THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH US AS
WE WORKED OUT A FEW TECHNICAL
ISSUES, WHICH I THINK HAVE NOW
BEEN RESOLVED.
AND I'M PLEASED TO TURN THE
MEETING OVER TO OUR CHAIR,
DR. ANDREA HAYES DIXON.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, LARRY, AND
THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR
ATTENDING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
PARTICIPATING.
I KNOW WE ALL HAVE COMPETING
THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO, AND I
KNOW WE ALL HAVE AGREED THAT
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT, MAJOR AND
CRITICAL COMMITMENT FOR ALL OF
US.
I WANT TO THANK AHEAD OF TIME
DR. TABAK AND DR. BERTAGNOLLI.
SINCE WE LAST MET, WE'VE HAD A
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION AND WE
KNOW THAT WE WILL BE EXPECTING A
NEW ADMINISTRATION IN A WEEK OR
SO.
I WANT TO THANK DR. BERTAGNOLLI
IN ADVANCE.
I KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE HER
LAST MEETING WITH US.
I ALSO WANT TO JUST REMIND US OF
A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT SORT OF
SHOULD KEEP US TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
US AROUND THIS TABLE, AROUND
THIS VIRTUAL TABLE IS A
SCIENTIST, AND AS SCIENTISTS, I
THINK THAT WE ARE VERY COMMITTED
TO THREE VERY SPECIFIC THINGS:
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY, DISCOVERY,
AND PROGRESS.
AND THOSE THREE THINGS BIND US
AND IS A COMMONALITY THAT WILL
ALLOW US TO ACCOMPLISH THIS HUGE
TASK SUCCESSFULLY.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO IDENTIFY THAT
WE ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE AS SCIENTISTS FROM
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SCIENCE AND
MEDICINE, AND THOSE ARE REALLY
GOING TO STRENGTHEN US AND BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE AN OUTSTANDING
DOCUMENT AT THE END OF THIS TO
ACCOMPLISH OUR TASK.
SO I JUST WANTED TO START BY
SAYING THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO ALL OF US CONTINUING
TO WORK TOGETHER TO THIS REALLY
SIGNIFICANT GOAL.
>> BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE, WE WERE GOING TO HEAR
SOME COMMENTS FROM
DR. BERTAGNOLLI.
SO MONICA, WOULD YOU PLEASE MAKE
YOUR COMMENTS?
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, LARRY.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING
WE'RE ALSO ALL THINKING OF OUR
FRIENDS IN LOS ANGELES AND
HOPING FOR THE BEST IN THIS
TERRIBLE TIME THAT THEY'RE
HAVING.
AND WITH THAT, I'M SO GRATEFUL
THAT YOU'RE ALL HERE TO HELP US
WITH THIS VERY IMPORTANT
COMMITTEE.
WELCOME TO THE 29TH MEETING OF
THE NIH SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BOARD.
WE'RE MEETING JUST TWO MONTHS
AFTER WE CONVENED THIS NEW
GROUP, WHERE WE RE-LAUNCHED THE
BOARD WHICH WAS CREATED IN
CONGRESS IN 2006 TO ADVISE NIH
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES ON THE
ORGANIZATION OF NIH, ITS
INSTITUTES AND IT ITS CENTERS AD
ITS OFFICES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR.
YOUR MISSION IS TO RECOMMEND
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES THAT
COULD HELP NIH TO BETTER FULFILL
ITS MISSION OF SEEKING
FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
NATURE AND BEHAVIOR OF LIVING
SYSTEMS AND APPLYING THAT
KNOWLEDGE TO ENHANCE HEALTH,
LENGTHEN LIFE AND REDUCE
ILLNESS.
NIH IS A UNIQUE INSTITUTION IN
THE WORLD, GIVEN OUR SIZE AND
OUR REACH, WE CAN DO THINGS THAT
NO OTHER ENTITY CAN IN SUPPORT
OF RESEARCH TO IMPROVE HEALTH.
THIS INCREDIBLE AGENCY HAS A
RICH 138-YEAR HISTORY OF
SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
IN MY TIME AS DIRECTOR OF NIH
AND THEN BEFORE AS THE HEAD OF
NCI, I'VE SEEN THAT DESPITE THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO
DOZEN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS
THAT FOCUS ON SPECIFIC HEALTH
PROBLEMS OR SPECIFIC
DISCIPLINES: POPULATION, BODY
SYSTEMS.
THE DIRECTORS ACROSS THE
INSTITUTE WORK TOGETHER EVERY
DAY, ALONG WITH THE NIH DIRECTOR
AND THE OFFICE OF THE NIH
DIRECTOR, WHOSE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ALL COLLABORATE AND
ACT IN COORDINATION.
BUT THERE'S ANOTHER -- SO WE'RE
HERE, WE'RE HERE TO SERVE
SCIENCE AND OUR INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS DO THIS VERY POWERFULLY.
BUT AS RECIPIENTS OF PUBLIC
MONEY, AND THE PEOPLE WE SERVE
ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO USE OUR
FUNDING AS WISELY AS
PRODUCTIVELY AS POSSIBLE.
SO IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE
NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ANY
BENEFITS TO THESE CHANGES MAY
ALSO HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE THAT ILLUSTRATES A
SPECIFIC CONCERN IF THE BOARD
WERE TO RECOMMEND CHANGES IN THE
OVERALL NUMBER OF INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS OR HOW WE CLASSIFY OUR
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
AND THIS IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE
THAT AROSE DURING MY TENURE AS
NIH DIRECTOR.
HERE IT IS.
NIH HAS AN AMAZING HISTORY OF
RESEARCH IN WOMEN'S HEALTH.
WE HAVE AN OFFICE OF WOMEN'S
HEALTH RESEARCH WITHIN THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, AND
LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THE 27 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS OF
NIH CONDUCTS RESEARCH RELEVANT
TO WOMEN AND RELEVANT TO WOMEN'S
HEALTH.
NOW, I DON'T WANT TO PRETEND
THAT WE DO IT PERFECTLY.
NOTHING WE DO, THERE'S ALWAYS
TRADEOFFS AND BALANCES WE MADE
AND I AM THRILLED WITH THE
RECENT FOCUS OF THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION AND THE OFFICE OF
THE FIRST LADY ON HELPING US
AUGMENT OUR WORK IN WOMEN'S
HEALTH, BY TAKING A LOOK AND
FINDING OUT WHERE WE HAVE GAPS.
BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE NO ONE
INSTITUTE AND CENTER THAT HAS,
AMONG ITS NAME, RESEARCH FOR
WOMEN AND WOMEN'S HEALTH.
THIS IS A WAY OF ILLUSTRATING
WHAT I CONSIDER THE VALUE, AND I
KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT OUR
LAST MEETING, OF HAVING MANY
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS, OR AT
THE VERY MINIMUM, HAVING
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS THAT ARE
CLEARLY IDENTIFIED NOT ONLY TO
US, WE GET IT, WE CAN
COLLABORATE, BUT TO THE PEOPLE
WE SERVE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NIH ALSO
IS, PROFOUNDLY, WE'RE NOT JUST
HERE FOR THE SCIENTISTS.
WE'RE NOT JUST HERE FOR THE
RESEARCHERS.
WE NEED TO BE A VISIBLE
REPRESENTATIVE TO ALL THE PEOPLE
WE SERVE AND WE NEED TO PARTNER
WITH THE PEOPLE WE SERVE VERY
EFFECTIVELY.
TO PUT IT SIMPLY, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN USEFUL LAST YEAR HAD WE HAD
AN INSTITUTE THAT HAD BEEN THE
HOME OF WOMEN'S HEALTH RESEARCH.
NOT THAT THAT INSTITUTE WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONE DOING
THAT KIND OF WORK, BUT THAT
INSTITUTE COULD HAVE BEEN A
VISIBLE FRONT DOOR FOR THE
COMMUNITY THAT REALLY CARE ABOUT
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
SO ONE THING I WILL TAKE MAYBE
MY FINAL PRIVILEGE WITH YOU, I
HOPE, AS AN OUTGOING DIRECTOR TO
SAY THAT IF I WERE TO SERVE ON
THIS COMMITTEE, I WOULD ASK YOU
TO CONSIDER ONE THING FOR US AND
THAT IS AT A MINIMUM TO THINK
ABOUT ASKING CONGRESS, BECAUSE
ONLY CONGRESS CAN DO THIS, TO
RENAME OUR INSTITUTE FOR CHILD
HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT THE
EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER INSTITUTE
FOR CHILD HEALTH AND
DEVELOPMENT, AND RENAME THAT
GROUP SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH
THE AMAZING RESEARCH MISSION OF
THE SHRIVER INSTITUTE AND RENAME
IT INSTEAD "THE SHRIVER NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN,
AND DISABILITY RESEARCH."
JUST A THOUGHT.
BUT THE REASON I WANT TO GIVE
YOU THIS THOUGHT IS, IT ALSO
REPRESENTS SOMETHING THAT I
THINK -- SOME WAY, I THINK
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, MAYBE
EVEN SIMPLE AS A NAME CHANGE,
COULD REALLY HELP US MAKE SURE
WE HAVE OPEN DOORS FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO LOOK TO NIH
AND WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR
INVOLVEMENT -- VERY QUICKLY AND
VISIBLY, WHERE THEIR INVOLVEMENT
CAN FIT IN.
OKAY, SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, I
URGE ALL OF YOU IN YOUR
DELIBERATIONS ABOUT
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE THAT YOU
REMEMBER THAT THE PUBLIC ARE
PARTNERS IN OUR RESEARCH, AND WE
GARNER THEIR INVOLVEMENT, THEIR
INVESTMENT AND ABOVE ALL THEIR
TRUST IS REALLY CRITICAL.
SO WE WANT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SERVE SCIENCE AND EFFICIENCY
AND RESPONSIBILITY AND JUST --
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS SERVE OUR
PEOPLE.
THE BOARD HAS MANY TOPICS TO
CONSIDER AS YOU EVALUATE THE
STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED NEW
RECOMMENDATIONS, I'VE JUST
ILLUSTRATED ONE OF THEM,
INCLUDING REPORTS FROM OTHER
PRIOR SMRB MEETINGS AND
PROPOSALS FROM CONGRESS WHO
REALLY DOES HAVE THE FINAL WORD
IN WHAT YOU PROPOSE.
IT REMAINS CRITICAL FOR NIH TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT A WIDE RANGE
OF FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE, BUT ALSO
TO WORK TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
OTHER ASPECTS OF HEALTH SUCH AS
HOW HEALTH DELIVERY AND SOCIAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECT
HEALTH OUTCOMES.
THIS NEEDS TO ALSO -- I BELIEVE
IT IS TODAY BUT IT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE TO BE BUILT INTO OUR
DNA.
YOUR EFFORTS WILL BE SUPPORTED
BY A TALENTED NIH WORKFORCE WITH
A STRONG COMMITMENT TO HELPING
THE NATION SOLVE THE COMPLEX
SCIENTIFIC AND HEALTH CHALLENGES
THAT WE FACE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF
YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO
THIS VERY IMPORTANT PROCESS, AND
I THANK YOU AGAIN AND NOW CALL
ON DR. TABAK TO REVIEW PAST SMRB
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MONICA.
APPRECIATE THAT.
AND JUST BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO
THE PRESENTATIONS, WE'RE GOING
TO KEEP FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AT
A MINIMUM TODAY BECAUSE WE WANT
TO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR
DISCUSSION.
I DID WANT TO EXTEND A WARM
WELCOME TO SMRB MEMBER DR. GILDA
BARABINO WHO WASN'T ABLE TO JOIN
US FOR THE NOVEMBER MEETING BUT
IS ON TRAVEL TODAY AND HAS
JOINED US VIRTUALLY.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW
HER, DR. BEAR DR. BARABINO SERVE
OLIN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING IN
NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS AND DR
DR. REBECCA WONG HAS JOINED AS
AN AD HOC MEMBER WHILE HER
APPOINTMENT IS BEING FINALIZED,
SO WELCOME TO HER AS WELL.
SO WITH THAT, LET'S BEGIN WITH A
VERY BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PRIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN THE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AGAINST THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT YOU HAVE
A SENSE OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND
WHAT WE'VE DONE.
THE DELIVERY ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE AND EFFECTIVENESS AS YOU
KNOW WAS THE FIRST OF MANY
REPORTS ISSUED BY THIS BOARD AND
INDEED WE DID ESTABLISH THE
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS AND GUIDING
PRINCIPLES FOR SMRB ACTIONS AND
ONE OF THE THINGS ON THE
TABLE TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT WE
SHOULD CONTINUE USING THAT
FRAMEWORK OR IF INDIVIDUALS HAVE
ENHANCEMENTS/IMPROVEMENTS TO
MAKE, AND WE WILL DISCUSS THAT A
BIT LATER.
AT LEAST ONE MEMBER SENT A NOTE
TO THE GROUP LAST NIGHT
INDICATING THAT THEY FELT THAT
WE SHOULD JUST CONTINUE USING
THAT FRAMEWORK, BUT WE SHOULD,
OF COURSE, DISCUSS THAT
FORMALLY.
THERE WAS A REPORT ON SUBSTANCE
USE, ABUSE AND ADDICTION, IN
WHICH THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO
CREATE A NEW INSTITUTE SO THAT
ALL SUBSTANCE USE, ABUSE AND
ADDICTION-RELATED RESEARCH WOULD
BE IN ONE ORGANIZATION.
THIS WAS FUNCTIONALLY
IMPLEMENTED IN THE SENSE THAT
NIDA AND NIAAA HAVE JOINT
COUNCIL MEETINGS ONCE A YEAR,
AND THERE ARE OTHER SYNERGIES
THAT THEY HAVE CREATED AT THE
STAFF LEVEL, BUT THE ACTUAL
FORMAL COMBINATION INTO A SINGLE
INSTITUTE WAS SOMETHING THAT DID
NOT OCCUR.
THERE WAS A REPORT ON THE
CLINICAL CENTER, THERE HAS BEEN
A LONG-STANDING DISCUSSION ABOUT
HOW BEST TO FUND THE CLINICAL
CENTER.
ONE VIEW WAS TO HAVE THE
CLINICAL CENTER RECEIVE ITS OWN
LINE ITEM BUDGET.
THAT WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED, AGAIN,
FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS WHICH WE
CAN DISCUSS IF PEOPLE ARE
INTERESTED, AND -- BUT THE
REMAINING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THAT REPORT WERE INDEED
IMPLEMENTED OR ARE ONGOING,
PARTICULARLY THE LATTER POINT OF
PROVIDING STABLE, ADEQUATE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL VIABILITY AND
SUSTAINABILITY.
THERE WAS A REPORT ON
TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE AND
THERAPEUTICS WHERE THE
RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CREATE A
NEW CENTER, AND INDEED THAT WAS
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE
CREATION OF NCATS.
ANOTHER REPORT ON THE SBIR
PROGRAM SUGGESTED A VARIETY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE
OUTLINED HERE, ALL OF WHICH WERE
IMPLEMENTED.
THERE WAS A REPORT ON APPROACHES
TO ASSESSING THE VALUE OF
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.
AND THIS -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A
COMPLICATED THING, AND WE COULD
ALWAYS CONTINUE TO DO BETTER AND
BETTER AT IT.
BUT INDEED, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
MEET THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS
REPORT BOTH IN TERMS OF OUR
ABILITY TO CAPTURE AND
COMMUNICATE NIH'S VALUE AND
USING COORDINATED AND SYSTEMATIC
APPROACHES IN SELECTING STUDY
TOPICS.
BUT AGAIN, BY DEFINITION, THAT'S
HOW SCIENCE IS DONE SO IT'S AN
ONGOING PROCESS.
THEN THE FINAL TWO REPORTS FROM
THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THIS
BOARD WAS THE PRE-COLLEGE
ENGAGEMENT IN BIOMEDICAL SCIE
SCIENCES.
NIH HAS HISTORICALLY NOT DONE A
GREAT DEAL OF PRE-COLLEGE WORK.
NIGMS HAS DONE THE YEOMAN'S
SHARE OF THAT, ALTHOUGH OTHER
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS HAVE
PARTICIPATED A BIT, AND WE HAVE
IMPLEMENTED THIS AND INDEED IN
RECENT DAYS HAVE EXPANDED BEYOND
JUST THE NIGMS SUPPORT, ALTHOUGH
THEY DO CONTINUE TO BE THE
LEADERS IN THIS EFFORT.
AND THEN THE FINAL REPORT ISSUED
IN JULY OF 2015 ON GRANT REVIEW
AWARD AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS,
THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WERE LISTED IN THAT REPORT HAVE
BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT AGAIN, AN
ONGOING EFFORT AS WE ARE ABLE TO
USE MORE AND MORE TOOLS, SO FOR
EXAMPLE, WE ARE NOW ABLE TO USE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO
ENHANCE SOME OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES THAT WE DO
AND, OF COURSE, BACK IN 2015, WE
DIDN'T FORESHADOW THAT
POSSIBILITY, GIVEN THE RAPIDITY
WITH WHICH THOSE TOOLS HAVE COME
ON THE SCENE.
BUT WE DO CONTINUE TO ITERATE
AND IMPROVE THESE PROCESSES.
SO I'M GOING TO STOP THERE WITH
THAT VERY HIGH LEVEL
OVERVIEW/SUMMARY.
I HOPE THAT AT LEAST THE GROUP
HAD A CHANCE TO READ IN SOME
DETAIL THE REPORT ON
DELIBERATING ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE AND EFFECTIVENESS, WHICH
WAS THE FIRST REPORT, BUT
OBVIOUSLY WE SHOULD OPEN THE
FLOOR NOW FOR DISCUSSION ON ANY
OF THE REPORTS OR ANY OTHER
TOPICS THAT FOLKS WANT TO RAISE
RELATED TO THIS PART OF THE
MEETING.
SO COULD WE HAVE BACK THE
HOLLYWOOD SQUARES SO EVERYBODY
CAN SEE EVERYBODY?
>> THANK YOU, LARRY.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR
DISCUSSION AND REALLY WE WANT TO
HEAR FROM MOST IF NOT ALL OF
YOU, SO I'LL JUST ENCOURAGE
ANYONE TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK UP.
USE THE HAND RAISE FUNCTION SO
WE CAN RECOGNIZE FOLKS IN ORDER.
LINDSEY?
>> YEAH, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
SUMMARY.
AND I GUESS IT WAS VERY USEFUL
READING THE INITIAL REPORT ABOUT
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, ET
CETERA.
WITH RESPECT TO THE MORE FOCUSED
REPORTS, I WONDER WHETHER THERE
WERE ANY LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH
THAT PROCESS, PERHAPS
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE
AND WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED OR NOT
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, I WONDER
WHETHER ANY LESSONS THAT WE CAN
CONSIDER AS WE START TO
DELIBERATE POTENTIAL CHANGES.
AND I GUESS THIS WOULD BE FOR
THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE INVOLVED
PREVIOUSLY.
>> YEAH, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
ONE THAT WE DIDN'T IMPLEMENT WAS
THE PROPOSED MERGER OF NIDA AND
AAA.
AND ULTIMATELY THE CONGRESS
DIDN'T SUPPORT THAT MERGER.
AND SO I THINK GOING FORWARD,
WHEN CONTEMPLATING APPROACHES OF
THAT NATURE, WE NEED TO DO -- WE
WOULD NEED TO DO A MORE
EFFECTIVE JOB IN COMMUNICATING
WITH CONGRESS AND OF COURSE
LISTEN TO THEIR FEEDBACK,
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, AS
YOU ALL KNOW, FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGES OF THAT MAGNITUDE, IT
REQUIRES CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
>> LARRY, WAS THERE ANYTHING
ELSE THAT THEY REJECTED FROM THE
2010 RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> THAT WAS THE MAIN
RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY -- THAT
WAS THE MAIN RECOMMENDATION THAT
WE MADE DURING THE FIRST
ITERATION THAT THEY DID NOT
APPROVE.
I DON'T RECALL OTHERS BUT THERE
ARE OTHER MEMBERS ON THE
COMMITTEE, PARTICULARLY GRIFF
RODGERS, WHO MAY REMEMBER IF
THERE WERE OTHER EXAMPLES.
IS GRIFF WITH US THIS MORNING?
>> I SAW HIM ON HERE, YES.
I DO APPRECIATE LINDSEY'S
QUESTION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
TO MAKE THE SAME ERRORS THIS
TIME IF THERE'S ANY LESSONS
LEARNED.
OR RESPONSES THAT THEY WERE, YOU
KNOW, RECEIVED IN A NEGATIVE
WAY, PERHAPS.
>> GO AHEAD, GRIFF.
>> JUST A WORD.
I AGREE TOTALLY WITH DR. TABAK'S
COMMENTS.
I THINK IN ESSENCE, THEY WERE
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WHOLE
CONCEPT OF DELIBERATING AND SORT
OF THINKING OF THE PROS AND CONS
AND THE NEED TO EFFECT THESE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES.
BUT ON THE ISSUE SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THE MERGER, IT WAS AN
ISSUE THAT I THINK IN HINDSIGHT,
SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE MEMBERS
WHO GAVE US THE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND
MOVE FORWARD, GETTING AN
APPRECIATION OF WHETHER THEY
THOUGHT WE DID A THOROUGH SWOT
ANALYSIS OF PARTICULARLY SOME OF
THE DOWNSIDE ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS, PARTICULARLY UNANTICIPATED
EFFECTS OF THESE CHANGES,
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SERVED US
BETTER RETROSPECTIVELY AND
PROBABLY PROSPECTIVELY, IT WOULD
BE GOOD TO GET SORT OF A
SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, THE
TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM IN THAT
REGARD.
>> YEAH, I HAVE TO SAY, AS THE
PERSON WHO LED THE EFFORT TO DO
THIS ON BHOOF BEHALF OF NIH, I K
WE CONSIDERED THE PROS AND CONS,
AND THERE WERE MANY OF EACH.
THERE WERE MANY OF EACH.
ANY OF YOU WHO ARE AT ACADEMIC
HEALTH CENTERS KNOW WHAT CHANGE
BEGETS IN TERMS OF REQUIREMENTS
TO WORK WITH STAFF AND SO FORTH,
AND WHEN YOU THEN SUPERIMPOSE
SOME OF THE RULES THAT WE HAVE
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR FOR
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE AT STATE
INSTITUTIONS, YOU PROBABLY HAVE
A GOOD SAMPLING OF THIS AS WELL,
AND I DO THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE
TO ARTICULATE SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THE GROUP
DECIDED, YOU KNOW, TO GO FORWARD
WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO
EFFECT THE MERGER.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO UNDERSCORE
WHAT DR. RODGERS SAID, ANYTHING
OF THAT TYPE GOING FORWARD, WE
WOULD HAVE TO DO AN EVEN BETTER
JOB OF DOING A PRE-COMMUNICATION
WITH THE CONGRESS, JUST TO TAKE
THEIR TEMPERATURE AS IT WAS, AS
WAS SAID.
>> ALLISON AND THEN DEBORAH AND
THEN MICHAEL.
>> SO MY COMMENT WAS FOLLOWING
UP WHAT LARRY SAID AND SUCH.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE
AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAD GONE ON
BACK WITH THE PRIOR BOARD, AND I
THINK ONE WONDERS WHETHER THE
CURRENT ARTICLES THAT WE READ,
WHETHER THEY HAD ANY KIND OF
INSIGHTS INTO ALL THE WORK THAT
WENT ON AND SO I WOULD JUST
STRESS THE POINT ABOUT
COMMUNICATION AND BUY-IN AS WE
GO FORWARD.
I THINK THAT'S CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT.
I ALSO REALLY ENDORSE THE GREEN
PAPER, THE REPORT ON
DELIBERATING ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE AND EFFECTIVENESS, FROM
AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS
SPOT-ON, AND TALKED ABOUT HOW
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THE
COMMUNICATION PIECE IS.
SO THANKS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT
COMMENT.
DEBARA?
>> DEBARA, DEB, THANK YOU.
SO IN THINKING ABOUT THE PRIOR
REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE,
THIS IS A REAL WIDE RANGE OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TOPICS, NOT
ONLY DEALING WITH SORT OF
HARDSCAPE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE,
BUT ALSO PROCESS CHANGE AND
FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION AS WAS
POINTED OUT IN THE GREEN REPORT.
SO I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE US
TO ALSO THINK ABOUT THAT AND
THINK ABOUT WAYS THAT WE AT NIH
CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE
RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE.
HOW, PERHAPS, WE COULD
COLLABORATE BETTER.
WE THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY,
MANY EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATION
ACROSS OUR INSTITUTES, BUT COULD
IT BE BETTER AND COULD OUR
OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE
WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES BE
BETTER?
I THINK THAT THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS AS
WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, I AGREE, THAT
COLLABORATION PIECE IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
MIKE, MICHAEL?
>> ANDREA, THANKS.
FIRST OF ALL, COMPLETELY AGREE
WITH WHAT DEB JUST SAID ABOUT
LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DO THINGS
BETTER AND THINKING ABOUT
COLLABORATION.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD SAY, I
REALLY LIKED THE GREEN REPORT.
IT WAS -- I THOUGHT,
THOUGHTFULLY DONE AND REALLY
PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE.
I WOULD MAKE A PLUG TO INCLUDE
SOME OF THE SPIRIT THAT MONICA
MENTIONED AT THE VERY BEGINNING,
THAT AS I REFLECT ON THIS, ONE
THING THAT HAS REALLY STRUCK ME
IN THE FOUR YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
HERE IS THE PURPOSE THAT WE
EXIST IS TO SERVE THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC, AND HOW WE CAN GET THAT
SPIRIT IN THE REPORT THAT WE ARE
THAT -- YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF
WAYS, THAT ORGANIZATION THAT
FACES THEM WHEN THEY HAVE, FOR
EXAMPLE, HEALTH PROBLEMS,
WHATEVER DIFFERENT TYPE, AND
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE
THAT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM.
AS I LOOK AT HOW OUR
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IS,
SEVERAL OF US WHO ARE NIH
DIRECTORS HAVE INSTITUTES THAT
ARE DISEASE-FOCUSED AND OTHERS
HAVE INSTITUTES THAT ARE MORE
METHODOLOGY-FOCUSED, YOU KNOW,
FOR EXAMPLE, DEB IS HEARING, AND
I'M EYES, AND THERE'S A NATIONAL
LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, GENOMICS
RESEARCH, AND TO ME,
COLLABORATIONS OFTEN OCCUR WHEN
METHODOLOGIES INTERSECT WITH
DISEASES.
AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE
REAL STRENGTHS THAT I LIKE ABOUT
THIS, HOW OFTEN WE COLLABORATE
FROM DISEASE TO METHODOLOGY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE A
PLUG AS WE DELIBERATE MORE ABOUT
HOW WE CAN LOOK AT OUR, PERHAPS,
FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE TO TRY TO FACILITATE
THOSE METHODOLOGY DISEASE
COLLABORATIONS.
I THINK THERE'S A TON TO GAIN
FROM THAT.
SO THANKS.
>> YES.
GREAT COMMENTS.
LISA?
>> YEAH, I WAS PROBABLY THE ONE
THAT LARRY WAS REFERRING TO
MAYBE THAT ENDORSED THE
DOCUMENT.
I AGREE THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS
PRETTY WELL LAID OUT IN TERMS
OF -- MADE A DIFFERENCE TO ME IN
THE APPROACH TO THIS.
BUT THEN I ALSO AGREE WITH THE
POINT, WHY DIDN'T IT QUITE WORK
WHEN IT WAS APPLIED TO THE ONE
MERGER THAT WENT THROUGH THIS
PROCESS AND THEN DIDN'T ACTUALLY
END UP HAPPENING, SO I DO THINK
MAYBE SOME TWEAKING AND TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT MAYBE IT'S
COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS OR
WHATEVER TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND
THAT MORE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I GUESS I'LL MAKE THE
COMMENT FOR MYSELF, I THOUGHT
THE DOCUMENT ALSO DID A PRETTY
GOOD JOB OF POINTING OUT THAT
WHEN YOU MAKE THESE KINDS OF --
IF THEY'RE VERY LARGE CHANGES,
THEY CAN CREATE MORE HAVOC THAN
YOU EVER INTENDED, AND SO REALLY
HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ALSO
UNDERSTANDING THE POST HOC
ALMOST EFFECTS OF THAT CHANGE
AND THE STAFF AND I THINK THAT'S
BEEN BROUGHT UP AND THE MANY
PEOPLE THAT IT WILL AFFECT.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE
TAKEN LIGHTLY, AND I THOUGHT THE
REPORT DID A GOOD JOB OF FRAMING
THAT.
>> YES, YES, THANK YOU.
I AGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS AS
WELL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
BEFORE DR. TABAK STARTS AGAIN?
>> OKAY.
WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE
TRANSITIONED INTO -- OH, I'M
SORRY, GILDA, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
IT JUST TOOK ME A MOMENT TO FIND
MY RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE COMMENTS
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE
ABOUT THE FRAMING AND PROCESS
AND HOW GOOD IT WAS DONE IN THE
REPORT.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT CULTURE,
AND THE CULTURAL ASPECTS.
AND WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT
ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGES, I THINK MANY TIMES WE
FORGET ABOUT THE CULTURE AND HOW
THE CULTURE INFORMS CHANGE, AND
JUST CREATING STRUCTURES ALONE
WILL START TO CREATE A CULTURE,
BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME
INTENTIONALITY AND SOME
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW CULTURE IS
IMPACTING WHATEVER STRUCTURE YOU
HAVE PRESENT.
AND IT DID STAND OUT TO ME THAT
THERE WAS SOME GUIDING
PRINCIPLES THAT WERE LISTED FOR
THE FRAMEWORK, AND SO I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO GET A BETTER SENSE
OF HOW THE NIH CULTURE FACTORS
IN ON THAT.
>> I THINK THAT CULTURE COMMENT
IS IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD
INCLUDE THAT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS
AS WE LOOK TOWARDS FORMING THIS
DOCUMENT, TO MAKE SURE WE
INCLUDE THAT CULTURE.
AND THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MEMBERS
ON THE COMMITTEE WHO HAVE BEEN
IN THAT NIH CULTURE FOR YEARS,
AND SO THAT WOULD BE -- THEIR
COMMENTS WILL BE HELPFUL IN THAT
PART OF THE DISCUSSION, I
BELIEVE.
MARK?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION.
BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE LEAVING
OUT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, SO I'M
REMINDED OF THE RECENT ELECTION
CYCLE WHERE MANY VOTERS FELT
THAT THE ONLY TIME THEY WERE
SPOKEN TO WAS DURING THE
ELECTION CYCLE.
AND THEN IN THE INTERVENING
THREE YEARS, THEY WERE IGNORED.
I THINK THAT BRINGING UP
PROPOSALS TO CONGRESS AND TRYING
TO GET THEM ON BOARD TO ENDORSE
THAT SPECIFIC PROPOSAL LEAVES
OUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSTANTLY EDUCATE CONGRESS AND
THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT NIH DOES,
WHAT IT MIGHT DO, WHAT IT MIGHT
DO BETTER, AND PAVE THE WAY FOR
BETTER DIALOGUE, NOT ONLY
BETWEEN CONGRESS AND NIH, BUT
BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND NIH.
AND YOU KNOW, IN THE BEST OF ALL
POSSIBLE WORLDS, THE CONGRESS IS
RESPONSIVE TO THE PUBLIC.
THE MORE THE PUBLIC KNOWS ABOUT
WHAT NIH DOES, THE MORE LIKELY
IT IS THAT NIH IS GOING TO BE
SUPPORTED BY CONGRESS.
SO I SEE THIS AS A POLITICAL
REALITY.
IT IS NOT TRADITIONALLY WHAT NIH
DOES, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO
ME.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THERE'S
AN OBLIGATION TO DISSEMINATE
SCIENCE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO
LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT
THEIR CONCERNS ARE, WHAT THEIR
NEEDS ARE, WHAT THEIR
PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR HEALTHCARE
NEEDS ARE THAT ARE NOT BEING
MET.
AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT.
AND THIS DIALOGUE HAS TO BE
ONGOING.
SO SOMEHOW, I THINK WE NEED TO
CONSIDER HOW WE WOULD BUILD THIS
IN TO THE NIH FRAMEWORK, IF YOU
WILL.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT
PARTICULARLY ANTICIPATING A MORE
CHALLENGING POLITICAL CLIMATE
OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, I
THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY
DIFFICULT TIME MAKING THE CASE
FOR ANY LOGICAL CHANGES, THE
CHANGES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON
US MAY BE DISTASTEFUL AND
DESTRUCTIVE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
I THINK THAT THAT CAME OUT IN
THE DOCUMENT FROM 2010, BUT I
THINK THAT PROVIDING -- IT
SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
IS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FIGURE OUT SORT OF A -- I WON'T
SAY STRUCTURE BUT AN INTENTIONAL
WAY OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE
PUBLIC.
REMEMBERING ALSO -- WHAT THAT
BRINGS TO MIND TO ME IS THE
CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS WHO WROTE
THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE REVIEWED
LAST TIME ARE ALSO PART OF THE
PUBLIC, AND WE WERE ALL VERY
SURPRISED BY THE QUESTIONS THAT
THEY POSED AND THE CONCERNS THAT
THEY HAD.
AND I THINK THAT REFLECTS THAT
WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING WELL
WITH THE PUBLIC ON WHAT THE NIH
IS DOING.
SO I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY
REQUIRED OF US TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT ON HOW THAT
SHOULD LOOK.
OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
LARRY, YOU HAD A FEW MORE
SLIDES?
>> WELL, YES, I THINK THERE'S
ACTUALLY ONLY ONE MORE, SO IF WE
CAN GO TO THAT.
YES, NEXT, PLEASE.
SO I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY
ALREADY HAD MUCH OF THIS
DISCUSSION.
THIS JUST OUTLINES THE FRAMEWORK
FROM THAT ORIGINAL REPORT, AND
SO REALLY THE QUESTION TO PUT ON
THE TABLE IS DOES ANYBODY WANT
TO SPEAK AGAINST USING THIS
FRAMEWORK, CONTINUING TO USE IT,
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO AMEND THE
FRAMEWORK IN SOME WAY, OR ARE WE
SATISFIED WITH THIS PARTICULAR
FRAMEWORK, AND OF COURSE ALWAYS
HAVE THE OPTION OF REVISITING
AMENDMENT IF ALONG THE WAY
DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE
REALIZE THAT SOMETHING IS
LACKING.
BUT AT THE MOMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE
THE GROUP IS IN FAVOR OF
CONTINUING WITH THIS FRAMEWORK.
BUT THE GROUP NEEDS TO WEIGH IN
NOW.
SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE
ONLY THING TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
>> I THINK SO.
AND SO YOU'VE OUTLINED HERE ON
THIS SLIDE THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES AS WERE IN THE
PREVIOUS DOCUMENT, THE STEPS AND
CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT AND THE UNDERPINNING
ATTRIBUTES.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES, STRENGTHEN ABILITY
OF NIH TO CARRY OUT ITS MISSION,
PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR
COLLABORATION, COORDINATION AND
INTERACTION, BRING TOGETHER
SYNERGIES, ENHANCE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDING, CONFIDENCE AND
SUPPORT, AND INCREASE
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY, I THINK
IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, WE
TOUCHED ON MANY OF THOSE.
I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS PEOPLE
AGREED WITH THEM BUT WHAT I
WOULD LIKE THE GROUP TO ASK
THEMSELVES IS, ARE THERE ANY
THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ADD TO
THESE GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT
YOU FEEL ARE MISSING THAT WE
SHOULD ADDRESS ON THIS
ITERATION?
IS THERE ANYTHING -- I THINK WE
ALL WOULD AGREE THAT
TRANSPARENCY, KEUNCATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE THE
UNDERPINNINGS, BUT AGAIN, IS
THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD ADD TO
THOSE UNDERPINNING ATTRIBUTES,
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD ADD
TO TH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES?
ARE WE BACK ON THE HOLLYWOOD
SQUARES VERSION?
OKAY, MARK, AND THEN DEBARA.
>> MARK, DEB AND ALLISON ARE
CUED UP.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES COULD BE SIMPLIFIED A
LITTLE BIT.
YOU PULLED DOWN THE SLIDE BUT I
THINK THE BULLET ABOUT SYNERGIES
IS REALLY IMPLICIT IN THE
PREVIOUS BULLET.
ABOUT BRINGING INSTITUTES
TOGETHER, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY TO HAVE A SEPARATE
LINE ITEM FOR THAT.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ADD
SOMETHING TO THE COMMUNICATION
PIECE.
SO YES, NIH SHOULD PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, BUT I
THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A FORMAL
WAY TO LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, OR
I SUGGEST THAT WE TRY TO BUILD
THAT IN IF PEOPLE AGREE.
>> AND WHEN YOU SAY FORMAL WAY
TO LISTEN, YOU MEAN A
COMMUNICATION OUTLET THAT WOULD
ALLOW COMMUNICATION --
>> RIGHT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE NIH
SUPPORTED INVESTIGATORS IN EVERY
STATE OF THE UNION, AND IN EVERY
TERRITORY, AND PART OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY AS NIH
INVESTIGATORS MIGHT BE TO INVITE
THE PUBLIC IN FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THAT DISCUSSION, THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THAT DISCUSSION
SHOULD BE RECORDED, SHARED,
DISSECTED, UNDERSTOOD, SO THAT
WE GET A BETTER CHANCE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AT
STREET LEVEL.
>> RIGHT.
OKAY.
I UNDERSTAND.
DEBARA?
>> YES, THIS RELATES TO
SOMETHING THAT I MENTIONED
EARLIER, AND I DON'T KNOW IF
THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF BEING
A GAIDI GUIDING PRINCIPLE.
SO I THINK THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE SORT OF
HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE THAT'S
RELATED TO HEALTH, THE FDA, THE
CDC, THE WHOLE GROUP OF AGENCIES
THAT ARE RELATED TO HEALTH COULD
BENEFIT FROM WORKING TOGETHER
BETTER AND INTEGRATING WHAT
WE'RE DOING BETTER.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PART
OF SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD
CONSIDER HERE.
AND I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT FOR
COMMENT.
>> I THINK THAT IS IN ONE OF THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THE
INTEGRATION -- LET ME GO BACK TO
THAT.
-- LIST.
BUT THAT IS PART OF THE -- I
CAN'T REMEMBER HOW IT'S WORDED
IN THERE, BUT THAT IS PART OF
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
>> OKAY.
LET'S SEE, WHO WAS NEXT?
>> ALLISON AND GRIFF NEXT.
>> I'LL FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MARK
SAID AND JUST SAY, INSERTING IN
THE FRAMEWORK, BIDIRECTIONAL
COMMUNICATION, SO WE PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC BUT WE
HEAR BACK FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT
THEIR CONCERNS.
>> DEFINITELY CRITICAL, YES.
>> YES, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> GRIFF AND THEN JONI.
>> I THINK I'M UNMUTED.
AGAIN, I REALLY DO LIKE THE DOCI
REPORT AND ITS GUIDING
PRINCIPLES.
THE ONE THING -- AND PERHAPS I'M
RIFFING OFF OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE
SAID, I'M JUST SAYING IT IN A
DIFFERENT WAY, IS THAT GIVING
THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC
HEALTH CHALLENGES, IS OF COURSE
PRUDENT TO SORT OF REVISIT THE
REPORT TO ENSURE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS REMAIN RELEVANT
AND IMPACTFUL.
AND YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN BEING
REACTIVE TO THINGS THAT MAY BE
PUT FORWARD TO US TO CONSIDER,
BEING MAYBE A LITTLE MORE
PREEMPTIVE IN THAT REGARD.
AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDING AN
ON-RAMP FOR AN IDEA THAT MONICA
MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING,
HAVING A FOCUS ON WOMEN'S HEALTH
AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THIS GROUP
MIGHT BE THE GROUP TO SORT OF
CONSIDER THAT.
THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS THAT SINCE THE
REPORT CAME OUT, THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF ADVANCEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGY.
THIS SORT OF ALIGNS WITH WHAT
DR. CHIANG SAID, ESPECIALLY IN
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE
LEARNING, GENE EDITING FOR
EXAMPLE.
THESE OBVIOUSLY WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE OUR
APPROACH TO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH,
SO MAKING SURE THAT THE NIH CAN
SORT OF FUNCTIONALLY ADAPT TO
THESE SHARED AREAS OF INTEREST
MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE MIGHT
CONSIDER SORT OF PREEMPTIVELY
ADDRESSING.
NOW BEFORE I CLOSE, DO I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT INVOLVED
IN AN AREA OF MISSION CREEP, AND
I KNOW THAT THE DIRECTOR AND THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NIH HAS AN
ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE DIRECTOR
AND A COUNCIL OF COUNCILS, SO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT -- THIS SUGGESTION
WOULDN'T BE ENCROACHING UPON
THEIR ADVISORY ROLE TO THE
DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY.
SO MAYBE I COULD ASK EITHER
MONICA OR LARRY TO COMMENT ON
THAT.
>> I CAN COMMENT QUICKLY, GRIFF.
I THINK IT'S A VERY, VERY GOOD
COMMENT FOR THIS GROUP, AND I
THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME
CROSSTALK BETWEEN THESE TWO
COMMITTEES ANYWAY AND THAT'S
VERY IMPORTANT.
THE SCIENTIFIC GOALS ARE MORE
THE PROVINCE OF THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR, BUT
ONCE THOSE ARE ARTICULATED, THE
EXECUTION CONCERNS ARE -- THERE
REALLY HAS TO BE CROSSTALK
BETWEEN THE TWO.
I THINK THIS IS A CRITICAL
POINT.
>> THANKS.
>> JONI?
>> DOUBLE DOWN OR MAYBE EVEN
TRIPLE DOWN ON SOME POINTS THAT
WERE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED BUT I
WANTED TO UNDERSCORE THEM A BIT
MORE TOO, IN THIS IDEA THAT I
THINK THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
MIGHT HELP WITH A LITTLE BIT
MORE FOCUS ON BEING
FORWARD-LOOKING, AND THINKING
ABOUT HOW IN TERMS OF A VERY
FAST-MOVING SET OF AREAS THAT
GRIFF JUST ARTICULATED, FOR
EXAMPLE, TO FOSTER ADAPTABILITY,
INNOVATION, AND ANTICIPATE AND
ADDRESSEE MERGING SCIENTIFIC
AREAS.
I THINK BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE
CONCRETE IN HOW WE CAN
STRENGTHEN THE ABILITY OF NIH TO
CARRY OUT ITS MISSION, FOR
EXAMPLE, USING THAT KIND OF
FORWARD-LOOKING FRAMEWORK MIGHT
HELP KIND OF FOCUS THOSE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES.
I THINK THE ONLY OTHER -- MAYBE
NOT THE ONLY BUT ONE OTHER AREA
THAT I KIND OF SAW NOT QUITE
ADDRESSED IN THEM IS THE IDEA OF
HOW WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING THE
NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE ACTION AS
WELL, AND SO SORT OF ENSURING
THAT WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE
PRACTICES IN RESOURCE
ALLOCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
RESEARCH TO SUPPORT LONG TERM
BIOMEDICAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC
HEALTH GOALS IN THIS WAY I THINK
COULD ALSO SORT OF BE A POINT
THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF
INCREASING THAT OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCY.
IT HARD TO REALLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT
REALLY THAT MEANS, SO PUTTING A
LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT AROUND
THAT COULD BE HELPFUL IN
THINKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THESE AREAS FOR
GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT BEING
FORWARD-LOOKING BUT ALSO BEING
QUITE SUSTAINABLE IN HOW WE CAN
IMPLEMENT THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.
WE SHOULD ADD -- MAKE SURE THAT
THE FORWARD-THINKING AND
SUSTAINABILITY IS IN THERE.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
MICHAEL?
>> ANDREA, I WOULD DEFINITELY
SUGGEST VERSION TWO OF THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IF WE SAY
SOMETHING UP FRONT TO EMPHASIZE
HOW WE EXIST TO SERVE THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THE
RESEARCH AND HOW IT AFFECTS
THEM, JUST SORT OF THE POINT
THAT ALLISON MADE ABOUT
BIDIRECTIONALITY, I THINK IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND MAYBE
PUTTING THAT IN THE FIRST -- UP
NEAR THE FRONT SOMEWHERE.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT JONI
SAID ABOUT BEING FORWARD
THINKING, WHAT GRIFF SAID
BEFORE.
I THINK ONE THING THAT WE HEAR A
LOT MORE NOW THAT WE DIDN'T
NECESSARILY 10 IN 2010 WAS TEAM
SCIENCE, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE
WORTH GETTING SOME OF THAT
SPIRIT IN THERE.
AND JUST THAT OVERALL SENSE OF
LEADERSHIP AND THAT WE CAN HELP
DIRECT WHERE THE PUCK IS GOING.
AND JUST IN TERMS OF
COMMUNICATION, I REALLY
APPRECIATED LITION E LISTENING T
MARK SAID.
I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES TO
ME IN TERMS OF INTERFACING WITH
THE PUBLIC IS THAT ONE OF THE
GAPS IS THAT MOST OF THE
RESEARCH OCCURS IN UNIVERSITIES
AND IS DELIVERED BY CLINICIANS
FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T DO MOST
OF THAT HERE IN BETHESDA.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP,
WELL, WHAT DOES NIH DO, AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY INCUMBENT UPON
US TO HELP COMMUNICATE THAT WITH
THE PUBLIC, THAT THOSE THINGS
CAN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT WHAT
HAPPENS IN BETHESDA, EVEN IF
IT'S NOT US WHO'S DELIVERING
THOSE TO THEM.
AND MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- AT A COMPANY
LIKE NVIDIA, SAME THING, THAT
COMPUTING AND A.I. CAN'T EXIST
WITHOUT NVIDIA BUT THEY DON'T DO
MOST OF THAT, THEY PROVIDE THE
ENGINE THAT HELPS TO DO IT.
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT GIVE US A
LITTLE BIT OF LESSONS MAYBE
ABOUT HOW WE CAN HELP BRIDGE
THAT GAP.
>> YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY
RIGHT ABOUT THAT, MICHAEL,
BECAUSE IF YOU RECALL WHEN WE
WERE REVIEWING THE COMMENTS FROM
THE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS,
THAT ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS
ASKING WHY THERE'S SO MANY
DIFFERENT INSTITUTES WHEN
THERE'S SORT OF ONE HUMAN BODY
TYPE OF THING.
SO WE CLEARLY ARE NOT DOING A
GOOD JOB COMMUNICATING THAT TEAM
SISCIENCE IS CENTRAL TO WHAT WE
DO, AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE
ARE DIFFERENT INSTITUTES, THAT
THERE'S TEAM SCIENCE GOING ON
THAT HELPS BRIDGE THESE GAPS, I
THINK THAT'S A POINT THAT THEY
WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING BASED
ON THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.
LINDSEY?
>> YES, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE,
UNDERSTANDABLY WE'RE HEARING A
LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT
COMMUNICATION, AND I'M REMINDED
THAT THE NIH HAS DEVOTED A LOT
OF TIME AND EFFORT RECENTLY TO
DEVELOPING A NEW COMMUNICATION
PLAN.
I THINK IN PART MOTIVATED AND
INSPIRED BY THE PANDEMIC.
SO IN TERMS OF OUR PROCESS,
SINCE THIS I MERGING IS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC, I HOPE WE'LL
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS
GROUP TO HEAR ABOUT THOSE PLANS,
AND IT WILL GIVE US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REACT TO OR
RESPOND TO SUPPORT, ET CETERA,
AND THAT KIND OF RELATES TO THIS
ISSUE OF WHAT SORT OF
INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE TO
REVIEW.
SO I HOPE THAT WE'LL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT THE
CURRENT PLANS ARE MOVING FORWARD
FOR NIH COMMUNICATIONS SINCE
THIS IS EMERGING AS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR US.
>> DR. TABAK, LARRY, WILL THAT
BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO HEAR ABOUT
THOSE THINGS THAT ARE --
>> OH, YES, OF COURSE.
IT TRANSPIRES THAT OUR
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR IS ON
LEAVE TODAY, BUT CERTAINLY FOR
THE NEXT MEETING, IF THAT SUITS
THE GROUP, WE CAN ARRANGE TO
HAVE RANONA MYLES SPEAK TO THE
GROUP AND HAVE A DIALOGUE,
ABSOLUTELY.
>> OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND HOW WE
MIGHT MODIFY THEM IN THIS
ITERATION?
OKAY.
MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK TO THE
SLIDES.
SO I THINK WE'VE SORT OF GONE
THROUGH SOME OF THIS ALREADY,
BUT I THOUGHT OUR GOALS FOR
TODAY WERE TO ASK AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SMRB BEFORE,
WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DONE.
AGREE ON THE PRINCIPLES TO
FOLLOW, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY
DONE.
AND NEXT, AGREE ON WHAT DATA WE
NEED FROM DR. TABAK AND THE TEAM
IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN IN THAT DISCUSSION,
DEFINE THE SUBCOMMITTEES, HOW
MANY WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO
NEED, WHO WE'RE GOING TO LEAD,
ARE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS NEED, ET
CETERA.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE'LL SPEND THE
MAJORITY OF THE REMAINDER OF THE
TIME TRYING TO AGREE ON WHAT
DATA WE NEED AND WHAT QUESTIONS
WE NEED TO ASK SO WE CAN HAVE A
CONSISTENT PROCESS FOR THE
EVALUATION OF THE 27 CENTERS.
SO DR. TABAK OUTLINED IN THE
EMAIL, I JUST COPIED AND PASTED
THE THREE BULLETS AND TOPICS FOR
CONSIDERATION: THE OVERSIGHT
ISSUES, THE NIH STRUCTURE AND
LEADERSHIP, AND INNOVATION.
AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS
SOMEWHAT ALREADY, IMPROVING THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT AND PROTECTION OF
WHISTLEBLOWERS, UPDATING,
COMMUNICATING AND IMPLEMENTING
COI POLICIES, EXPLORE OPTIONS TO
BALANCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
WITH TRULY MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT
TOOLS, AND HAVING THE NIH
RESTORE THE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
THE SECOND SORT OF BIG BUCKET OF
TOPICS IS THE NIH STRUCTURE AND
LEADERSHIP, FIGURING OUT HOW WE
MIGHT TO MINIMIZE A DEUBLCATION
AND REDUNDANT INFRASTRUCTURE
AMONG THE CENTERS.
TERM LIMITS MAY BE A TOPIC OF
DISCUSSION.
ELIMINATING SILOS BETWEEN THE
CENTERS AND REQUIRING ANY NIH
REPORTS.
UNDER INNOVATION, ANALYSIS OF
NIH INTERNAL DATA THAT COULD
HELP THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY, THE
POLICYMAKERS, THE STAKEHOLDERS
UNDERSTAND HOW TO BALANCE THESE
COMPETING INTERESTS WITH
TARGETED VERSUS INVESTIGATOR
INITIATED RESEARCH, AND I THINK
I WOULD ADD THERE THE
COMMUNICATION OF SUCH.
AND TO ENCOURAGE REPLICATION
STUDIES AND/OR ENCOURAGE THE
VOLUNTARY SHARING OF NEGATIVE
RESULTS.
SO WITH THESE TOPICS FOR
CONSIDERATION IN MIND, THESE ARE
LARRY'S SUMMARY BASED ON WHAT WE
HAD -- QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED
FROM THE CONGRESS AND SENATE, I
THINK WE SHOULD GO THROUGH AND
DISCUSS WHAT -- FIRST OF ALL --
IS THERE A NEXT SLIDE?
I THINK THERE MIGHT BE ONE MORE
SLIDE.
IF NOT, WE'LL JUST GO TO THE
OTHER VIEW.
>> THAT WAS THE FINAL SLIDE.
>> OKAY.
SO WE'LL JUST GO TO THE OTHER
VIEW.
SO I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO
NOW IS REALLY HEAR FROM YOU
AGAIN ON WHAT DATA DO WE NEED TO
MAKE THESE DECISIONS AND PUT
THIS REPORT TOGETHER, BUT ONE OF
THE FIRST QUESTIONS, AND I THINK
WE'VE ALREADY AGREED THAT WE'RE
GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO LOOK
AT ALL 27 CENTERS, AND THEN THE
QUESTION IS, WHICH QUESTIONS DO
WE NEED TO ASK OF EACH CENTER.
AND LARRY MENTIONED THAT WE
MIGHT THINK OF GROUPING THE
CENTERS INTO LARGE, MEDIUM AND
SMALL AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE
CENTERS.
IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TASK A
LITTLE MORE TIME-EFFICIENT.
SO I WILL ASK IF WE COULD START
TO TALK ABOUT WHAT DATA WE NEED
AND WHAT QUESTIONS WE NEED TO
ASK SO WE CAN HAVE A LIST OF
QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN
CONSISTENTLY ASK FOR EACH CENTER
IN ORDER TO GET THE DATA WE NEED
TO MAKE THE DECISIONS BASED ON
THE REPORT THAT WE NEED TO
GENERATE.
>> IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT ONE
THING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
DISCUSS YESTERDAY, FOR SOME OF
THESE TOPICS, THESE ARE
FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
NOT REALLY RUN AT THE CENTER OR
INSTITUTE LEVEL.
BUT REALLY ARE RUN ACROSS THE
AGENCY.
SO THINGS LIKE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST POLICIES, THINGS LIKE
DEALING WITH WHISTLEBLOWERS, YOU
KNOW, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THERE, YOU WOULD WANT TO
INTERROGATE WHAT WE DO AT THE
AGENCY LEVEL.
THE INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS MERELY FOLLOW THE
GUIDANCE THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR PROVIDES.
FOR SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS,
PARTICULARLY RELATED TO
INNOVATION, WHICH EVERYBODY
KNOWS IT WHEN THEY SEE IT, BUT
IT'S HARD TO DESCRIBE UNTIL YOU
DO SEE IT.
THERE, OF COURSE, A MORE
INSTITUTE AND CENTER-CENTRIC
APPROACH MIGHT BE EXTREMELY
VALUABLE BECAUSE WE ARE
FORTUNATE, WE HAVE 27
EXPERIMENTS GOING ON
SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND WHILE THERE
IS SOME COMMONALITY IN PROCESS,
EACH INSTITUTE AND CENTER DOES
DO THINGS IN A UNIQUE WAY
TAILORED TO THE VARIOUS RESEARCH
COMMUNITIES, PATIENT COMMUNITIES
THAT THEY SERVE WITH.
AND THEN THAT IN BETWEEN
CATEGORY OF HOW CAN WE BEST
OPTIMIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, ET
CETERA, THERE I THINK IT'S A
HYBRID.
SOME OF IT COMES ACROSS THE
AGENCY AND SOME OF IT IS VERY
CENTRIC TO THE INDIVIDUAL
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
SO I THINK AS YOU THINK OF THOSE
THREE BIG CATEGORIES OF
POSSIBILITIES, PLEASE KEEP IN
MIND SOME ARE OVERARCING THE
AGENCY, SOME ARE VERY CENTRIC TO
THE INSTITUTE AND CENTER, AND
SOME ARE HYBRID.
I HOPE THAT IS HELPFUL,
PARTICULARLY TO OUR EXTRAMURAL
COLLEAGUES.
>> YES, THAT'S VERY, VERY
HELPFUL, I THINK.
SO LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE
DISCUSSION.
SO WHICH QUESTIONS DO WE NEED,
WHAT DATA DO WE NEED SO THAT WE
CAN HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY,
KEEPING IN MIND WHAT LARRY JUST
SAID ABOUT HOW SOME THINGS ARE
CENTRAL AND SOME THINGS ARE NOT,
DO WE NEED THE BASIC METRICS FOR
THE CENTER ON FUNDING,
PUBLICATIONS, ET CETERA?
DO WE NEED MORE DETAILED
INFORMATION?
WHAT QUESTIONS AND DATA DO WE
NEED IN ORDER TO ANSWER OUR
QUESTIONS?
JONI?
>> HI.
THANK YOU.
I GUESS I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE
AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION HERE.
MAYBE MORE OF A QUESTION.
I GUESS SORT OF THINKING ABOUT
OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND HOW
WE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT THIS
IDEA OF BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE
FORWARD LOOKING, THESE AREAS
ALMOST FEEL LIKE THEY'RE
BACKWARD LOOKING.
AND SO I WANTED TO KIND OF GET A
SENSE OF WHAT ARE KINDS OF WAYS
THAT WE CAN HELP DRIVE US IN
AREAS THAT WILL HELP US BE MORE
FORWARD-LOOKING AND THINKING
ABOUT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT
WERE MENTIONED EARLIER LIKE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, QUANTUM
SCIENCES, DATA SCIENCE WRIT
LARGE, PRECISION MEDICINE, GENE
THERAPY, GENE EDITING, CLINICAL
TRIALS SCIENCE.
THESE ARE QUITE BIG AREAS, I
THINK, THAT MANY OF US DO IN A
WAY, BUT PERHAPS WE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO USE THIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FIND BETTER WAYS
OF FINDING EFFICIENCIES TO
WORKING TOGETHER, NOT JUST
WITHIN NIH BUT ACROSS THE
BROADER ECOSYSTEM.
THESE AREAS ARE INCREDIBLY
DYNAMIC AND FAST-MOVING, SO HOW
CAN WE AS A GROUP KIND OF
RE-TOOL OURSELVES AND THINK
ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF THEM AND
DEVELOP STRATEGIES FOR
RAPIDLY -- FOR THESE RAPIDLY
EVOLVING FIELDS INTO OUR
EXISTING COLLABORATIVE
FRAMEWORK, AND THEN DOING SO
ALSO IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T ADD
TO BUREAUCRACY BUT HELPS US
STREAMLINE OUR BUREAUCRACY, AND
EVEN REDUCES IT IN SOME AREAS.
THINKING BACK TO MONICA'S WORDS
EARLIER AND HER THOUGHTS ABOUT
MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTING THE
MISSION ON WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
DISABILITY RESEARCH, I THINK
THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THOSE WAYS
IN WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO
ACTUALLY BE MORE FORWARD-LOOKING
AND APPROACHING THE WAYS WE DO
THINGS, BUT I THINK THESE OTHER
AREAS, THE LARGER AREAS ARE
AREAS WE'RE ALL WORKING IN THAT
WE COULD PERHAPS USE AS A --
SORT OF HIGHLIGHTS OR GUIDING
LIGHTS, SOME DIRECTIONS FORWARD,
AND THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE
IN OUR ABILITY TO HAVE
LEADERSHIP IN THESE SPACES, AND
THINKING ABOUT JUST IN OUR
OWN -- WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR OUR
OWN PUBLIC BENEFIT BUT ALSO IN
GLOBAL COMPETITION, ET CETERA.
SO I JUST -- I KIND OF WANT US
TO ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE THIS REALLY AMAZING GROUP
OF PEOPLE TOGETHER TO HELP US
REALLY MOVE FORWARD AND
HIGHLIGHT AREAS THAT WE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO USE TO DRIVE THAT KIND
OF THINKING AND INTERACTION
HERE.
SO MORE OF A QUESTION ABOUT HOW
CAN WE KIND OF TAKE THESE TOPICS
FOR CONSIDERATION AND MAYBE
RETOOL THEM TO HAVE THAT
FORWARD-LOOKING BENT.
THANKS.
>> SO HAVING A FORWARD-LOOKING
BENT FOR ALL THE CENTERS INSTEAD
OF -- I MEAN, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED
TO HAVE SOME FOUNDATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE, BUT TO FOCUS ON WHAT
WE CAN DO MOVING FORWARD WITHIN
THOSE INSTITUTES.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I
CAPTURED WHAT YOU MEANT.
>> YES.
I THINK IN A NUTSHELL, THAT'S
PRIMARILY IT.
AND AS WE CAN THINK ABOUT THAT
FRAMEWORK, THAT CAN HELP US
DRIVE, YOU KNOW, IN THESE AREAS
THAT WERE MENTIONED EARLIER,
THAT ARE INCREDIBLY DYNAMIC.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO LOSE
GROUND.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
SETTING OUR SIGHTS REALLY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT JUST IN
THESE AREAS BUT DRIVING THEM.
>> OKAY, GOT IT.
LINDSEY?
>> THANK YOU.
FOLLOWING IN PART ON LARRY'S
COMMENTS, AND I APPRECIATED
LARRY'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE MANY
ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES THAT
ARE EITHER ALREADY CENTRALIZED
OR MOVING TOWARDS THAT, I THINK
A FOCUS ON CENTERS, FIRST OF
ALL, I AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION
TO LUMP THEM BY SIZE.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE MOST
USEFUL IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING
SOME COMMON CHALLENGES THAT THE
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS ARE
FACING THAT MIGHT BE INHIBITING
EFFICIENCY, ET CETERA.
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE
GREATEST VALUE IN TERMS OF HOW
CAN WE IMPROVE NIH WELL BY
UNDERSTANDING CHALLENGES CENTERS
ARE HAVING, THE SMALL, MEDIUM
AND LARGE, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE
INFORMATIVE.
BUT AS A RELATIVE NEWCOMER TO
THE NIH, I HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY
DISCUSSIONS WITH A GOAL OF
CENTRALIZING IN AN EFFORT TO
INCREASE EFFICIENCIES AND TO
ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD MORE
EFFECTIVELY.
AND ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT I THINK
THAT WE SHOULD MAKE SURE WE
UNDERSTAND IS THIS -- I THINK
IT'S CALLED DIGITAL NIH.
THERE IS A VISION AND A PLAN
RELATED TO IT AND INNOVATION AND
COMPUTATION THAT IS HIGHLY
RELEVANT TO SOME OF THE ISSUES
WE'RE LIKELY TO TALK ABOUT, SO I
THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO BE
FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE WORK
THAT WENT INTO DEVELOPING THAT
VIEW, AND ONCE AGAIN, WE MAY --
IT WILL INFORM OUR THINKING, WE
MAY BE ABLE TO REACT TO IT, WE
MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME
IDEAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
FURTHER STRENGTHEN IT, BUT I
THINK IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF
SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING
ACROSS NIH AND NOT WITHIN
SPECIFIC INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
>> RIGHT, RIGHT.
OKAY.
YES.
UNDERSTOOD.
CERTAINLY NOW, 12 YEARS LATER,
14 YEARS LATER, THE DIGITAL
PORTION IS NEW.
MARK?
[SPEAKER MUTED]
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY, VERY
GOOD DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE NEED -- IF WE WANT TO
BE FORWARD-THINKING, THOUGH, I
THINK WE NEED TO SEPARATE OUT
FOR THE MOMENT TOOLS AND BIG
QUESTIONS.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO INVEST IN
TOOLS,, IT CAN'T BE FOR THE SAKE
OF DEVELOPING THE TOOL ITSELF,
EXCEPT MAYBE -- WELL, I DON'T
WANT TO CREATE AN EXCEPTION
HERE, BUT THE VALUE OF THE TOOLS
IS THAT THEY WILL ALLOW US TO
ASK BIG QUESTIONS LIKE, CAN WE
DO BETTER DIAGNOSTICS BY TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF A.I.?
CAN WE FORECAST DISEASE TRENDS
IN POPULATIONS BY USING BIG DATA
AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES?
WHAT ARE THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT
COME FROM EACH OF THE
INSTITUTES?
FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE
SIZE OF THE INSTITUTE IS REALLY
THE IMPORTANT METRIC.
I THINK IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS,
IT'S THE PREVALENCE OF DISEASES
THAT EACH OF THE INSTITUTES
SERVES.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY
WHAT GOES ON IN THE INSTITUTES,
AND WHAT ARE THE BIG QUESTIONS
FROM THE INSTITUTES THAT CAN BE
ADDRESSED WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES?
FRANKLY I COULD SEE TECHNOLOGIES
BEING ONE OF THOSE CROSS-NIH
MISSIONS, JUST LIKE
TRANSPARENCY, JUST LIKE ETHICS.
IT CUTS ACROSS THE INSTITUTES.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TECHNOLOGY SERVES VIRTUALLY
EVERY INSTITUTE AND CENTER
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SCIENTIFIC
MISSION.
SO WE WOULD LIKE DISCUSSION
BETWEEN TECHNOLOGIES AND
INSTITUTES TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
WANT TO IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS.
BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC IS MOST
CAPTIVATED BY THE QUESTIONS.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF ATTENTION IN
THE MEDIA GIVEN TO A.I.
THERE'S A LOT OF FEAR MONGERING
ABOUT A.I.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ARTICLES
THAT COME FROM SCIENTISTS ABOUT
HOW A.I. IS BEING USED TO
IMPROVE DIAGNOSTICS.
THOSE LATTER ONES GET LOST.
THE FEAR PREVAILS.
WE WANT TO OVERCOME THAT.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT QUESTIONS
THAT ARE REALLY CAPTIVATING TO
THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO FIND A
WAY TO DO THAT IF WE'RE REALLY
GOING TO BE FORWARD THINKING.
>> YES.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT
THE TECHNOLOGIES.
YOU MENTIONED ABOUT HOW MANY
PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY THE
INSTITUTE.
IS THAT A PIECE OF DATA YOU
THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US?
>> YES, I THINK THE PREVALENCE
OF DISEASE THAT FALSE UNDER THE
UMBRELLA OF EACH INSTITUTE CAN'T
BE LOST.
THE IMPACT OF THAT INSTITUTE MAY
APPEAR SMALL BECAUSE OF THE
BUDGETARY SIZE, BUT THE IMPACT
OTO THE PUBLIC MAY BE VERY LARGE
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE MAY
NEED TO CRYSTALLIZE.
>> OKAY, YES.
THANK YOU.
MICHAEL?
>> ANDREA, REALLY, DEFINITELY
AGREE WITH WHAT MARK SAID ABOUT
THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE DO.
I WANT TO FOLLOW ON THIS COMMENT
OF BEING FORWARD-LOOKING.
I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, SORT OF LOOKING
FORWARD, NOT LOOKING BACK.
I THINK ALL OF US -- MAYBE I'LL
JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF BECAUSE I
CAN'T -- NO RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR
ANYBODY ELSE, BUT I'M ALWAYS
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I CAN
DO MY JOB BETTER, YOU KNOW, HOW
WE CAN INNOVATE AND DRIVE THE
FIELD, AND JUST ADVANCE THE
FIELD BASICALLY.
I DO THINK THAT'S WHAT
EVERYBODY -- ALL OF US HERE ARE
DOING, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT
EVERYBODY IN ACADEMIA IS TRYING
TO DO.
AND I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS
THAT NIH IS A BIG PLACE, AND I
SPEND A LOT OF EFFORT TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND, KEEP TRACK OF
EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING
AROUND ALL THE OTHER PLACES
HERE, AND REALLY THE REASON FOR
THAT IS THAT THE BREADTH OF
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE ARE
ENORMOUS, AND IN AM DEEM YA,
EVEACADEMIA,EVERYBODY ELSE IS SE
UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S HAPPENING
AROUND THE UNIVERSITY.
I DIDN'T KNOW THIS FACULTY
MEMBER IS DOING SOMETHING THAT
RELATES TO WHAT I'M DOING.
SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
ONE THING THAT I WOULD SUGGEST
IS THAT WE MIGHT BE PRODUCTIVE
AS A GROUP BY TRYING TO ASK
PEOPLE WHAT WORKS WELL AND WHAT
CHALLENGES PEOPLE HAVE IN TERMS
OF HOW WE CAN CONTINUOUSLY DO
BETTER.
I WOULD ACTUALLY BE CURIOUS, WE
COULD DO THAT WITHIN NIH, AND I
WOULD BE CURIOUS FOR THOSE OF
YOU WHO ARE IN ACADEMIA, WHAT
LESSONS YOU HAVE ABOUT HOW TO DO
BETTER ACROSS THE INSTITUT INST.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT I'M
ALWAYS TRYING TO DO AND WHAT WE
WOULD ALL LEARN FROM DOING
BETTER.
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT
COMMENT.
LARRY, IS THERE A WAY TO -- LIKE
IN SOME SORT OF ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE CENTERS, OR DO THEY DO A
SELF ASSESSMENT OF THEIR
CHALLENGES AND WHAT HAS BEEN
WORKING WELL, OR IS THERE A
CENTRAL DOCUMENT OR SOMETHING WE
COULD LOOK AT WITH THAT
INFORMATION?
>> IT IT VARIES AMONG THE
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
EACH HAS A STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT
THAT IS TYPICALLY DONE ON A FOUR
TO FIVE-YEAR BASIS, BUT MANY OF
THE INSTITUTES AND CENTERS DO
PUT TOGETHER ANNUAL REPORTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, NIDDK DOES ONE
EACH -- I BELIEVE IT'S EACH
YEAR, IS IT NOT, GRIFF?
>> YEAH.
>> AND SO WE COULD ROUND UP
EXAMPLES OF THOSE IF THE GROUP
WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THEM.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS DO IT ON
A YEARLY BASIS, BUT I KNOW GRIFF
IS ONE OF THE -- NIDDK IS ONE OF
THE INSTITUTES THAT DOES THAT.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL
JUST TO SEE WHAT THE INSTITUTES
SEE THEMSELVES AS DOING WELL AND
WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS
OPPORTUNITY.
JEANNE?
>> SO THIS IS ALSO GOING TO
REFLECT MY RELATIVE NEWNESS,
LIKE LINDSEY MENTIONED, AND
RELATES TO BOTH JONI'S COMMENTS
AND A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.
I THINK MY QUESTION REALLY IS,
ARE WE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS REPORT
WHETHER THE INSTITUTES ARE DOING
THEIR JOBS IN ORDER TO INFORM
HOW WE CHANGE THEM, OR ARE WE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT GOING
FORWARD HOW COULD THEY DO A
GIVEN JOB BETTER, AND HENCE DO
THEY REQUIRE REFORM.
SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN REALLY
LOOK FORWARD WITHOUT LOOKING
BACK TO SOME DEGREE, AND I THINK
IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BACK TO
INFORM SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
RECOMMENDATIONS, WE HAVE TO
THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT THE KIND
OF DATA WE WANT.
SO A LOT OF THE DATA THAT HAS
BEEN REFERRED TO IS LIKE ON OUR
WEBSITES.
I MEAN, IT'S EASY TO FIND OUT
HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE, IT'S
EASY TO FIND OUT WHERE WE PUT
OUR MONEY, IT'S EASY TO FIND OUT
WHAT'S EARMARKED FROM CONGRESS
AND WHAT SOMETIMES IS VERY
LIMITING.
SO I GUESS I DO THINK, AND I'VE
HEARD IT A LITTLE BIT, I THINK
MICHAEL MIGHT HAVE JUST REALLY
ALSO GONE IN THIS DIRECTION.
YOU KNOW, HAVING PEOPLE
REGURGITATE SORT OF THE SAME
INFORMATION IN A DIFFERENT FORM
IN DIFFERENT WORDS IS I DON'T
THINK GOING TO HELP US VERY
MUCH.
SO REALLY I GUESS THE QUESTION
IS WHAT ARE WE BEING ASKED TO
DO.
I UNDERSTAND THE FOUNDATIONS
THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED AND THAT
MAKES SENSE, BUT IT WOULD HELP
ME A LITTLE BIT MORE TO BE
SOMEWHAT MORE EXPLICIT WHERE WE
WANT TO END UP HERE.
>> LARRY, I KNOW WE HAD
MENTIONED SOME OF THAT AT THE
PREVIOUS MEETING.
IF YOU WANT TO SORT OF HIGHLIGHT
THAT AGAIN FOR THE GROUP.
>> RIGHT.
MONICA, DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH
IN?
PLEASE, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> YOU CAN HANDLE IT, LARRY.
>> SO BASICALLY, CONGRESS, YOU
KNOW, HAS ISSUED REPORTS WHICH
HAVE CALLED OUT A NUMBER OF
ISSUES.
THEY TEND TO FOCUS ON WHAT THEY
PERCEIVE AS TOO MUCH SILOING
AMONGST THE INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS THAT THEY HAVE CREATED,
AND AS WE HAVE TRIED WITH ONLY
PARTIAL SUCCESS TO SHOW HOW WE
ARE TRYING TO BREAK THOSE SILOS
DOWN AND PROVIDED EXAMPLES, SO
THAT'S ONE THING.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW
THE AGENCY AS A WHOLE MANAGES
WHAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS MORE
A NEED TO BETTER ARTICULATE WHAT
OUR POLICIES ARE AND HOW THEY
COMPORT WITH THE LAW, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED
BY THE LAW.
THERE IS CONCERN BY THE CONGRESS
THAT WE SOMEHOW HAVE NOT
MAXIMIZED THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
ORGANIZATION.
SO THEY SEE 27 INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS, 27 DIRECTORS OF
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AND SO ON
AND SO FORTH, AND HAVE SORT OF
WONDERED OUT LOUD, COULD THERE
BE EFFICIENCIES GAINED BY
REALIGNING THAT ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE MAJOR
THINGS THAT THEY HAVE ASKED US
ABOUT, AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO
TACKLE THE VERY TANGIBLE THINGS,
WHICH PERHAPS SOME WOULD NOT SEE
AS FORWARD LOOKING BUT I THINK
THESE ARE THE TANGIBLE THINGS
THAT AT LEAST THE CONGRESS HAS
CHALLENGED US TO THINK ABOUT AND
RESPOND TO, THAT WOULD THEN FORM
THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE COULD
THEN BE FORWARD LOOKING.
BUT UNTIL YOU'RE ABLE TO DISCUSS
AND ANSWER HOW WE'RE DOING
THINGS, EXPLORE WHAT MIGHT BE A
BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS IN
THOSE DOMAINS, IT'S A LITTLE
HARD TO KNOW HOW FORWARD LOOKING
WE CAN BE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO
KNOW WHERE YOU'RE STARTING FROM.
AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT
IT.
SO AS ONE WAY FORWARD, MAYBE WE
PICK ONE OF THESE THINGS, AND
THEN AS A GROUP, WORK THROUGH IT
TOGETHER AS THE PRELUDE TO THEN
BREAKING UP INTO SUBGROUPS TO
TACKLE MULTIPLE THINGS
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
BUT I'M NOT SURE WITHOUT DOING A
GROUP THINK ON AT LEAST ONE JUST
SO THAT EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO
WEIGH IN ON HOW WE WOULD
APPROACH THIS AND COME UP WITH
THE TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT
ARE NEEDED, THE DATA THAT'S
NEEDED AND SO FORTH.
OTHERWISE I FEAR THAT THE
GROUPS, HOWEVER WELL INTENDED,
MAY FIND IT CHALLENGING TO FIND
FOCUS.
MONICA, PLEASE.
>> NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
LARRY.
I MEAN, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE
HEAD.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT IN A
VERY -- IN A MORE DIRECT WAY.
CONGRESS GOVERNS A LOT OF WHAT
WE DO.
THEY TELL US HOW MANY INSTITUTES
AND CENTERS, THEY TELL US WHAT
THE NAME IS, THEY TELL US HOW
WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY.
CONGRESS IS VERY DIRECTIVE WITH
US.
AND WE HAVE THESE TWO REPORTS
FROM CONGRESS THAT SAY, HEY, YOU
SHOULD DO THIS.
BUT -- GREAT, YOU KNOW, GOOD
FAITH.
WE -- AND I THINK WE HAVE --
WE'VE HAD A REALLY TERRIFIC
RELATIONSHIP WITH CONGRESS,
FRANKLY.
I PERSONALLY HAVE FELT VERY
SUPPORTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE.
I'VE NEVER -- I THINK IT'S BEEN
GREAT.
HOWEVER, CONGRESS DOESN'T SIT
DOWN WITH US IN A ROOM AND GO
THROUGH A DEEP DIVE OF EVERY
LITTLE THING.
YOU KNOW, THEY THINK WHAT THEY
THINK.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
RESPOND TO CONGRESS BY HAVING A
VERY CAREFUL THOUGHT PROCESS
WITH YOU ALL FROM THE EXTERNAL
COMMUNITY.
SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST ME WRITING
A LETTER BACK TO CONGRESS
SAYING, WELL, NO, I DON'T THINK
WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO IS SUCH
A GOOD IDEA.
IT'S TO HAVE -- THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE SMRB.
IT'S FOR YOU TO BE INDEPENDENT
OF US IN MANY WAYS, WORK WITH
US, AND THEN COME BACK TO
CONGRESS AND SAY, WELL, THAT WAS
A VERY INTERESTING IDEA, BUT
HERE'S WHAT THIS GROUP THINKS.
SO THAT'S FRANKLY WHERE I THINK
WE MOST NEED YOUR HELP WITH.
AND WHAT I KIND OF HOPED GOING
INTO THIS IS THAT YOU'D LOOK AT
THE FRAME WORKS AND SAY YEAH,
THIS FRAMEWORK IS NOT TOO BAD OR
MAYBE TWEAK IT JUST A LITTLE
BIT, AND THEN LET'S GET TO
BUSINESS IN RESPONDING TO
CONGRESS ON THESE TWO THINGS
THEY'VE ASKED US TO DO WHERE
SOME OF IT, WE THINK IS GREAT
IDEAS AND SOME OF IT, WE THINK
WOULD BE FRANKLY NOT A VERY GOOD
IDEA.
SO THERE YOU GO.
THANK YOU.
>> AND I THINK WHAT YOU BOTH
HAVE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT, IF
WE COULD GO BACK TO THE -- I
THINK IT'S THE LAST SLIDE OR
SECOND TO LAST SLIDE, LARRY, YOU
HAD PUT IN THE EMAIL WHICH WAS
FOCUSING ON THE CONGRESSIONAL
QUESTIONS, HERE ARE THE BULLETS
AND THE THREE AREAS THAT WE NEED
TO FOCUS ON TO ANSWER, AND I
THINK THAT SHOULD BE OUR SORT OF
GUIDE, THOSE THREE BULLETS, AND
BECAUSE YOU'VE HERE DISTILLED
WHAT THEIR QUESTIONS WERE.
SO THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT
MISCONDUCT AND PROTECTION, ALL
THESE BULLETS ARE IN RESPONSE OF
THOSE QUESTIONS.
IS THAT ACCURATE, LARRY?
>> YES.
THESE ALL REFLECT THE VARIOUS
QUESTIONS IN THOSE TWO REPORTS.
>> RIGHT.
AND SO THAT -- JUST TO REMIND
THE GROUP EVEN AGAIN, THIS IS
WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON
AS WE LOOK AT ALL THE 27
INSTITUTES.
ALLISON?
I'M SORRY, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A
COMMENT?
>> I WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING
TO THIS DISCUSSION AND IF YOU
COULD LEAVE THE SLIDE BACK UP,
THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE KIND OF A
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT SO THAT I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH WHAT
MONICA SAID IS WE NEED TO DO THE
FIRST TWO BUCKETS, THE FIRST TWO
BULLETS.
SO IF YOU CHANGE THOSE TO
INTERNAL OPERATIONS, YOU COULD
GET THEM INTO A BULLET WHICH
WOULD TOTALLY MEET WHAT CONGRESS
WANTS US TO DO.
AND TO JONI'S POINT ABOUT BEING
INNOVATIVE AND FORWARD LOOKING,
IF WE DID INNOVATION AND IMPACT,
SO THAT'S THE FUTURE PIECE, THAT
WOULD LET US DO BOTH.
I THINK IF WE DON'T DO THE FIRST
TWO BULLETS, IT'S GOING TO --
IT'S NOT GOING TO GET READ.
I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING FOR
SOMETHING BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO
LEAN IN, SO I'D LOVE TO BE
INNOVATION AND IMPACT ON HUMAN
HEALTH AND DISEASE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT'S WHAT MICHAEL HAS
BEEN SAYING ABOUT HUMAN HEALTH.
NIH DOESN'T JUST STUDY DISEASE.
THEY ACTUALLY STUDY DISEASE TO
PROMOTE HEALTH.
>> RIGHT.
SO DISTILLING THOSE, AND I THINK
TYRONE IS TAKING SOME NOTES.
DISTILLING THOSE TWO BULLETS
INTO INTERNAL OPERATIONS AND THE
LAST ONE, INNOVATION AND IMPACT
IN A FORWARD-LOOKING WAY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT?
>> YEP, ON HUMAN HEALTH.
>> HUMAN HEALTH, RIGHT.
RIGHT.
BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE
WORDS THAT THEY USED IN THEIR
REPORT ACTUALLY.
OKAY.
I CAN'T SEE -- WHO'S THE NEXT
HAND THAT'S UP?
>> I BELIEVE LISA IS THE NEXT
ONE UP.
>> WELL, I THINK I'M JUST GOING
TO PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW
I'LL RESPOND TO REVIEWS OF MY
NIH GRANTS.
CAN WE JUST TAKE SOMETHING OF A
SIMILAR APPROACH, IT SOUNDS LIKE
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE
OVERSIGHT ISSUES AND THOSE ARE
THINGS THAT I GUESS WE'RE JUST
GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN
RESPONDING TO EACH ONE OF THOSE.
THE MIDDLE PART, WHICH I THINK
WE JUST THOUGHT ABOUT
REORGANIZING WHICH THEY'VE ALSO
MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON, IF I
UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY, IS
THE BIGGER PIECE WHERE I THINK
IT WILL TAKE A LOT MORE
UNDERSTANDING.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE
INSTITUTE DIRECTORS THEMSELVES,
I THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT, WHAT
ARE YOUR MAJOR CHALLENGES, WHAT
IS WORKING WELL FOR YOU, WHAT
ARE THEIR THOUGHTS ON RESPONSE
TO THAT REPORT ON REORGANIZING
THESE INSTITUTES AND A MORE
FORWARD-LOOKING APPROACH TO TRY
TO INCORPORATE NEW STRATEGIES,
NEW EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND
NEW THINGS, I THINK FLEXIBILITY
IS GOING TO BE KEY IN EVEN THOSE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND AFFORDING
THAT, SO THAT THERE IS
FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO ALL
THESE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
DEAL WITH.
SO I GUESS MY SUGGESTION OR
THOUGHT IS, CAN WE SIMPLY JUST
DEAL WITH THIS AS RESPONDING
LIKE WE DO TO REVIEWERS.
CHECK THESE OFF OUR LIST SO WE
MAKE SURE WE'VE DEALT WITH THOSE
ON BEHALF OF THE NIH AND TO
CONGRESS, AND THEN SPEND MORE
TIME ON THE STRUCTURE,
INNOVATION ASPECTS TO TRY TO
INCORPORATE FLEXIBILITY AND NEW
TECHNOLOGY.
>> PERFECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SOUNDS GOOD.
GILDA?
>> I WANTED TO SPEAK TO
INNOVATION IN PARTICULAR.
INNOVATION, THE WORD IS SO
OVERUSED, AND IT MEANS SO MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS TO PEOPLE.
AND SO I'M CONCERNED SOMETIMES
WHEN FOLKS THINK THEY'RE
INNOVATIVE AND THEY'RE NOT, OR
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR
CONCEPT OF INNOVATION REALLY IS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM
FOLKS IS, WHATEVER THEIR
DEFINITION OF INNOVATION IS.
WHAT GETS IN THE WAY OF
INNOVATION?
LIKE, WHAT IS GETTING IN THE WAY
OF THEIR ABILITY TO INNOVATE
ACROSS WHATEVER THEIR UNIT IS OR
ACROSS NIH AS A WHOLE AGENCY,
LIKE WHAT IS GETTING IN THE WAY
OF INNOVATION?
>> OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING TO ASK
FOR INFORMATION ON WHAT ARE THE
BARRIERS OF INNOVATION IN THE
VARIOUS INSTITUTES, IS THAT
RIGHT?
THAT'S THE PIECE OF INFORMATION
THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL?
>> YES, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK
JUST HONING IN ON THE QUESTION,
WHAT GETS IN THE WAY OF
INNOVATION COULD BE INSIGHTFUL.
>> RIGHT, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD
QUESTION FOR THE DIRECTORS, YES.
DEBARA?
>> YES.
A LOT OF WHAT WE HEAR FROM
CONGRESS AND FROM OTHER
SCIENTIFIC LEADERS AROUND THE
COUNTRY IS THAT NIH INSTITUTES
ARE SILOED, AND I THINK THAT
THAT'S THE MAIN DRIVER OF THEIR
RECOMMENDATION, THAT WE
REORGANIZE.
SO AS PART OF THIS, I THINK IN
ADDITION TO GETTING INFORMATION
FROM THE INSTITUTES AND
INSTITUTE DIRECTORS, THAT IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THIS GROUP
TO LOOK AT BIG TRANS-NIH
PROGRAMS AND HOW THOSE ARE
CARRIED OUT.
AND IF THEY ARE ORGANIZED
OPTIMALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S
A TRANS-NIH INITIATIVE ON A.I.
THERE ARE TRANS-NIH INITIATIVES
ON A NUMBER OF THINGS.
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, WOMEN'S
HEALTH.
SO HOW ARE THOSE ISSUES
ADDRESSED AT THE TRANS-NIH LEVEL
AND ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO
DO THAT BETTER.
BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO
ADDRESS THE SILOING ISSUE
DIRECTLY, AND SOMEWHAT
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE STRUCTURE
OF THE INSTITUTES AND CENTERS
BECAUSE THE PROGRAMS AREN'T
IMPLEMENTED ONLY THROUGH THE
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
AND THERE ARE SOME, IT'S BEEN
MENTIONED THAT SOME OF OUR
INSTITUTES ARE VERY
DISEASE-SPECIFIC, BUT WE USE
TRANS-NIH PROGRAMS TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN OUR
MISSION AREAS.
SO THERE'S SORT OF A DUAL WAY
THAT WE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
>> YES, AND I REMEMBER MONICA
MENTIONING SOME OF THOSE
PROGRAMS AT OUR LAST MEETING
THAT WERE TRANS-NIH PROGRAMS,
PERHAPS WE COULD GET A MORE
EXTENSIVE LIST YOU WERE THINKING
OR DESCRIPTION OF SOME OF THOSE
TRANS-NIH PROGRAMS?
OKAY.
I SEE YOU NODDING.
MARK?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT'S
GOING ON IN BETHESDA ON THE NIH
CAMPUS, OR ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT
SILOING BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE
OF INSTITUTES ACROSS THE ENTIRE
U.S. RESEARCH COMMUNITY THAT'S
SUPPORTED BY NIH?
AND I THINK THAT IDENTIFYING
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ARE
DIFFERENT FOR THE TWO.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT OF
KEEP THAT IN MIND.
>> I WILL PUT THAT QUESTION OVER
TO LARRY BUT I THINK IT'S BOTH.
>> WELL, I'LL CHIME IN HERE AND
SAY IF YOU'RE RESPONDING TO
CONGRESS, THEN YOU'RE RESPONDING
TO WHAT CONGRESS IS GOING TO
TELL THE NEW DIRECTOR
SPECIFICALLY TO DO.
SO I KNOW I DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION COMPLETELY, BUT I DO
THINK I'VE HELPED GEAR IT A
LITTLE BIT.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT TELLING, YOU
KNOW, UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS WHAT
THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
THIS IS ABOUT TELLING EXACTLY
WHAT THE DIRECTOR IS GOING TO
DO.
>> MARK, THERE'S THE RUB.
THE CONGRESS LOOKS AT NIH AND
MAKES THE OBSERVATION THAT THEY
FEEL WE ARE SO-CALLED SILOED.
BUT THEY DON'T LOOK TO THE
SECOND DERIVATIVE WHERE THE
ACTION IS IN THE EXTRAMURAL
COMMUNITY WHERE YOU WERE ALL
DOING YOUR SCIENCE AND WHERE IF
YOUR WORK IS FROM INSTITUTE A,
YOU'RE STILL GOING TO
COLLABORATE WITH SOMEBODY FROM
INSTITUTE B WITH FUNDING FROM
INSTITUTE B IF YOU HAVE COMMON
INTERESTS AND CAN SYNERGIZE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT SECOND AND
THIRD DERIVATIVE IS NEVER TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT.
AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE'VE GOT TO DO A BETTER JOB
EXPLAINING TO THE CONGRESS.
>> OKAY.
JON AND THEN JAMES?
>> I JUST WANT TO RAISE KIND OF
A PRACTICAL ISSUE.
I'M HEARING A LOT OF BOILING THE
OCEAN HERE.
I MEAN, THE THINGS THAT ARE
BEING TALKED ABOUT SOUND TO ME
LIKE VERY LONG TERM HIGH LEVEL
KINDS OF QUESTIONS.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
GROUP IS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE
FOCUSED ON MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION ISSUES.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE FRIENDLY
SUGGESTION THAT AS A START,
SINCE WE'RE JUST GETTING OUR
FEET WET IN THIS, THAT WE PICK
ONE OR TWO OF THOSE FIRST THREE
SUBBULLETS UNDER OVERSIGHT
ISSUES AND TRY TO FOCUS ON THAT
AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT
BEFORE WE TRY TO TALK ABOUT HOW
WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE WHOLE
INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM.
WHICH IS A MUCH LONGER TERM MORE
COMPLEX TOPIC.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
LET'S TRY TO APPROACH SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DIG OUR
TEETH INTO, MAKE SOME
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON, FIGURE
OUT HOW THE GROUP WORKS, AND
THOSE FIRST THREE SUBBELL ET
CSUBBULLETSSEEM TO ME LIKE THINE
CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED A
PARTICULAR CONCERN AND WE COULD
DO SOMETHING.
>> YES, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, BUT I THINK EVENTUALLY
WE HAVE TO GET TO ALL OF THOSE
FIRST FOUR BULLETS, BECAUSE
THOSE ARE PART OF WHAT THEY
ASKED, WHAT CONGRESS ASKED US TO
ADDRESS.
SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WE
CAN'T DO IT ALL AT ONCE, BUT I
THINK ONE OF LARRY'S SUGGESTIONS
THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER IS LET'S,
AS A COMMITTEE, TAKE ONE
INSTITUTE AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO
DO AND GET THESE QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, ET CETERA, TRAY TRY T
TOGETHER A SORT OF MINI SUMMARY,
IF YOU WILL, AND THEN BREAK OFF
INTO SUBGRAWPS T SUBGROUPS TO DE
REMAINDER OF THE 26
INSTITUTIONS.
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT THOSE
FIRST THREE BULLETS, AS LARRY
SAID, ARE NOT
INSTITUTE-SPECIFIC.
THEY'RE NIH --
>> RIGHT, EXACTLY.
SO I THINK --
>> THAT IS A MUCH MORE
MEANINGFUL APPROACH FOR US TO
TAKE, SOMETHING THAT'S NIH-WIDE,
THAN TO TRY TO GO INSTITUTE BY
INSTITUTE AT THIS STAGE.
>> NO, NO BE -- I SEE WHAT YOUE
SAYING.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING
ULTIMATELY.
YOU MEANT RIGHT NOW.
I THOUGHT YOU MEANT IN OUR TOTAL
EFFORTS TO JUST FOCUS ON THOSE
THREE BULLETS.
YOU JUST MI MEAN INITIALLY.
>> I MEAN INITIALLY.
LET'S GET STARTED WITH SOMETHING
CONCRETE, THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
DIG OUR TEETH INTO AND MAKE SOME
PROGRESS ON.
WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT
NIH DIRECTOR IS GOING TO HAVE AS
PRIORITIES, SO THESE ARE THINGS
THAT ARE BEFORE US FROM CONGRESS
SO LET'S GET STARTED.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
JAMES?
SORRY, MONICA, GO AHEAD.
>> SORRY.
I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER
LITTLE THING.
THIS IS WHY IT'S SO WONDERFUL TO
HAVE AN OUTSIDE GROUP, BECAUSE I
WOULD JUST ASK YOU, WITH YOUR
INDEPENDENT EYES HERE, TO NOT
JUST AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME WHAT'S
BEING SAID ABOUT US IS TRUE,
PLEASE.
NOW YOU DIVE IN AND TELL
EVERYBODY IF IT'S TRUE OR NOT,
BUT PLEASE DON'T JUST
AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT THE PREMISE
OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT'S IT.
>> RIGHT.
EXACTLY.
JIM?
JAMES?
SORRY.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
FIRST I WANT TO AGREE WITH WHAT
THE DIRECTOR JUST SAID.
I THINK I POINTED THIS OUT LAST
TIME.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD
ASSUME THAT ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS
MADE BY CONGRESS AS TO THE
FAILINGS OF NIH ARE TRUE.
THERE ACTUALLY HAD BEEN AN
EFFORT MADE TO SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT.
I ALSO WANT TO AGREE WITH WHAT
MARK SAID A FEW MOMENTS AGO
ABOUT THE PROFOUND INFLUENCE OF
NIH ON SETTING THE RESEARCH
AGENDA FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
THAT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT
HERE AND SHOULD NOT BE
OVERLOOKED.
WHEN THERE WAS AN -- MADE THAT
NIH BUDGET WAS GOING TO INCREASE
BY SOME AMOUNT, MANY
UNIVERSITIES AND PRESIDENTS OF
UNIVERSITIES INVESTED IN
INCREASING THEIR RESEARCH
CAPACITY, AND LOOK WHAT
HAPPENED.
SO I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
ONE WAY THAT INNOVATION IS
STIFLED IS BY FUNDING THE SAME
INVESTIGATORS AND THE SAME
INSTITUTIONS OVER AND OVER
AGAIN.
WE MISS OUT ON A LOT OF
INNOVATION BY MISSING OUT ON THE
TALENTS OF MANY INVESTIGATORS
AND RESEARCHERS WHO HAPPEN NOT
TO BE VIEWED AS FAVORITES OF
CERTAIN FOLKS WHO AWARD THE
FUNDS FOR RESEARCH.
SO ONE BIT OF DATA I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE US GET FROM THE
INSTITUTES IS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
THE FUNDS THEY GIVE EXTRAMURALLY
GOES TO THE SAME INVESTIGATORS
OR THE SAME INSTITUTES YEAR
AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.
IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT
THEY'RE HAVING A BROADENING OF
THEIR AT THE PRE TENT, THEN THAO
STIFLE INNOVATION FOR SURE
BECAUSE INNOVATION DOESN'T JUST
HAPPEN ON THE EAST COAST AND
WEST COAST.
IT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE
COUNTRY.
SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I'D
LIKE TO SAY.
THE OTHER THING I'D MENTION LAST
TIME IS, AT SOME POINT
IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE A FOCUS
IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRUE
IMPACT IN THE HEALTH OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND -- MAY NOT BE WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF NIH PER SE BUT I
THINK WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE TO REALLY
IMPROVE THE HEALTH STATUS OF THE
U.S. POPULATION.
SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JAMES.
COULD YOU EXPAND A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN BY -- I
MEAN, I KNOW WHAT IMPLEMENTATION
SCIENCE IS, BUT ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT CLINICAL TRIALS, GETTING
DRUGS TO PATIENTS, OR WHAT
EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE?
>> SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME
DISCOVERIES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
THAT DON'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE
DRUGS OR DEVICES OR WHATEVER.
THAT CAN PROMOTE HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING OF INDIVIDUALS.
THERE ARE SOME -- BY SOME
COMMUNITIES IN OUR COUNTRY WHERE
SLAWTIONS ARE KNOWN OR MAYBE
UNDERSTOOD BUT THE CAPACITY AND
THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT THEM ARE NOT
AVAILABLE.
SO AGAIN, THIS MAY NOT BE WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF NIH, PER SE, BUT
I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE PART OF OUR
CONVERSATIONS, HOW DO WE FOCUS
ON IMPLEMENTING THE
INTERVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, SOME OF
WHICH ARE TRULY REMARKABLE.
NOW WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO HELP
US SHAPE WHAT THOSE ARE, I THINK
THERE'S SOME EXCITING
OPPORTUNITIES IN FRONT OF US.
BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHENT
I SAID BEFORE.
INNOVATION IS CERTAINLY STIFLE
IEDIF THE SAME INDIVIDUALS AND E
INSTITUTIONS ARE DOMINATING THE
FUNDING THAT GOES OUT TO
RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD.
>> OKAY.
AND I THINK THAT LAST POINT IS
WHAT WE REQUESTED IN NEEDING
THAT DATA, I'M SURE THAT IS
AVAILABLE ON FUNDERS AND REPEAT
FUNDERS, ESSME, ET CETERA.
I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.
>> SO I'M JUST GOING TO DO A
TIME CHECK.
WE HAVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR SO
REMAINING.
AND SO HOW BEST, ANDREA, DO YOU
THINK WE SHOULD PROCEED IN THE
REMAINING 15 MINUTES SO THAT THE
TEAM HAS A SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE
HEADING NEXT?
>> I THINK WE'VE SUMMARIZED WHAT
WE NEED AS FAR AS DATA.
THE ONLY THING THAT MAY OR MAY
NOT HAVE BEEN CLEAR IS, AS WE
LOOK AT THOSE THREE BULLETS, IS
THERE A WAY TO PUT TOGETHER THE
COI POLICIES THAT CURRENTLY
EXIST SO THE COMMITTEE CAN
REVIEW THOSE AS WE MOVE FORWARD
IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE CAN USE THE
NEXT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR IS
DISCUSSING NEXT STEPS MOVING
FORWARD, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND OUR
SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.
I KNOW, LARRY, YOU HAD MENTIONED
HAVING A GROUP MEETING AROUND
ONE INSTITUTE, AND SEEING IF
FOLKS THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA,
AND THEN OUR SUBCOMMITTEES,
KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE HAVE
EIGHT MORE MEETINGS OR SEVEN
MORE -- EIGHT MORE MEETINGS,
RIGHT?
SO -- AND MY EXPECTATION WAS
THAT THOSE MEETINGS WOULD BE
MUCH LONGER THAN THIS ONE AND
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME GROUP
INPUT ON THAT, THAT WE WOULD
SPEND FIVE OR SIX HOURS ON THE
SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS GETTING ALL
THE ANSWERS THAT WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT GETTING.
SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME
FEEDBACK ON THAT FOR NEXT STEPS.
LINDSEY?
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A
POINT.
I'M HEARING A COUPLE OF
COMPETING NEXT STEPS.
ONE IDEA THAT -- WHERE I THOUGHT
WE WERE GOING WAS TO PICK ONE OF
THESE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS FROM
CONGRESS THAT REPRESENTS A
CONCERN AND TO DO A DEEP DIVE ON
THAT, AS OPPOSED TO IDENTIFYING
ONE INSTITUTE TO DO A DEEP DIVE
ON.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT
THAT.
I THOUGHT THE FORMER WAS WHAT WE
TALKED ABOUT DOING.
PICK ONE OF THESE QUESTION
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN POSED TO US
TO SHOW THAT WE'RE LISTENING,
THAT WE'RE RESPONSIVE, TO FIGURE
OUT HOW WE CAN BEST WORK
TOGETHER TO TRY APPLYING THIS
FRAMEWORK, AND THEN TO SEE HOW
THAT WENT AND TO ADDRESS OTHER
TOPICS.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M
UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.
>> IT'S BOTH.
IT BOTH.
BECAUSE THOSE FIRST THREE
BULLETS ARE OVERARCHING -- ARE
NOT INSTITUTE-SPECIFIC.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO WE NEED TO ANSWER THOSE
QUESTIONS, AND WE NEED TO
EVALUATE THE INSTITUTES.
GO AHEAD, LARRY.
SORRY IF I INTERRUPTED YOU.
>> NO, NO, NO, THANK YOU.
WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE FOR THE
NEXT MEETING, IF THE GROUP
AGREES, AND THE CHAIR AGREES
THAT WE SHOULD GO THROUGH ONE OF
THESE SO THAT WE CAN LEVEL-SET,
IS WE TAKE THE FIRST TWO BULLETS
UNDER OVERSIGHT.
OVERSIGHT OF ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT, THE PROTECTION OF
WHISTLEBLOWER, AND THEN THINGS
RELATED TO OUR COI POLICIES.
AND WE TAKE THOSE TWO BULLETS,
WE PREPARE FOR THE GROUP A GREAT
DEAL OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION,
THE ONUS ON THIS IS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THOSE POLICIES ARE
MADE, OVERSEEN AND SO FORTH.
AND AGAIN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THIS, I'M SURE YOU ALL
APPRECIATE, THERE'S A PART A AND
THERE'S A PART B.
PART A IS WHAT DO WE DO WITH OUR
OWN STAFF, THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, OR B, IS WHAT DO WE
DO WITH ALL OF YOUR STAFF AND
GRANTEE INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE
COUNTRY?
AND THE APPROACHES ARE TRUE,
TRUE BUT NOT NECESSARILY
RELATED, RIGHT?
SO THAT'S A FAIR AMOUNT TO
COVER, BUT I THINK TO SHOW -- I
THINK LINDSEY USED THE TERM GOOD
FAITH AS IT WERE, IF WE TOOK
THOSE TWO, THESE ARE NOT
INSTITUTE-SPECIFIC, THIS IS ALL
DONE AT THE LEVEL OF THE OFFICE
OF THE DIRECTOR, LET'S GET THE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
GROUP, AND THEN IN AN EXTENDED
PERIOD OF TIME WHICH NO ONE HAS
WEIGHED IN ON YET BUT I
CERTAINLY SECOND THE CHAIR'S
SUGGESTION THAT WE HAVE A LONGER
MEETING GOING FORWARD, THAT WE
TRY AND WORK THROUGH AT LEAST
THESE TWO OR AT LEAST TRY TO
WORK THROUGH THE TWO.
WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST ONE
AND SEE HOW FAR WE GET.
SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING
TANGIBLE, AND THEN WE'LL GET A
BETTER SENSE OF HOW THE GROUP
WILL WANT TO WORK THROUGH
ADDITIONAL THINGS, AND THEN WE
CAN SPLIT UP INTO DIFFERENT
GROUPS SO THAT WE'RE AT LEAST
FOLLOWING SOMEWHAT SIMILAR
APPROACHES.
WOULD THAT BE OF VALUE TO FOLKS?
>> I SEE SOME NODS.
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE "HOLLYWOOD
SQUARES" VIEW.
I SEE SOME THUMBS UP AND SOME
NODS.
THAT'S GOOD.
ANY OPPOSITION OR ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTIONS?
>> A COUPLE OF HANDS RAISED,
JONI AND MIKE CHIANG.
>> THANKS.
I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE
PLACE TO START GIVEN THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT --
>> JONI, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT ABLE
TO HEAR YOU FOR SOME REASON.
>> SPEAK LOUDER.
>> OH.
IS THAT BETTER?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
THANKS FOR THAT.
I THINK GIVEN THE CONVERSATION
WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE NEED TO SORT
OF GET -- SINK IN TO A COUPLE OF
THESE THINGS AND MOVE THEM
FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S
REASONABLE.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO SET A
TIME FRAME TO THAT SO THAT WE
DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT OF
HOW WE CAN BE MORE FORWARD
LOOKING IN SOME OF THE OTHER
ASPECTS WE'VE DISCUSSED AS WELL
AND SORT OF HAVE THAT AS A WAY
OF THE NEXT MAYBE COUPLE
MEETINGS TO FOCUS ON THAT BUT
THEN TRANSITION INTO OTHER AREAS
WHERE WE CAN REALLY HIGHLIGHT
THE WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> AND JUST AS A COMMENT, DEB
PUT IN THE CHAT THAT WE SHOULD
ALSO HEAR FROM RE NA DA NEXT
TIME ON THE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
AND I AGREE, WE SHOULD CARVE OUT
A LITTLE TIME FOR THAT AS WELL,
YES.
>> OKAY.
>> LARRY, CAN I THROW SOMETHING
IN HERE REALLY QUICKLY?
>> YEAH, YOU'RE THE DIRECTOR,
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, NO, THIS IS FOR LARRY
TOO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW
MORE THAN I DO ABOUT THIS.
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM
A DIFFERENT CONGRESS.
BY THE WAY.
UNDER A DIFFERENT
ADMINISTRATION.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD
IGNORE THEM, FAR BE IT.
THERE ARE SO MANY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT ARE GOING TO BE
THE SAME.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT WITH A
LITTLE BIT OF TIME OVER THE
COMING MONTHS, WE'RE ALSO GOING
TO HEAR FROM A NEW CHAIR OF THE
ENC COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE AND A
NEW CHAIR OF THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE, ET
CETERA.
AND SO WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO THIS CONGRESS
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IN 10 DAYS,
THAT CONGRESS, DONE.
THAT'S ALL.
AND LARRY, YOU KNOW, SO BEFORE
WE GO TOO CRAZY HERE, OBVIOUSLY
DO ANYTHING YOU THINK IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE OUGHT TO BE
LOOKING AT FOR SURE, BUT BEFORE
WE GO TOO CHAPTER AND VERSE
HERE, WE MIGHT WANT TO KNOW WHO
WE'RE REALLY RESPONDING TO.
>> AND AGAIN, ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY I HAVE SUGGESTED FOR
CONSIDERATION THAT THE BURDEN
INITIALLY BEING ON THE OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR RATHER THAN ALL THE
ICs, AS A STARTING POINT, SO
THAT WE CAN AT LEAST WORK
THROUGH IT AND USE THAT AS A
POTENTIAL MODEL GOING FORWARD,
AND YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, ONCE THE
NEW CONGRESS IS IN PLACE, THEY
MAY ADD, SUBTRACT AND SO FORTH,
BUT THEN AT LEAST THE INITIAL
BURDEN HAS BEEN ON OUR TEAM HERE
AND THE GROUP CAN GET ITS
GROUNDING ON HOW TO HAVE IT
PROCEED GOING FORWARD.
>> MONICA, SHOULD WE LOOK AT A
PARTICULAR TIME FRAME TO HEAR
PERHAPS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS, THE
NEW CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE?
IS THERE -- OR JUST KEEP
MARCHING ALONG AND WHEN WE HEAR
FROM THEM, WE HEAR FROM THEM?
>> SO THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW,
AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH LARRY.
FOCUS ON THE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE THEY'LL ALSO TELL YOU
THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE
CONCERN ABOUT SILO HERE, SILO
THERE, FRANKLY THAT'S THE
DIRECTOR'S JOB.
IN MY OPINION.
I HAVE TRIED TO REALLY OWN THAT,
THAT IT'S THE DIRECTOR'S JOB TO
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THE
STRUCTURES AND ABILITY TO WORK
TOGETHER, GIVEN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE
INHERITED FOR CONGRESS.
SO I THINK STARTING THERE WOULD
BE A GOOD USE OF YOUR TIME WHILE
YOU WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS,
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET
TO -- WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH
BUDGET SEASON AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO GET TO THE SPRING, WHEN
WE START -- WHEN ALL OF US GET
CALLED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND
ASKED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT
AND WHAT WE THINK WE'RE DOING.
BUT IF YOU START WITH THE
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, GET THROUGH
THE SPRING, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO
HOPEFULLY BE GETTING SOME
SIGNALS FROM CONGRESS.
>> TYPICALLY THE BUDGET HEARINGS
ARE MARCH, APRIL.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
MIKE MIE CAL?
MICHAEL?
>> ANDREA, JUST TO COMMENT
ABOUT -- TOTALLY LOOK FORWARD TO
THE NEXT MEETING AND REVIEWING
THESE FIRST TWO BULLET POINTS
UNDER OVERSIGHT.
MY COMMENT IS JUST THAT I THINK
IT GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE STRIKE THAT BALANCE
BETWEEN THIS COMMITTEE RECEIVING
INFORMATION AND LISTENING TO IT
AND DISSECTING IT VERSUS TALKING
AND MAKING DECISIONS AND SORT OF
NEXT STEPS ABOUT IT.
MAYBE THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US
DOING THE HOMEWORK BEFOREHAND OF
THINKING ABOUT IT, I JUST THINK
IT'S GOING TO BE -- IT WOULD BE
TOO BAD IF WE HAD A SCENARIO
WHERE OUR NEXT MEETING WAS ABOUT
TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS, THEN
WE SPEND THREE MEETINGS TALKING
ABOUT THE FIRST TWO BULLET
POINTS, SO JUST PUTTING THAT OUT
IN.
>> YEAH, I'M VERY -- THANK YOU
FOR MENTIONING THAT.
I'VE BEEN VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT
THE TIME AND LARRY AND I HAVE
DISCUSSED IT AND I THINK THAT'S
WHY WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE
HAVE LENGTHY MEETINGS, YOU KNOW,
FIVE, SIX-HOUR MEETINGS MOVING
FORWARD SO WE CAN ACCOMPLISH
THIS EUJ TASK.
BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, I DON'T
THINK WE WANT TO BE TALKING
ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WE
WANT TO ACTUALLY GET IT DONE.
ALBA?
>> THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU JUST
SAID, LARRY.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS, AND
WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WE'RE MEETING
NOW BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS REALLY
REQUESTED IT.
BUT WE'RE REALLY SETTING THE
FOUNDATION FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO
MEET ON A REGULAR BASIS AND
CONTINUOUSLY REVIEW NIH.
SO I THINK IT -- I LIKE TO GO
BACK TO THAT.
SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
THAT DR. BERTAGNOLLI HAS SAID,
BECAUSE WHILE WE ARE RESPONDING
TO THESE DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE A
BIGGER PICTURE, WHICH AS I SEE
IT IS REALLY TO ENSURE THE
PUBLIC TRUST THAT NIH HAS THEIR
INTERESTS AT HEART, AND THAT WE
ARE DOING OUR JOB BY ALL THE
WAYS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO
IT.
WHEN I READ THOSE REPORTS, I DID
READ THINGS THAT RESONATE WITH
WHAT THE COMMUNITY SAYS TO ME.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEED FOR MORE
YOUNG INVESTIGATORS, FUNDING
MORE PEOPLE AT ALL STAGES.
AND THE INNOVATION PIECE, I
REALLY APPRECIATED WHAT WAS SAID
ABOUT THAT, AND WE KNOW THAT
MORE PEOPLE GIVES YOU A BETTER
CHANCE AT INNOVATION.
SO I HOPE THAT AS WE MOVE
FORWARD, WE REMEMBER THAT WE
HAVE PRESSURE BECAUSE OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING, BUT WE'RE ALSO
SETTING THE TONE FOR THIS
REGULAR PROCESS.
>> RIGHT, EXACTLY.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
IT'S TIME TO WRAP UP.
THE NEXT -- AS FAR AS THE NEXT
MEETING, I THINK TO TRY TO DO
SORT OF -- LET ME ASK PEOPLE.
TODAY IS FRIDAY.
IS FRIDAY AS A DAY OF THE WEEK
PREFERABLE FOR FOLKS IF WE'RE
PLANNING A MORE LENGTHY MEETING
OR IS THERE ANOTHER DAY OF THE
WEEK BEFORE OUR ASSISTANTS START
TRYING TO PUT OUR SCHEDULES
TOGETHER?
>> I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO
HAVE TO DO POLLS.
I UNFORTUNATELY -- THIS GROUP IS
SO BUSY AND SO HETEROGENEOUS SO
LET'S DO POLLS AND OUR TEAM
WILL -- WITH ALL OF YOUR
ASSISTANTS, WE'LL SOMEHOW FIGURE
OUT A WAY TO GET US ON THE BOOKS
FOR FIVE TO SIX HOURS, AND MY
HOPE IS THAT THE NEXT MEETING
WOULD BE IN PERSON.
WE WOULD HAVE A ZOOM OPTION
BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S
JUST NOT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO
TRAVEL.
SO I HOPE THE NEXT ONE CAN BE IN
PERSON.
WE ALL LOVE OR HATE ZOOM
DEPENDING UPON WHICH HOUR OF THE
ZOOM MEETING YOU'RE ON, BUT I DO
HOPE WE CAN DO THE NEXT ONE IN
PERSON.
>> YEAH.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED
ABOUT LAST TIME LAI EE, LARRY,
ALTERNATING, OUR NEXT MEETING
WILL BE IN PERSON, ET CETERA.
ALL RIGHT.
>> AND WE'VE CAPTURED THE MANY
REALLY IMPORTANT COMMENTS THAT
THE GROUP HAS MADE.
AND OBVIOUSLY INFORMED BY THOSE,
WE'LL BEGIN TO DRAFT ACTION
MATERIALS FOR THE CHAIR'S
CONSIDERATION AND THEN
ULTIMATELY FOR THE GROUP AS A
WHOLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
AND ALL YOUR VERY HELPFUL
COMMENTS, AND THANK YOU, MONICA.
WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU.
>> I'M SO GRATEFUL TO ALL OF
YOU, AND LISTENING TODAY, I AM
SURE WE HAVE A FANTASTIC TEAM TO
REALLY HELP US DO WHAT WE CAN'T
DO OURSELF.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ALL RIGHT.
EVERYBODY, HAVE A GREAT DAY.
>> BYE-BYE.