Home > About Fogarty > Advisory Board > Meeting Minutes Archives > 09-18-2001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
National Institutes of Health
John E. Fogarty International Center
for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences
Minutes of the Advisory Board
Forty-ninth Meeting
Table of Contents
Attendance
- Call to Order
- Review of Requirements for Confidentiality and Conflict
of Interest Procedures
- Future Meeting Dates
- Review of Application
- Adjournment
Due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 200,1 and the resulting disruptions in air travel, the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences convened its forty-ninth meeting as a teleconference. The teleconference took place on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, in Building 31, Room B2C07, at noon. It was closed to the public from noon to adjournment as provided in Sections 552b (c) (4) and 552b (c) (6), Title 5, U.S. Code, and Section 10 (d) of Public Law 92-463, for the review, discussion and evaluation of grant applications and related information.[1] Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, Director, FIC, presided as chair.
Board Members Present:
Dr. Margaret A. Chesney
Dr. Mary Claire King
Dr. Cora Marrett
Dr. Patricia Marshall
Dr. Jane Menken
Dr. Theordore Reich
Dr. Robert Shope
Board Members Absent:
Dr. Barry Bloom
Dr. Cutberto Garza
Mr. Thomas McAndrew
Dr. Catherine Wilfert
Ex Officio Members Absent:
Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel
Dr. Steven Hyman
I. CALL TO ORDER
Dr. Gerald T. Keusch called the meeting to order and, noting the disruptions posed by the September 11 attacks, thanked the members for their cooperation in meeting by teleconference. He also thanked the Research Awards Subcommittee of the Board for meeting by teleconference on Monday, September 17.
The Report of the Director, which was mailed to Board members, is appended to these minutes as Attachment II, Written Report of the Director.
Back to top ^
II. REVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROCEDURES
Although the meeting was held as teleconference, the rules and regulations pertaining to Conflict of Interest were maintained and arrangements were made to block the telephone line of any member who might be in conflict during discussion of individual proposals.
Dr. Keusch thanked the Board members for providing their updated Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports to the FIC.
III. FUTURE MEETING DATES
The following meeting dates were confirmed:
Tuesday, February 5, 2002
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
The following meeting dates were proposed:
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
IV. REVIEW OF APPLICATION
Dr. Sharon Hrynkow chaired the remainder of the meeting during which the Research Awards Subcommittee reported on their activities. A total of 77 scored competing applications were reviewed by the FIC Advisory Board at the September 18 meeting.[2] The applications were in the following programs:
18 applications for the International Training and Research Program in Environmental and Occupational Health (ITREOH), out of a total of 40 applications;
29 applications for the Fogarty International Research Collaboration Award (FIRCA) program out of a total of 55 applications;
3 applications for the HIV/AIDS Fogarty International Research Collaboration Award (AIDS-FIRCA) program out of a total of 4 applications;
6 applications for the International Research Scientist Development Award (IRSDA) out of a total of 11 applications;
21 applications for the International Clinical, Operational and Health Services Research and Training Award (ICOHRTA), out of a total of 26 applications.
The Board concurred with the initial review group recommendations for the 77 applications.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. on September 18, 2001.
[1] Members absent themselves from the meeting when the Board discusses applications from their own institutions or when a conflict of interest might occur. The procedure applies only to individual applications discussed, not to en bloc actions.
[2] Applications that were noncompetitive or unscored or were not recommended for further consideration by initial review groups were not considered by the Council.
Back to top ^
