH POLICY STATES THAT
APPLICATIONS FROM INVESTIGATORS
WHO WOULD RECEIVE OVER $2
MILLION IN TOTAL COST SHOULD
THEIR MOST RECENT APPLICATIONS
BE FUNDED NEED TO BE CONSIDERED
BY RELEVANT INSTITUTE ADVISORY
COUNCIL, THAT IS THIS BODY.
BUT SOME OTHER NIH COMPONENTS
HAVE MORE STRINGENT POLICIES,
EITHER CAPPING AMOUNT OF NIH OR
INSTITUTE FUNDS OR THE NUMBER OF
NIH OR INSTITUTE GRANTS THAT AN
INVESTIGATOR CAN RECEIVE.
SO, WOULD WE BE BETTER SEARCHING
COMMUNITIES AND BROADER
SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE IF WE
PLACE LIMITS ON WHAT WE PROVIDE
THESE MOST HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL
INDIVIDUALS SO THAT WE CAN FUND
ADDITIONAL MERITORIOUS
APPLICATIONS FROM OTHERS?
AND HISTORICALLY, NIAMS HAS PAID
MOST APPLICATIONS ACCORDING TO
STRICT PAYLINE-DRIVEN APPROACH
WITH LIMITED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR
AWARDS TO APPLICATIONS THAT
PROGRAM DIRECTORS MIGHT IDENTIFY
AS BEING OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY
EVEN THOUGH THEY SCORED BEYOND
THE PUBLISHED PAYLINE.
SO, I WELCOME YOUR THOUGHTS
ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE THE
APPROPRIATE BALANCE, CONSIDERING
THE SIGNIFICANT BUDGETARY
CONSTRAINTS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
AND IMPORTANTLY FOR ALL OF THE
STRATEGIES THAT WE'RE EXPLORING
AND WE MAY BE PURSUING, HOW CAN
WE COMMUNICATE OUR GOALS,
PRIORITIES, AND APPROACH TO
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MOST
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WAY?
SO, ON THAT NOTE, WE HAVE NOW
TIME FOR SOME DISCUSSION AND I
WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS ON ANY OF
THE TOPICS I PRESENTED THUS FAR
AND ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND,
INCLUDING THESE TOPICS THAT I
JUST HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN THE
LAST COUPLE MINUTES THAT EMERGED
FROM OUR SCIENTIFIC PLANNING
RETREAT.
I WELCOME EARLY CAREER
INVESTIGATOR AD HOC MEMBERS
COMMENTS AS YOU REPRESENT THE
FUTURE AND WILL BE IMPACTED FOR
THE DURATION OF YOUR CAREERS.
I'LL JOIN YOU AT THE TABLE AND
WE'LL CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION.
IN SPITE OF THE QUIET ROOM, NOW
I'M SURE THERE'S SOME COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS.
GREAT.
>> FIRST I WANT TO CONGRATULATE
YOU ON THIS EXCITING PORTFOLIO
AND DIRECTIONS THAT YOU'RE GOING
IN.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY
NEW AND EXCITING THINGS HERE.
IT'S FANTASTIC.
BEFORE WE GET TO DISCUSSION THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I WONDERED
IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES RESEARCH
THAT'S OCCURRING WITHIN THE
OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH AND
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NIAMS AND
OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH, WHERE
THE DATA CENTRAL STORAGE WOULD
BE TAKING PLACE?
>>THIS IS A BRAND-NEW EFFORT.
CONGRESS DESIGNATED ORWH, BUT IT
CAN'T ADMINISTER GRANTS AND
AWARDS.
IT'S THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WITH
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS THE
VALUABLE $10 MILLION CAN BE
DISTRIBUTED TO SUPPORT VARIOUS
ACTIVITIES.
AND THEY HAVE DONE A
TREMENDOUSLY IMPRESSIVE JOB AT
OUTLINING SOME PLANS FOR THE
COMING YEAR AND BEYOND GIVEN THE
SHORT TIME THEY'VE HAD,
INCLUDING A REPORT BACK TO
IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL STAFF,
LAUNCHING THE EXACT PLAN THAT I
MENTIONED, THEY HAVE DEVELOPED
SOME INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
OPPORTUNITIES, ET CETERA, ET
CETERA.
BY THE WAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
JANINE CLAYTON OR SOMEONE FROM
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH ON
WOMEN'S HEALTH NEXT COUNCIL
MEETING.
SHE REACHED OUT BECAUSE SHE
KNOWS HOW COMMITTED WE TO
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE RESEARCH,
COUNTING ON US TO BE A STRONG
PARTNER.
AND DR. SUSANA SERATE-SZTEIN HD
A GREAT AMOUNT OF EFFORT IN THE
PLAN AND PROPOSAL WHICH WE'RE
EXCITED ABOUT, RICARDO SABATI
ALSO WORKED HARD ON THE PROJECT.
FULL DESCRIPTION FROM DR.
CLAYTON AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
YEAH?
>> YES, CONGRATULATIONS ALSO,
VERY COMPREHENSIVE PORTFOLIO,
I'M EXCITED ABOUT SOME ISSUES
YOU'RE DISCUSSING IN THE
RETREAT.
I HAD A MORE FOCUSED QUESTION
ABOUT THE R21s NOW THAT THEY
ARE SEPARATING FROM THE GENERAL
PROGRAM.
BASICALLY IS THERE GOING TO BE A
DEDICATED BUDGET EVERY YEAR FOR
THOSE R21s OR ARE THEY PART OF
THE GENERAL BUDGET, IS THERE
GOING TO BE A SEPARATE STUDY
SECTION AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL
CSR REVIEW AND IS IT GOING TO BE
OPEN TO ANY TOPIC OR SPECIFIC
RFAs FOR THOSE R21s, IF YOU
CAN EXPAND MORE.
>> YEAH, SO, THE MOTIVATION
BEHIND MAKING THIS CHANGE WAS
CONCERN ABOUT SOMETHING
CHARACTERIZED AS MISSION CREEP.
SO WHAT NIAMS PROGRAM STAFF WERE
OBSERVING WAS THAT INCREASINGLY,
R21 APPLICATIONS WOULD BE
DIRECTED TO NIAMS FOR POTENTIAL
FUNDING THAT REALLY WEREN'T
STRONGLY ALIGNED WITH OUR
MISSION.
WE'RE TERRIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE LIMITED DOLLARS WE HAVE GIVE
BE THE BREADTH OF OUR MISSION
AREAS.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS THAT
A NUMBER OF INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS STOPPED SUPPORTING R21
APPLICATIONS ALTOGETHER.
WHAT HAPPENS IS R 21
APPLICATIONS COME IN AND HAVE TO
FIND A HOME SOMEWHERE AND
THERE'S PROCESS FOR TRIAGING
APPLICATIONS.
SO, ANYTHING THAT WAS VAGUELY
RELATED TO NIAMS MISSION AREAS
WOULD COME TO US IF WHAT WOULD
LOGICALLY BE THE BETTER HOME WAS
NO LONGER ACCEPTING R21
APPLICATIONS.
THIS POSED A CHALLENGE.
WE WANT TO SUPPORT MERITORIOUS
RESEARCH BUT WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE.
SO BY PUBLISHING THIS NOSI, AND
PULLING OUT OF THE PARENT R21,
WHICH MANY OTHER INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS HAVE DONE, WE HAVE MORE
CONTROL OVER THE R21
APPLICATION.
THAT WAS THE SOLE INTENT AND
PURPOSE OF MAKING THIS CHANGE.
YOU RAISE A GOOD QUESTION WHICH
I CAN'T REMEMBER TECHNICALLY BUT
FAYE CHEN MAY KNOW IF ANYTHING
DIFFERENT HAPPENS IN TERMS OF
REVIEW.
MAYBE YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT
PART.
>> AS FAR AS I KNOW THEY ARE
STILL REVIEWED THROUGH THE
NORMAL PROCESS, PERCENTILED
ACCORDING TO OTHER R21s,
CONSIDERED BASED ON OUR PAYLINE
OR FUNDING DECISION PROCESS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE TOO
DISRUPTIVE.
FAYE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU
COULD CLARIFY THERE? ?
>> WHAT DR. CRISWELL HAS SAID
AND WHAT GAIL HAS SAID, THEY ARE
ALL CORRECT.
ONE THING THAT PEOPLE,
INVESTIGATORS, SHOULD REMEMBER
IS THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO PUT
THE NOSI NUMBER IN THE BOX.
AND WE ENCOURAGE INVESTIGATORS
TO TALK TO PROGRAM DIRECTORS
BEFORE THEY SUBMIT THE R21
APPLICATION JUST TO MAKE SURE
THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE CORE
MISSION OF NIAMS.
THAT WILL BE THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE.
>> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY
IMPORTANT NOTE AS WELL.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS TO MAKE
SURE THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS,
YOU KNOW, THE CHANGE THAT WE'VE
MADE AND THANKS FOR GIVING ME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE
RATIONALE.
YES, SUZANNE?
>> THIS RELATES TO DIFFERENT
THINGS COVERED, THE GENERAL
CONCEPT OF MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT
LEAVING VIABLE RESEARCH OR
VIABLE RESEARCHERS OUT OF
FUNDING DECISIONS OR OTHER
PROGRAMMATIC DECISIONS.
IT'S SOMETHING I THINK ALL OF US
IN THE PATIENT ENGAGEMENT FIELD
ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF, THAT
HAVING ENGAGEMENT PROWESS,
HAVING A DEMONSTRATED RECORD IN
ENGAGEMENT, SO PROOF THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTS AND
PRINCIPLES AND THAT YOU HAVE
DEMONSTRATED HOW TO PARTNER WITH
PATIENTS AND PATIENT GROUPS AND
PLANNING AND DISSEMINATION OF
RESEARCH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S
REALLY REWARDED.
CERTAINLY NOT ON PAPER, AND NOT
IN A LOT OF THE TRADITIONAL
FUNDING MECHANISMS SO I WONDER
ABOUT SOME WAY, MAYBE A QUESTION
AND A COMMENT, SOME WAY TO ADD
THAT COMPONENT AS PROOF OF
VIABILITY OR JUST A NEW WAY TO
THINK ABOUT THAT SKILL SET AND
HONOR IT BECAUSE WE PUSH SO HARD
AND WE COMPASSIONATE RESEARCHERS
ARE ALMOST DOING IT TANGENTALLY,
IT'S SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO GO
OUT MUCH HERE WAY TO -- OUT OF
THEIR WAY TO DO, SO IF IT WAS
EMBEDDED IT WOULD ADVANCE THE
FIELD OF ENGAGEMENT AND BY
VIRTUE OF THAT MAKE SCIENCE
BETTER, THAT'S WHAT ENGAGEMENT
IS ALL ABOUT.
JUST A THOUGHT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT TOPIC.
I'M THINKING WE SHOULD TRY TO
IDENTIFY MAYBE SOMEONE WHO COULD
PRESENT AT A FUTURE COUNCIL
MEETING ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS YOU MADE
WERE VERY SIMILAR TO COMMENTS
MADE AT THAT RECENT
CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING THAT
FOCUSED ON LUPUS, THE ACTING CEO
OF THE LUPUS FOUNDATION OF
AMERICA WAS THERE AND SPOKE TO
THAT SPECIFIC.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT
INCREASINGLY I HEAR DISCUSSION,
HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE,
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF PATIENT
ENGAGEMENT AND PATIENT
INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF RESEARCH.
EVERYWHERE I LOOK, NOW EXACTLY
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THAT FRONT,
I'M NOT THE BEST PERSON TO
OUTLINE BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE
CONTEXT OF "HEAL," THE HELPING
END ADDICTION LONG-TERM PROGRAM,
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK.
THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION FOR DR.
BYRNES.
I SUSPECT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
IS BEING DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF
HOW TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE
REVIEW PROCESS.
THERE'S ALSO DISCUSSION ALONG
THOSE LINES ABOUT A FUTURE IN
WHICH CLINICAL TRIALS ARE
REVIEWED THROUGH A COMPLETELY
SEPARATE PROCESS INSTEAD OF R01
PROCESS.
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT SHOULD
TRANSLATE INTO MORE SUCCESSFUL
RESEARCH, RIGHT?
SO I MEAN THIS SHOULD PAY OFF IN
THE END BUT HOW DO WE GET FROM
HERE TO THERE, I'M NOT SURE, AND
I WOULD INVITE ANY COLLEAGUES OR
OTHERS WHO KNOW MORE, HAVE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
ACTIVITIES ON THIS FRONT, TO
SPEAK AT THIS POINT OR ONCE
AGAIN THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TOPIC
FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING.
IT LOOKS LIKE --
>>I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS BUT
I THINK IT'S A FANTASTIC IDEA
AND SOME FUNDING PROPOSALS HAVE
REQUIRED IT, SOME COMPARATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS APPLICATIONS
REQUIRED ENGAGEMENT AND HAVE
SECTIONS IN THE GRANT REQUIRED
FOR PATIENT ENGAGEMENT AND
INPUT.
IT WOULDN'T WORK FOR EVERY GRANT
IN NIAMS BUT IT WOULD BE
INTERESTING TO THINK WHICH ONES
WHERE THAT MIGHT BE A REQUIRED
APPENDIX OR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT
THAT IS REQUIRED, I THINK IT'S
AN IMPORTANT TOPIC TO DIG
FURTHER INTO.
I CAN ALSO SAY SOME SEARCH
COMMITTEES AND REVIEW COMMITTEES
ALSO TYPICALLY NOW HAVE A
PATIENT OR, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC
MEMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT VIEW IS
REPRESENTED, YOU KNOW, AS AN
EXAMPLE.
>> VOLUNTEER TO -- I CAN OFFER
ANY OF MY SORT OF PCORI
EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE SO MANY
MODELS TO DRAW FROM NOW WE DON'T
HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH.
>> IT'S SOMETHING THE CLINICAL
TRIALS WORKING GROUP SHOULD
INCORPORATE AND STUART, ONE OF
THE CO-CHAIRS, SO I THINK IT'S
ON MY LIST OF SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE PART OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE DO THAT, CERTAINLY ASMC, WE
TRY TO WRITE IT BUT IT SHOULD BE
STANDARD PRACTICE NOW.
I THINK THE INSTITUTE, NIH AS AN
AGENCY, IS GETTING THERE.
>> DAVID.
>> I WAS GOING TO CHANGE GEARS,
IF SOMEONE HAS A COMMENT ABOUT
THE PATIENT ENGAGEMENT PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> I WANTED TO SAY WOULDN'T
THIS FIT WITH THE PLAN FOR
ENHANCING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES
SOME GRANTS ARE NOW REQUIRING?
THE PATIENT ENGAGEMENT PIECE?
WOULD THAT BE DIFFERENT?
>> I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF
BOTH.
I THINK DIVERSITY NEEDS TO
HAPPEN IN SO MANY DIFFERENT
REALMS.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT BOTH PATIENT
ENGAGEMENT AND D.E.I. HONESTLY
THERE ARE EMERGING PRACTICES WE
WANT TO CODIFY NOT JUST
EVALUATING PRESENCE OR ABSENCE
BUT THE QUALITY OF.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT MADE ME WANT
TO SHARE THAT COMMENT.
THAT'S ONE POTENTIAL HOME.
I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY
OTHERS AS WELL.
>> ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS ABILITY
TO REACH OUT TO DIVERSE
POPULATION AS WELL AS GETTING
THE PARTICIPANT VOICE.
SO BOTH THINGS ARE IMPORTANT.
>> ALSO YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN
REFERRING TO, PEDP, I CAN'T
REMEMBER WHAT THAT STANDS FOR,
ALSO FOCUSED ON THE DIVERSITY OF
THE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE, ALL
THESE ASPECTS, WORKFORCE,
PARTICIPANTS, ENGAGEMENT WITH
BROADER COMMUNITY.
YEAH, IT'S COMPLEX BUT I THINK
THIS WOULD BE A GREAT TOPIC AND
MAYBE SUZANNE WOULD BE A
PRESENTER AT A FUTURE COUNCIL
MEMBER -- THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
DAVID?
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME AS
AN EARLY CAREER INVESTIGATOR.
IT'S EXCITING TO SHARE MY POINT
OF VIEW.
I WANTED TO DISCUSS THE RETREAT
QUESTIONS YOU ENDED WITH,
STARTING OUT MY CAREER AND
HAVING GRANTS BE SORT OF A
PRESSING QUESTION, HOW ARE YOU
APPROACHING -- WHAT ARE STEPS
THAT HAPPEN TO ADDRESS THOSE
FIXED LIMITS VERSUS
DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BY
PROGRAM DIRECTORS?
I SEE ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES ABOUT SET RULES,
OR AD HOC DECISIONS THAT HAPPEN
WITH EACH GRANT CYCLE, HOW DOES
IT GET BROACHED?
EACH SCENARIO IS UNIQUE AND
DIFFERENT.
>> ALONG THOSE LINES, WHAT I
OBSERVED OVER THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS IN THIS ROLE, OF COURSE MY
COLLEAGUES ARE WELL AWARE,
THERE'S A LOT OF VARIATION
ACROSS THE INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS ON THEIR APPROACH TO
THIS ISSUE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IN
ADDITION TO DEEP DISCUSSION AT
THE RETREAT WE HAD SEVERAL
PRESENTATIONS LEADING UP TO THE
RETREAT TO HEAR FROM OTHER
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS HOW THEY
APPROACH THIS.
DARREN WAS AT NIGMS THAT TAK%S A
úVERY DIFFERENT APPROACH, AND
EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED THE SCORE
THAT COMES OUT OF CSR STUDY
SECTIONS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
AS A REFLECTION OF SOME ASPECT
OF THE RESEARCH, OF COURSE.
BUT INSTITUTES AND CENTERS HAVE
THEIR OWN GOALS, OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY PART OF THE FOCUS OF
STUDY SECTIONS.
SO HOW DO YOU PULL THAT IN AT
WHAT LEVEL TO WHAT DEGREE BY
WHOM?
BUT SOME INSTITUTES HAVE I GUESS
A RELATIVELY WEAK CORRELATION
BETWEEN A SCORE FROM STUDY
SECTION AND THE GRANT, THE
AWARD.
SOME INSTITUTES PUBLISH
PAYLINES, OTHERS DON'T.
SOME INSTITUTES DON'T PUBLISH
PAYLINES BUT HAVE INTERNAL
PAYLINE, SOMETIMES THE PAYLINES
DIFFER ACCORDING TO PORTFOLIO
AREAS BECAUSE OF COURSE WHAT'S
NEEDED AND HOW APPLICATIONS ARE
FARING IN THE REVIEW PROCESS IS
NOT THE SAME, ESPECIALLY AS
BROAD AS NIAMS.
TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE PAYLINE
THE DRIVING FOCUS IN FUNDING
DECISIONS VERSUS SOME OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS?
ONE OF THE REASONS THIS HAS
BECOME SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TO DISCUSS AT NIAMS IS THE
FUNDING IS SO TIGHT.
SO I MEAN BOB AND I REMEMBER THE
DAYS AS INVESTIGATORS WHEN THE
PAYLINE WAS A LOT MORE GENEROUS
THAN 10 PERCENTILE, GOOD DAYS
BUT WE'RE NOT THERE ANYMORE.
WE DON'T HAVE A STRAIGHTFORWARD
WAY JUST TO SECURE MORE FUNDING
FOR OUR MISSION AREAS, WHICH IS
WHY PARTNERSHIPS ARE CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT, RIGHT?
AND LEVERAGING "HEAL" DOLLARS.
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING
SPECIFICALLY IS WHAT IS THE BEST
BALANCE TO STRIKE AT NIAMS, AT
THIS TIME, GIVEN THE FUNDING WE
HAVE BETWEEN PAYLINE AS THE
DRIVING FACTOR VERSUS PROGRAM
DIRECTOR DISCRETION, AND PART OF
MY THINKING ABOUT THIS IS OUR
PROGRAM DIRECTORS HAVE
SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE AND VERY
IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE THAT STUDY
SECTION MEMBERS DON'T HAVE, THAT
INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATORS DON'T
HAVE, THAT THE INSTITUTE
DIRECTOR DOESN'T HAVE, THAT'S
LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
SO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
FULLY LEVERAGING THE KNOWLEDGE
AND PERSPECTIVES THEY HAVE AND
CAN LOOK TO THEM FOR SOME
GUIDANCE ABOUT THESE
APPLICATIONS THAT, YES, OKAY,
THEY MAY NOT BE WITHIN THIS
EXTREMELY TIGHT PAYLINE BUT MAY
BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO FUND
TO, YOU KNOW, ENSURE MAXIMAL
PROGRESS ACROSS OUR DISEASE
AREAS.
SO --
>>IT SOUNDS CHALLENGING TO
BALANCE THOSE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY, WHICH
EVER APPROACH, BALANCED APPROACH
YOU TAKE, THAT THERE COULD BE AN
OUTCOMES RESEARCH OR PILOT TO
LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS DURING THAT
PERIOD, WHERE THERE'S PROGRAM
DIRECTOR DISCRETIONARY GRANTS IF
THERE'S SOME SORT OF WAY TO LOOK
AT WHAT OUTCOMES IS, THERE'S A
DISADVANTAGE, NO MATTER WHAT,
VERY HARD TO CHOOSE WHAT THE
OUTCOME WOULD BE, BUT AT LEAST
THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE A
METRIC-DRIVEN WAY TO APPROACH A
DIFFICULT DECISION.
>> THAT SPEAKS TO I THINK THE
IMPORTANCE OF BEING AS DATA
DRIVEN AS POSSIBLE.
AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW,
WHAT DATA CAN WE LOOK TO THAT
CAN INFORM THIS AND WHAT CAN WE
FOLLOW, AND THIS GETS AT THE
ISSUE OF COMMUNICATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO ENGAGE
THE BROADER COMMUNITY TO THE
EXTENT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT
WE'RE THINKING, WHAT WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT, WHAT OUR
RATIONALE IS FOR CONSIDERING
SOME THINGS.
WE MAY NOT GET IT RIGHT.
AND THIS IS A DYNAMIC SITUATION.
WHAT'S BEST FOR TODAY MIGHT NOT
BE THE SAME AS WHAT'S BEST FOR
FIVE YEARS.
SO WE NEED TO FOLLOW THIS
CLOSELY AND WE CAN LOOK BROADLY,
LOOK WITHIN PORTFOLIO.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE IMPACT IN TERMS
OF QUALITY OF SCIENCE,
TRANSLATION TO CLINICAL MEDICINE
AND SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE.
ALSO IN THE MIX OF COURSE IS
THIS NOTION OF CAPPING, IF YOU
WANT TO CONSIDER IT THAT WAY.
BUT BALANCING, YOU KNOW,
CONCENTRATING RESOURCES BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT CONCERNED -- WE'RE
CONCERNED NOT ONLY SCIENCE BUT
SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE.
IF WE PUT ALL OUR MONEY INTO THE
PERCEIVED TO BE BEST SCIENTIST
THERE WON'T BE ANY SIGH SCIENCF
THE FUTURE.
WE NEED TO STRIKE A BALANCE.
>> ONE THING TOWARD YOUR
QUESTION, DAVID, THAT IS THAT
THE PROGRAM DIRECTORS, THERE'S
NOT ONE PROGRAM DIRECTOR MAKING
THAT DECISION.
THEY WORK IN TEAMS.
AND THEY DISCUSS IT WITH EACH
OTHER, THEY GO THROUGH THEIR
KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE THINGS ARE IN
THE FIELD.
IT'S NOT REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW,
I KNOW THIS PERSON AND THEY ARE
GOING TO GET MY GRANT FUNDED
TYPE THING.
SO, IT'S A DECISION THAT'S MADE
BASED ON CRITERIA, AND A LOT
MORE INFORMATION THAN JUST
WHAT'S IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
>> I WASN'T SUGGESTING.
I WAS THINK FIGURE THERE'S A
SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT EVEN IN A
VOTING AMONG PROGRAM DIRECTORS
THERE'S STILL TWO ROUTES THAT
COULD OCCUR, THERE COULD BE SOME
OUTCOME OF THIS SUBJECTIVE
DECISION AMONG THE PROGRAM
DIRECTORS THAT OCCURS VERSUS THE
QUANTITATIVE CSR SYSTEM THAT'S
USED.
AND TO LOOK AT THE OUTCOMES
HOWEVER THEY MAY BE, NOT JUST IN
TERMS OF PUBLICATION OUTPUT,
MISSION DRIVEN, HOW IT AFFECTS
EARLY-STAGE INVESTIGATORS,
DIVERSITY OF THE WORK, SOMETHING
THAT'S COMPLEX, I UNDERSTAND.
>> TWO COMMENTS AND I WANT TO
HEAR FROM MARY.
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS IS A TOOL WE
THINK IS GOING TO BE VERY
VALUABLE, AND ALSO A LOT OF
INSTITUTES CONNECT VERY STRONGLY
THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN AND THEIR
GOALS WITH THEIR FUNDING
DECISIONS.
AS YOU'LL HEAR FROM DR. BURROWS
WE ALMOST A YEAR INTO THE
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
MARY?
>> MUCH OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO
SAY HAS BEEN SAID.
I THINK HAVING -- IF YOU'RE
GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY, WE KNOW
OUR COMMUNITY, THAT WILL BE
UPSETTING TO SOME, AND WELCOME
TO OTHERS.
BUT I THINK HAVING THIS AND
ARTICULATING WHAT YOU DEFINE AS
SUCCESS AND AS A BETTER OUTCOME
WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE
COMMUNITY TO BUY IN, IF THE
APPROACH IS CHANGED.
SO I THINK -- I DON'T THINK
THERE'S AN EASY ANSWER.
YOU'VE ARTICULATED AND GAIL DID,
WHAT THE OUTCOME WOULD BE.
WHAT YOU KNOW AND HAVE PUBLISHED
AS STRATEGIC MISSION AND PLAN
WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS BUT
WE'LL STAY ON THIS.
>> ELLEN?
>> THANK YOU.
DAVID IS ASKING TWO DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE IS CAN WE ASSESS
THE OUTCOMES IF WE CHANGE THE
WAY WE DO THINGS, AND THE OTHER
IS WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT
ARE BEING USED BY THE PROGRAM
OFFICERS.
GAIL, YOU MENTIONED THERE ARE
CRITERIA.
ARE THOSE PUBLISHED CRITERIA OR
ARE THEY LOOSE?
>> NO, THEY ARE RELATIVELY
LOOSE AT THIS POINT, ELLEN,
BECAUSE THEY VARY FROM DISEASE
STATE TO DISEASE AREA FROM ONE
TO ANOTHER BECAUSE OF THE
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES IN
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AND
DIFFERENT CLINICAL AREAS.
SO, I WOULDN'T SAY EACH OF THE
PROGRAMMATIC TEAMS USES
IDENTICAL BALANCE OF THESE
CRITERIA, BUT THEY ARE PRETTY
OBVIOUS CRITERIA, SIMILAR TO
WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A CSR TYPE
REVIEW, BUT FOCUSED IN PORTFOLIO
BALANCE, AND THAT'S A VERY LARGE
PORTION OF IT.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER COMMUNICATION
I WANT TO ADD, THAT'S ANOTHER
COMMUNICATION PIECE ABOUT HOW
TRANSPARENT SHOULD WE BE.
THE CRITERIA INCLUDE THINGS LIKE
EARLY-STAGE INVESTIGATOR, AN
IMPORTANT GAP OR OPPORTUNITY
AREA WITHIN NIAMS MISSION WHICH
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CSR STUDY
SECTION MEMBERS ARE CONSIDERING.
THERE IS -- WOULD FUNDING THIS
APPLICATION ENHANCE THE
DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES
REPRESENTED IN THE RESEARCH
WORKFORCE OR IN TERMS OF
RESEARCH OUTPUT, MY COLLEAGUES
BEHIND ME CAN HELP ADD TO THESE
ALSO.
THE NOTION OF HARDSHIP IS A
REALLY TOUGH ONE, BUT, YOU KNOW,
IF THERE'S CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT THIS HIGHLY PROMISING OR
IMPORTANT INVESTIGATOR IS ABOUT
TO LOSE THEIR LAB, THAT CAN BE
CONSIDERED.
SO, YES, HOW THEY ARE WEIGHTED,
THE POINT GAYLE WAS MAKING HOW
THEY ARE WEIGHTED FOR INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATIONS MIGHT DIFFER.
I WANT TO LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES
BACK HERE.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO ADD TO
THAT?
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE
FACTORING IN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO,
BUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW,
MAKING THESE AT THE CURRENT TIME
SELECT PAY DECISIONS.
>> I DO THINK YOU SAID IT VERY
WELL, LINDSEY.
I THINK THE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE
GOING TO EVALUATE THIS.
THIS IS OUR FIRST ROUND OF
THESE.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING
BACK AND LOOKING AT THESE
DECISIONS AND TRYING TO IMPROVE
OUR PROCESS FOR THIS.
AND CERTAINLY WE WOULD TRY TO
PUT SOMETHING ON THE WEBSITE IF
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S QUANTIFIABLE.
BUT THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE A
LITTLE BIT FLUID, DEPENDING ON
THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS WE HAVE, AND
HOW WE CAN PARTNER WITH OTHER
INSTITUTES AND OFFICES TO GET
FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT AN
APPLICATION.
SO WE LOOK AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT
ASPECTS HERE.
>> MARIA?
YEAH, OKAY, GREAT.
MARIA?
>>I WAS WONDERING HOWS THEY
GOING TO BE OPERATIONALIZED WITH
RESPECT TO THE BUDGET, JUST, YOU
KNOW, TIME BY TIME YOU'LL SEE
THERE'S A MERITORIOUS
APPLICATION THAT FALLS UNDER
THOSE CHARACTERISTICS OR IT'S
GOING TO BE MORE RIGIDLY SET,
FOR INSTANCE 10% OF THE BUDGET
IS GOING TO GO TO APPLICATIONS
THAT I THINK WE NEED TO REVIEW?
>> FIRST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
HAS BEEN OF CONCERN TO ME
RELATED TO THE TIGHT BUDGET AND
PAYLINE AND UNCERTAINTIES IS
INVESTIGATORS WHO, YOU KNOW,
EARLY IN THE YEAR, HOWEVER YOU
WANT TO DEFINE THIS, GET A SCORE
THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY THINK IS
VERY CLOSE TO THE PAYLINE BUT
MAY NOT MAKE IT.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO DECIDE
ARE THEY GOING TO SPEND A TON OF
EXTRA TIME AND SUBMIT A REVISED
APPLICATION JUST AS A BACKUP, OR
ARE THEY ABLE TO WAIT AND HEAR
IF THAT APPLICATION GETS FUNDED?
HERE IS WHERE EARLY CAREER
INVESTIGATORS, THAT'S A CRITICAL
ISSUE.
AND I -- YOU KNOW, I AM
DISCOURAGED AT THE NOTION OF
INVESTIGATORS SPENDING A LOT OF
TIME RESUBMITTING APPLICATIONS
JUST TO COVER THEIR BASES.
FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE ALSO
TRYING TO FACILITATE MAKING SOME
OF THESE DECISIONS THROUGHOUT
THE FISCAL YEAR INSTEAD OF
WAITING TILL THE VERY END OF THE
YEAR WHEN WE FINALLY KNOW, OKAY,
THIS IS HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE.
BECAUSE WE CAN'T PUT ANY MONEY
ASIDE AND USE IT NEXT YEAR.
WE HAVE TO SPEND TO THE DOLLAR,
IT'S A STRESSFUL TIME OF YEAR.
WE HAVE TO GET THIS RIGHT.
IN SOME RESPECTS THE EASIEST
THING IS WAIT TILL THE END OF
THE YEAR AND ALL THE EXTRA MONEY
AND YOU MAKE A ZILLION AWARDS
BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY
HAPPY.
WE'RE TRYING TO SYSTEMATIZE AND
HAVE CERTAIN TIMES DURING THE
YEAR WHEN WE CAN MAKE SOME OF
THESE SELECT PAY DECISIONS.
THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION
IS THE BALANCE, RIGHT?
HOW MUCH OF OUR BUDGET SHOULD
GO, THAT WE CAN DIRECT TOWARDS
THESE RESEARCH PROGRAM GRANTS,
COULD GO TO -- SHOULD GO TO THE
STRAIGHT PAYLINE VERSUS
DISCRETIONARY.
IN THIS PAST YEAR, WHEN WE'RE
THINKING MORE CAREFULLY ABOUT
SELECT PAY, ABOUT 10% OF OUR
BUDGET WAS USED TO NOMINATE
GRANTS APPLICATIONS THAT WERE
HIGHLY MERITORIOUS BUT HAVE NOT
MADE THE PAYLINE.
IS THAT THE RIGHT BALANCE OR
SHOULD WE SHIFT THINGS?
>> AN UNWANTED CONSEQUENCE MAY
BE THE PAYLINE GETS WORSE,
DEDICATING AN AMOUNT DO THAT.
>> I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT.
THAT RAISES AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAYLINE AND
SUCCESS RATE.
SO, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, IF WE
SHIFT THE PAYLINE, IF WE MAKE IT
TIGHTER, AND SHIFT THOSE DOLLARS
TO MORE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS
THE SUCCESS RATE DOESN'T CHANGE.
THE SUCCESS RATE STAYS THE SAME.
THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT.
I WANT MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO
SHOW THIS GRAPH WHERE WE CAN
SHOW IF YOU PUT 10% OF YOUR
TOTAL RPG BUDGET TO
DISCRETIONARY, WHAT IS THE
PAYLINE?
IF YOU PUT 20 OR 30, WHAT IS THE
PAYLINE?
THE SUCCESS RIGHT, ALL ELSE
BEING EQUAL, STAYS EXACTLY THE
SAME, SO WE HAVE TO START
TALKING ABOUT -- KEEP IN MIND
NOT ALL INSTITUTES HAVE
PAYLINES, THEY DON'T PUBLISH
THEM.
SUCCESS RATE IS A MORE IMPORTANT
METRIC.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD THING
FOR PEOPLE TO GET OVER, I CAN
TELL BY THE LOOK ON YOUR FACE.
>> HOPE TO SOME DEGREE IT
REMAINS THE SAME FOR THE PAYLINE
BUT THERE'S AN INCREASING RATE
THROUGH THESE ONES FUNDED
BECAUSE THEY ARE MERITORIOUS.
>>THAT'S WHERE PARTNERSHIPS AND
FUNDING THAT GAYLE ALLUDED TO,
THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT
COMES IN.
YEAH, ANN?
>> THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT
DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU FOR BROADENING IT OUT.
THE SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES NEED TO
BE ENGAGED IN THIS AS WELL,
HAVING LIVED IN THAT WORLD FOR
SO MANY YEARS.
SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES ARE DEALING
WITH WHERE THE GAPS ARE THAT
THEY SEE THAT AREN'T GETTING
FUNDED BECAUSE OF THE PAY LINE,
TRYING TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN
FUNDING MECHANISMS, THERE MIGHT
BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIP
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY RIGHT NOW
IS THE COMMUNICATION ABOUT WHAT
ARE THE CRITERIA THAT ARE BEING
USED SO THAT PEOPLE -- YOU KNOW,
THIS WILL BE CONTROVERSIAL.
>> ON THAT NOTE, I MEANT TO
ALSO MENTION THAT I HAD A GREAT
DISCUSSION IN TOKYO RIGHT AFTER
I ARRIVED, SO IT WAS A LITTLE
BIT TRICKY, WITH THE SOCIETY FOR
INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY BOARD.
UNFORTUNATELY A MEETING
PRECLUDED ATTENDANCE OF SOME
FOLKS THERE BUT WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS.
I WAS INTERESTED TO HEAR AND SEE
RECEPTEVITY, SPECIAL LIP TO
CAPPING NOTION, DIVERSE FUNDING
SOURCES, NOT EXPECTING
EVERYTHING FROM NIH, TRYING TO
SPREAD THE WEALTH, PARTICULARLY
LOOKING AT PAYLINE OF TENTH
PERCENTILE, WE'LL HEAR FROM DR.
BYRNES LATER, A 10th
PERCENTILE IS EQUAL THAT'S
STATISTICALLY IDENTICAL.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT, WOW,
REALLY SUGGESTING KINDS OF
LOOKING NOT TAKING QUITE THE
STRICT PAYLINE APPROACH IS
REALLY IMPORTANT BUT -- ONE LAST
COMMENT AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM
MARY AGAIN.
WE THINK THERE'S AN IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO
COLLABORATE WITH THESE DIFFERENT
SOCIETIES ALSO IN TERMS OF
STRATEGIC PLANNING, TO TRY TO
COMPLEMENT AND SUPPORT AND NOT
REPLICATE, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT
RESEARCH AREAS.
SO WE'VE TALKED TO LUPUS
RESEARCH ALLIANCE, TALKED TO
STEVE TAYLOR AT ARTHRITIS
FOUNDATION, WE'RE EAGER TO DO
MORE AS WELL.
SO MARY?
>> TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC.
I GUESS I WANTED TO HEAR MORE
ABOUT THE NITRO PROJECT AND IT
SOUNDS SUPER INNOVATIVE.
AND MAYBE SOMETHING DIFFERENT WE
AREN'T USED TO SEEING.
IT WAS QUICK SO WOUND -- WONDEF
YOU COULD EXPAND ON PROJECTS
SELECTED, WHO HAS BEEN INVITED
FOR PROPOSEERS DAY.
>> WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT
ARPA-H, TOOK A WHILE FOR FUNDING
AND A DIRECTOR, SHE IS
FANTASTIC, VERY ACTIVE WITH
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE
VISION AND CONCEPT BEHIND THIS
IS THAT IT'S A A HIGH-RISK,
HIGH-REWARD EFFORT,
COMPLEMENTARY TO RESEARCH NIH
FUNDS, TAKING HUGE RISKS, AND
THE PROJECTS ARE DRIVEN BY
PROGRAM MANAGERS, THEY ARE
ACTIVELY RECRUITING PROJECT
MANAGERS, IF THERE ARE FOLKS YOU
THINK MIGHT BE EXCITED ABOUT
THIS 3 TO 6 YEAR OPPORTUNITY,
KEEP THAT IN MIND.
THEY RECRUIT RECRUIT LARGELY BN
IDEAS THEY BRING, KICKING OFF
AMBITIOUS HIGH-RISK EFFORT,
WE'RE THRILLED THAT
OSTEOARTHRITIS ANDS REGENERATIVE
MEDICINE WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE
FIRST PROJECT.
WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.
WE WANT TO COLLABORATE AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE A
LOT OF THINGS GOING ON
INTERNALLY TO NIAMS AND NIH
RELATED TO REGENERATIVE
MEDICINE.
SOME OF YOU PARTICIPATED IN
REGENERATING CARTILAGE, ET
CETERA, WE'RE GETTING THE
RELEVANT ARPA-H FOLKS TODAY FOR
NITRO AND NIAMS LEADERSHIP AND
STAFF.
WE'RE TALKING TO NIH LEADERSHIP,
TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE
SUPPORTIVE AND TO NOT COMPETE
WITH, NOT REPLICATE, BUT TO SIT
BY AND WATCH AND SEE WHAT WE
DO -- DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE IT
SUCCESSFUL.
THEY ARE EXPECTING A HIGH RATE
OF FAILURE.
>> IN NIAMS WE HAVE A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE
IN THIS AREA AND HOPEFULLY THOSE
TALENTED PROGRAM OFFICERS ARE
PART OF THE PROCESS AND -- OKAY,
IT'S NICE TO HAVE FAILURES BUT
YOU DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR
MONEY AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE
THEY ARE HIGH RISK THERE IS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR LEARNING.
>> IT'S THEIR MONEY, NOT OUR
MONEY.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND OUR PROGRAM OFFICER, SOME
PROGRAM OFFICERS, TED AND AARON
AND MAYBE CHUCK, WERE
IDENTIFIED, AND PART OF THE
THING THAT'S HARD FOR US IS
TIMELINES ARE SO QUICK.
BOOM, THEY HIRE THIS PERSON, AND
THE NEXT THING WE KNOW THERE'S A
PRESS RELEASE.
SO THEY WORK QUICKLY.
THEY REACHED OUT TO PROGRAM
OFFICERS, TO GAYLE, AND LOOPED
LEADERSHIP IN.
WOW, YOU'RE READY TO GO, WHO IS
GOING TO RECEIVE THE FUNDING?
THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED.
THERE'S THIS PROPOSER'S DAY, SO
SOON AFTER THE PRESS RELEASE
TELLS YOU ABOUT THE TIMELINES.
>> OUR INSTITUTE WOULD BE ABLE
TO SUGGEST NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO
SHOULD BE INVITED OR GET AN
E-MAIL THAT SAYS GET THIS ON
YOUR RADAR, THIS IS COMING.
WE KNOW AT NIAMS WHO IS DOING
REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, HOPEFULLY
WE CAN GET THE RIGHT FOLKS AT
THE TABLE.
>>WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNICATION TEAM HERE.
>> IT'S VERY INTERESTING
BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT THAT
THEY ARE DIFFERENT, SEPARATE,
ADMINISTERED WITHIN NIH BUT
CONSIDERED -- THEY REPORT TO THE
HEAD OF HHS.
NOT TO HEAD OF NIH.
PART OF THE CONCEPT THEY DO
THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
PART IS THEY DON'T LISTEN TO US.
THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY AND TAKE
AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT APPROACH,
WHICH IS TELL US THE DELIVERABLE
YOU CAN ACHIEVE, YOU GET A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
IF YOU CAN ACHIEVE IT, YOU'RE
CONSIDERED FOR THE NEXT STEP.
IF YOU DON'T ACHIEVE IT YOU'RE
OUT.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE
WAY WE WORK.
HERE IS A LOT OF DOLLARS FOR
FIVE YEARS AND COME BACK AND SEE
IF YOU CAN DO IT AGAIN.
IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT MINDSET.
BUT IT'S FASCINATING TO US
BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THE PLAYERS.
WE KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO CAN DO
THIS.
WE ACTUALLY KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE A TRACK RECORD.
WE KNOW PEOPLE'S TRACK RECORD,
PUT IT THAT WAY.
BUT THAT'S NOT -- WE'RE NOT
ASKED THAT.
IT'S A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
AND SO IT IS FASCINATING TO SEE
WHAT BRIDGES WE CAN BUILD
BECAUSE WE DO KNOW A LOT VERSUS
THE EFFORT TO DO SOMETHING
DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENTLY.
>> ONE OF THE CLOSEST PALLORS
WILL WOULD BE RADx OUT OF
NIBIB.
THEY WERE PRETTY SUCCESSFUL WITH
THE PROJECTS THAT CAME OUT OF
THAT.
THIS IS MODELED AFTER THAT BUT
AS BOB SAID IT'S A DIFFERENT
BALL GAME.
THEY CAN GIVE YOU MONEY, THEY
CAN TAKE IT BACK.
WE CAN'T DO THAT.
>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
OPTIMIZING THE OPPORTUNITY, SO
THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP THAT CAN
CLEARLY BENEFIT NIAMS.
THIS IS MONEY WE'RE NOT SPENDING
THAT ADVANCES SCIENCE IN OUR
FIELD, JUST MAKING SURE WE HAVE
THE RIGHT PEOPLE AT THE TABLE,
MINIMALLY ADVISING, THIS MAY OR
MAY NOT LISTEN, AND THE RIGHT
INVESTIGATORS APPLYING.
>> HOW DO YOU GET ON THE TABLE
FOR PROPOSER'S DAY?
YOU WRITE A PROPOSAL DUE JUNE 16
OR INVITED FOR THE MEETING ON
JUNE 16?
I'M NOT SURE.
MY POINT IS DON'T BE PASSIVE.
LOOK AT THE WEBSITE.
FIGURE OUT WHAT'S TAKEN AND GET
SOMETHING IN THERE.
I'M SAYING THIS BROADLY TO THE
COMMUNITY.
>> WE DID BROADLY DISTRIBUTE
THAT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM NIAMS TO
OUR INVESTIGATORS, SO -- AND WE
HAVE SUGGESTED NAMES OF PEOPLE
WHO WOULD BE WORTH REACHING OUT
TO, TO THESE FOLKS, AND WE'VE
ALSO GIVEN THEM KIND OF OUR
GESTALT OF WHERE WE'RE ARE AND
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I THINK WE'VE DONE AS MUCH AS WE
CAN WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT
THIS IS NOT OUR AGENCY.
>> SO, I'M JUST GOING TO DO A
LITTLE BIT OF TIME CHECK.
DARREN AND I WERE CONFERRING,
WE'RE INCLINED TO TAKE A BREAK
UNTIL 11:00, I CAN ALSO TAKE ONE
QUICK QUESTION BEFORE WE BREAK.
DR. BYRNES IS HERE FROM CSR AND
WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER PRESENTATION
AFTER DR. BYRNES.
ANY LAST THOUGHTS BEFORE WE TAKE
OUR BREAK?
I'LL BE MILLING AROUND.
>> LET ME JUST ASK IF DOCTORS
FINDLEY OR GOODMAN ON THE ZOOM
METING HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU
WANT TO RAISE?
>> THIS IS STUART GOODMAN
SPEAKING.
I'VE ENJOYED THIS CONVERSATION.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW TO AWARD
GREAT RESEARCH.
I KNOW THAT NSF AND DARPA GIVE
OUT AWARDS THAT ARE BY AND LARGE
MERIT BASED BUT ALSO AS I
UNDERSTAND IT THE DIRECTOR PICKS
AND CHOOSES TOO.
AND I AGREE WITH OUR AD HOC
MEMBER THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A
LOT OF THOUGHT AND A LOT OF
ANALYSIS TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE
GOING TO CHANGE A SYSTEM THAT'S
BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES INTO A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SYSTEM BUT
THERE'S PROS AND CONS AND I
THINK IF WE DO THIS JUDICIOUSLY
AND DO A LOT OF ANALYSIS OF HOW
IT'S AFFECTING THE AWARDEES AND
NON-AWARDEES, I THINK IT'S
CERTAINLY WORTH CONSIDERING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STUART.
I COMPLETELY AGREE.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT TO US, AND, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO BRING
SOME OF THESE ISSUES TO YOU AND
CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION WITH OUR COUNCIL
MOVING FORWARD.
AND OF COURSE WE HAVE THE REST
OF TODAY AND WE HAVE IN BETWEEN
COUNCIL MEETINGS TO CONTINUE
SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT,
ANYTIME AS WELL.
>> I THINK DREW WANTS TO SAY
SOMETHING.
HE UNMUTED HIMSELF.
>> THIS IS ANDREW FINDLEY.
THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO
ATTEND.
I HAD A COMMENT.
I'M PHYSICALLY DISABLED, I WANT
TO POINT OUT IT'S VERY NICE TO
HAVE THIS VIRTUAL OPTION TO
ATTEND MEETINGS LIKE THIS, SO
CONTINUING TO DO SO GOING TO THE
FUTURE I THINK IS A VERY
IMPORTANT THING.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND
THAT'S ONE OF THE SILVER LININGS
OF THE PANDEMIC, THE REALIZATION
WE CAN BE INCLUSIVE AND
ACCOMMODATING AND WE ALL BENEFIT
FROM THAT.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR SHARING
THAT.
LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
RESTROOMS ARE OUT HERE TO THE
RIGHT.
WE'LL SEE YOU BACK AT 11:00.
I'M SO EXCITED THAT WE HAVE DR.
NONI BYRNES HERE TODAY.
I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HER
MEETING WITH COUNCIL FOR A LONG
TIME, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BEING HERE.
DR. BYRNES IS DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW,
CSR, AT THE NIH.
SHE LEADS THE STAFF OF OVER 600
PERSONNEL, AND IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR OVERSEEING THE MAJORITY OF
THE NIH PEER REVIEW PROCESS, AS
CSR HANDLES ABOUT 76% OF ALL OF
THE GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT ARE
SUBMITTED TO THE NIH.
AND PRIOR TO BEING APPOINTED
DIRECTOR SERVED IN A VARIETY OF
ROLES AT CSR, SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
OFFICER, EVENTUALLY ACTING
DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND THEN ACTING
DIRECTOR OF CSR BEFORE WE GO
NAMED DIRECTOR.
SHE HAS VERY DEEP EXPERIENCE
WITH CSR AS YOU CAN SEE.
SHE'S LEDDED DEVELOPMENT OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN
PEER REVIEW AND CSR HAS
INCREASED
INCREASED DIVERSITY AND TAKEN
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS BIAS REVIEW.
DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS I'VE
BEEN HERE I'VEED A -- I'VE
ADMIRED HER INITIATIVES.
TODAY SHE'D WILL TALK ABOUT CSR
INITIATIVES TO STRENGTH BE PEER
REVIEW INCLUDING MITIGATION
AWARENESS TRAINING.
>> IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE.
THANK YOU, LINDSEY AND DARREN
AND BOB AND EVERYONE FOR
INVITING ME.
I MISSED A ROBUST DISCUSSION,
HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH THAT AFTER
THE TALK.
LET ME GET STARTED.
OUR MISSION IS TO ENSURE
IDENTIFICATION OF HIGHEST IMPACT
APPLICATIONS FOR NIH FUNDING BY
ENSURING THE PROCESS IS FAIR,
INDEPENDENT, EXPERT, AND TIMELY
AND FREE FROM INAPPROPRIATE
INFLUENCES.
LINDSEY ALREADY MENTIONED, THIS
IS FISCAL YEAR 23 NUMBERS, WE
REVIEWED AROUND 60,000
APPLICATIONS, A LITTLE OVER
THREE-QUARTERS OF ALL NIH
APPLICATIONS.
THAT'S MAJORITY OF THE R01s,
SMALL BUSINESS, AND NRSA
FELLOWSHIP PORTFOLIO WITH
ASSISTANCE OF OVER 19,000
REVIEWERS, 275 SROs, IT'S A
LARGE OPERATION, 1200 MEETINGS
EACH FISCAL YEAR.
IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR
STANDING STUDY SECTIONS THAT
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH CSR HANDLES
A NUMBER OF MOST SPECIAL
INITIATIVES ANYWHERE, AND THAT
INCLUDES TRANS-NIH INITIATIVES,
SOME MAY BE FAMILIAR TO YOU, AS
WELL AS RFAs AND SUCH THAT
INSTITUTES ASK US TO TAKE ON, ON
THEIR BEHALF.
SO WE ISSUED A NEW STRATEGIC
PLAN LAST YEAR, FIVE-YEAR
STRATEGIC PLAN, AND IT WAS BUILT
ON OUR EXISTING FRAMEWORK THAT'S
BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2019.
AND THE FRAMEWORK IS REALLY TO
OPTIMIZE OUTPUT OF PEER REVIEW,
LIES IN THREE DOMAINS.
FIRST IS MORE LIKE A
STRUCTURE/FUNCTION PROBLEM,
FIRST IS STRUCTURE OF STUDY
SECTIONS, WHAT THAT MEANS IS
SOME STANDING PANELS, WHAT IS
THE SCOPE OF THE SCIENCE?
ARE THEY OPTIMAL SIZE?
ARE THEY ADAPTING TO EMERGING
AREAS?
I'LL TALK ABOUT THE INQUIRE
PROCESS THAT LOOKS INTO
RESTRUCTURING STUDY SECTIONS.
EVEN IF HAVE YOU PERFECTLY
DESIGNED STUDY SECTIONS, THE
OUTPUT IS ALSO INFLUENCED BY WHO
WE SELECT AS REVIEWERS, THERE'S
A SECOND DOMAIN OF REVIEWERS,
REVIEWER SELECTION AND TRAINING
AND SO FORTH.
s YOU CAN HAVE REALLY STRONG
REVIEWERS, PERFECT STUDY SECTION
STRUCTURE BUT PROCESS CAN AFFECT
OUTCOMES SOMETIMES IN A NEGATIVE
WAY.
THAT'S WHERE SOME PROCESS ISSUES
COME UP LIKE INTEGRITY, BIAS,
OTHERS.
WE DO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE PUBLIC,
ENSURING A LEVEL OF
TRANSPARENCY, DECISIONS,
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL SEE IN SOME OF
WHAT I PRESENT THAT ARE
DECISIONS, DATA DRIVEN AND WE
ENGAGE WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESSES.
WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR
STAFF.
WE'VE INVESTED A LOT OF
RESOURCES IN DEVELOPING AND
TRAINING STAFFER AND REVIEWERS.
TODAY I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT
INQUIRE, THE STUDY SECTION
RESTRUCTURING PROCESS, ABOUT
SIMPLIFYING THE REVIEW OF
RESEARCH PROJECT GRANTS AND NRSA
FELLOWSHIPS, INITIATIVES IN
DIFFERENT STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN MORE ABOUT PROMOTING
FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS AND
DIVERSIFYING OUR COMMITTEES.
SO ENQUIRE IS THIS TORTURED
ACRONYM.
IT'S NAY -- IT'S NIH SO WE HAVO
HAVE A TORTURED ACRONYM,
ENQUIRE.
THE GOAL IS TO TAKE A CAREFUL
DEEP SYSTEMATIC LOOK AT OUR
STUDY SECTION STRUCTURE, WHAT IS
THE SCIENCE THAT'S BEING
REVIEWED TOGETHER AND COMPARED
TO EACH OTHER, RIGHT?
SO WE INITIATED THIS IN 2019.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE AROUND
20% OF CSR STUDY SECTIONS SO WE
HAVE 180 STANDING COMMITTEES IN
AREAS RANGING FROM BASIC TO
COMMUNITY HEALTH, AND OUTREACH.
SO AROUND 20% ARE ASSESSED EACH
YEAR WHICH MEANS EVERY STUDY
SECTION IS SCHEDULED TO GET A
DEEP DIVE EVERY FIVE YEARS TO
TAKE A LOOK AT HOW IT'S
PROGRESSING.
IT'S A TWO-STAGE PROCESS, FIRST
STAGE INVOLVES EXTERNAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE, EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC
EVALUATION PANEL.
WE MAKE SURE WE GET PEOPLE WHOSE
OWN SUPPORT IS NOT TIED TO
EXISTENCE OF ONE STUDY SECTION.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET
BROAD PEOPLE TO GIVE US HIGHER
LEVEL INPUT.
AND WE ASK THEM JUST -- I GUESS
ONE QUESTION, WHAT IS -- TELL US
ABOUT HOW SCIENTIFICALLY CURRET
IS THIS?
WE GIVE THEM A BUNCH OF DATA,
OUTPUT, PUBLICATION DATA.
WE GIVE THEM ESI DATA, EARLY
STAGE INVESTIGATOR, IS IT STUDY
SECTION OPEN TO EARLY-STAGE
INVESTIGATORS?
IS THE SCIENCE FRESH ENOUGH TO
HAVE ENOUGH ESIs COMING IN
THROUGH THE SYSTEM?
A NUMBER OF SAMPLE ABSTRACTS AND
AIMS.
WE GIVE THEM FREE REIN TO
IDENTIFY EMERGING AREAS, GET RID
OF STUDY SECTIONS, MERGE,
CREATE.
SECOND STAGE IS A PROCESS
EVALUATION.
THIS IS ITEMS WE CAN DO
INTERNALLY, WITHIN NIH, IT
INVOLVES NIH STAKEHOLDERS,
INSTITUTES SERVED BY THAT STUDY
SECTION.
THEY GET THE REPORT OF THE FIRST
STAGE AND ALSO ROSTER EXPERTIS,
ET CETERA.
WE GET PROGRAM FEEDBACK IN
THROUGH SURVEYS THAT WE THEN
PROVIDE TO THE SECOND STAGE
PANEL.
SIMILAR TO FIRST PANEL WE DON'T
INVOLVE INDIVIDUAL SROs,
VESTED IN THE STUDY SECTION OR
POs BUT HIGHER LEVEL FOLKS AT
THE INSTITUTES.
AND THEN ALL OF THIS GOES IN
FRONT OF CSR ADVISORY COUNCIL,
OVERSEEN BY SCIENTIFIC DIVISION
DIRECTORS.
I WON'T GO THROUGH STEPS OTHER
THAN TO TELL YOU THAT AFTER
APPROVAL BY THE ADVISORY COUNCIL
THERE ARE MULTIPLE STEPS TO HAVE
MOCK REFERRALS TO FINALIZE
GUIDELINES AND OVERLAP
STATEMENTS, PUBLIC THOSE TO
PUBLICIZE THEM TO THE COMMUNITY,
AND THEN TRANSFER STUDY SECTION
MEMBERS BASED ON EXPERTISE IF
NEW PANELS ARE CREATED.
TAKES 12 TO 18 MONTHS, CLOSER TO
18 MONTHS, FROM THE TIME WE
BEGIN OUR FIRST STAGE TO THE
TIME WE HAVE NEW STUDY SECTIONS.
SO, SO FAR WE'VE DURN 13
SCIENTIFIC CLUSTERS WHICH IS
ABOUT 152 STUDY SECTIONS DONE OR
IN VARIOUS STAGES OF PROGRESS,
THAT INCLUDES ALL DIFFERENT
AREAS OF SCIENCE.
BECAUSE WE GIVE FREE REIN TO THE
COMMUNITY THEY GIVE US REAL
CHANGE WHICH IS GREAT.
SO, IT'S RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGE, ELIMINATION OF SMALLER
BOUTIQUE PANELS, AND NEW STUDY
SECTIONS, ESPECIALLY
INCORPORATION OF NEWER
SCIENTIFIC AREAS.
SOME EXAMPLES, LATE STAGE
PRE-CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS,
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH
WAS NOT CREATED AS A NEW STUDY
SECTION BUT INCORPORATED INTO
MULTIPLE STUDY SECTIONS BASED ON
RECOMMENDATIONS, MOBILE HEALTH
TECHNOLOGY, CANCER
IMMUNOTHERAPY, A REAL GROWTH
AREA, RESULTED IN ADDITIONAL
STUDY SECTIONS BEING CREATED.
A MAJOR INITIATIVE HAS BEEN TO
SIMPLIFY THE REVIEW, AND
OPTIMIZE REVIEW OF RESEARCH
PROJECT GRANT APPLICATIONS WHICH
IS THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF WHAT
OF WHAT NIH FUNDS.
TWO MAIN GOALS.
FIRST LEVEL OF PEER REVIEW TO
PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC MERIT ADVICE
TO THE AGENCY.
OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS, MORE
AND MORE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE
REVIEWER'S PLATE WHICH HAS BEEN
A BURDEN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IT
DETRACTS ATTENTION FROM
SCIENTIFIC MERIT EVALUATION SO
TO OPTIMIZE WE WANTED TO REFOCUS
THE FIRST LEVEL OF PEER REVIEW
ON THE SINGULAR GOAL OF
PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC MERIT
EVALUATION.
ALONG WITH THAT, THIS WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY MITIGATE
OR MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE
WHAT I'M CALLING REPUTATIONAL
BIAS IN THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
PEER REVIEW IS NOT ITS OWN
ENTITY.
IT'S PART -- INVOLVES 19,000
RESEARCHERS, ALL PART OF YOUR
INSTITUTIONS AND THE LARGER
BIOMEDICAL PARADIGM.
THAT HAS REPUTATIONAL BIAS.
WHO TRAINED WITH WHO, WHO WENT
TO WHICH SCHOOL, T1 SCHOOLS
VERSUS NEXT LEVEL, THAT COMES
THROUGH IN PEER REVIEW LIKE IT
DOES IN OTHER PLACES IN THE
COMMUNITY.
SO THE GOAL HERE WAS TO GET BACK
TO THE MAIN GOAL OF PEER REVIEW,
WHICH IS IDENTIFICATION OF THE
STRONGEST HIGHEST IMPACT
RESEARCH.
WE DO THAT BY ENSURING THAT THE
EVALUATION OF THE INVESTIGATOR
AND ENVIRONMENT IS DONE IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT THAT'S
BEING PROPOSED.
I'LL TELL YOU A BIT MORE ABOUT
THAT.
A LONG SLIDE BUT THE GOAL TO
SHOW YOU WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS
SINCE EARLY -- SINCE JANUARY
2020 AND OF COURSE THE PANDEMIC
HIT, BUT WE CONTINUED THROUGH
IT.
WE ENGAGED OUR CSR ADVISORY
COUNCIL AND FORMED WORKING
GROUPS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL
TO COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT WOULD ADDRESS THOSE TWO
GOALS OF REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN, MITIGATING REPUTATIONAL
BIAS.
IT WENT THROUGH A SERIES OF
APPROVALS AND PROCESS.
WE GOT A LOT OF INPUT AT THE
FRONT END.
WE PROVIDED SOME LEGAL AND
REGULATORY GUARD RAILS TO THE
WORKING GROUPS.
ONE IS THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS BY WHICH PEER REVIEW
FUNCTIONS AND WHICH IS HARD
WIRED REQUIRES FIVE REVIEW
CRITERIA.
AND THOSE ARE THE FIVE REVIEW
CRITERIA YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH.
WE CAN'T REALLY CHANGE THAT
WITHOUT GOING TO CONGRESS.
BUT NIH HAS DISCRETION HOW WE
INTERPRET CRITERIA, GROUP THEM,
SCORE THEM.
SO THE WORKING GROUP TOOK THAT
VERY SERIOUSLY.
IN DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH WE HAD
A PUBLIC REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION, RFI, THAT WAS OPEN.
AND I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THE
FEEDBACK FROM THAT.
LET ME SHOW WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED.
SO, THE MAIN RECOMMENDATION
THAT'S COME OUT IS TO TAKE THE
EXISTING FIVE CRITERIA AND GROUP
THEM INTO THREE FACTORS, YOU
KNOW, WHICH IS REALLY IF YOU
THINK ABOUT IT SHOULD IT BE
DONE, CAN IT BE DONE, WILL IT E
DONE, RIGOR AND FEASIBILITY,
EACH FACTOR WILL BE SCORED 1 TO
9, AFFECTING OVERALL IMPACT
SCORE.
THE FACTOR 3 EXPERTISE AND
RESOURCE, REMEMBER WE'RE
EVALUATING INVESTIGATOR AND
ENVIRONMENT, THE CONTEXT OF THE
RESEARCH PROJECT GRANT, DO THEY
HAVE THE EXPERTISE, THE
INVESTIGATORS, AND DOES THE
ENVIRONMENT HAVE THE RESOURCES?
AND HERE WE TOOK AWAY THE 1-9
BECAUSE WHEN YOU GIVE 9, BIAS
CREEPS IN.
SOMEONE'S AT HARVARD, THEY WILL
GET A 1 RIGHT NOW IN
ENVIRONMENT.
SOMEONE IS -- I DON'T KNOW,
MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY, HBCU,
THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES,
EVERYTHING THAT'S NEEDED TO DO
THE R01, MIGHT GET A 3.
BY MAKING THE BINARY, OR THERE'S
A GAP, IF THERE'S A GAP THEY ARE
DROPPED DOWN, PICK THE GAPS,
THEY HAVE TO GET SPECIFIC ABOUT
WHAT'S LACKING.
THE MORE SPECIFIC REVIEW
CRITERIA ARE, THE LESS LIKELY
BIAS WILL CREEP IN, NOT JUST
SCIENTIFIC, THAT'S IN THE
LITERATURE TO MAKE THE CRITERIA
CLEAR.
THE FACTOR 3 WILL STILL AFFECT
OVERALL IMPACT SCORE.
IF EXPERTISE IS LACKING IT
SHOULD AFFECT THE SCORE.
HUMAN SUBJECTS, ANIMALS, REMAINS
UNCHANGED.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REVIEW
CONSIDERATIONS, THESE ARE THINGS
THAT DON'T AFFECT OVERALL IMPACT
SCORE RIGHT NOW BUT THERE'S A
LOT OF STUFF THAT REVIEWERS HAVE
TO ADDRESS, THOSE HAVE BEEN
REMOVED.
WE ASKED FOR SCIENTIFIC INPUT,
THIS CAN BE DONE
ADMINISTRATIVELY INTERNALLY.
SO THE RFI CLOSED IN MARCH.
WE GOT OVER 800 RESPONSES FROM
SOCIETIES, YOU KNOW,
INSTITUTIONS, INDIVIDUALS.
BECAUSE WE GOT SO MUCH INPUT ON
THE FRONT END OF THIS WHOLE
PROCESS AND WE INVOLVED OUR
WORKING GROUPS OF THE COUNCIL,
IT WASN'T A SURPRISE WE GOT A
LOT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK.
A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THOUGHT
THESE WERE GOOD CHANGES.
MINORITY STILL FELT FACTOR 3
SHOULD BE SCORED, INVESTIGATOR
AND ENVIRONMENT.
WE EXPECTED A BIT OF THAT TOO.
MOST RECOMMENDED THAT WE
DEVELOPED STRONG TRAINING
RESOURCES, THIS WILL BE A BIG
SOCIALIZED CHANGE FOR REVIEWERS,
WE'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT IN A
SYSTEMATIC WAY.
WE HAVE A WHOLE OFFICE OF
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE
TO TAKE MODULES THAT WE RECENTLY
DEVELOPED BUT WE PLAN TO DO THAT
CENTRALLY AND CAREFULLY TOO.
THERE IS A TRANS-NIH
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE THAT
HAS I.C. REPRESENTATIVES, OFFICE
OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH, SYSTEMS
CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.
A LOT OF DOMAIN EXPERTISE.
THEY ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH SOCIALIZING THIS FORWARD.
TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION DATE IS
FOR OCTOBER 2024 WHICH WOULD BE
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2025, MAY GET
PUSHED ANOTHER ROUND BUT WE'RE
NOT SURE YET.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR
ADVISORY COUNCIL WORKING GROUPS
ON SIMPLIFYING REVIEW.
WE HAD TWO WORKING GROUPS, ONE
ON CLINICAL TRIALS, ONE ON
NON-CLINICAL TRIALS, SO THAT'S
10% OF NIH APPLICATIONS ARE
CLINICAL TRIALS.
MAJORITY ARE NOT.
WE GOT EXPERTISE FROM OUR
COUNCIL AS WELL AS OUTSIDE AD
HOC MEMBERS.
THAT WAS RPGs, RESEARCH
PROJECT GARAGES.
GRANTS.
WE'RE TACKLING RESEARCH
APPLICATIONS.
THIS ENDED UP MOVING A LOT
FASTER THAN RPGs DID.
WE CONVENED A WORKING GROUP OF
OUR ADVISORY COUNCIL IN 2022,
AND AGAIN SIMILAR TO THE
PREVIOUS GROUP THEY GATHERED
DATA, COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
THE BIG FEEDBACK WE HEARD WAS
THAT NIH IS LEAVING OUT REALLY
PROMISING SCIENTISTS OF THE
FUTURE BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS
THAT ONCE AGAIN HAS REPUTATIONAL
BIAS BUILT INTO IT.
SO, WE -- THE CONCERNS WERE
MATCHED BY DATA WE OBTAINED
WHICH IS THE FELLOWSHIP
APPLICATIONS CONCENTRATED IN A
SMALL NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS.
THEY SUBMIT THE MOST
APPLICATIONS.
THOSE THAT SUBMIT THE MOST
APPLICATIONS TEND TO BE REALLY
SUCCESSFUL IN REVIEW.
AND THEN THE THE RANK OF THE SR
MATTERS, STRONG ASSISTANT
PROFESSORS WANT FELLOWS IN THEIR
LAB, NOT ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE
REVIEW PROCESS.
HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF DATA
FROM ONE YEAR, 2021.
YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED.
15 INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNT FOR MORE
THAN 100 APPLICATIONS PER YEAR.
AND THEN MAJORITY OF
INSTITUTIONS, 106 OR SO, COMMIT
JUST ONE TO TWO APPLICATIONS PER
YEAR.
AND EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE IF
YOU LOOK AT THOSE INSTITUTIONS
THAT SUBMIT 1-25 APPLICATIONS A
YEAR, MOST ARE NOT SCORED, AND
29 PERCENT GET HIGH IMPACT
SCORE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 100+
APPLICATION INSTITUTIONS THEY
ARE MUCH BETTER AT DOING THIS.
THEY HAVE A FACTORY GOING.
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
THEY GET HIGHER IMPACT SCORES.
SO WHATEVER WE HEARD FROM THE
COMMUNITY WAS BORNE OUT BY THE
DATA.
SIMILAR TO THIS, THE ACADEMIC
RANK OF THE SPONSOR, RIGHT?
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS, IF YOU'RE
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SINGLE
SPONSOR MOST LIKELY YOU'LL GET
UNSCORED.
25% GET HIGH IMPACT.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, FULL
PROFESSOR TENDS TO INCREASE.
OTHER IS EVEN HIGHER.
YOU WOULD THINK WHY IS OTHER
HIGHER?
THESE ARE DEANS AND PROVOSTS,
SORT OF THE UBER-PROFESSORS, YOU
CAN THINK OF IDENTIFY THAT WAY.
SIMILAR TREND WITH MULTIPLE
SPONSORS.
SO OUR APPROACH HERE WAS TO
REVISE FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE WORKING
GROUP, REVISE FELLOWSHIP
APPLICATION TO MAKE SURE THE
CANDIDATES' ACCOMPLISHMENTS CAN
REALLY BE HIGHLIGHTED IN A VERY
TARGETED WAY.
AND THEN TO ALSO REVISE REVIEW
CRITERIA, AGAIN TO BETTER FOCUS
ON POTENTIAL OF THE APPLICANT
AND STRENGTH OF THE SCIENCE AND
HOW GOOD AND TARGETED THAT
TRAINING PLAN IS.
WE WANTED TO REMOVE INFLUENCE OF
INSTITUTION'S REPUTATION OR
SPONSOR'S REPUTATION, SIMILAR TO
RPGs.
THE BROADER GOAL, WE'RE TRYING
TO IDENTIFY THE MOST PROMISING
TRAINEES, NOT JUST MOST FROM
CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS AND
PEDIGREES.
OKAY.
I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THIS.
IT'S AN RFI, IT'S PUBLIC, OPEN
FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
THE BIG CHANGE HAS BEEN TO
ELIMINATE GRADES, THAT WAS SORT
OF A UNANIMOUS KIND OF PUSH FROM
THE WORKING GROUP AND REALLY HAS
BEEN ONE OF OUR ISSUES.
A NUMBER OF OTHER CHANGES THAT
VERY MUCH FOCUS ON TARGETED
REVIEWS, MAKING SURE THAT
APPLICANTS GET TO PRESENT THEIR
ACCOMPLISHMENTS, IN LIGHT OF
THEIR OPPORTUNITIES.
IT ALSO ALLOWS -- THE LETTERS OF
SUPPORT ARE REVISED, ONE OF THE
THINGS WE SAW WAS BOILERPLATE
LANGUAGE, IS THIS A BIG FACTORY
LAB PRODUCING THE SAME LETTER,
WHICH STILL GETS THROUGH BECAUSE
IT'S COMING FROM THAT LAB,
RIGHT?
SO REALLY TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE
TARGETED AND REQUIRE TARGETED
SUPPORT LETTERS.
OPTIONAL STATEMENTS OF SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THAT'S
RELATED TO SOMEONE WHO MIGHT
HAVE HAD TO SWITCH LABS AND THEY
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE
THAT.
SO, THIS IS STILL VERY MUCH OUT
THERE.
AND AVAILABLE FOR INPUT.
SECOND RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE
REVIEW CRITERIA.
REALLY WHAT HAS CHANGED IS
NOT -- IS THIS SPONSORS
COLLABORATORS AND CONSULTANTS
AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
AND COMMITMENT TO TRAINING.
THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT,
THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
TRAINING FELLOWS.
BUT SITTING OUT HERE BY
THEMSELVES THEY TEND TO BE OPEN
TO BIAS.
THEY ARE INCORPORATED INTO
SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
AND INTO POTENTIAL PREPAREDNESS
TRAINING PLANNED AND RESOURCES,
SPONSOR REMAINS IMPORTANT BUT IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE FELLOWS
TRAINING PLAN.
ENVIRONMENT FOR INSTITUTION
REMAINS IMPORTANT BUT IN CONTEXT
OF RESOURCES.
SO THIS WAS APPROVED BY FULL
ADVISORY COUNCIL, ENDORSED
WITHOUT CHANGE BY NIH
LEADERSHIP.
CURRENTLY WE HAVE THIS RFI OPEN
THROUGH JUNE 23, IF YOU WANT TO
KNOW MORE THERE'S A BUNCH OF
LINKS AND BLOGS.
I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD
SHARE WITH YOUR COMMUNITIES
BECAUSE THERE'S STILL TIME TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THIS WORKING GROUP
THAT REALLY WAS VERY COMMITTED,
WORKED HARD, CAREFULLY LOOKED AT
THE DATA AND ENGAGED IN A LOT OF
DISCUSSIONS, THOUGHTFULLY.
OKAY.
WHEN I PRESENT THESE CHANGES TO
THE CRITERIA, SO IF I ONLY HAVE,
I DON'T KNOW, 20 MINUTES TO
PRESENT, WHAT ABOUT BIAS IN
REVIEW AND DIVERSIFYING YOUR
PANELS, ISN'T THAT JUST AS
IMPORTANT?
NOW I NO LONGER TAKE ON SPEAKING
ASSIGNMENTS UNTIL I CAN PRESENTS
ALL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS
SPACE.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THAT
TIME.
SO, FIRST OF ALL CSR HAS AROUND
180 STANDING STUDY SECTIONS
WHICH MEANS -- MOST CHAIRS SERVE
TWO-YEAR TERMS SO EVERY TWO
YEARS -- EVERY YEAR WE GET 90
NEW CHAIRS INCOMING.
EVERY SUMMER WE HOLD TWO-HOUR
INTERACTIVE FACILITATIVE SECTION
FOR INCOMING CHAIRS.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF OVERVIEWS
AND NUTS AND BOLTS BUT A VAST
MAJORITY OF THE TIME IT'S
FACILITATED DISCUSSIONS AMONG
THE CHAIRS USING VIGNETTE-BASED
FRAMEWORK.
WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING
ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF THE
CHAIR, SETTING THE CULTURE OF
THE STUDY SECTION, HOW TO FOSTER
INVOLVEMENT, BROADER GROUP OF
REVIEWERS, AND FOCUSING ON
SIGNIFICANCE, RIGHT?
AND IF IT ISN'T MENTIONED WE'RE
TRAINING CHAIRS TO ASK THE
QUESTION WHY DO WE CARE BEFORE
WE GET RIGHT INTO THE DETAILS.
SO, A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE
RELEASED THE CSR BIAS AWARENESS
TRAINING FOR REVIEWERS, WE NOW
HAVE A CENTRALIZED TRAINING
OFFICE COMMITTED TO PUSHING OUT
SOME CENTRALIZED MODULES.
ONE WAS BIAS AWARE OF TRAINING.
IT'S NOT IMPLICIT TRAINING, YOU
GET AS AN EMPLOYEE AT YOUR
INSTITUTION, IT'S MORE ABOUT
WHAT'S IN YOUR HEAD, RIGHT?
ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS VERY
CAREFUL ABOUT HERE IS THAT WE
CAN'T GET INSIDE PEOPLE'S HEADS,
BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT
DOESN'T COME INTO THE PEER
REVIEW PROCESS, SO WE
SPECIFICALLY TARGETED THE KINDS
OF BIASES THAT WE SEE IN THE
PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
WE ALSO HAD A WORKING GROUP OF
COUNCIL HELP US DEVELOP THIS.
IT'S 30 MINUTES, DELIVERED TO
REVIEWERS, FOUR WEEKS PRIOR TO
REVIEW MEETINGS.
SO FAR MORE THAN 19,000
REVIEWERS HAVE TAKEN THE
TRAINING.
IT'S BEEN VERY POPULAR, FOR
GOVERNMENT TRAINING IT'S REALLY
GOOD.
ACTUALLY IT'S REALLY GOOD ANYWAY
BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE TWEETS WE
SAW, FOR GOVERNMENT TRAINING
THIS WAS REALLY GOOD.
YEAH, OKAY.
THE BIGGEST CHANGE HAS BEEN SORT
OF HOW COMFORTABLE PEOPLE FEEL
INTERVENING WITH EACH OTHER IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
SECTION.
WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING THAT AN
ANECDOTALLY.
THERE'S A FULL SURVEY ANALYSIS
AFTER WE FIRST LAUNCHED, IT WILL
BE REQUIRED FOR ALL NIH
REVIEWERS BEGINNING WITH
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2024 MEETINGS.
SIMILAR TO THIS IS INTEGRITY.
REVIEWER INTEGRITY VERY MUCH
AFFECTS OUTCOMES EVEN IF THERE'S
ONE APPLICATION WHERE SOMEONE
CALLS SOMEONE AND TIPPED THE
SCALE, IT HAS SORT OF RIPPLING
EFFECTS ON EVERYONE ELSE.
USUALLY THE PEOPLE WHO TIP ARE
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HIGHLY
NETWORKED, NOT THE ONES WHO
AREN'T.
THIS IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
INITIATIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE SET UP EXPECTATIONS FOR
WHAT WE WANT REVIEWERS TO BE
DOING.
WE HAD A VOLUME 1 BUT WE HAVE A
VOLUME 2 NOW THAT WE HAVE A
TRAINING OFFICE AND WE HAVE
EXPERTISE, VIDEO, TRAINING
DELIVERY.
THIS IS, AGAIN, AND INTERACTIVE
SCENARIO-BASED TRAINING.
THE CONTENT, IF YOU TAKE THIS
TRAINING AND SAY THIS CAN'T
HAPPEN, LET ME TELL YOU IT DID
HAPPEN.
EVERYTHING IN THERE IS BASED ON
REAL CASES THAT WE HAVE.
MORE THAN 12,000 REVIEWERS
COMPLETED THE TRAINING.
THE GOAL IS TO MANAGE INTEGRITY.
REVIEWERS INTERACT WITH EACH
OTHER OUTSIDE PEER REVIEW,
CONFERENCES, WHAT HAPPENS IF
SOMEONE APPROACHES, WERE YOU
REVIEWER 2 ON MY APPLICATION?
I KNOW YOU'RE A MEMBER, THIS IS
COMING UP NEXT ROUND, WE'RE
GETTING A LOT MORE REPORTS
COMING IN BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE
FEEL LIKE THEY CAN NOW REPORT
AND THERE'S -- WE FOLLOW
THROUGH.
THIS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL
NIH REVIEWERS BEGINNING WITH THE
SAME MEETINGS.
THEN WHEN HAVE YOU 60,000
APPLICATIONS AND 1200 MEETINGS,
I'M NOT UNDER ILLUSION THE
SYSTEM IS PERFECT.
THERE ARE BIASES THAT WE NEVER
KNOW ABOUT.
WE'RE ENCOURAGING ANYONE,
APPLICANTS, REVIEWERS, PROGRAM
STAFF, TO REPORT DIRECTLY ANY
INSTANCES OF BIAS OR DISRESPECT
IN STUDY SECTION THAT OCCURS.
WE HEARD THAT THROUGH LISTENING
SESSIONS.
GABRIEL FOSU IS THE CHIEF
DIVERSITY OFFICER, HE GETS THE
E-MAIL DIRECTLY, IT'S HIS MAIL
MAILBOX, HE REPORTS TO ME.
WE INVESTIGATE EVERY ALLEGATION.
IF WE AGREE IT WAS FLAWED, WE'LL
REVIEW IN THE SAME ROUND AND FIX
THE ISSUE SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT
THE APPLICANT OR HIS OR HER
FUNDING.
IF WE DON'T AGREE WE GUIDE THEM
THROUGH NORMAL NIH APPEALS
PROCESS THAT COMES TO COUNCIL.
BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS
THIS LAST BULLET THAT WE ADDED
MORE RECENTLY OVER THE LAST YEAR
WHICH IS WE FOLLOW UP WITH THE
REVIEWERS, IF THERE WAS
INAPPROPRIATE BIASED COMMENT
THAT RESULT IN THE RE-REVIEW OF
APPLICATION ONE OF OUR DIVISION
DIRECTORS REACHES OUT, HEY, YOU
WROTE THIS, AND WE WATCH THE
REACTION.
MOST ARE CONTRITE, THEY LEARN
SOMETHING.
THAT'S GREAT.
MINORITY OF PEOPLE ARGUE.
SO WE TAKE ACTION BASED ON WHAT
WE GET BACK.
BUT THIS IS ONE WAY TO FOSTER
CULTURE CHANGE IN THE REVIEWER
COMMUNITY.
AND THEN FINALLY I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT DIVERSIFYING OUR PANEL.
FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE THIS TOOL
CALLED REVIEWER FINDER TOOL FOR
SROs.
IF YOU INTERACTED YOU KNOW THEY
ARE VERY BUSY AND ON A SHORT
TIME LINE TRYING TO FIND
REVIEWERS.
THIS IS A VERY NICE USER
FRIENDLY INTERFACE THAT
INCORPORATES NORMAL NIH-FUNDED
APPLICANT POOL BUT OTHER AGENCY
FUNDED, RECOMMENDED BY
SOCIETIES, INSTITUTE PROGRAM
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, EARLY
CAREER REVIEWERS, AND A NUMBER
OF OTHER SOURCES THAT THEY CAN
SEE, IF THEY PUNCH IN JUST THE
KEY TERMS OR STUDY SECTION NAME
THEY GET A BUNCH OF NAMES AND
HOPEFULLY SEE NAMES THEY DON'T
KNOW.
IT'S NOT THEIR NETWORK.
SROs HAVE NETWORKS.
I HAVE A NETWORK.
YOU HAVE A NETWORK.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO A BROAD POOL.
BUT IT'S BEYOND TOOLS.
IT'S CULTURE EVERYWHERE.
YOU CAN'T JUST THROW OUT A TOOL
AND EXPECT THINGS TO WORK.
AND OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS
WE'VE BEEN REALLY EMPHASIZING
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THE
AGENCY TO HEAR DIVERSE
PERSPECTIVES, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
IDENTIFYING THE BEST AND MOST
DISRUPTIVE SCIENCE, IF WE INVITE
THE SAME PEOPLE FROM THE SAME
LABS, FROM THE SAME PEDIGREE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT.
SO GETTING THAT THROUGH FOR OUR
STAFF HAS BEEN IMPORTANT.
AND ALSO LINKING TO QUALITY, THE
HIGHEST QUALITY REVIEW
COMMITTEES ARE THOSE THAT ARE
DIVERSE IN MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS.
AND THAT'S DEMOGRAPHIC AND
GEOGRAPHIC BUT ALSO CAREER STAGE
AND ALSO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND
AND PERSPECTIVE.
YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE FROM THE
SAME LINEAGE.
YOU WANT AN OPENNESS TO
DIFFERENT IDEAS.
OUR STANDING STUDY SECTION
MEMBERSHIP PROCESS IS VERY
THOROUGH, GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE
LEVELS OF OVERSIGHT, I APPROVE
EVERY NOMINEE.
SO WE'VE BEEN -- IN A -- THAT
HAS BEEN MORE ENHANCED THAN THAT
OF APPLICANT POOL BUT FOR
SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS HASTILY
PUT TOGETHER, PEOPLE TRYING TO
FIND AD HOCS, THEY GO TO THE
NETWORKS.
I'M GUILTY, I UNDERSTAND.
YOU CAN CALL THREE
RHEUMATOLOGISTS WHEN YOU'RE IN A
HURRY.
SO RAISING COLLECTIVE AWARENESS,
SHARE DATA WITH STAFF AND
MANAGEMENT, PROVIDING TOOLS LIKE
REVIEWER FINDER THAT I TALKED
ABOUT, HAVING A LOT OF
SRO-TO-SRO TRAINING, SOME ARE
REALLY SKILLED AT IDENTIFYING
DIVERSE POOL OF REVIEWERS AND
SHARING RECRUITMENT PRACTICES.
SO, I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME LEVEL
OF SUCCESS.
SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, STARTING
WITH OCTOBER 2019, EVERY ROUND
OF DATA.
THE BROWN LINE AT THE BOTTOM IS
THE PERCENTAGE OF -- THIS IS FOR
CSR, PERCENTAGE OF P.I.s THAT
ARE WOMEN, FAIRLY FLAT.
YOU CAN SEE RIGHT AROUND 35,
JUST UNDER 35%.
STUDY SECTION MEMBERS HAS ALWAYS
BEEN HIGH BUT IS GETTING HIGHER.
ABOUT 45% OF OUR STUDY SECTION
MEMBERS ARE WOMEN.
BUT I THINK I'M ESPECIALLY
HEARTENED TO SEE THAT OUR STAFF
HAVE MADE A REAL EFFORT IN
INCREASING GENDER DIVERSITY ON
SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS.
IN FACT, IN A HELPS MEMBERSHIP
TOO, YOU TRY THEM OUT AND
NOMINATE FOR MEMBERSHIP.
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY, DARK
BLUE LINE IS THE CONTACT
P.I.s, IT'S JUST AROUND, I
DON'T KNOW, 8 OR 9% STARTING IN
2019.
IT'S GOING UP A LITTLE.
AGAINP OUR -- OUR MEMBERSHIP
DATA LOOKS GOOD AND IS GETTING
BETTER BUT HERE IS INFLECTION
POINT WHERE REAL EFFORT BY OUR
STAFF TO RECRUIT
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES TO
SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS LEADS TO
MORE MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRIED
OUT.
I THINK WE'RE ON OUR WAY.
WE HAVE A WAYS TO GO BUT WE'RE
MAKING PROGRESS.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE ANY OF THESE
DATA OR ANYTHING ELSE RELATED TO
OUR INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS BIAS
IN REVIEW, THAT'S OUR WEBSITE.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
[APPLAUSE]
>>I DON'T REALLY HAVE A
QUESTION BUT I JUST WANT TO
APPLAUD YOU FOR THESE EFFORTS
AND I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING
THAT IS FROM THE DIVERSITY SIDE
TO THINKING ABOUT BROADLY HOW TO
CHANGE THE REVIEW PROCESS IS
IMPORTANT, DIFFICULT, AND YOU'VE
MADE MEANINGFUL CHANGES ALREADY.
SO JUST KUDOS TO YOU FOR BEING
IN THIS SPACE AND STICKING WITH
IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NONI, I ALSO WANTED TO
MENTION I'VE BEEN SO IMPRESSED
AND APPLAUD THE DATA-DRIVEN
ANALYSIS ORIENTED APPROACH
YOU'VE TAKEN.
YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE
APPROACHED CSR, YOU AND YOUR
DEPUTY, ABOUT SOME CONCERNS WE
HAD HEARD RELATED TO ONE OF THE
STUDY SECTIONS, OF THE
APPLICANTS, P.I.s WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT BIAS IN TERMS OF
THIS TYPE OF INVESTIGATOR VERSUS
THAT TYPE INVESTIGATOR, AND THE
EFFORT THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF
DEVOTED TO ANALYZE AND WASN'T
ALL JUST KIND OF PUSH A BUTTON
AND GET THE DATA, YOU KNOW, BUT
THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU TOOK TO
CAREFULLY ANALYZE WHAT WAS
HAPPENING IN THAT STUDY SECTION
WAS SO MUCH APPRECIATED.
YOU'VE DONE THAT FOR TWO STUDY
SECTIONS WE'VE INQUIRED ABOUT,
WE WERE ALSO IMPRESSED TO SEE
ONE OF THE STUDY SECTIONS WENT
THROUGH THE ENQUIRE PROCESS AND
HAS EVOLVED.
>> YEAH, YEAH.
>> IT'S BEEN SO IMPRESSIVE TO
SEE SOME OF THESE CHANGES AND
APPLAUD YOUR EFFORT AND
EMPHASIS, SO THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> SUSANA, PLEASE.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD
ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE
CHANGES TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA,
THE TWO REVIEW CRITERIA SCORED
FROM 1-9, HOW THAT IS BROUGHT
BACK TO THE OVERALL SCORE FOR
THE APPLICATION.
HOW DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE
REVIEW?
BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT
FAIRNESS AND ET CETERA, AND
BURDEN OF REVIEWERS, BUT I
WONDER IF YOU WOULD COMMENT ON
THE QUALITY OF THE REVIEW AND
HOW CRITERIA WOULD ALLOW YOU TO
IMPROVE THAT IF THAT'S THE
PURPOSE, THE GOAL.
>> RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FIVE REVIEW
CRITERIA, EACH OF THEM GET A
SCORE FROM 1-9.
THAT CHANGE OCCURRED IN I THINK
2009.
PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE NO
SCORES FOR ANY CRITERIA.
SO OVERALL IS WHAT MATTERED.
WHAT THIS IS CHANGING IS THERE'S
STILL GOING TO BE A SCORE FOR
FACTOR 1 AND 2, BUT NOT FOR 3
FOR REASONS I BROUGHT UP.
IT'S GOING TO INFORM.
ALL THREE REMAIN REVIEW FACTORS
WILL AFFECT OVERALL SCORE.
IT WAS NEVER SET UP AS
MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE, WE'RE
GOING TO REQUIRE REVIEWERS TO
EXPLAIN HOW THEY CAME UP WITH
THE OVERALL SCORE, THAT'S THE
ONE THAT MATTERS, THAT GETS
PERCENTILED.
THE WAY THE FACTORS TIE THINGS
TOGETHER, ONE OF THEM, FACTOR 1
INCLUDES SIGNIFICANCE AND
INNOVATION.
ONE FEEDBACK WE HEARD AND WE'VE
SEEN IS SOME CONFUSION RELATED
TO INNOVATION, RIGHT?
DOES EVERYTHING NEED TO BE
INNOVATIVE?
WHAT IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT AND
IMPORTANT FOR A COMMUNITY BUT
NOT INNOVATIVE, WHAT ABOUT
GENERALIZABILITY?
IS IT TECHNICAL OR CONCEPTUAL?
BY PUTTING IT TOGETHER,
IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH, YOU CAN
LOOK AT DETAILS OF WHAT THE
REVIEWERS ARE BEING ASKED TO
ASSESS IN THE RFI AND ON OUR
WEBSITE.
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC.
ARE YOU KNOW, REVIEWERS CAN
WEIGHT WHATEVER THEY WANT,
WEIGHT SIGNIFICANCE A LOT, IF
SOMETHING IS JUST DEVELOPING A
RESOURCE THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR A
COMMUNITY BUT FUNDAMENTALLY NOT
INNOVATIVE IT CAN GET A GOOD
FACTOR 1 SCORE, RIGHT?
SO I THINK PART OF IT IS
FOCUSING REVIEWERS IN ON WHAT
DRIVES THE OVERALL SCORE IN A
BETTER WAY.
THAT SHOULD HOPEFULLY INFORM
PROGRAM AND INFORM US AS TO WHAT
MATTERED IN THEIR SCORE.
>> IF I MAY FOLLOW UP, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING
ASPECTS OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS
THE A1 APPLICATION AND THE
CONSISTENCY OR LACK THEREOF
BETWEEN THE INITIAL REVIEW AND
THE REVIEW OF THE A1.
I'M WONDERING IF THE NEW
CRITERIA ADDRESS THAT.
>> SO, I THINK THIS IS NOT A
NEW PROBLEM.
IT WAS THERE WHEN THERE WAS AN
A2, AND A1, AND PART IS SIMPLY
THE SAME PEOPLE AREN'T ALWAYS
GOING TO BE THERE.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WE WANT
NECESSARILY EXACTLY THE SAME
PEOPLE THERE.
IN THE END, THE INTEREST OF PEER
REVIEW IS TO IDENTIFY STRONGEST
SCIENCE AND BRING IN THE
EXPERTS.
SOMETIMES NEW THINGS ARE
IDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE.
WE ENCOURAGE REVIEWERS TO RAISE
THAT.
IT'S NOT AN IT RATIVE PROCESS.
IT'S NOT A CONTRACT.
IT'S THAT STRUGGLE IN MAKING
SURE THE STRONGEST SCIENCE IS
IDENTIFIED.
YOU HAVE 19,000 INDIVIDUALS
INVOLVED, ALL HUMAN BEINGS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LEVEL
OF INCONSISTENCY.
YOU CAN'T DO THINGS THE WAY A
COMPUTER MIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE.
MOST OF THE TIME A1s DO BETTER
THAN A0s.
HOW MUCH BETTER THEY DO, WE'VE
LOOKED AT THESE DATA, TRACKED
DIRECTLY WITH HOW MANY OF THE
PREVIOUS REVIEWERS REVIEWED IT.
THREE PREVIOUS REVIEWERS, OR
TWO, ARE PRESENT, IT DOES MUCH
BETTER.
IF ONLY ONE OR ZERO, IT CAN, BUT
NOT AS MUCH.
OUR THERE IN LEVELING THE
PLAYING FIELD NOT HAVING IT BE
DEPENDENT ON RANDOM STUDY
SECTIONS HOW MANY PREVIOUS
REVIEWERS WE CAN BRING IN.
LANGUAGE AROUND A1 HAS CHANGED
IN ASKING REVIEWERS TO ASSESS
THE FULL APPLICATION FOR ITS
MERIT.
WHICH INCLUDES THE RESPONSE TO
A0.
>> DAVID?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
PRESENTATION.
IT'S FASCINATING TO WATCH
CHANGES OCCUR WITH THE GRANT
PROCESS AND REVIEW PROCESS.
I GUESS THE ONE AREA I DIDN'T
SEE AND AIMED -- I'M SURE IT'S
IN THE WORKS, CAREER TRANSITION
AWARDS, K AWARDS, MAYBE THEY
HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS OR SAME
BIASES THAT THE FELLOWSHIP
AWARDS DO IN TERMS OF
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE HIGH
SUBMITTERS HAVING SOME BIAS IN
TERMS OF MORE SUCCESS.
IS THAT IN THE WORKS OR PART OF
THE FELLOWSHIP ANALYSIS?
>>RIGHT.
WE TACKLE FELLOWSHIP BECAUSE CSR
DOESN'T USUALLY HANDLE Ks,
THOSE ARE DONE AT THE INSTITUTES
USUALLY.
WE DO A FEW BUT NOT THAT MANY.
THAT SAID, I THINK ONE ONE
TRAINING MECHANISM CHANGES IT'S
A GOOD TIME TO SEE WHERE ELSE
CHANGES CAN BE APPLIED.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING COMING
UP.
>> A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, WHY IS
THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE
THE FELLOWSHIP AND K -- JUST
MAYBE IT'S NOT WITHIN THE --
>>THE LOBING -- LOCUS OF
REVIEW?
>> YES.
>> I'LL HAVE WILL BE OR DARREN
TALK ABOUT THAT.
PART OF THAT IS WHAT IS THE
INTEREST OF INSTITUTE, MOST RFIS
THAT ARE INSTITUTE SCIENCE
FOCUSED TEND TO GO INSIDE THE
INSTITUTE, CLINICAL TRIALS, SOME
PEOPLE REVIEW THEIR OWN.
SOME ARRANGEMENTS HAVE PRECEDED
ME AND LINDSEY AND PROBABLY EVEN
BOB.
I'LL DEFER TO LOCUS OF REVIEW.
IF MULTIPLE INSTITUTES ARE
INVOLVED CSR HANDLES THE REVIEW
USUALLY, WHATEVER IT IS.
>> MARIA?
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M ASSUMING THE TEMPLATE IS
STILL SIMILAR WITH STRENGTH AND
WEAKNESSES IN THE SAME WAY AS
NOW, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE?
>>YEAH, YEAH, RIGHT.
FACTOR 1, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESS.
FACTOR 2.
>> THIS WOULD BE MORE EFFORT
FOR RUE -- REVIEWERERS BUT YOU
OFFER ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER RIGHT
NOW, APPROACH, SIGNIFICANCE, BUT
THERE'S NO WAY TO FORCE THE
REVIEWER TO ANSWER THOSE
ELEMENTS, AND SOME PEOPLE DO AND
OTHERS DON'T, WONDERING IF THERE
WAS ANY DISCUSSION AS TO GIVE AN
EXAMPLE, APPROACH, POWER,
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
INCLUDED IN THE APPENDIX.
I DON'T KNOW IF -- WE HAVE THE
DETAILS OF -- I DIDN'T SHOW KIND
OF THE QUESTIONS REVIEWERS ARE
ASKED.
RIGOR, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN,
SAMPLE SIZE, ALL OF THAT IS
CALLED OUT BECAUSE FACTOR 2 IS
NOTE CALLED APPROACH.
IT'S CALLED RIGOR AND
FEASIBILITY.
WE'VE ELEVATED RIGOR TO THE
NAME.
>> JUST SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR REVIEWERS TO LOOK AT.
>> YEAH.
>> IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ELEMENTS
WITHIN THAT DOMAIN THAT THEY
WILL BE ASKED TO SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS.
IT REMAINS AS IT IS NOW WHERE
THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS OF WHAT IS
IMPORTANT UNDER THAT DOMAIN BUT
YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS
IT.
>> YOU NEED TO ADDRESS WHATEVER
IS SCORE DRIVING FOR THE
REVIEWER, YES.
THERE'S A NUMBER, SEX AS A
BIOLOGICAL VARIABLE, STILL
LISTED UNDER APPROACH SECTION
UNDER RIGOR.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?
>> TO SOME DEGREE.
I HAVEN'T BEEN IN A STUDY
SECTION FOR A WHILE NOW BUT SOME
ELEMENTS MAY BE IMPORTANT FOR
SOME PEOPLE BUT NOT FOR OTHERS
IN THE WAY THEY DO THE REVIEW SO
I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS A
DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, IN
ADDITION TO JUST HAVING THE
DOMAIN, LIST STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSES, HAVING PEOPLE ALMOST
FORCING THEM TO COME INTO AN
AREA THAT JUST BY LISTENING, BUT
I GUESS --
>>I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU SERVED AND
WHEN I LAST WENT, LAST YEAR,
EARLIER THIS YEAR, THEY DO TALK
ABOUT RIGOR.
BY HAVING RIGOR AND SPECIFIC
ELEMENTS IN THE LANGUAGE, IN THE
TRAINING, WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY
DO MENTION THOSE, THEY SHOULD
DRIVE THE SCORE OF THE APPROACH.
SO, YEAH.
>> I'M GOING -- I WANT TO GIVE
STUART AND DREW, WHO ARE
PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO POSE QUESTIONS
THEY MIGHT HAVE.
>> NO QUESTIONS FOR ME.
>> OKAY.
>> THIS IS STUART SPEAKING.
I HAVE HOURS OF QUESTIONS BUT IN
THE INTEREST OF TIME LET'S
PROCEED.
>> NONI.BYRNES@NIH.GOV.
>> AND I HAVE FOLLOW QUESTIONS
TOO.
THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.
NEIL, DID YOU NEED TO MAKE --
>>I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THOSE
AT THE TABLE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY
INTO YOUR MICROPHONES SO THOSE
ON THE VIDEOCAST CAN HEAR.
WHEN YOU TURN YOUR HEAD AWAY
FROM THE MICROPHONE WE CANNOT
HEAR THE AUDIO.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, NEIL.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
REALLY APPRECIATED THAT.
[APPLAUSE]
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM
DR. STEPHANIE BURROWS.
HERE WE GO.
SHE
SHE'S CHIEF OF THE ANALYSIS
BRANCH, AND SHE'S GOING TO
PROVIDE AN UPDATE ABOUT THE
NIAMS STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT, AND I
ALLUDED TO, AND I'M EXCITED
ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, STEPHANIE.
>> THANK YOU, DR. CRISWELL.
I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO TALK ABOUT
NIAMS PLANS FOR UPDATING THE
INSTITUTE STRATEGIC PLAN AS WELL
AS WAYS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN
PROVIDE INPUT.
SO WHY NIAMS STRATEGIC PLAN?
FIRST, CONGRESS REQUIRES NIH
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS TO HAVE A
STRATEGIC PLAN.
BUT AS IMPORTANT, THE PLAN
SERVESES AS PUBLIC STATEMENT OF
INTEREST, SINCE THIS WILL BE THE
FIRST PLAN WE'RE ISSUING UNDER
DR. CRISWELL'S LEADERSHIP WE
EXPECT THE COMMUNITY WILL BE
VERY INTERESTED IN IT.
THAT ALIGNS WITH MY SECOND
POINT, THE PLAN SERVES AS A
GUIDE POST FOR RESEARCHERS TO
MAKE SURE IT COVERS THE
INSTITUTE'S BROAD MISSION AND
REFLECTS INTEREST OF ALL OF OUR
INVESTIGATORS AND COALITION
MEMBERS.
FINALLY THE PLAN SERVES AS
INTERNAL REFERENCE FOR NIAMS
STAFF.
THIS SLIDE LAYS OUT PROPOSED
CONTENTS FOR NEW PLAN.
I'M GOING OVER THIS QUICKLY AND
HIGHLIGHT SOME CHANGES.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN EXPECT
IS A SHORTER PLAN.
THE CURRENT NIAMS STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2020 THROUGH
2024 IS 144 PAGES LONG.
SO WE EXPECT THIS TO BE ABOUT A
THIRD OF THAT.
NOW, SOME OF THE ELEMENTS WILL
REMAIN THE SAME BECAUSE THEY ARE
REQUIRED OR BECAUSE THEY COVER
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF OUR MISSION
SUCH AS COMMUNICATIONS AND
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
SO THE MAIN SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS
OF THE PLAN WILL CONSIST OF
THREE CROSS-CUTTING THEMATIC
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES, AS WELL
AS SHORTENED DESCRIPTIONS OF OUR
FIVE DISEASE AND TISSUE-SPECIFIC
SCIENTIFIC AREAS, AS WELL AS
DESCRIPTION OF THE NIAMS
INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.
SO WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME
SUGGESTIONS FOR CROSS-CUTTING
THEMATIC RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
THROUGH OUR REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION THAT WAS OPENED THIS
FALL.
THROUGH THAT REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION, WE ASKED ABOUT TWO
THINGS.
ONE WAS CROSS-CUTTING THEMATIC
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES, THE
OTHER WAS BOLD ASPIRATIONS THAT
THE INSTITUTE CAN PURSUE OVER
THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
WE RECEIVED 46 RESPONSES, MOST
OF THESE WERE FROM INDIVIDUALS
AT UNIVERSITIES OR HOSPITALS AND
FROM PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
ORGANIZATIONS.
MY BRANCH WHICH LED THE RFI
EFFORT HAS SHARED THIS WITH OUR
NIAMS PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND
WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THEM GOING
FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THIS INPUT
HELPS TO INFORM OUR PLANNING
PROCESS.
TO COMPLEMENT THE SUGGESTIONS
WE'RE PLANNING FOR IDEA
GENERATION MEETING, A VIRTUAL
MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 11, 12, AND
14, PLANNING FOR ABOUT 170
PARTICIPANTS, WE EXPECT THE
INVITATIONS TO GO OUT IN JULY,
COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED
TO PARTICIPATE.
SO, IN CONTRAST TO SOME
TRADITIONAL LISTENING SESSIONS
THAT SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN, IN THE PAST,
FOR THIS WE'RE USING A DIFFERENT
APPROACH CALLED OPEN-SPACE.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS PARTICIPANTS
WILL COME TO THE MEETING AND
THEY WILL NAME THE TOPICS THAT
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN
DISCUSSING AND LEAD BREAKOUTS ON
THE TOPICS.
SO I WOULD SAY THIS MEETING, TO
BE CLEAR, REPLACES THE
TRADITIONAL DISEASE AND
TISSUE-SPECIFIC LISTENING
SESSIONS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.
THIS IS JUST IN LINE WITH OUR
FOCUS ON CROSS-CUTTING THEMES.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONE MEETING FOR
THREE DAYS, WE EXPECT THE ACTUAL
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IS GOING
TO BE GREATER THAN THE NUMBER WE
HAD IN INDIVIDUAL LISTENING
SESSIONS DISEASE AND TISSUE
SPECIFIC.
ONCE WE COMPLETED THE MEETING
WE'RE GOING HAVE A SECOND
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SO WE
CAN GET BROAD FEEDBACK ON WHAT
WAS DISCUSSED.
AND THEN WE'LL INTERNALLY REFINE
AND PRIORITIZE PUBLIC INPUT FROM
THE TWO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
AND MEETING AND WE WILL -- STAFF
WILL DETERMINE WHICH THING WE
WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO
LEADERSHIP FOR POTENTIAL
INCLUSION IN THE PLAN.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE PROPOSING
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES.
ONCE WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT LIKELY
TO BE INCLUDED AS A TOPIC WE'LL
COLLECT BASELINE INFORMATION ON
THOSE THEMES.
OKAY.
WE PLAN TO HAVE A DRAFT REVIEW
PLAN IN THE SPRING, AROUND THE
TIME OF OUR MAY 29, 2024 COUNCIL
MEETING, AND WE'LL ISSUE A THIRD
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SO THE
PUBLIC AND COUNCIL CAN PROVIDE
BROAD INPUT ON THE PLAN AND THEN
WE WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE A DRAFT
FINAL STRATEGIC PLAN FOR YOU TO
REVIEW AROUND THE TIME OF THE
AUGUST 27, 2024, COUNCIL
MEETING.
SO, NEW THIS ROUND WE'RE ALSO
PLANNING FOR AN INTERNAL
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
ALONG WITH THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING WAYS WE CAN PUBLICLY
TRACK PROGRESS ON OUR STRATEGIC
PLAN.
AND SO SOME OF THE IDEAS WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT IS A WEBSITE THAT
WOULD LINK TO MEETING SUMMARIES,
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES, AND
RESULTS OF NIAMS-FUNDED RESEARCH
THAT RELATE TO VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF THE PLAN.
SO IN SUMMARY, PLEASE MARK YOUR
CALENDARS FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 12,
AND 14.
THERE WILL BE MORE DETAILS TO
FOLLOW IN THE SUMMER.
TWO MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT
FROM THE COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL
THROUGH THE SECOND AND THIRD
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
AND ALSO ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNCIL MEMBER
INPUT THROUGH REQUEST, REVIEW OF
DRAFT PLAN IN A YEAR'S TIME AND
REVIEW OF THE FINAL PLAN AS
WE'RE HEADING INTO FISCAL YEAR
2025.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
ATTENTION.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO COUNCIL'S
INPUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
OUR PLANNING PROCESS.
AND DR. CRISWELL, I'LL TURN THE
MEETING BACK OVER TO YOU.
>>WE HAVE TIME FOR A COUPLE
QUICK QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
WE WANT TO GIVE YOU A
FIVE-MINUTE STRETCH BREAK, WALK
AROUND THE TABLE, SAY HELL HELO
SOMEONE, COME BACK AT NOON AND
HEAR FROM DR. SUSANA
SERATE-SZTEIN AND GAYLE LESTER
BEFORE WE CONCLUDE AT 1:00.
FIRST IF YOU HAVE ANY QUICK
QUESTIONS FOR STEPHANIE SHE CAN
TAKE THOSE NOW.
>> A COMMENT, THE LAST
STRATEGIC PLAN COUNCIL PLAYED A
REALLY IMPORTANT ROLE, IN FACT
WHAT THEY DID WAS PUSH US TO BE
MORE OUT THERE, TO BE MORE
ADVENTUROUS, TO THINK BEYOND
WHERE WE WERE.
IT ENDED UP, PIE IN THE SKY,
WHAT DO WE CALL THEM?
>> BOLD ASPIRATIONS.
>> PARTLY AS A RESPONSE TO
INPUT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO PLEASE PUSH US AGAIN.
>> AND WE'VE HEARD GREAT THINGS
ABOUT THIS OPEN-SPACE APPROACH
SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IS
THAT.
>> WE'RE VERY EXCITED.
THANK YOU.
>> QUICK STRETCH BREAK AND IF
YOU CAN GET BACK HERE AROUND
12:00 WE'LL MOVE TO THE LAST TWO
SECTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> I KNOW YOU'RE SUPER EXCITED
TO HEAR ABOUT OUR DATA SCIENCE
STRATEGY.
WE HAVE TO GET TOGETHER IN
PERSON MORE OFTEN.
ANYWAY, NONI REFERRED TOO
WORKING GROUPS OF COUNCIL, WE'VE
BEEN UTILIZING THAT APPROACH TO
EXPAND THE SCOPE AND DEPTH OF
THINGS WE CAN DELIBERATE ON.
SUSANA IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THE DATA SCIENCE STRATEGY
WORKING GROUP AND WHERE WE ARE
ON THAT FRONT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GRIOTED TO PROVIDE --
DELIGHTED TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE,
SOME ON THE WORKING GROUP
COUNCIL ON DATA SCIENCE
STRATEGY.
WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE MEMBERSHIP
IN THE WORKING GROUP THAT
INCLUDES CURRENT AND PREVIOUS
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AS WELL AS
INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN
PROJECTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT
DATA SCIENCE OR BIOINFORMATICS
COMPONENTS.
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
OFFICE OF DATA SCIENCE STRATEGY,
AND NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTES AND
REPRESENTATIVES FROM EXTRAMURAL
PROGRAM.
AND DR. MANCINI.
WE HAVE TWO LIAISONS, ONE WITH
OUR DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH.
A BIG SHOUT OUT TO TOM BOND AND
SHARMA WHO WORK WITH ME HANDLING
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING
GROUP AND TO DR. PINE WHO IS THE
DATA SCHOLAR.
SO, DR. CRISWELL GAVE THE CHARGE
TO THE WORKING GROUP, AND WE ARE
FOCUSED ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AN
INSTITUTE LIKE OURS WILL HAVE TO
RELY HEAVILY ON LEVERAGE AND
INTERACTION AND PARTNERSHIPS
WITH THE COMMUNITY, ACADEMIC
COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY
WITHIN THE NIH IN ORDER TO
ADVANCE OUR INVESTMENT IN DATA
SCIENCE.
DR. CRISWELL EMPHASIZED NEED TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CULTURE
BECAUSE DATA SCIENCE IS HIGHLY
DEPENDENT ON DATA SHARING, AND
THAT INVOLVES SOME CHANGES IN
THE WAY WE CONCEIVE WHEN AND HOW
THE DATA AND OTHER RESOURCES ARE
SHARED.
THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE WORKING
GROUP ARE BASED ON PARAMETERS OR
PILLARS THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP BY
THE NIH DATA SCIENCE STRATEGY
WHICH IS ABOUT TO BE -- IT'S
UNDER REVIEW, NEW PLAN WILL BE
RELEASED SOON.
BUT NEVERTHELESS THE MAIN ISSUES
ARE STILL VERY RELEVANT.
THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED TO
FOCUS INITIALLY ON DATA
INFRASTRUCTURE AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF
PRESENTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE WORKING GROUP THAT EXPLORED
DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE NIH.
WITHIN THE NIH WE HEARD ABOUT
APPROACHES TO SUPPORT DATA
ECOSYSTEMS LARGE AND AMBITIOUS
PROJECTS, IN PARTICULAR WE HEARD
ABOUT THE BIODATA CATALYST
SUPPORTED BY NHLBI.
WE ALSO HEARD PRESENTATIONS
ABOUT KNOWLEDGE PORTALS,
KNOWLEDGE BASES.
ONE IN MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES,
THE OTHER FROM SAGE BIONETWORKS
THAT SUPPORTS A NUMBER OF
KNOWLEDGE-BASED IMPORTANCE FOR
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND MORE
RECENTLY FOR ONE OF THE
ACCELERATING MEDICINE
PARTNERSHIPS INITIATIVES THAT IS
MANAGEDDED BY NIEMS.
WE HEARD ABOUT BUILDING
INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN WHITE
.
AND THE UNIQUE APPROACH TO DATA
MANAGEMENT OF THE CLINICAL
STUDIES THROUGH THE DASHBOARD,
THAT BUILDS PRIMARILY ON
CLINICAL DATA, WHICH DESERVES A
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.
WE HAD A SESSION DEVOTED TO
DISCUSSION BY WORKING GROUP.
THE THEMES THAT EMERGED REVOLVE
AROUND APPROACHES RELYING ON
DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE BASES
OR KNOWLEDGE PORTALS GEARED TO
NEEDS OF SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES
SERVED BY NIAMS.
THE NIAMS JOINED A TRANS-NIH
ODSS SPONSORED NOTICE OF FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY, APPLICATIONS FOR
CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE BASES AND
APPLICATIONS CAME AT THE END OF
JANUARY, COUNCIL WILL SEE THE
OUTCOMES OF THE REVIEW AT OUR
NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
BUT WORKING GROUP TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT
KNOWLEDGE BASES AND DATA
REPOSITORIES HAVE COVERED A WIDE
SPECTRUM OF SPECIFICITY FROM
GENERALIST REPOSITORIES THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, dbGAP TO VERY
SPECIFIC STUDY-RELATED DATA
REPOSITORIES OR DATA SOURCES.
AND THE NEED TO HAVE GOOD
UNDERSTANDING THAT A RANGE
EXISTS AND MAKE SURE THE
COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF THOSE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESOURCES AND
THINKING ABOUT DATA REPOSITORIES
FOR UPLOADING OF DATA OBTAINED
WITH PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE
INSTITUTE, MORE TO FOLLOW THERE.
ALSO RELATED TO CREATION OF
INFRASTRUCTURE THE INSTITUTE IS
MOVING SLOWLY BUT STEADILY
TOWARDS CREATION OF SOME
RESOURCES FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THERE IS A WEB PAGE AND THE
INSTITUTE WEBSITE DEVOTED TO
DATA SCIENCE AND THERE IS ALSO
IN PARALLEL OR RELATED TO A
BIOINFORMATICS WEB PAGE BY THE
NIAMS IRP AND VERY SOON WEB PAGE
BY OUR DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH, THERE IS GOING TO BE
FOCUS ON PROVIDING CRITICAL
UPDATES ON POLICY RELATED TO
DATA SHARING AND MANAGEMENT.
WE ALSO HAVE SUPPORTED AN ARK
PORTAL CURRENTLY HOUSING DATA OF
ACCELERATING MEDICINES
PARTNERSHIP IN AUTOIMMUNE AND
MEDIATED DISEASES AND ARTHRITIS
AND RELATED DISEASES, AND SOME
INFLAMMATORY SKIN DISEASES WITH
THE IDEA KNOWLEDGE-BASED PORTAL
WILL GROW.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE
INSTITUTE IS INCREASINGLY
JOINING NIH-SPONSORED NOTICES OF
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES, WITH THE
IDEA TO ENHANCE OUR INVESTMENT
ON CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE TO
FACILITATE DATA SHARING AND DATA
ACCESS, BUT ALSO DATA USE AS YOU
CAN SEE IN THE LAST FOUR BULLETS
IN THE SLIDE.
WE ALSO HAD A SESSION, A
WORKFORCE, AGAIN WITH THE IDEA
THE THEME EMERGED RELY ON
LEVERAGING EXISTING ONGOING
RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT
INSTITUTIONS AND PERHAPS
POSITIONING SOME OF OUR SPECIAL
FUNDING MECHANISMS LIKE THE
RESEARCH RESOURCE CENTERS TO
FACILITATE THE TRAINING OF
JUNIOR INVESTIGATORS WHO
SPECIALIZE ON BIOINFORMATICS AND
DATA SCIENCE.
WE'RE ALSO BEGINNING TO USE DATA
SCIENCE APPROACHES IN SOME OF
THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE
SPONSORING.
SO, YOU HAVE HEARD FROM DR.
CARTER IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS
ABOUT THE AMP PROJECT, A NEW
INITIATIVE BY THE AMP
PARTNERSHIP, THAT COMBINES THE
EFFORTS THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE IN
PLACE THROUGH DIFFERENT PROJECTS
INCLUDING FOR EXAMPLE THE AMP IN
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, CHRONIC
METABOLIC DISEASES, PARKINSON'S,
ET CETERA.
THE IDEA BUILDS ON HYPOTHESIS
AND MANY DISEASES SHARE
MECHANISMS OF DISEASE, IN
PARTICULAR INFLAMMATION, AND BY
LOOKING AT DATASETS THAT HAVE
BEEN GENERATED INDEPENDENTLY BY
EACH OF THE PROGRAMS ONE COULD
POTENTIALLY IDENTIFY THOSE
MECHANISMS THAT ARE SHARED AND
THOSE THAT ARE DISTINCT, AND
IMPORTANTLY TARGET THEM FOR
DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.
SO, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THESE
PROJECTS ARE LARGE, THEY INVOLVE
FUNDING BY THE NIH AND FUNDING
BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY ARE
MANAGED BY FOUNDATION OF NIH
RESEARCH, BECAUSE THE PROJECTS
THEMSELVES ARE LARGE AND THE
DATASETS ARE VERY LARGE, THE
CONCEPT, THE PROJECT REQUIRES
SIGNIFICANT DATA SCIENCE
INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE
CONCEPT, WE THOUGHT ABOUT DATA
SCIENCE ACTIVITY OR AN
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CALL AIDE
THAT WOULD CHANGE THE PARADIGM A
LITTLE BIT HOW WE GO ABOUT
GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT WE
NEED FROM THE DIFFERENT DATASETS
TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT
WE MIGHT HAVE SHARED MECHANISMS
OF DISEASE AMONG THE VERY
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISEASES THAT
WE CAN TARGET FOR TREATMENT.
SO, CURRENT APPROACH YOU HAVE TO
FIND THE DATA, IF YOU'RE AN
INVESTIGATOR, ACCESS DATA FROM
THE SOURCE, YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP
YOUR HYPOTHESIS, YOU HAVE TO
CONDUCT YOUR DATA ANALYSIS.
AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR
ANALYSIS OF YOUR RESULTS.
BUT IT REQUIRES INVESTIGATOR TO
GO OUT AND GET THE DATA.
EVEN IF THE DATA ARE ANNOTATED
AND INTEROPERABLE.
WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WITH AIDE
WAS EXPLORE POSSIBILITY THAT WE
COULD CREATE A SYSTEM, DATA
SYSTEM, THROUGH ALGORITHMS AND
DATA THEMES THAT WOULD AM LOU
YOU TO PUT THE HIGH -- ALLOW YOU
TO PUT THE HYPOTHESIS INTO THE
SYSTEM, SYSTEM WOULD BE
PROGRAMMED TO DO QUERIES FOR
YOU, AND FISH OUT RELEVANT
DATASETS OR RELEVANT DATA POINTS
FROM ALL OF VERY DISPARATE
DATASETS THAT MAY EXIST IN YOUR
ECOSYSTEM.
AND IN THE END, ONCE YOU HAVE
YOUR DATA, IT WOULD ALLOW THE
SYSTEM TO FIND THE RELEVANT
CLINICAL DATA TO VALIDATE YOUR
HYPOTHESIS.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY VERY AMBITIOUS
AND WE'RE AT THE VERY BEGINNING
OF THE PROCESS, IT WOULD REQUIRE
MANY ITERATIONS BUT WE DO HAVE
LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY IN THE AMP
SYSTEM, IN THE AMP ENVIRONMENT,
TO REALLY APPROACH THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER WE CAN CHANGE HOW WE
LOOK AT DISEASE AND GOING FROM A
CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF
DISEASE PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY
CLINICAL PRESENTATION NOWADAYS,
TO A MORE COMPLEX OR TO A
DIFFERENT APPROACH THAT IS
DRIVEN BY MOLECULAR SIGNATURES
AND PATHWAYS OF DISEASE COMBINED
WITH CLINICAL OUTCOMES.
SO, THIS IS IN THE WORKS, AND WE
HOPE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, AS
I MENTIONED, FNIH IS WORKING
WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO RAISE
FUNDING AND WE WITHIN THE NIH
ARE WORKING WITH YOUR SISTER
I.C.s TO SEEK INTEREST AND
POTENTIALLY FUNDING AS WELL TO
CREATE THIS NEW CONCEPT FOR
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY OF INFLAMMATION.
WITH THAT I'LL STOP AND BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> SO, THANK YOU, SUSANA.
I FAILED IN INTRODUCING YOU TO
HIGHLIGHT YOUR IMPORTANT ROLE AS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC
INITIATIVES, AND IN THAT ROLE
YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE ALL OF THE
MANY PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES
THAT SUSANA HAS BEEN DEEPLY
INVOLVED IN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ALSO FOR THAT
SUMMARY.
WE HAVE TIME FOR A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS FOR SUSANA?
ELLEN?
>> YES, THAT'S REALLY A
FANTASTIC PRESENTATION, JUST
VERY, VERY EXCITING APPROACH.
I WAS INTERESTED, IF YOU COULD
TELL US MORE ABOUT THIS
INFLAMMATION PROJECT AND
DIFFERENT DATASETS, WHERE DO THE
DATASETS COME FROM?
HOW WOULD THEY BE INTEGRATED?
AND AT WHAT POINT WOULD AN
INVESTIGATOR BE ABLE TO QUERY
THIS LARGER DATASET FOR A
SPECIFIC QUESTION?
>> GREAT QUESTIONS.
I HOPE BOTH LINDSEY AND BOB WILL
CHIME IN.
THE DATASETS FOR MANY OF THE AMP
PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMP
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, CHRONIC
METABOLIC DISORDERS,
PARKINSON'S, ALREADY EXISTED,
HOUSED IN DIFFERENT PLATFORMS.
ALZHEIMER'S IN THE PLATFORM WITH
SAGE, TWO AT THE TERRA PLATFORM.
SO, THE DATA ARE ALREADY -- A
LOT OF THE DATA ARE ALREADY
THERE.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGING
FUNDED A SERIES OF PILOTS TO
PRODUCE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROOF
OF CONCEPT THAT IS BASED ON THE
IDEA THAT -- TO SHOW FEASIBILITY
OF THE APPROACH.
CAN WE EXPLORE PATHWAYS OF
INFLAMMATION, USING DATASETS
FROM DIFFERENT DISEASES AND CAN
WE FIND ANY COMMON ELEMENTS.
AND THE PILOTS ARE DRIVEN BY
PARTICULAR HYPOTHESIS, SOMEONE
IS INTERESTED IN IMMUNE
MECHANISMS, IN GENETIC
POLYMORPHISM, SOMEONE ELSE
INTERESTED IN THE METABOLOME.
SO THEY ARE IN SMALLER SCALE
LOOKING AT THE DATA PRODUCED BY
SOME OF THE PROJECTS, AND
REQUIRES PROCESSING OF DATA,
REQUIRES APPROACH I MENTIONED
BEFORE, THEY HAVE TO GO, LOOK
FOR THE DATA, PROCESS THE DATA,
DO ANALYSIS, AND SEE IF WHETHER
THE HYPOTHESIS IS VALID OR NOT.
THAT, THOSE PILOTS ARE BEING
CONDUCTED RIGHT NOW, PROBABLY
DONE WITHIN A YEAR OR SO.
WHICH IS A TIME FRAME WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT TO LAUNCH SYSTEMS
BIOLOGY OF INFLAMMATION.
A LOT OF DATA ARE AVAILABLE NOW
BUT, AGAIN, IT WOULD REQUIRE A
LOT OF WORK BY INVESTIGATORS WHO
WANTS TO USE THE DATA.
THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO --
>>BOB, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE
COMMENTS NOW AND THEN MARIA AND
DAVID?
>> QUICK THINGS.
THE SYSTEMS BIOLOGY INFORMATION
USES THE DIFFERENT DATASETS THAT
HAVE BEEN GENERATED WITHIN THE
AMP LARGER PROGRAM BUT SOME OF
YOU KNOW, ELLEN IN PARTICULAR,
THE AMP, JUST AMP AIM, THE ONE
WE'RE INVOLVED IN, AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASES, SUCCESSOR TO LUPUS,
TRANSCRIPTOMICS ON HUNDREDS OF
PATIENTS, ALL THE CLINICAL DATA.
THESE ARE ALL HUGE DATASETS, BUT
THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY NIH WAS
BUILT AND STRUCTURED.
THESE PROJECTS WERE INDEPENDENTS
OF EACH OVER, A CRYING SHAME
HOLDING BACK PROCESS .
SAME TRUE OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE,
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION
HOUSED IN DIFFERENT INSTITUTES.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY ARE UNWILLIG
TO SHARE, IT'S NOT THE CULTURE
OF NIH.
IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A LOW-HANGING
FRUIT, OBVIOUS, AND MAYBE THE
OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
RESEARCH WITHIN ORWH CAN HELP
FACILITATE THIS.
I DO HOPE THERE WILL BE A
WORKING GROUP THAT WILL BE
FORMED, THIS TO ME SEEMS LIKE
THE MOST OBVIOUS THING FOR THE
GROUP TO DO.
IN FACT RESPOND TO CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE TO WORK TOGETHER.
>> THE OFFICE OF DATA SCIENCE
STRATEGY IS EXCITED ABOUT THIS
PROJECT TOO.
I THINK MARIA AND THEN DAVID.
>> YES, VERY EXCITING PROJECT.
MY QUESTION IS MORE POLICY
RELATED, THE FINAL AIM OF THE
THIS TO HAVE A DATASET PUBLIC AT
LARGE OR TO HAVE JUST FOR
INVESTIGATORS TO APPLY TO GRANTS
TO USE RESOURCES?
>> NO, THE ULTIMATE GOAL TO
MAKE ALL DATASETS PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE.
THERE IS OBVIOUSLY -- WHEN
YOU'RE WORKING IN PROJECTS LIKE
THIS, THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A
PERIOD IN WHICH INVESTIGATORS
WHO ARE PART OF THE PROJECTS,
WHO ARE THE INTELLECTUAL DRIVERS
OF THE PROJECT, HAVE A WORKING
SPACE, WHEN THEY CAN WORK WITH
THE DATA.
BUT THAT TIME FRAME IS LIMITED,
AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME
THE DATA RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC
SITE, WHETHER PRODUCED OR NOT.
>> DAVID?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
PRESENTATION.
A QUESTION ABOUT AMP.
I KNOW A LOT OF EFFORT IS PUT IN
TO LOOK AT MULTIOMICS, THIS IS A
SCIENTIFIC OR THEMED ON THE
FOUNDATION FOR NEW MOLECULAR
TAXONOMY OF DISEASE.
MY UNDERSTANDING THOSE STUDIES
ARE QUITE SMALL IN THE SCALE OF
GENOMIC ANALYSES, SO 50 TO 100
CASES PER DISEASE PROBABLY DON'T
REPRESENT HETEROGENEITY OF
DISEASE, WHERE ALREADY EXISTING
DATABASES ARE IN THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS.
SO IS THERE AN EFFORT, PARALLEL
EFFORT OR EXTENSION EFFORT, TO
USE ALREADY EXISTING DATASETS TO
LOOK AT GENOMIC, IT WON'T BE
POSSIBLE POTENTIALLY FOR OTHER
APPROACHES BUT MIGHT BE A NICE
WAY TO ON MAGNIFICATION TO
GENOMIC ANALYSIS OF HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS?
>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
IT IS THE -- AMP-RA LUPUS, TO
SOME EXTENT I THINK THE
PARKINSON'S PROJECTS HAVE FEWER
PATIENTS THAN SOME OF THE OTHER
AMP DATASETS, THE ONE ON CHRONIC
METABOLIC DISORDER FOR EXAMPLE
INCLUDES A VERY, VERY LARGE
INTERNATIONAL DATASET, AND THE
GENOMICS OF DIABETES WITH
THOUSANDS OF PATIENTS OR PERSONS
CONTRIBUTING DATA.
SO THE SIZE OF THE DIFFERENT
AMPS, COVERED RANGE.
SO PROBABLY R.A. ALUMINUM --
LUPUS IS ONE OF THE SMALLER IN
TERMS OF NUMBERS OF PATIENTS, O
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK
ABOUT HOW THE DATASETS CAN
COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER, IF YOU'RE
IN THE DISCOVERY PHASE VERSUS
VALIDATION, ET CETERA.
>> BOB?
>> IT'S INTERESTING, RISK
COMMON METABOLIC DISEASE WAS
BUILT AS GENETICS REPOSITORY TO
FED RATE ACROSS GENOMIC DATASETS
SO ANYBODY COULD FIND ANNOTATED
GENES AND DRILL DOWN FROM THERE
AND USE STANDARD TECHNIQUES FOR
SPECIFIC TARGETS FOR DIFFERENT
CONDITIONS VERSUS SOMETHING LIKE
AMP RA LUPUS OR AIM, MUCH MORE
FOCUSED ON SINGLE CELL
TRANSCRIPTOMICS BUT THEY ARE
CONVERGING.
IN COMMON METABOLIC DISEASE WEB
PORTAL THERE'S NOW AN AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASE SECTION WITH THE
GENETICS OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
IN THE COMMON METABOLIC DISEASE
KNOWLEDGE PORTAL BECAUSE IT'S
MUCH MORE BUILT AROUND ANNOTATED
GENETICS BUT ANNOTATED GENETICS
IS NOW GETTING TO EXPRESSION
WHICH IS ACTUALLY SINGLE CELL
TRANSCRIPTOMICS.
SO, YOUR QUESTION IS RIGHT THEY
ARE DIFFERENT SCALES BUT
DIFFERENT PURPOSES, AND IT'S
SOMETHING WE STRUGGLE WITH,
OKAY, HERE WE AT NIAMS BUT WE
KNOW THERE'S AN AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASE PART WITHIN THE COMMON
METABOLIC DISEASE GENETIC-BASED
PORTAL.
>> AND WE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION
OF BRINGING DATASETS THAT ARE
NOT DATASETS ALSO THAT BEEN
CONSIDERED AS WELL.
>> MARY?
>>YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT.
I WANTED TO TAKE A STEP BACK.
ONE OF MY REFLECTIONS LOOKING AT
THIS WE HAVE A LOT OF FOCUS ON
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE, SO WHERE DO
WE SEE BIG DATA IN THE OTHER
AREAS OF NIAMS?
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ABOUT THE
MUSCULOSKELETAL PORTAL THAT YOU
MENTIONED?
THERE WAS A PRESENTATION.
AGAIN, A LOT OF EXISTING DATA.
IS THIS VIEWED AS PILOT AND THE
OTHERS WILL COME ALONG?
I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH TALK ABOUT
OTHER AREAS.
>> SO IN TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE
BASES FOR MUSCULOSKELETAL
DISEASES, I THINK WE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT THAT SOME MORE, AS
TIME, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS THAT NEED OF THE
COMMUNITY WHICH WE REALIZE AND
HEARD ABOUT IN THE NEXT FEW
MONTHS.
>> HIS DATA IS IN THE COMMON
METABOLIC DISEASE PORTAL, SO,
YEAH.
>> SO, THAT'S IN TERMS OF
KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE BASE.
SO THERE ARE GENERALLY
REPOSITORIES, DATA REPOSITORIES
LIKE IMPORTANT OTHERS, SKIN, THE
EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX, ET CETERA,
THAT WE'RE LOOKING AS WELL.
SO CERTAINLY IN THE RANGE OF
REPOSITORIES AND KNOWLEDGE BASES
IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE CAN PROVIDE A GATEWAY TO OUR
COMMUNITIES SO THAT THEY CAN
FIND THE DATA, THE REPOSITORIES,
THE RESOURCES, TOOLS FOR
ANALYZING THE DATA, THAT ARE
NECESSARY.
SO THE WORKING GROUP IS VERY
AWARE OF THAT.
WE HAVE BOTH DR. KEHL AND
WESTENDORF IN THE WORKING GROUP
AND THEY HAVE BOTH TALKED ABOUT
THE NEEDS OF THE MUSCULOSKELETAL
DISEASE -- THE MUSCULOSKELETAL
DISEASE RESEARCH COMMUNITIES,
AND THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE
VERY SPECIALIZED, IMAGING FOR
EXAMPLE, RIGHT?
WHERE THE NEEDS MIGHT BE
DIFFERENT, AND IN OTHER DISEASE
AREAS WHERE DATA NEEDS RELATE TO
OTHER TYPES OF DATASETS.
>> I WANT TO ALSO FOR CONTEXT,
THE WORKING GROUP IS FOCUSED
BROADLY.
IT IS NOT FOCUSING SPECIFICALLY
ON AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE.
THE SYSTEMS BIOLOGY OF
INFLAMMATION AND THIS VISION
WE'RE CALLING AIDE, IT TAKES
ADVANTAGE OF THE AMP,
ACCELERATED MEDICINES
PARTNERSHIP, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
RESOURCES WHERE A FOCUS ON
AUTOIMMUNITY WAS A LOGICAL PLACE
TO START BUT THESE ARE -- YOU
KNOW, THERE'S THE BROADER EFFORT
THAT'S BROAD-BASED IN TERMS OF
NIAMS MISSION AREAS, FOR THE
WORKING GROUP, AND SYSTEMS
BIOLOGY OF INFLAMMATION IS MORE
SPECIFIC NOT BECAUSE THAT'S OUR
PRIMARY OR SOLE AREA OF INTEREST
BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY
THERE.
I WANTED TO MAKE THAT
DISTINCTION TOO.
BUT MAYBE LET'S MOVE ON AND ONCE
AGAIN SUSANA WILL BE AROUND FOR
THE REST OF THE DAY FOR FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON THAT TOPIC.
AND DARREN, OVER TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO TURN ON OUR
CONCEPT CLEARANCE PRESENTATION.
AND I'D LIKE TO JUST TAKE A FEW
MOMENTS TO GO OVER THE NIAMS
PROCESS FOR CONCEPT CLEARANCE.
SO, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM PUT
POINTS STAFF CONTINUALLY WORK TO
IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES, PROGRAM
OFFICERS RECOMMEND CONCEPT WHICH
DESCRIBE BASIC PURPOSE, SCOPE,
OBJECTIVES OF INITIATIVES.
CONCEPT CLEARANCE IS THE PROCESS
BY WHICH WE RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT
AND ADVICE, CONCEPTS WILL BE
PUBLISHED ON WEBSITE TO INFORM
RESEARCHERS ABOUT INTEREST IN
POTENTIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
THESE ARE CONCEPTS, VERY BROAD,
WE CAN GET ONE OR MORE FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES FROM ANY ONE
CONCEPT.
SO I'M GOING TO PASS NOW TO
GAYLE WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF OUR
DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH
TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION ON THE
CONCEPTS WE'RE CONSIDERING
TODAY.
WE HAVE THREE.
>> WE HAVE THREE CONCEPTS.
THE FIRST TWO ARE NEW CONCEPTS,
CAN WE -- FIRST SLIDE.
THIS IS ONE THAT SUSANA JUST
MENTIONED TO YOU.
AND IT IS THE ACCELERATING
INTEROPERABLE ECOSYSTEMS
GENERATED BY DR. SZTEIN AND
SHARMA, GOALS TO USE THE DATA
RESOURCES BEING GENERATED BY
AMP, AIM, AND OTHER NIH DATASETS
TO ESTABLISH KNOWLEDGE NETWORK
FOR MOLECULAR TAXONOMY OF
DISEASE ENABLED BY OPEN SCIENCE
PRACTICES AND DATA
INTEROPERABILITY, EACH PATIENT
IS TREATED ON PATHWAYS CAUSING
DISEASE AND CLINICAL
MANIFESTATIONS.
THIS IS THE FIRST CONCEPT.
AND THE SECONDS NEW CONCEPT I
THINK ACTUALLY SUSANA ALSO
REFERRED TO AT ONE POINT, THE
EXOSOME AND AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
COLLABORATING TEAMS, EXACT, NICE
ACRONYMS.
SOME THINGS LEND THEMSELVES TO
IT, OTHERS DON'T.
THIS, AGAIN, IS SIMILAR IN
NATURE TO THE AUTOIMMUNITY
PROJECTS COMING OUT OF THE
OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNITY IN THE
OFFICE OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN'S
HEALTH, IT'S DESCRIBED HERE,
BASED ON THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN
DISEASE AND GENETIC
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPOSURES, IMPORTANT AS THE
SMOKE COMES DOWN FROM CANADA
TODAY AND SULLIES OUR BEAUTIFUL
SUNSHINE.
THESE BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES
GENERATE IN DISEASE INITIATION
AND PROGRESSION AND ARE
SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE
EXPOSOME AFFECTS HETEROGENEITY
OF MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR
PATHWAYS.
SO, THE SECOND CONCEPT REALLY
FOCUSES MORE SPECIFICALLY ON
EXPOSURES AND THAT IS -- WE
WON'T TALK ABOUT HOW WE WILL
ADDRESS THIS BUT JUST THIS
GENERAL CONCEPT RIGHT NOW.
THE THIRD CONCEPT IS A REISSUE,
AND THIS IS FOR THE RISK
INITIATIVE, AGAIN A NICE LITTLE
ACRONYM, BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON
RESEARCH INNOVATION, THE RISK IS
DESIGNED TO CAPTURE AND TEST
NOVEL AND AUDACIOUS IDEAS IN THE
EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, NO
PRELIMINARY DATA REQUIRED.
AND MUCH LESS CONVENTIONAL
PROPOSALS THAN THE USUAL NIH
FUNDING MECHANISMS.
NOW, WE INITIALLY PUT FORTH THIS
CONCEPT, AND THIS IS THE
REISSUE, IN 2014, IT WAS HIGHLY
SUBSCRIBED, VERY IMPORTANT, WE
WENT THROUGH TWO FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS, THAT
WERE PUBLISHED IN 2017, AND
THERE WAS A PRETTY HIGH SUCCESS
RATE, 20% OF THE APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTED ENDED UP BEING FUNDED.
SO, THE RISK WAS PRESENTED TO
COUNCIL IN THE LAST COUNCIL
MEETING BY DR. HUNG TSENG WHO
WORKED WITH PROGRAM DIRECTORS.
THESE ARE THE THREE CONCEPTS.
YOUR TURN, DARREN.
>> THANK YOU.
IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE FIRST
ONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THIS
CONCEPT?
>> COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY FOR
US, ARE THESE -- WHAT WERE THE
FUNDING MECHANISM BE ASSOCIATED
OR DOES IT DEPEND ON EACH ONE?
>> UNDECIDED, DEPENDING ON EACH
ONE AND WHAT IS THE BEST
MECHANISM TO REACH THESE GOALS.
>> THE OTHER THING IS SOME OF
THESE COULD BE ROUNDTABLES,
COULD BE WORKSHOPS, THEY COULD
BE SOME TYPE OF FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT, COULD
JUST BE AN AREA OF FOCUS FOR THE
INSTITUTE.
SO, THERE ARE CONCEPTS THAT
WE'VE TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER
BASED ON WHERE WE SEE NEEDS, AND
THEY WILL BE MANIFEST IN
DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND THOSE WOULD BE PRESENTED TO
COUNCIL AT A LATER TIME.
SO, THE LAST TIME WE PRESENTED
THE RISK WAS IN 2014, AND THEN
IT DIDN'T GET PUBLISHED BECAUSE
WE HAD TO WORK THROUGH A LOT OF
INS AND OUTS OF WHAT WE WOULD DO
WITH RISK PROPOSAL AND FINALLY
GOT PUBLISHED AS A FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT IN
2017.
BUT OTHER CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN
WORKSHOPS OR MEETINGS,
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS.
>> GREAT.
LET ME JUST SAY -- I'M SORRY.
LET ME JUST SAY I SHOULD HAVE
MENTIONED EARLIER FOR US TO MOVE
FORWARD ON ANY OF THE CONCEPTS
WE NEED AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FROM
COUNCIL.
I'M GOING TO CALL FOR THAT VOTE
AFTER WE DISCUSS EACH OF THESE
INDIVIDUALLY.
AGAIN, AS GAYLE SAID, THESE ARE
BROAD CONCEPTS THAT WILL
EVENTUALLY TURN INTO SOMETHING
BUT WE'RE STILL WORKING ON WHAT
THAT'S GOING TO BE.
I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> YES, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND A
LITTLE BETTER THIS IS A CONCEPT
BUT HOW DOES IT GET TO BUDGET,
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU THEN
TAKE AND TRY TO GET FUNDS THAT
INCREASE YOUR BUDGET OR IT TAKES
AWAY FROM SOMETHING THAT'S
ALREADY IN BUDGET TO PROCEED
WITH THESE PARTICULAR IDEAS.
>> EXACTLY.
IF IT DOES COST MONEY, OTHER
THAN JUST SOMETHING LIKE A
WORKSHOP WHICH WOULD BE A VERY
LIMITED TIME, ONE-TIME BUDGET
THING, THEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING
FOR PARTNERS, AS WAS MENTIONED,
FOUNDATION FOR NIH, OTHER
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS WOULD
PARTNER WITH US ON THESE.
>> AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT
DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM REGULAR
FUNDING.
>> NO, WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY OR
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PAYLINE.
>> TO BE CLEAR IT'S POSSIBLE
YOU COULD END UP WITH SOMETHING
WITH A SET-ASIDE BUT THIS DOES
NOT GUARANTEE IT WOULD BE A
SET-ASIDE.
>> FOR SURE, ABSOLUTELY.
AND I MEAN THESE -- MOST OF
THESE ARE VERY MODEST, TO TELL
YOU THE TRUTH.
WE'RE RELATIVELY CONSERVATIVE.
>> STUART, YOUR HAND IS UP.
>> YES.
QUICK QUESTION, ON THE SECOND
INITIATIVES, MAYBE IF WE COULD
HAVE THAT SLIDE UP.
>> ACTUALLY CAN WE WAIT.
LET ME GO THROUGH THIS ONE, IF
WE HAVE DISCUSSION POINTS WE'LL
VOTE ON THIS AND GO IT THE NEXT
ONE AND MOVE TO YOUR QUESTION.
IS THAT OKAY?
>> THAT'S PERFECTLY OKAY.
>> OKAY.
>> WE'RE VOTING BUT I'M NOT
SURE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE
ALLOCATING MONEY.
>> NO.
>> JUST IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> IT'S A FORMALITY FOR US TO
DEVELOP A CONCEPT IN ANY WAY, WE
HAVE TO PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL
AND COUNCIL HAS TO ENDORSE THAT
AS MERITORIOUS, RELEVANT, ET
CETERA.
BY NO MEANS BY ENDORSING THIS
ARE YOU SAYING YOU APPROVE FOR
MONEY TO BE MOVED FROM THIS AREA
TO THAT AREA OR YOU'RE NOT
SAYING THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN SOMETHING ELSE.
AND MANY CONCEPTS WON'T GO
ANYWHERE.
BUT WE MUST, AS WE GENERATE
IDEAS, THAT MIGHT TURN INTO A
WORKSHOP, ROUNDTABLE, RFA, WE'RE
REQUIRED TO ENGAGE YOU IN A VERY
BRIEF PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT'S
JUST A CONCEPT.
AND TO HEAR FROM YOU, QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE, ET CETERA.
>> YEAH, I WOULD ENCOURAGE
COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF THEY HAVE
SOME INPUT FOR ONE OF THESE, TO
BE IN CONTACT WITH MYSELF OR DR.
SZTEIN OR BOTH.
>> OR BRING IT UP NOW FOR
GENERAL QUESTIONS.
>> THERE'S SO MUCH BIG DATA
THAT'S AVAILABLE, I KNOW THIS IS
CRAZY TO SUGGEST, BUT IN PHARMA
WHERE THEY HAVE REALLY PROFILED
A LOT OF THESE PATIENTS, THIS IS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
FELLOWSHIP TRY TONE COURAGE MORE
DATA BE ADDED TO THIS
PARTICULARLY THAT SITS BEHIND
WALLS IN PHARMA.
>> FNIH, THAT'S THE ROLE THEY
PLAY.
>>THIS IS RIGHT FOR THAT.
THEY WILL BENEFIT BUT MANY MORE
PEOPLE CAN BENEFIT.
>> A SIMILAR THOUGHT.
I'VE RAISED THIS TO THIS GROUP
BEFORE BUT JUST FOR THE HOPEFUL
BENEFIT OF COUNCIL I THINK IT'S
FAIRLY ASPIRATIONAL AND I'M NOT
A TRAINED SCIENTIST, BUT I HAVE
ENCOURAGED AS WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS THAT WE ALSO THINK ABOUT
NOT CREATING SILOS BETWEEN REAL
WORLD EVIDENCE GENERATED FROM
PATIENTS AND PATIENT GROUPS AND
THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
IN RARE COMMUNITIES, SO RARE
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES OR RARE
SUBTYPES OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES,
WHEN PATIENTS ARE GETTING
TOGETHER AND POOLING DATA AND
FINDING TRENDS AND THEMES IN
PRESENTATION OR WEIRD THINGS
THAT HAPPENED AMONG THE COHORT
OF PATIENTS, IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE
WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITIES TO CROSS-WALK TO
MASSIVE DATASETS.
JUST DRAWING A BIG ENOUGH --
PUTTING A BIG ENOUGH TENT OVER
THIS THAT WE THINK ABOUT
PATIENT -- RIGOROUSLY COLLECTED
PATIENT DATA.
I WANTED TO SAY IT OUT LOUD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'M GOING TOE MOVE THAT WE
APPROVE THIS CONCEPT FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY AYE AND
STUART I'LL ASSUME YOUR HAND
RAISED IS NOT OPPOSED.
GIVEN THAT, I WILL SAY THIS HAS
BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, TO
MOVE FORWARD FOR FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CONCEPT.
STUART, ASK YOUR QUESTION.
>> SO I NOTICED THE WORD
"AUTOIMMUNE" AND I WAS WONDERING
WHY IT'S RESTRICTED TO
AUTOIMMUNE AND NOT GENERALIZED
IMMUNE DISEASES.
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WHO IS THE BEST TO ANSWER THAT?
>> I'LL TURN THIS TO SOMEONE
ELSE.
>> I'LL START BY SAYING THAT I
DON'T KNOW IF WOULD YOU RECALL,
I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO, BUT WE
SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE
NEW OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
RESEARCH TO LAUNCH THIS AS
INITIALLY AS AN R21 OPPORTUNITY.
NOW, I THINK WHETHER YOU SAY
AUTOIMMUNE OR AUTOIMMUNE
MEDIATED, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A
SPECTRUM AND THERE'S BEEN
DISCUSSION WITH THE OFFICE OF
RESEARCH ON WOMEN'S HEALTH ABOUT
EXACTLY WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE
BROAD OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASE RESEARCH.
SO GOOD QUESTION, YEAH, FOR US
TO THINK ABOUT AGAIN AND TO
CIRCLE BACK TO ORWH WHO IS THE
LEAD ON THIS, BY VIRTUE OF THE
RESOURCES THAT THEY RECEIVE FROM
CONGRESS TO SUPPORT RESEARCH IN
THIS AREA.
BUT GOOD POINT, STUART.
>> I THINK IT COULD BE
MODULATED JUST BY SAYING
"IMMUNE-RELATED DISEASES."
>> EXCELLENT POINT.
IT'S A SPECTRUM, YEAH.
>> SURE.
>> REALLY INTERESTING POINT.
THANK YOU.
THE WORDS MATTER.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
COMMENTS THEN I MOVE -- I'D LIKE
A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> ARE WE CHANGING ACCORDING TO
THE COMMENT FROM STUART?
>> GOOD QUESTION.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW
WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, THIS OR
THE TITLE WOULD BE THE EXPOSOME
IN IMMUNE-MEDIATED DISEASES OR
DOES IT MATTER?
OUT OF MY AREA.
>> IT DOES MATTER.
IS I THINK TAKING INTO ACCOUNT,
I'M NOT AN EXPERT SO IT'S
DIFFICULT TO DISCUSS THE SCIENCE
PER SE.
YOU THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
THING FOR THE INSTITUTE IT'S
BETTER TO COME BACK WITH A
DIFFERENT CONCEPT FOR MORE BROAD
IMMUNE DISEASES OR DO YOU FEEL
THAT THIS WOULD COVER IT?
>> THIS DOES COME OUT OF
SOMETHING SPECIFIC.
LINDSEY ALLUDED TO IT IN OPENING
REMARKS, WHAT'S ON THE STREET
NOW IS EXACT PLAN, TO PLAN
SOMETHING.
I DO THINK IT IS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE ORWH AND WE DO EXPECT
THEM TO BE A MAJOR SOURCE OF
FUNDING, AND IT'S IN
COLLABORATION WITH NIEHS,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE,
SPECIFIC CONNECTION TO
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE.
FOR SOMETHING CALLED EXACT, IT
IS INDEED AUTOIMMUNE BECAUSE --
AND IT IS TIED TO A COUPLE OTHER
THINGS GOING ON NOW WHICH DO
LIMIT ITS SCOPE TO THAT.
MY PERSONAL THING IS WHAT WE'RE
DOING HERE IS CLEARING THIS
CONCEPT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD
CAN DEVELOPING WHAT EXACT
ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.
AND BY EXACT I ACTUALLY MEAN
AUTOIMMUNE BECAUSE THE OTHER
PEOPLE INVOLVED.
BUT THE POINT IS CORRECT.
MY VOTE WOULD BE IF WE WANT TO
DEVELOP SOMETHING BROADER WE
COME BACK, BUT I DON'T FEEL
STRONGLY ABOUT IT.
>> SO THEN TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION -- I'M SORRY, SUSANA.
>> SO, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENT
THAT BOB JUST MADE.
THIS WAS BASED IN PART WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY IT'S BEING CREATED
THROUGH THE OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASES RESEARCH, AND A NEED
IDENTIFIED BY NATIONAL ACADEMIES
REPORT TO EXPLORE THE ROLE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES IN
DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASES.
THE LIST OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES
IN THE NASEM REPORT INCLUDES
300, VERY BROAD INDEED.
THAT'S THE GENESIS OF THIS
CONCEPT.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSTITUTES
INVOLVED LIKE LINDSEY MENTIONED,
AND IT IS DOING -- WHAT WE'RE
DOING TODAY, TO DIFFERENT
DEGREES, I THINK THIS IS GOING
TO GET A LOT OF INPUT FROM MANY
DIFFERENT GROUPS.
BUT THE INITIAL FOCUS AND
IMPETUS WAS AROUND AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASE.
>> I GUESS THAT ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION.
BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE
FEEDBACK, FROM ALL OF YOU AND
STUART, FOR COMMENTS GOING
FORWARD.
>> ONE MORE POINT ABOUT THIS.
I DIDN'T DESCRIBE IN DETAIL BUT
SOME OF YOU MAY POSSIBLY HAVE
RECALLED THAT IN THAT SLIDE I
SHOWED OF THE EXACT PLAN THERE
WAS A PYRAMID THAT TALKS ABOUT
EXPANSION TO OTHER DISEASE
CONDITIONS, CERTAINLY IMMUNE
RELATED, IMMUNE MEDIATED, BUT
OTHER DISEASES.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOCUSING
RELATIVELY NARROWLY TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEFINE THE
EXPOSOME IN DISEASE WITH THE
IDEA THAT WHAT WE LEARN HERE CAN
BE EASILY EXPANDED AND
EXTRAPOLATED TO A BROADER AND
BROADER SET OF CONDITIONS.
SO ANYWAY, FOR WHAT THAT'S
WORTH.
>> THANK YOU.
SO I THINK IT WAS SECONDED, THE
MOTION TO APPROVE FOR FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT.
IS ANYBODY DISAGREEING, DOES
ANYBODY VOTE NO?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE, THIS WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
LET'S GO TO NUMBER THREE.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS RE-ISSUE OF THE
RESEARCH INNOVATIONS FOR
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE?
YES, GO AHEAD.
>> WILL THIS BE SIMILAR TO THE
FIRST ITERATION OR WILL THERE BE
DIFFERENCES?
>> VERY MINOR BUT VERY SIMILAR.
>> WE DID AN EVALUATION AND
CAME UP WITH MODIFICATIONS THAT
COULD BE MADE TO ENABLE A LITTLE
BIT MORE EASE OF REVIEW, TO BE
MORE INCLUSIVE OF PROPOSALS THAT
CAME IN.
IT'S A TWO PHASE, YOU COME IN
WITH A ONE-PAGER TO BE MORE
INCLUESIVE OF THE ONE-PAGEERS.
>>THERE WAS A PRESENTATION BY
HUNG TSENG AT THE LAST MEETING,
BECAUSE THIS WAS GOING TO COME
UP AS A CONCEPT WE PUT THAT
PRESENTATION IN THERE.
FOR THOSE THAT DIDN'T HEAR IT IT
GOES INTO OBSERVATIONS AND
LESSONS LEARNED.
>> HOW WE'LL BE MODIFYING FOR
THE REISSUE.
IN THIS CASE THIS DOES ACTUALLY
TAKE INSTITUTE MONEY BUT WE FEEL
LIKE IT'S A VERY GOOD USE OF IT
BECAUSE IT DOES ENCOURAGE
INNOVATION TO SUCH A HIGH LEVEL,
HIGH DEGREE, TO MUCH MORE THAN
THE R21 WOULD.
>> STAR?
>> I MISSED THE PRESENTATION IN
THE COUNCIL BOOK.
CAN SOMEONE GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF
LIKE AN AUDACIOUS IDEA THAT HAS
BEEN PROPOSED?
>> IS ALEXA HERE?
>> NO, NOT HERE.
>> HE'S NOT HERE.
TED OR FAYE COULD POSSIBLY SPEAK
TO THIS.
I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR QUESTION.
I'M SORRY.
>> THE QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS AN
AUDACIOUS IDEA, WHAT DID WE GET
OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF THE
RISKS, BIG RISKY IDEAS.
>> FUNDED APPLICATIONS.
>> THE ONE THING, SUMMARIZE THE
PRESENTATION, YOU COULD SEE THE
OUTCOME CORRELATED BETTER WITH
INNOVATION UNDER THIS PROGRAM
COMPARED TO APPROACH UNDER THE
CSR ONES.
SO, AT LEAST AT THE REVIEW
LEVEL, THE LEVEL OF INNOVATION
WAS MORE STRONGLY CONSIDERED.
THAT DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION.
>> AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
WE TALKED ABOUT HOPING TO GET
MORE INFORMATION ON OUTCOMES,
PERHAPS TOO SOON TO GET THAT.
>> YES, IT'S A LITTLE SOON.
>> AS I RECALL.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR US TO
GET IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT'S
AVAILABLE TO START TO LOOK AT
WHAT THOSE OUTCOMES ARE AND
AGAIN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE
SOME OF THE OUTCOMES MAY NOT
NECESSARILY BE IN THE FORM OF
PUBLICATIONS BUT COULD BE IN THE
FORM OF PATENT APPLICATIONS OR
ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS.
SO, I THINK WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT
INFORMATION YET, IF I RECALL.
>> FAYE JUST APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE TO HAVE SOME
COMMENTS.
THANKS, FAYE.
>> OLDER FUNDED WITH GRANTS,
YOU CAN FUND ON NIH REPORTER,
NOW WHEN THEY ARE TRANSITION,
WHEN THEY ARE AWARDED THERE ARE
61 APPLICATIONS SO IF YOU SEARCH
FOR NIAMS R61 OR, AND SOME HAVE
TRANSITIONED TO R33, THAT'S A
SECOND PHASE TRANSITION, SO
EITHER R61 OR R33, SO IF YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN ANY SPECIFIC, YOU
KNOW, GRANT I THINK THE
SPECIFICS, WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
THE OTHER -- I'M SORRY?
ABOUT THE OUTCOMES, HUNG
ACTUALLY, WHEN HE REPORTED AT
THE LAST COUNCIL, LOOKING AT THE
PUBLICATIONS, HE ACTUALLY LOOKED
AT THE RCR, DIFFERENT CITATION,
RCR NUMBERS.
SO COMPARED TO THE PARENT R21
PUBLICATIONS, HIS DATA ACTUALLY
SHOWED THE RISK PAPERS, THEY
HAVE BETTER RCR OUTCOMES.
>> HIGHER LEVELS OF INNOVATION.
>> CORRECT.
>> DEFINITELY.
>>THANK YOU.
TED WILL ADD A COUPLE POINTS.
>> WE HAVE LIMITED DATA
ANALYSIS, SO BASED ON CURRENT
ROUND OF TOTALLY 32 AWARD FUNDED
AND FROM THE PUBLICATION WE GET
READOUT REVIEWS AND, YOU KNOW,
SOME CROSS-REFERENCE, BUT WE PUT
OUT 48 PUBLICATIONS FROM RISK
COMPARED TO 309 PUBLICATIONS.
WE USED THE CITATION RATIO,
RECENTLY DEVELOPED BY NIH, AT
THE MATRIX TO EVALUATE IMPACT,
NOT ONLY -- IT'S BASED ON A
FIELD, FIELD FORMALIZED MATRIX,
SO ONE WILL BE MEDIAN IMPACT.
SO R21, THE NUMBER IS LIKE 1.55,
AND RISK IS 2.3.
SO IT'S SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
ALSO IN TERM OF AVERAGE NUMBER,
TO NUMBER OF CITATION COMPARERS
R21 16 VERSUS 10.
PRIMARY ANALYSIS, OVERALL
PERFORMANCE IS SUPERIOR THAN
R21, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS
SAID ABOUT RISK.
>> THE WHOLE POINT IS LIKE YOU
JUST SAID PRELIMINARY DATA,
SOMEONE WANTS TO SEE LONGEVITY
AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
MORE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANOTHER EXCELLENT POINT HERE
IS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, THE
ONE-PAGER, CANNOT MAKE ANY
REFERENCE TO YOUR INSTITUTION,
YOUR MENTOR, ANY BACKGROUND
WHATSOEVER.
SO THE POSSIBILITY OF BIAS BASED
ON WHERE YOU COME FROM OR WHO
YOU TRAINED WITH IS VERY
LIMITED, WE'RE LOOKING AT USUAL
IDEAS AND ABILITY TO DO THIS.
>> NIAMS WAS AN INNOVATOR, NIH
ADOPTED THAT AND OTHER FUNDING
MECHANISMS.
>> ANDREW OR STUART, DO YOU
HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> NO COMMENTS.
>> NOTHING.
>> THANK YOU.
NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I MOVE WE
APPROVE THIS CONCEPT FOR FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
SECOND?
THANK YOU.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO MOVING THIS
FORWARD SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR
HAND.
SEEING AND HEARING NONE, THIS
WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY
COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND THANKS, EVERYBODY.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS YOU WANT TO
SHARE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SEND
THEM TO ME TO DISTRIBUTE TO
APPROPRIATE FOLKS FOR THESE
CONCEPTS.
THANK YOU.
>> SO, THE OPEN SESSION OF
COUNCIL IS SUPPOSED TO END AT
1:00.
THAT GIVES US SIX MINUTES FOR
SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON ANY
TOPIC THAT YOU'VE HEARD THIS
MORNING OR ANY OTHER TOPIC UNDER
THE SUN, AS LONG AS IT RELATED
TO NIAMS OR NIH.
BUT REMINDER FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS
OF COURSE WE'LL HAVE A CLOSED
SESSION OF COUNCIL STARTING AOF
I BELIEVE AT 2:00, WE SET ASIDE
TIME FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
AS WELL.
SO, IF THERE ARE SOME RELATED TO
CONCEPTS OR PRESENTATIONS YOU
HEARD OR ANYTHING ELSE, I ALWAYS
WELCOME NEW TOPICS FOR US TO
START THINKING ABOUT THAT WE
COULD DEVELOP AS A PRESENTATION
AND FORMAL SESSION AS PART OF
COUNCIL OR OTHER QUESTIONS
RELATED TO THINGS THAT CAME UP
TODAY.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GET THOSE
OUT THERE NOW OR YOU CAN
CONTINUE THINKING ABOUT THEM AND
WE CAN DISCUSS THEM LATER.
>> STAR E-MAILED ME SOME THINGS
SHE WANTED TO DISCUSS.
DID YOU WANT TO BRING ANY OF
THOSE UP?
>> I THINK WE TALKED A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THIS EARLIER AS
RELATED TO COMMUNITY ENGAGED
RESEARCH AND THINKING ALSO ABOUT
MORE PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY
SCIENTISTS AND BASIC SCIENTISTS.
I DON'T HAVE AN INITIAL CONCEPT,
JUST WONDERING HOW NIAMS CAN
EXPAND IN THAT AREA.
>> SO, EXPAND IN TERMS OF THE
NATURE OF THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT
WE FORGE?
>> OR JUST MAYBE MORE EMPHASIS
JUST ON HOW WE CAN INTEGRATE
MORE COMMUNITY ENGAGED RESEARCH
INTO THE PORTFOLIO.
>> YEAH, SO THIS TOPIC IS
OBVIOUSLY ONE WE SHOULD SET
ASIDE SOME TIME AT A FUTURE
COUNCIL MEETING.
SUSANA BROUGHT THIS UP TODAY,
IT'S COME UP, ANN MADE COMMENTS
ALONG THESE LINES.
SO THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.
AND WE'LL PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER
ABOUT A COUPLE PRESENTERS THAT
WOULD MAKE FOR AN INFORMATIVE
AND KIND OF THOUGHT-PROVOKING
DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND
BETTER WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES
ARE OUT THERE AND WHAT WE CAN BE
DOING TO PURSUE THOSE.
AND SUPPORT THOSE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR BRINGING
THAT UP AND OTHERS WHO
HIGHLIGHTED THAT TOPIC AS WELL.
THIS CAME UP HEAVILY IN THE
SECOND OF THE RECENT BRIEFINGS I
PARTICIPATED IN TOO, IT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC.
THANK YOU.
ANN?
>> I REALLY APPRECIATED THE
DISCUSSION AND HEADS UP, AND BOB
MENTIONED BOLD ASPIRATIONS FROM
THE LAST ONE.
WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE, DO YOU
RECALL?
>>I ASKED BOB THE OTHER DAY,
HOW DID WE DO ON THAT FRONTS?
NOT BAD.
>> ONE WAS A GENE THERAPY.
WAS THAT SKIN?
>> EPIDERMAL EXPOSOMES?
>> NOT SO SPECIFIC.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT MUSCLE.
THERE'S THIS GENE THERAPY NOW
FOR SKIN.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE].
>> YEAH, WHAT WAS IT THOUGH?
A THERAPY?
I DON'T REMEMBER.
>> SOMEONE WAS PREPARED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I PUT THEM ON SEVERAL SLIDES
BECAUSE WE HAD SEVERAL.
ONE WAS GENE THERAPY FOR
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY OR EB,
BIOMARKERS TO GUIDE THERAPY FOR
R.A., NON-SURGICAL TREATMENTS,
REGENERATIVE MEDICINE FOR O.A.,
AND PREVENTION FOR AUTOIMMUNE
DISEASES.
FINALLY HEAL NON-ADDICTIVE
THERAPIES FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK
PAIN, REDUCING DISPARITIES,
USING -- REDUCES HEALTH
DISPARITIES RELATED TO
OSTEOARTHRITIS, THE LAST RELATES
TO OSTEOPOROSIS.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAD LAST TIME.
>> I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR TO
SAY FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE, THE
INSTITUTE HAS DONE SOMETHING TO
TRY TO MAKE PROGRESS.
MOST OF THESE ARE BOLD.
BY DEFINITION PROBABLY UNLIKELY
FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO ON OUR
OWN BUT I THINK ALL OF THESE
HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO SOME
EXTENT, ROUNDTABLES, WORKSHOPS.
LEVERAGING "HEAL."
I'VE FORGOTTEN A COUPLE ON
PREVIOUS SLIDES.
STEPHANIE REMINDED US.
GO BACK TO THE TOPIC AND BRIEFLY
--
>>IT'S NOT EVEN 2025 YET.
>> RIGHT.
>> WE'RE ONLY HALFWAY THERE.
THERE WE GO.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOW THE LEAD
INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE
MEDICINE INNOVATION PROGRAM, SO
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND EB IS A
SCORE.
BIOMARKERS FOR RHEUMATOID
ARTHRITIS, YOU KNOW, THAT
REMAINS A CHALLENGE.
I THINK WE'RE DOING A LOT IN
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TO GET US
THERE EVENTUALLY.
>> AND IT WAS PUBLISHED TO
PREDICT OUTCOME OF R.A. BASED ON
BIAS.
>> WE HAVE AN EXPERT HERE.
>> VERY LIMITED SET OF
PATIENTS, LIMITED CHOICE OF
THERAPIES BUT IT WAS VERY
ENCOURAGING, I HAVE TO SAY.
AND VERY EXCITING.
I KNOW HE'S GOT MORE DATA COMING
TO SUPPORT THAT.
>>WE SKIPPED ONE.
OOPS.
MAYBE THESE ARE ON AUTOADVANCE.
WE HAVE THIS REALLY EXCITING
BACPAC PROGRAM, THE BACK PAIN
CONSORTIUM THAT'S PART OF
"HEAL," VERY HIGH PROFILE THAT
HAS AN IMPRESSIVE SET OF ENGAGED
INVESTIGATORS AND THAT EFFORT IS
NOW LEVERAGING NEW "HEAL"-FUNDED
EFFORTS SUCH AS RE-JOIN WHICH
WE'RE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN AND
MYOFASCIAL PAIN EFFORT THAT
NCCIH IS LEADING WITH OUR
SUPPORT, ET CETERA.
DISPARITIES, WE HAD THE -- I'VE
FORGOTTEN WHETHER IT WAS A
ROUNDTABLE OR WORKSHOP, HEALTH
DISPARITIES IN OSTEOARTHRITIS,
HELD WITH OTHER INSTITUTES AND
WE NEED TO CIRCLE BACK AND
FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS
ARE IN FOLLOW-UP TO THAT.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER ONES?
OSTEOPOROSIS, MARY, WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT THIS.
NIAMS CAN SAY THEY HAVE BEEN
PLAYING A ROLE FOR THE PAST
DECADE IN TRYING TO ADVANCE OUR
KNOWLEDGE OF, YOU KNOW, HOW TO
FACILITATE IDENTIFICATION OF
THERAPIES, HOW TO GET THEM
IMPLEMENTED INTO PRACTICE, ET
CETERA, ET CETERA.
SOME OF YOU, I DON'T KNOW, MARY,
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO EFFORTS.
THERE'S FNIH BIOMARKERS
CONSORTIUM EFFORT GAYLE IS
INVOLVED IN.
MARY, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED ON
SOME FRONTS.
WE JUST INVESTED MONEY TO MAKE
SURE THAT SOME OF THE POPULATION
OPINION BASED DATA COLLECTION
EFFORTS, CHRISTY NIX TO SPEAK TO
THAT, TO HELP US UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S GOING ON RELATED TO
OSTEOPOROSIS AND USE OF
MEDICATIONS WILL EXIST, SO YOU
ALL KNOW -- ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WANT TO CHIME IN, IN TERMS OF
PROGRESS?
>> [OFF MICROPHONE].
>> MAY I MAKE A COMMENT?
>> YES, STUART.
GO AHEAD AND CHRISTY WILL FOLLOW
YOU.
>> I CAN ACQUIESCE TO CHRISTY.
I DON'T MIND.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE
NHANES PROJECT IS BEING
REVAMPED, WE'RE INVESTING OUR
MONEY BUT NOT SURE AT THE
CURRENT MOMENT WHETHER OR NOT WE
WERE GOING TO HAVE DEXA INCLUDED
IN THE STUDY.
SO WE ARE WORKING ON THAT, AND
HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE MORE DATA
SOON.
>> SO, THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
BOLD.
THE IDEA IS NOT THAT WE'RE GOING
TO ACHIEVE ALL OF THESE.
AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT IT'S ONLY
2023.
BUT IMPORTANTLY, WE PLAN TO HAVE
MORE FORMAL STEWARDSHIP
ACTIVITIES WITH THIS NEXT PLAN
SO THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING AND
TRACKING, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING
THROUGH ON THE COMMITMENTS WE
MAKE, THE VALUES AND PRIORITIES
THAT WE ESTABLISH, AND WE THINK
IT SHOULD PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE
IN FUNDING DECISIONS AS WELL.
STUART, YES, PLEASE.
>> QUICK COMMENT.
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT WHAT'S
BEING FUNDED IN THE INSTITUTE OF
AGING, I NOTICED THAT IT'S
PRIMARILY RELATED TO DEMENTIA,
PARKINSONISM, NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE POTENTIAL
BOLD ASPIRATIONS WE SHOULD BE
ENCOMPASSING IS TO LOOK AT AGING
AND MUSCULOSKELETAL TISSUES.
AND THIS REALLY LOOKS AT
EVERYTHING FROM OSTEOPOROSIS TO
FRACTURES IN THE ELDERLY, TO THE
INCREASING INCIDENCE OF BACK
PAIN AND OTHER IMMUNE AND
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT SEEM TO
BE INCREASING IN THE ELDERLY.
>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.
I RECALL A MEETING EIGHT OR NINE
MONTHS AGO WITH THE PREVIOUS
DIRECTOR OF AIDS RESEARCH
INTERESTED IN AGING MUSCLE,
THERE'S A CONNECTION TO OUR
INSTITUTE THERE.
YES, YOU KNOW, STUART, PART OF
THE REASON FOR THAT EMPHASIS IN
NIA, THEY HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE
RECIPIENT OF TARGETED FUNDING
FROM CONGRESS FOR SPECIFIC
AREAS.
SO THAT EXPLAINS THE OF PERHAPS
ASYMMETRY IN THEIR PORTFOLIO,
BUT EXCELLENT POINT.
MAYBE THAT'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL
CONCEPT FOR A ROUNDTABLE OR
SOMETHING.
>> TO PUT NIAMS ON THE MAP WITH
CONGRESS, MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH
IS HEAVILY FUNDED IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE WORLD, IT WOULD BE GREAT
IF NIAMS GOT SOME OF THAT.
>> HOPING SKIN DISEASE TOO.
I WAS SAYING ONE COULD ADD SKIN
DISEASES TOO.
IT'S NOT JUST MUSCULOSKELETAL.
ALL ASPECTS OF OUR INSTITUTE ARE
AFFECTED.
>> YEAH.
ONE OF THE HIGH LEVEL CHALLENGES
WE FACE IS THAT FOR THE MOST
MART, THE DISEASES AND
CONDITIONS THAT FALL WITHIN OUR
MISSION AREAS DON'T IMMEDIATELY
KILL YOU, AND CAN BE HARD TO
ATTRACT THE SENSE OF URGENCY AND
ATTENTION.
AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS SAID
RECENTLY WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE
MINDSET SO PEOPLE DON'T THINK,
FOR EXAMPLE, ARTHRITIS IS JUST
AN INEVITABLE PART OF THE AGING
PROCESS.
LET'S TURN THINKING AROUND, AND
BOLDLY SAY THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN PREVENT, REVERSE,
CORRECT, ET CETERA.
SO I HOPE THAT GETS BACK TO THIS
BOLD ASPIRATION CONCEPT.
IF WE CAN INSPIRE THE COMMUNITY
AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND
FUNDERS THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE,
MAYBE WE CAN MAKE SOME REAL
PROGRESS ON THAT FRONT.
STEPHANIE, PLEASE, YEAH.
>> SO, I MENTIONED WE HAD ONE
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, WE
ASKED FOR BOLD ASPIRATION, AND I
HAVE TO SAY WE GOT A LOT OF
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES, MOD AS --
NOT AS MUCH ON BOLD ASPIRATIONS.
WE'LL HAVE THEM FOR SURE BUT
WOULD LOVE MORE INPUT IN THAT
VEIN.
>> SOME OF THE INSTITUTES HAVE
WHAT I THINK THEY CALL A VISION
STATEMENT, THAT BASICALLY IS A
BOLD ASPIRATION, THAT CATCHINGS
THE ATTENTION AND, YOU KNOW,
IT'S TOUGH WITH NIAMS, WITH SUCH
A BROAD SET OF MISSION AREAS,
BUT I WOULD KIND OF CHALLENGE
YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT SOME
CATCHY PHRASES, THAT EITHER
REPRESENT BOLD ASPIRATIONS OR
MAYBE EVEN A THEME OR SOMETHING
THAT IS BROAD ENOUGH THAT WE
COULD CONNECT DIRECTLY TO NIAMS
AS A STATEMENT OF WHERE WE'RE
TRYING TO GO, AS AN INSTITUTE
WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL.
ANY OTHER -- I'M CUTTING INTO
THE LUNCH HOUR.
STUART, WAS THAT YOU?
>> THAT WAS ME.
>> MARY, SORRY.
>> ONE COMMENT ABOUT A BOLD
ASPIRATION FOR OUR INSTITUTE,
WHICH IS THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE
TO MOVE AND BE ACTIVE, WHICH IS
DOMINATED BY THE MUSCULOSKELETAL
SYSTEM, INFLUENCES SO MANY
DISEASES, CARDIOVASCULAR
DISEASE, OBESITY, DIABETES.
SO WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY
SECONDARY AND OFF OVER HERE.
WE SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL TO
PREVENTION OF THESE OTHER
CHRONIC DISEASES.
IF WE CAN REFRAME THE NARRATIVE
OF OUR INSTITUTE AROUND THAT,
MAYBE WE'LL GET MORE MONEY OR
MAYBE WOULD HAVE SOME MORE
CROSS-CUTTING ASPIRATIONS, BUT I
THINK WE HAVE TO WORK REALLY
HARD TO SAY HOW FUNDAMENTAL
BEING ACTIVE AND MOBILE IS GOING
TO PREVENT THESE OTHER DISEASES.
>> WE'RE THE CORE, NOT THE
EXTREMITIES.
>>EXACTLY.
>> WE'RE NOT THE PERIPHERY.
>> EXACTLY.
>> WE'VE BEEN HAVING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT VISION
STATEMENTS AND THEMES.
I THINK WE'LL HAVE A SESSION
ABOUT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING
ABOUT OUR VALUES.
MAYBE WE CAN EXPAND TO INCLUDE
THIS SORT OF THING.
RICK HAD TO STEP OUT.
OKAY.
I HOPE THERE ARE PLANS FOR YOU
ALL TO GET LUNCH.
DID SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> YES.
I WAS GOING TO WAIT UNTIL WE
ENDED THE OPEN SESSION.
>> DO I USE THE GAVEL?
>> I MUST GAVEL IT CLOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE]