COPR Meetings

Fall 2006 Meeting Minutes

November 3, 2006
Building 31, C-Wing, Conference Room 6, NIH Campus
Bethesda, Maryland

NIH Participants

  • Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  • Raynard S. Kington, M.D., Ph.D., Deputy Director, NIH
  • John T. Burklow, Director for Communications and Public Liaison, Office of the Director, NIH
  • Jennifer E. Gorman, M.P.A., COPR Coordinator and NIH Public Liaison Officer, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Office of the Director, NIH

COPR Members Attending

  • Syed M. Ahmed, M.D., Dr.P.H., M.P.H.
  • James J. Armstrong
  • Nicole Johnson Baker, M.A., M.P.H.
  • Craig T. Beam
  • Ruth C. Browne, Sc.D., M.P.H., M.P.P.
  • Barbara D. Butler
  • Wendy Chaite, Esq.
  • Christina Clark, M.A., M.B.A.
  • Linda Crew, M.B.A., R.N.
  • Frances J. Dunston, M.D., M.P.H.
  • Valda Boyd Ford, M.P.H., M.S., R.N.
  • R. Mike Hill
  • James Kearns
  • Nicolas Linares-Orama, Ph.D.
  • Cynthia Lindquist, Ph.D.
  • Michael Manganiello, M.P.A.
  • Marjorie Mau, M.D., M.S.
  • Ann-Gel S. Palermo, M.P.H.
  • James H. Wendorf

ACD Liaison 

  • Annelise Barron, Ph.D.

COPR Alumnus/Special Expert 

  • Lawrence B. Sadwin, President/CEO, Landmark HealthCare Foundation

Other Speakers

  • Amy L. McGuire, Executive Director, The Foundation for the NIH
  • Barbara B. Mittleman, M.D., Director, Public-Private Partnership Program, NIH
  • Susan B. Shurin, M.D., Deputy Director, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Please note:  The following speakers contributed informational expertise during the Council’s work group day discussions.  The information provided during these informational exchanges is reflected in the COPR’s comments and suggestions during their Work Group Day Reports provided to the NIH Director during the November 3, 2006 COPR Meeting.

The Council would like to thank the following speakers for the time and expertise they provided to the Council during the work group day exchanges.

How Public and Research Interaction Takes Place in the Clinical Research Process: How Does a Clinical Research Trial Come to Life?

  • Susan P. Buchbinder, M.D., Director, HIV Research, San Francisco Department of Public Health
  • Steven F. Wakefield, Legacy Project Director, HIV Vaccines Trial Network Core Operations, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
  • Mary A. Allen, R.N., M.S., Medical Officer/Nurse Consultant, Vaccine Clinical Research Branch, Vaccine Research Program, Division of AIDS, NIAID, NIH

How Do Researchers Involve the Public in Research? Lessons Learned

  • George W. Zipf, M.S., Chief, Operations Branch, Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • Kathryn S. Porter, M.D., Senior Medical Officer, Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

A Success Story: Building Bridges between Diverse Community Partners and Academic Research Institutions

  • Sora Park Tanjasiri, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., Director, Center for Cancer Disparities Research; Associate Professor, Department of Health Science, California State University, Fullerton
  • Lourdes Flores Quitugua, Guam Communications Network Training Coordinator, Tri-County Pacific Islander HIV Capacity Building Project

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Welcome and Introductions
Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni

NIH Director’s Update
Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni

Juggling Participant Privacy, Public Benefit, and Intellectual Property: The Brave New World of Genetic Data
Dr. Susan B. Shurin

The Foundation for the NIH Efforts and Activities
Ms. Amy L. McGuire

Biomarkers of Disease
Dr. Barbara B. Mittleman

COPR Work Group Day Report for the NIH Director
Mr. Craig Beam and Ms. Christina Clark

Role of the Public in the Research Process:  Work Group Efforts
Ms. Valda Boyd Ford

NIH Communications Update
Mr. John T. Burklow

COPR Communications Work Group Report
Ms. Nicole Johnson Baker

Public Comment

ACD Liaison Report
Dr. Annelise Barron and Ms. Wendy Chaite

NIH Director and COPR Member Summary and Next Steps

Adjournment

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The meeting of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s Council of Public Representatives was held on November 3, 2006.  NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., welcomed the participants and reported on continuing efforts to increase the transparency of the work of the NIH.  During the past year, the number of scientists applying for NIH funding continued to rise while the NIH budget remained flat.  The NIH Pathways to Independence Awards have addressed a need to sustain the careers of new and young investigators.  Changes in the peer review process also are addressing the need to help new investigators.

The NIH Reform Act of 2006, which authorizes $30,331,309,000 for FY 2007, $32,831,309,000 for FY 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for FY 2009 and the establishment of a common fund to support trans-NIH research was passed by the House of Representatives.  Senate activity is pending. 

Dr. Zerhouni reported that the NIH has taken a lead in creating a repository of genome-wide association information and making it public.  In October 2006, the NIH announced the launch of a new national consortium to transform clinical research using the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) funding.  Also in October, it announced the creation of a consortium to stimulate the development of biomarkers.

The Nobel Prizes for 2006 featured NIH-supported investigators, including Roger D. Kornberg, Ph.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine, Andrew Z. Fire, Ph.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine, and Craig C. Mello, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts Medical School.  NIH scientists also received Albert Lasker Medical Research Awards and induction into the National Institute of Medicine.

Dr. Zerhouni noted that the Director’s Pioneer Awards program continues to receive high-quality applicants. He also announced that John Niederhuber, M.D., had been appointed Director of the National Cancer Institute, and that eight COPR members will be rotating off of the Committee in 2007.

Susan B. Shurin, M.D., Deputy Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, described the NIH’s endeavor to ensure that the investment in genomic research is best utilized by developing a central repository of data from genome-wide association studies.  The NIH is currently accepting public comments on the proposed data sharing policy, and anticipates having the policy in place for the June 1, 2007 application deadline.

Amy L. McGuire, Executive Director of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, described the work of the Foundation, whose mission is to support the mission and priorities of the NIH, including the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research.  Ms. McGuire reviewed current projects, including those funded by a large grant provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Barbara B. Mittleman, M.D., Director of the NIH’s Public-Private Partnership Program (PPP), discussed biomarkers and the Biomarker Consortium.  The PPP Program facilitates NIH partnerships to leverage NIH expertise and resources in a synergistic fashion with any of a range of outside entities.  The PPP Program serves as a neutral broker, brings parties together, fosters open access to data, and coordinates activities.  The Biomarker Consortium, launched in October 2006 and managed by the Foundation for the NIH, is a partnership of the NIH, FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), industry, and nonprofit patient-advocacy groups, and is devoted to developing and qualifying biomarkers so that new treatments can be developed and approved as rapidly as possible.

The COPR members reported on their work group meeting of the previous day (November 2), which focused on the issue of advancing public participation in the clinical research process.  They presented a series of suggestions for increasing that participation and will offer a formal report and recommendations at the next COPR meeting.

John T. Burklow reviewed the NIH’s communication goals and reported on communications resources, recent presentations, media efforts, and other community outreach.  The Office of Science Policy worked with the NIH Institutes and Centers to develop fact sheets employing a theme of comparing medicine of the past and medicine of the future.  The NIH garnered strong national media coverage of the launch of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program and the Biomarkers Consortium.  OCPL worked across the agency with ICs to partner with the Discovery Channel to host its Young Scientist Challenge, which will air in February 2007.  The NIH Discovery Young Scientist Challenge is the final step in a year-long effort to identify 40 finalists from several million middle schoolers who participate in national science fairs across the country. They compete in teams and individually through a final series of challenges that were developed by NIH scientific leadership and in collaboration with OCPL who led the effort.  

The COPR Communications Work Group reported on a recommendation that the COPR develop a series of publications for wide distribution focusing on the role of the public in research.  In addition, the Work Group continued to urge the development of the COPR Ambassadors Program to link COPR Alumni and current COPR members in the planning of and/or participation in NIH and Institute and Center outreach programs planned all over the U.S..

The COPR members received updates from the liaison to the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) and heard public comments.

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.

The 16th meeting of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s Council of Public Representatives was held on November 3, 2006.  NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., welcomed the COPR members and presenters and recognized COPR alumnus Lawrence B. Sadwin, who attended the meeting.  Dr. Zerhouni also noted the previous day’s (November 2) work group session, in which the COPR members heard from a variety of outside experts.

NIH DIRECTOR’S UPDATE
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.

Dr. Zerhouni reported that, during the past year, he and his office reached out to many groups around the country and around the world, speaking with scientific associations, advisory councils, and more, and offering transparency for the work of the NIH.

Status of the NIH Budget
In the past year, the number of scientists applying for NIH funding has continued to rise rapidly at the same time that the NIH budget increase remained below the inflation rate.  Dr. Zerhouni stressed the need, especially in times of lean funding, to be clear about the NIH’s work and to make the best calls based on priorities, fundamental vulnerabilities, and core values.  This requires, for example, a focus on new investigators, who are most vulnerable to financial constraints and who are also the future of science.

NIH Pathways to Independence Awards
The NIH created the Pathways to Independence Awards to support young or new investigators.  As science evolves, new fields are often supported by new investigators.  The NIH’s focus on these entrants into scientific fields represents a strategic vision.  The awards will grow into a $400 million program over the next 5 years.

Peer Review
The NIH is examining and revising the peer review process to ensure that it does not become burdensome for investigators.  The NIH directors have agreed to make peer review a priority during the upcoming year.  In particular, the NIH does not want to lose good investigators who are up for their first grant renewals.

Legislative Update
It has been almost 15 years since Congress last reauthorized the NIH.  The NIH Reform Act of 2006 authorizes $30,331,309,000 for FY 2007, $32,831,309,000 for FY 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for FY 2009, and the establishment of a common fund to support trans-NIH research.  It has a goal of creating better integration across the Institutes.  The House of Representatives approved the bill in September by a vote of 414 to 2.  In passing the bill, the legislators expressed great enthusiasm for biomedical research and the NIH.  Legislation in the Senate is pending.

In speaking with legislators, Dr. Zerhouni continued to stress the return on investment that the NIH represents.  Public awareness of what the NIH does—of the research that it supports—is growing, yet remains low.  Science must take risks, and young scientists must be supported.

A Proposed Repository for Genetic Information
The NIH has taken a lead in creating a repository of genome-wide association information and making it public.  It has engaged in a partnership with industry to make the information available in the PubMed databases.

NIH Launches a National Consortium to Transform Clinical Research
On October 3, 2006 Dr. Zerhouni announced the launch of a new consortium using the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) funding.  The NIH will fund 12 academic health centers as part of the consortium and allow 52 additional centers to receive planning grants to prepare them for joining the consortium in the future.  The National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) leads the effort.

Biomarkers Consortium
In October, the NIH announced creation of a partnership to stimulate the development of biomarkers to identify diseases early and reflect disease status.  The Foundation for the NIH will coordinate the project, which will include private industry and other government agencies.

Prizes
On October 2, 2006, the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to long-time NIH grantee Roger D. Kornberg, Ph.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine, who studied the fundamental process of DNA transcription.  Long-time NIH grantees Andrew Z. Fire, Ph.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine, and Craig C. Mello, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on RNA interference.

On October 9, 2006, three NIH scientists were elected to the Institute of Medicine and recognized for their contributions to science.  They were Raynard S. Kington, M.D., Ph.D., the NIH Deputy Director, H. Clifford Lane, M.D., Clinical Science Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Paul A. Sieving, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Eye Institute (NEI).

All five recipients of this year’s Albert Lasker Medical Research Award were NIH grantees.

Other News
Dr. Zerhouni thanked the COPR members who participated in the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research consultation meetings in July and September.  The meetings resulted in a request for information (RFI) to the public to provide ideas for improving and accelerating biomedical research.  The feedback will become part of the process of identifying a new cohort of Roadmap initiatives.

The Director’s Pioneer Awards program continued to receive high-quality applicants.  The NIH Institutes now are supporting more awards than were initially budgeted.  The Institutes appear to be open to new ways of performing the review process.  Dr. Zerhouni thanked Jeremy M. Berg, Ph.D., and Judith H. Greenberg, Ph.D., for managing the program.

Dr. Zerhouni announced that John E. Niederhuber, M.D., had been appointed Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in October.

Dr. Zerhouni announced that eight COPR members’ terms will expire in 2007:  James J. Armstrong, Craig T. Beam, Ruth Browne, Sc.D., M.P.H., M.P.P., Barbara Butler, Wendy Chaite, Esq., Frances Dunston, M.D., M.P.H., R. Mike Hill, and James Kearns.  He thanked them for their service.  Jennifer E. Gorman, M.P.A., recognized the many hours that the COPR members have given to the process outside the formal meetings.

COPR Member Discussion
In responding to COPR member questions, Dr. Zerhouni noted that progress in the effort to translate science, for example, through the CTSAs, has featured one institution creating patient registries and others working on forging new partnerships with private and public health care organizations as well as working to develop better designs for clinical trials to ensure that patients with rare as well as common diseases benefit from new medical therapies.

Public participation in research can result in improved health care quality.  David B. Abrams, Ph.D., Director of the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), noted that the OBSSR has a new strategic plan that features a focus on strengthening the dissemination or diffusion of science.  Dr. Zerhouni stated the NIH must fight against the inertia in the health care system that prevents it from absorbing new knowledge.

In response to a COPR member question related to research on health care delivery, Dr. Zerhouni remarked that many factors mediate health care delivery, including payment systems, insurance systems, employer and government policies, and urban policies.  Payment systems do not favor prevention.  The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) encourages actions to improve delivery, including the use of electronic health records, patient-centered systems, reductions in health disparities, and pay-for-performance systems.

During a COPR member inquiry about international research, Dr. Zerhouni explained that the NIH is a global institution, with a global investment, excluding work in HIV/AIDS, of about $800 million.  Global knowledge and capacity are important for advances in public health research.  Basic research has global implications.

Another COPR member inquired how might the NIH and patient groups work better with industry and with venture capitalists?  Dr. Zerhouni commented that the pharmaceutical companies state that the level of basic knowledge within NIH-based medical research is insufficient for the companies to use to predictably increase the chances of success of a particular medical approach.  To make investments more productive and less risky, industry needs better fundamental tools (e.g., biomarkers) that reveal how biological systems will respond.  The NIH offers small-business innovative-research grants and mechanisms that support collaborations between scientists and industry.

During a discussion on the importance of training minority scientists, Council members and NIH leadership commented on the serious need to improve the science education of young minorities.  Some best practices for fostering scientific careers are effective—especially those that are selective, focused, and mentor-intensive.  Many programs at the university level (for example, at the University of California, Los Angeles) are achieving success.  The NIH has a large program to support minority grant applicants, for example, through its diversity supplements.

JUGGLING PARTICIPANT PRIVACY, PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:  THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF GENETIC DATA
Susan B. Shurin, M.D.

Susan B. Shurin, M.D., Deputy Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), described the NIH’s endeavor to ensure that the investment in genomic research is utilized in a manner which will have maximum public benefit. Scientists today are generating more data than can be fully analyzed by the investigators who are performing the experiments.  Genetic data are an especially valuable resource; genomic information is expensive to obtain, and detailed information about the characteristics of study participants is uniquely precious.  Participants in clinical research deserve to have their privacy protected and their contributions maximized. Investigators deserve to get credit for their work, and protection of intellectual property needs to be carefully managed to ensure maximum incentives for development of diagnostic and therapeutic uses of information. Managing these issues, which may not be completely aligned, is a significant focus of development of the NIH data sharing policy.

Genome-wide association studies are large-scale studies of genetic variation across the human genome with the goal of identifying association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with expressed traits (phenotypes). Large amounts of data are needed to provide meaningful analyses. Analytic methods and biostatistical approaches are evolving rapidly.  For data to be optimally utilized and analyzed, data should be made available to investigators who bring unique expertise and new approaches to the analyses.  Access to data must be consistent with the informed consent provided by the participants.  There is an added sensitivity because genetic data from individuals may affect the individuals’ families and communities.

The NIH believes that data will be most accessible if it resides or is accessed through a single portal. No other organization or institution has the long-term commitment to and capacity for serving as a data repository than that which is provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM).  The NIH is developing a policy, which will respect the exclusive first-publication rights of the primary investigators.  The policy also aims to ensure that intellectual property rights, or patenting strategies, for researchers minimize restrictions on commercial development prior to the point at which an invention can be said to be unique and commercializable.

The NIH accepted public comments on the proposed repository process through October 30, 2006.  It is asking researchers to retain information on research subjects at their institutions. Submitted data will be stripped of identifiers before it will be accepted in the database.  Assuring that data is stripped of identifiers; ensuring that secondary researchers who agree to meet all requirements for protection of the rights of submitting investigators and participants have access to the data; dealing with complex publication and intellectual property issues; and supporting both submitting institutions and the institutions of secondary users in their obligations to protect the rights of participants will be a complex process involving many parties.  Dr. Shurin reviewed a proposed procedure in which de-identified data will be submitted with the concurrence of the submitting institution’s Institutional Review Board, and secondary users will have access to data only after completing a data-use certification that indicates the research plan and acknowledgement of submitting investigators and any restrictions on the use of data.  The pharmaceutical industry has expressed interest in and strong support of the data repository, including a willingness to submit data obtained with their support.  The program will require changes in the current research culture.  Dr. Shurin noted a growing enthusiasm for the concept of wide data sharing among investigators as long as their rights and those of study participants are protected. 

The NIH has asked for comments from the research community on benefits and risks of sharing data, protections that are needed, advantages and disadvantages of a repository, and resources that will be required to support it.  On December 14, the NIH will hold a Town Hall Meeting on campus and via webcast to discuss the policy.  It hopes for final approval of the program by April 1, 2007, to be applied to all grants submitted June 1, 2007.

COPR Member Discussion
The COPR members cited a broader challenge of educating the public about research and genetics.  Public trust is another large challenge.  Risk can be managed, but not eliminated.  The challenge of intellectual property needs will be difficult.  Marjorie Mau, M.D., cited one case of local citizens who felt intellectual property should not be owned.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), stressed the need to change the culture to produce openness for data sharing.  He agreed on the need to educate the public and health care officials so that they can incorporate this information in daily considerations, such as when obtaining medical care.  He recognized the fears that people will have about the potential misuse of genetic information.  Federal legislation to prohibit such misuse likely will be necessary.  The NHGRI has developed a DVD presentation on genetics for use in high school curricula.

THE FOUNDATION FOR THE NIH EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES
Amy L. McGuire

Amy L. McGuire, Executive Director of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, described the work of the Foundation which was established by the United States Congress to support the mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH):  improving health through scientific discovery.  The Foundation identifies and develops opportunities for innovative public-private partnerships involving industry, academia, and the philanthropic community.  A non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation, the Foundation is the sole organization specifically authorized by Congress to raise private-sector funds that support a broad portfolio of unique programs that complement and enhance NIH priorities and activities.  The Foundation is governed by an independent Board of Directors, which includes the directors of the NIH and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as ex officio, non-voting members.

Ms. McGuire noted that there are circumstances in which only partnerships can best accelerate scientific discovery to improve public health. Some research initiatives, by virtue of their need for speed and immediate resources, their complexity, and their scale, are beyond the capacity of any single sector, much less any single institution, to undertake. They require the resources and expertise of many stakeholders—government, industry, patient groups, academia, philanthropic institutions or other private groups.

The launch early in 2006 of the Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN), and of The Biomarkers Consortium, and the Schizophrenia Metabolic Initiative later in the year, along with the ongoing work of the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Osteoarthritis Initiative, and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative exemplify the need for partnerships.  Each is unique and unprecedented in its realm, but all point to the special place cross-sectoral partnerships must occupy in biomedical research.   The research results of partnerships are open to public access.

Preliminary unaudited figures show that during 2006, the Foundation expended a record $56 million for program services.  Ninety-four percent was for research and 6 percent for other programs such as education, training and fellowships.   In addition, the Foundation  expended $2 million during 2006 for supporting services (management, general administration, and fundraising).   For every dollar spent in 2006, 96 cents supported programs and 4 cents funded administration and fundraising activities, according to the preliminary figures.

Ms. McGuire suggested that the COPR identify and propose projects that would benefit from public-private partnerships, suggest new models for collaboration, suggest new partners, and recommend the FNIH to others.

COPR Member Discussion
Ms. McGuire stated that evidence-based practices are featured in some current projects.  The Foundation’s priorities are determined by the private funding partners in alignment with NIH priorities.  COPR members suggested that the FNIH consider ways to help develop the pipeline for fostering science careers, especially for youth from diverse populations, and to support NIH-funded investigators early in their careers.

Norka Ruiz Bravo, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH, reported that the NIH is working to establish a program that will allow small organizations to fund investigators who have gone through the NIH peer review process without being awarded grants.  This was a COPR recommendation.

The FNIH performs fundraising, recently creating the Discovery Society to solicit support, and has plans for giving campaigns.  COPR members encouraged the FNIH to focus on operational research, that is, to study the research process, and to foster researcher-advocates, perhaps partnering with the organization Research!America.  The FNIH recently supported a meeting for consumer advocates hosted by the National Cancer Institute.

[Kudzai Makomva, a representative of Families USA, noted that her group has obtained funding to perform research advocacy work.]

BIOMARKERS OF DISEASE
Barbara B. Mittleman, M.D.

Barbara B. Mittleman, M.D., Director of the NIH’s Public-Private Partnership Program, discussed biomarkers and the new Biomarker Consortium.  The PPP Program serves as a neutral broker, brings parties together, fosters open access to data, and coordinates activities.  It facilitates partnerships among academic institutions, foundations, government agencies (including foreign), patient advocacy organizations, and industry.

To shift medicine from a curative role to a preemptive role will require the tailoring of diagnosis and treatment, for which biomarkers will be needed to determine who will get sick, what illnesses will occur, how extreme they will be, and what treatments will work.  Biomarkers can measure the risk for disease and the status of disease.  Biomarkers can be genetic, biochemical, or immunological, measurements of health, images, cognitive measures, and more.  As examples, they can be used in research to understand disease progression in models, in regulation to judge whether drugs are safe, and in health care to identify risk.

The Biomarker Consortium, launched in October 2006 and managed by the FNIH, is a partnership of the NIH, FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), industry, professional societies, and nonprofit patient-advocacy groups.  The partners contribute money, intellectual input, reagents, samples and data to the consortium.  They have developed shared policies for addressing the issues of antitrust, intellectual property, and ethics for activities within the Biomarker Consortium.  The Consortium features an Executive Committee, steering committees for disease and scientific focus areas, and project teams for implementation.  Initial projects include (1) qualifying the use of the imaging technology FDG-PET as a marker for tumor response, (2) identifying genomic markers for depressive disorders and treatments, and (3) biomarkers for diabetes risk and development.  The Public-Private Partnership Program can be accessed at http://ppp.od.nih.gov.

COPR Member Discussion
The COPR members wondered about the definition of a “proven” biomarker.  Dr. Mittleman responded that biomarkers are not spoken of as validated or not validated today.  Rather, they are considered to be qualified for particular purposes, and the development of qualification schemes is an important result expected to come out of the Biomarker Consortium activities.

The COPR members noted that some social determinants appear to act as biomarkers.  Perhaps groups interested in such social factors could join the Consortium.

The experience of the person or patient is important.  Dr. Mittleman noted that the Consortium is considering patient-reported biomarkers.  Dr. Kington noted that one initiative within the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research features development of a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcomes, which will add to the structure of the patient’s medical record.

The COPR members agreed that the Biomarker Consortium could serve as an excellent model for future trans-DHHS initiatives.

COPR WORK GROUP DAY REPORT FOR THE NIH DIRECTOR
Christina Clark, M.A., M.B.A. and Craig Beam

Christina Clark, M.A., M.B.A., thanked the organizers of the previous day’s (November 2) work-group session and the expert presenters.  The presenters were George W. Zipf, M.S., and Kathryn S. Porter, M.D., of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lourdes Flores Quitugua, of the Tri-County Pacific Islander HIV Capacity Building Project, Sora Park Tanjasiri, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., of California State University, Fullerton, Mary A. Allen, R.N., M.S., of the NIAID, Susan P. Buchbinder, M.D., of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and Steven F. Wakefield, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.  Marin P. Allen, Ph.D., and John T. Burklow of the NIH Office of the Director, also spoke.  During the session, the COPR members broke into two groups to discuss the role of the public in research.

Mr. Beam noted that the COPR members were guided by the following considerations for advancing the role of the public in clinical research:

  • To help establish a baseline of NIH community participation.
  • To educate researchers about potential roles for the public.
  • To provide guidance to grant applicants and enhance training programs.
  • To identify and disseminate best practices.
  • To bridge a gap, allowing organizations and research institutes to collaborate.
  • To build partnerships that expand community involvement in research.

The COPR members heard about the NIH’s HIV Vaccine Trial Network, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and the Los Angeles–based Guam Communications Network. They discussed challenges to incorporating the public in the research process, especially the need to increase the research community’s understanding of the value of public involvement and the public’s sometimes negative perception of clinical research.  There are a variety of entry points for public input.

[Note: Ann-Gel S. Palermo, M.P.H., recused herself from participation in this segment of the COPR meeting, because of a minor conflict of interest.]

ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS—WORK GROUPS

Valda Boyd Ford, M.P.H., M.S., R.N., reviewed the discussions of the previous day’s work group session.  The participants sought to identify effective strategies for increasing the ability of researchers to involve the public in research.  The following proposals were made:

  • Offer incentives.
  • Identify evidence-based research practices for involving communities.
  • Develop the evidence for public participation.
  • Develop ways to measure efficacy of community involvement in research.
  • Build effective collaborations and partnerships.
  • Communicate the benefits of community involvement in research.
  • Increase the base of support in the public.
  • Create tools for educating researchers.
  • Provide guidance to grant applicants.
  • Reach out to professional organizations.
  • Educate deans and academicians about the value of public participation in research.
  • Reach out to study sections and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

The Role of the Public in the Research Process Work Group will take the lead on this topic and work with the full Council to provide additional detail on these initial and broad based recommendations. The Council will work to formulate and indicate ways that the NIH might operationalize or apply, the ideas and recommendations put forward during the meeting.

COPR Member Discussion

The COPR members noted that defining “the public” and “research” is not easy. The definitions will affect the usefulness of the recommendations and actions.  Perhaps the COPR should work on a single large area, for example, the culture or mechanisms of long-term support, during the next 6 months.  An effort might focus on deans at institutions or on the identification of scientists who are willing to engage the public. Dr. Zerhouni stressed the need to allow science to drive the program, offering public participation as an opportunity or activation energy.  Not every science would or should be involved. Perhaps the COPR could publish an article to stimulate the process.  The NIH has the power to affect the process through grants.  Dr. Zerhouni asked the group to consider ways to encourage relationships between investigators and communities “up front,” so that the participants become proactive rather than reactive.

NIH COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE
John T. Burklow

Mr. Burklow reported that, in August 2006, all NIH communications directors and officers of public liaison attended a training exercise to look at the possible “tipping points” and concrete changes that show consistent results.  One example was having staff use small stickers that say “Ask me about the NIH” to wear on nametags at all meetings.

Mr. Burklow reviewed the NIH’s communication goals, which include increasing the awareness of (1) the benefits that Americans receive from the public investment in biomedical research, (2) the role research will play in transforming 21st-century medicine, and (3) the public and private sector compact to sustain momentum in advancing knowledge and discovery.  He reviewed a wide variety of NIH resources, presentations, media efforts, and community outreach.

The Office of Science Policy has worked with the Institutes and Centers (ICs) to develop a large number of fact sheets whose theme is comparing the medicine of the past with that of the future.  These are available on the NIH Web site created by OCPL “Research Results for the Public” http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/index.htm.  This site includes an interactive state-by-state map that allows the visitor to find all the research support in his or her state.  OCPL has added many additional resources to this site.

Dr. Zerhouni’s newsletter is also posted and is mailed to more than 40,000 grantees and 350 constituency organizations.  Dr. Zerhouni was profiled in a summer issue of Chemical and Engineering News.  He has provided editorials, interviews, and quotes for other national publications.

In October, the NIH orchestrated strong national media coverage of the launch of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program.  It also achieved wide wire-service coverage of the launching of the Biomarkers Consortium.  Dr. Jeremy Berg was instrumental in promoting the role of the NIH in supporting the careers of the recent Nobel Prize recipients.

The NIH partnered with the Discovery Channel to host its Young Scientist Challenge.  Mr. Burklow presented to the meeting participants a short video produced by NHRGI of the event.  The 1-hour show will air in February 2007.  The NIH hopes to support the program again next year.

Mentions of the NIH in the general press steadily increased during 2006, with, for example, 508 citations from May 18 to May 24.  Feature NIH exposure included Parade Magazine and various consumer magazines, news services, radio, podcasts, videocasts, and local television.  In Jackson, Mississippi, Mr. Burklow helped to inaugurate an NIH information center in a new medical mall, which had been developed in an unused shopping mall.  In the fall, the NIH launched MedlinePlus Magazine, a new quarterly, with the Friends of the National Library of Medicine.

A large number of Spanish-language programs have been developed in collaboration with the individual ICs.  Mr. Burklow thanked the COPR members for their guidance in developing and realizing the NIH communication plan.  He stated that he would forward to them copies of the NIH public service announcements that the group watched on the work group day.  The NIH podcast is available on iTunes on the Internet.

COPR COMMUNICATIONS WORK GROUP REPORT
Nicole Johnson Baker

Nicole Johnson Baker, M.A., M.P.H., reported on the progress of the COPR Communications Work Group.  The work group continued to recommend the COPR Ambassador Program, in which COPR members and alumni, and possibly even other Advisory Board members, and high-profile volunteers are linked with NIH outreach programs being planned all over the U.S.  They could be available to provide public input during planning and could be called upon as “public Ambassadors” to participate in these NIH outreach activities and events.  There are over 35 COPR Alumni already spread out around the country.  Each has served three years on the COPR and has donated hundreds of hours participating in discussions with NIH leaders.  These trained NIH experts could also personally disseminate information about the NIH, thereby raising awareness.

The work group recommended that the COPR develop three publications focusing on the role of the public in research:

  • An article for a scientific journal—a review of literature about the value of public participation in research.
  • A newspaper editorial about the value to research of the public perspective.
  • A magazine article highlighting success stories.
  • A brochure highlighting the value of public participation in research that could be distributed at appropriate meetings and to constituency groups and their members.

The work group proposed that a brochure collecting the key points from those publications be developed and disseminated.  It proposed creating a public service announcement with a broad theme, highlighting the value of the NIH investment in biomedical research.  It proposed developing an NIH Web site that collects, from all the IC Web sites, materials tailored for children.

The COPR members raised the challenge of encouraging the people who know best what the NIH does (e.g., the investigators) to speak in the language of the general population about that work.  Consumer magazines and media could help.  Perhaps the value of the NIH could be emphasized when grants are given in communities.  Perhaps the NIH could develop promotional songs that target youth.  Perhaps the NIH could better place its name/brand in physicians’ offices.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Sarena D. Seifer, Executive Director of Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, presented a letter from her organization, supporting the efforts of the NIH and COPR to increase public participation in research and offering ideas to do so.  She welcomed efforts to energize public participation in research and to reach out to professional organizations that can help.  NIH funding is a driver for changing the culture of academia.  Ms. Seifer encouraged the NIH to support community-based participatory research (CBPR), for example, by developing appropriate funding streams, forming a standing study section, securing reviewers with experience in community engagement, and perhaps convening a meeting of all NIH grantees who use a CBPR approach.

ACD LIAISON REPORT

Annelise Barron, Ph.D., and Wendy Chaite, Esq., reported on the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), which occurred on June 2, 2006.  The ACD members and invited speakers discussed the NIH communications plan (Mr. Burklow), appropriations and budgets (Andrew C. Baldus), the NIH intramural research program (Michael M. Gottesman, M.D.), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (David A. Schwartz, M.D.), and the NIH Office of Technology Transfer (Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Ph.D., J.D.).  The ACD members discussed and approved ongoing NIH efforts, such as the shortening of the grant application review cycle, support for new/young investigators, and communications activities.

Dr. Barron suggested that the full minutes of the ACD meeting be placed in the COPR meeting binder and that the minutes of the COPR meeting be placed in the ACD meeting binder.  She suggested that the NIH consider appointing to the COPR a member with a strong background in information technology. 

NIH DIRECTOR AND COPR MEMBER SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

Dr. Zerhouni reemphasized the importance of community participation in research, calling for efforts to reduce fears and myths about research, to provide leadership, and to provide optimism.  The NIH is funding more grants than ever and with good success rates for applicants.  However, other trends may make it difficult to maintain these results.  The NIH must be vigilant and must plan well, based on good communications—an area in which the COPR plays an important role.  Dr. Zerhouni asked the outgoing COPR members to stay in touch with the Council and its issues.

Ms. Gorman noted that a call for applications for membership in the COPR will be posted at the NIH Web site (8 slots are open).  Applications will be due by December 15, 2006.

Dr. Zerhouni thanked the COPR members for their input.  The next meeting of the COPR will take place April 18–20, 2007.  The 2007 fall meeting will take place on October 25–26.

ADJOURNMENT

Dr. Zerhouni and Mr. Beam adjourned the meeting.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACD Advisory Committee to the Director

ADNIAlzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

CBPRCommunity-Based Participatory Research

COPR Council of Public Representatives

CTSAClinical and Translational Science Awards

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

FDAU.S. Food and Drug Administration

FNIHFoundation for the National Institutes of Health

GAIN Genetic Association Information Network

ICs NIH Institutes and Centers

IRB Institutional Review Board

NCRRNational Center for Research Resources

NCINational Cancer Institute

NEINational Eye Institute

NHANESNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NHLBINational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

NHGRINational Human Genome Research Institute

NIAIDNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

NIHNational Institutes of Health

OBSSROffice of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

RFIRequest for Information