Date: January 25, 2008
Place: Building 31, Conference Room 6
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
The 187th meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council (NADCRC) was convened on January 25, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., in Building 31, Conference Room 6, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland. The meeting was open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. followed by the closed session for Council business and consideration of grant applications from 1:00 p.m. until adjournment at 2:30 p.m. Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak presided as Chair.
Members Present:
Dr. Gilda Barbarino
Dr. Matthew J. Doyle
Dr. Marianne Bronner-Fraser
Dr. Elias Boneta
Dr. Cecile Feldman
Ms. Katherine Hammitt
Dr. Josephine Lai
Dr. Jon D. Levine
Dr. Anne S. Lindblad
Dr. Malcolm Snead
Dr. Philip Stashenko
Dr. George Taylor
Ad Hoc Participants:
Dr. Carole Anderson
Dr. Rena D’Souza
Dr. Laurie McCauley
Dr. Joel Strom
Members of the Public Present:
Mr. Peter Anas, Friends of NIDCR
Mr. Eugene Anderson, ADEA
Mr. Robert Burns, ADA
Mr. Clifton Carey, ADA
Ms. Terrie Cowley, TMJA
Dr. Christopher Fox, AADR
Ms. Monette McKinnon, ADEA
Ms. Myla Moss, ADEA
Mr. Jack Bresch, ADEA
Mr. Ed. Rossamondo, University of Connecticut.
Ms. Laura Siaya
Mr. Charles Stein, University of Pittsburgh
Ms. Joan Wilentz, TMJA
Mr. John Watson, UCSD
Federal Employees Present:
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research:
Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak, Director, NIDCR
Dr. Isabel Garcia, Deputy Director, NIDCR
Dr. Norman S. Braveman, Assistant to the Director, NIDCR and Executive Secretary, NADCRC
Dr. Robert C. Angerer, Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research (DIR)
Dr. Katheryn Carbone, Deputy Scientific Director, DIR
Dr. Pamela McInnes, Director, CIBID
Dr. Alicia Dombroski, Deputy Director, Division of Extramural Activities
Ms. Jane Atkinson, NIDCR, CCR
Mr. Hong Cao, NIDCR
Dr. Lois Cohen, Contractor
Mr. Kevin Crist, NIDCR
Mr. Bret Dean, NIDCR
Ms. Ki-Cha Flash, NIDCR, GMB
Ms. Sue Hamas, NIDCR
Dr. Kevin Hardwick, NIDCR
Dr. Kathy Hayes, NIDCR
Mr. Justin Hentges, NIDCR
Dr. Jonathan Horsford, NIDCR
Dr. Tim Iafolla, NIDCR
Ms. Mary Kelly, NICDR, SRB
Ms. Sooyoun Kim, NIDCR
Dr. Raj Krishnaraju, NIDCR, SRB
Dr. Eleni Kousvelari, Acting Director, CBI
Dr. John W. Kusiak, Director, Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience Program, CIBID
Ms. Carol Loose, NIDCR
Ms. Carol Low, NIDCR
Dr. Nadya Lumelsky, Program Director, Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Dental Medicine Program, CBI
Dr. R. D. Lunsford, NIDCR
Ms. Jayne Lura-Brown, NIDCR, CIBID
Dr. Mostafa Nokta, Program Director, AIDS and Immunosuppression Program, CIBID
Dr. Ruth Nowjack-Raymer, Program Director, Health Disparities Research Program, CCR
Dr. Melissa Riddle, NIDCR, BSSRB
Ms. Dede Rutberg, Grants Management Branch, NIDCR
Dr. Yasaman Shirazi, Program Director, Epithelial Cell Regulation and Transformation Program, CIBID
Dr. Lillian Shum, Program Director, Mineralized Tissue and Salivary Gland Physiology Program, CIBID
Dr. Rochelle Small, CIBID
Ms. Lesley Stewart, NIDCR
Mr. Romeo Tengey, NIDCR, GMB
Ms. Rebecca Wagonner-Miller, NIDCR
Ms. Traci Walker, Committee Management Assistant, OD
Other Federal Employees:
Ms. Linda Berman, SSS
Ms. Mary Fran Deutsh, OD/OPERA
Mr. Nasreen Jahed, SSS/ACTG
Ms. Linda Naina, SSS
OPEN SESSION
I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Lawrence Tabak called 187th meeting of the Council to order and invited guests and Council members to introduce themselves. He announced that four new Council members had been nominated and should be confirmed before the next meeting—Dr. Joel Strom, Dr. Carole Anderson, Dr. Rena D’Souza and Dr. Laurie McCauley. All were in attendance as ad hoc participants.
Dr. Tabak announced with regret that four Council members would retire – Dr. Eli Capilouto, Dr. Matthew Doyle, Dr. Josephine Lai, and Dr. George Taylor. Dr. Tabak thanked them for their dedicated service to the Council and presented each with a gift as a tangible expression of appreciation. He added that Dr. Doyle was the first industry representative selected to serve and that he had done so with objectivity and efficiency.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dr. Norman Braveman, Executive Secretary of the Council, invited approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2007 Council meeting. It was noted that Mr. Peter Anas, listed as an employee of NIDCR, is actually executive director of the Friends of NIDCR. With that correction, on motion duly made and seconded, the minutes were unanimously approved.
III. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR, NIDCR
Dr. Lawrence Tabak
Dr. Tabak announced the appointment of Dr. Michelle Culp as the director of a new office, the Office of Clinical Trials Operations and Management, which will provide support for both intramural and extramural research projects. He also welcomed Dr. Sue Hammond as the newly appointed Evaluation Officer. He noted that a booklet had been developed that includes brief descriptions of selected research projects and the principal investigators involved in those projects. It would be available at the end of the meeting.
Finally, Dr. Tabak commented that the 60th anniversary of the creation of NIDCR by Congress would be celebrated in a number of events, including the next Council meeting (that falls on the day before the date of the original legislation), and a number of symposia and other events that will occur in early April.
Turning to the budget, Dr. Tabak compared the changes in allocation of funding in the 2007 budget compared to the 1998 budget. There has been a significant increase in the money for the extramural program, from 56% of the budget in 1998 to 63% in 2007. In terms of dollars, the extramural program is now about $300 million, of which 80% goes to research project grants (RPGs). However, 80% of the funds in the RPG budget are already spoken for under previous awards, leaving only 20% for new grants. Because of previous commitments, the actual dollars for 2008 new research is slightly lower than it was in 2007.
The allocation for Center activities was halved since 1998, from 10% to 5%; and the Intramural Program went from 18% to 15%. Intramural funding is now $58 million. However, about $20 million of that amount is NIDCR’s share of the various institute and center shares of the NIH assessment for overhead and programs such as Roadmap.
Dr. Tabak noted FY 2007 clinical research initiatives, including a study on biphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis, a program to improve oral health of women and their infants, and two collaborative Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) studies, one on clefting and one on dental caries. In the area of integrative biology and bioengineering there are a half dozen projects—on host innate immune-oral microbes, TMJD, trigeminal system pain, nano level composite restorative materials, immunology of biofilms and long-term antiretroviral therapy related to the oral mucosa—and NIDCR is committed to participating in Roadmap’s Microbiome Project.
The FY 2008 budget of $389.7 million, about the same as last year, is in the final stage of refinement and should be released shortly. It includes several new initiatives. The Oral Health Disparities Centers RFA will be re-competed so that existing and new research entities may submit proposals for the next round. The behavioral and social sciences program at NIDCR is being revitalized with an RFA on developing complex models of oral health and behavior. Dr. Melissa Riddle is the new program director. Finally, there will be activity related to Phase III trials.
Other new RFAs in the integrative biology and bioengineering area include a program on osteoimmunology, a rapidly growing field; translation of gene silencing strategies to oral and craniofacial disorders; oral mucosal vaccination against HIV; and a systems approach to salivary gland biology. Finally, there will be a program announcement on a multidisciplinary study of oral manifestations of HIV/AIDS.
Looking to the future, Dr. Tabak described the effort to develop a FaceBase project to integrate activities and knowledge related to craniofacial development; to work on a system to more effectively use the beneficial aspects of inflammation in reconstruction of oral and craniofacial tissues; development of a bio-repository for salivary gland tumors; and development of an annotated salivary proteome. Three institutions (UCSF, Rochester Scripps and UCLA) have been collaborating on developing data for this project and the first paper will be published shortly.
IV. UPDATING NIDCR’S STRATEGIC PLAN
Dr. Isabel Garcia
Dr. Garcia explained to Council members and guests in attendance that the existing five-year strategic plan would extend through the end of 2008, and work would be undertaken to develop the next five-year strategic plan. Staff and Council members will be asked to participate in the process, as will members of the traditional oral health community. A concerted effort will be made to invite input of researchers from non-traditional scientific disciplines and stakeholders who are increasingly active in oral health research. A web site will be established to facilitate public comment. In addition, there will be several opportunities for input including a special session at the American Association for Dental Research’s April annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. An input session will also be held as part of NIDCR’s annual Patient Advocate’s Forum. Finally, there will be a planning conference in the summer of 2008.
During discussion, Dr. Garcia explained that the new plan would likely be adopted in early 2009. The current plan would be in effect until then, even though it might extend beyond its original timeline.
V. CLINICAL TRIALS PROGRAM
Dr. Pamela McGinnis and Dr. Jane Atkinson
Dr. McGinnis explained that, in addition to the normal ongoing evaluation of the clinical trials program, there has recently been a specific review of the program with regard to its contribution to improved public health and to the policy making process. A few Council members have participated in this review and in the development of program revisions.
Dr. Atkinson described the current process that requires an application for a Phase III multi-site project from the study chair, an application from the data coordinating center and applications from individual clinical sites. Investigators may apply for one of two R21 funding options—a clinical trial planning grant or a clinical pilot data grant, each of which provides up to $275,000 for direct costs over two years. The planning grant must describe a goal that results in change in clinical practices and/or a contribution to the health care policy making process. It does not assure award of the subsequent large-scale Phase III clinical trial. The pilot data grant supports collection of data to develop a definitive proposal for the Phase III clinical trial, but does not support pilot clinical trials as part of the process.
The NIDCR web site describes four application options—first, without any preliminary processes, a fully developed Phase III trial plan may be submitted that includes a manual of procedures, a study chair, a data coordinating center and appropriate clinical site applications. The plan is peer reviewed and submitted to the Council for final action. A second process inserts the planning grant before the full-scale Phase III trial application; a third, begins with the pilot data grant, followed by the Phase III trial application; and the fourth includes both the planning grant and the pilot data grant before the final Phase III application process.
The experience since 2002 shows that there have been 11 full-scale Phase II trial applications with 6
awards. There have been 24 applications that were preceded by the planning grant, which resulted in 5 Phase III trial applications, with one award thus far. These two processes have resulted in a number of successful applications. However, the other two processes (pilot data, and planning grant/pilot data combination) have not proved fruitful.
Dr. Atkinson explained that the new grant application procedure would combine the first three options into a single R34/U01 grant application, and eliminate the fourth option. A number of institutes rely on the R34 planning grant application, followed by the U01 clinical trial application (which can also be awarded as an R01). The application process, which requires pre-approval of both grant concepts, is a two step process—first the planning grant application, followed by the clinical trial implementation grant application. The R34 planning grant may be submitted for Phase I, II, II and IV trials. Its result is either a U01 application or a written report explaining why the U01 was not submitted. In addition, a U01 application must be preceded by a successfully completed R34 planning grant (although NIDCR can make exceptions to this rule).
Concerning the timeline, optimally the process would begin with a summary of the proposed R34 application, which would be reviewed and approved by NIDCR program and executive staff within a couple of months, followed by submission of the full-blown R34 application to be approved within seven months. Then the process would be repeated for the U01 grant application, so that it would be feasible to begin a trial within about two years. When deemed appropriate, NIDCR may allow an exception to the requirement to submit an R34 before submitting a U01 in order to make the process more efficient.
In summary, this process covers all clinical trial phases, incorporates in a single path all of the application options that previously existed, and allows NIDCR to screen concepts before investigators invest substantial time and effort developing applications. Dr. Atkinson invited Council members who participated in the revision process to comment.
Dr. Lindblad expressed support for the process, adding that the pre-approval procedure is an important screening element, and that the process facilitates the progression of research from Phase I through Phase IV clinical trials. There is also merit in the NIDCR’s option to allow an investigator to omit the R34 planning grant process in certain cases. Finally, the written report is a positive addition because it will allow a more complete record of the history of both successful and unsuccessful applications.
Dr. Taylor commented that the issue of disallowing small randomized trials in planning grant applications had been a sticking point in some cases, but this process accommodates these smaller trials as part of the planning process.
Dr. Doyle expressed enthusiasm for the new procedures, noting that the pre-approval process should be an open and transparent process that makes clear the need for investigators to meet the provisions of NIDCR’s strategic plan. He felt it was also appropriate that the grants should not be used to develop infrastructure and that the facilities required to pursue the trials should be in place at the outset. He stated that the U01 is a unique mechanism that allows NIDCR to participate in the project as it proceeds; it is a cooperative agreement. Finally, linking the R34 and the U01 enhances the portfolio management process. He felt the same process should apply to SBIR and STTR grants.
Dr. Bronner-Fraser commented that one consideration would be the need to manage the budget vis-à-vis the ebb and flow of good and poor grant applications. Finally Dr. Stashenko commented that it might be helpful to include other professions and industry in evaluating certain grants (e.g., those with a specific new product). Dr. Tabak agreed, noting that the grants must harmonize with the strategic plan, and the next five-year plan will include input from those kinds of resources.
VI. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL WORKING GROUP ON A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO STUDYING TMJ DISORDERS
Drs. Norman Braveman, John Kusiak, Cecile Feldman, John Watson, Matthew Doyle and Jon Levine
Dr. Braveman introduced the agenda item, noting that the report to the Council was developed by a Working Group of the NADCRC. The meeting was held on September 16-18, 2007 in Bethesda, MD and included the participation of the TMJD Interagency Working Group. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether or not there was a sufficient science base for the Institute to stimulate systems research on temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders (TMJDs). He noted that the Working Group was not asked to address issues of funding level or mechanisms.
Dr. Cecile Feldman and Dr. John Watson, co-chairs of the Working Group began the discussion. Dr. Feldman stated that the major goal of the work group was to move the science of TMJDs toward new treatment modalities and a better understanding of the etiology of the disease. The Working Group found there were many definitions of and approaches to “systems” that would have to be sorted out. As background, Dr. Feldman noted that NIDCR accounts for up to 95 percent of NIH funding for TMJD research. There is an ongoing, multi-site seven-year study of TMJDs funded by NIDCR titled the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA).
The Working Group agreed there must be an assessment of the current state of TMJD science, the data available, and whether those data are adequate and appropriate to support a systems biology approach. Such an assessment involves looking at systems biology approaches that may exist in other areas of science, and whether any of those approaches can be adapted to TMJD. The Working Group considered a number of questions. Does the science exist in a useable form? Is there a model that might apply? How will the various researchers from different disciplines be recruited? The Working Group developed a detailed set of principles to serve as a foundation for recommendations—including establishing goals, defining approaches (integrative, interdisciplinary, interactive), developing an open process that encourages data sharing, and especially identifying and developing a cadre of scientists to focus on TMJD research in a systematic way.
The Working Group developed a set of recommendations contained in the report. Although there was no consensus on whether the timing was right for an initiative based on system biology, there was consensus among members of the Working Group that NIDCR should ultimately manage the initiatives. Although there may be models that will be appropriate as frameworks for a TMJD approach, some members of the Working Group felt more data are required to make an informed decision. Perhaps the OPPERA data, when available, would be useful in this regard as well as serve as a model for future multi-site research activities on TMJDs.
Although the Working Group did not address the pros and cons of the many systems concepts, it did discuss in depth the development of the cadre of biologists, clinicians and engineers who would be appropriate to address the complexity of TMJDs. There is a need to encourage an interdisciplinary foundation for any initiative, which would require expanding the awareness of TMJD at the academic level—development of TMJD curricula in dental schools and in PhD programs, and developing safety nets for investigators in this new, higher risk area of research (especially to assure funding continuity).
Finally, Dr. Feldman commented that the Working Group considered a number of research opportunities—studies of the etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of TMJDs; data-mining studies of existing databases; and implementation of TMJD training programs for individuals working on advanced degrees.
Dr. Watson provided an example of systems analysis related to the field of cardiac disease. The goal of this research was to develop less invasive procedures for atherosclerosis and treatment alternatives for heart failure. Relying on a systems approach, researchers identified outcomes and often arrived at conclusions without identifying every step in the process. In some cases, alternative outcomes were revealed that would not have been identified by relying on the traditional research process.
Dr. Levine expressed concern that the TMJD field may not be ready for a systems approach, although there are models of successful systems approaches in cardiology and oncology. It would require a gathering of diverse expertise operating in an open dynamic that would probably require the participation of other institutes. He commented that the 95 percent funding of TMJD research by NIDCR suggests an isolated effort, and that a more diverse approach might be more effective. Dr. Braveman noted that the actual funding figure is currently approximately 75 percent.
Dr. Doyle noted that the Working Group process was exceptionally dynamic, but also dichotomous—those who were enthusiastic about the concept of a systems approach, and those who were perhaps more realistic and less optimistic. He suggested that two questions need to be considered—how quickly can the gaps be filled, and whether or not NIDCR would be willing to begin to commit to funding while both budget and scientific uncertainties remain, as they will for some time. He added that TMJD is a complex disease that is well suited to a systems approach eventually.
Dr. Feldman commented that there were diverse opinions and positions among the members of the Working Group as to whether a systems approach to research on TMJDs is the most appropriate way to proceed at this time, and there is clearly a lot to learn about the systems process as it applies to TMJD. That is one reason that the recommendations were fairly broad and non-specific and were meant to encourage thinking about next steps.
Asked about OPPERA, Dr. Kusiak explained that the project is in its third year, with four to go, having recruited about 40 percent of the total 3,200 subjects proposed for the cohort. The subjects are healthy individuals (TMJD-free) and it is anticipated that about four to five percent will develop symptoms during the course of the study. Data from the study will be widely available to researchers once the study is completed.
There was a recommendation that NIDCR consider developing a general database of information from various studies, TMJD and others, so that researchers can compare data among diseases. Dr. Kusiak noted that NIDCR is participating in the Neuroscience Blueprint, which has such a database as an outcome of one of its active programs.
Dr. Tabak agreed that greater involvement of other NIH institutes and investigators would be desirable, but it has been challenging to achieve, partly because there is a lack of awareness of TMJDs. The perception of TMJD research as a high-risk area of science may be a discouraging investigators from entering the field. Dr. Feldman suggested bringing the various potential collaborators together to begin to overcome the lack of awareness. Dr. Watson agreed, but noted that the Working Group did not address the issue. Dr. Levine suggested that an incentive must be created. He suggested another meeting to focus on the state of the science, including researchers interested in co-morbid conditions.
Concerning next steps, Dr. Feldman suggested there should be a better understanding of the building blocks that exist, a more focused discussion of what is known about the systems analysis field and how it might apply to the TMJD area, as well as a narrowing of the definitions and perceptions of the term “systems.” Dr. Doyle commented that more basic information is needed about TMJDs, such as its epidemiology and existing tissue banks. Returning to the concern about lack of research capacity in this field, Dr. Tabak stated that there is a need to identify a critical mass of dedicated investigators to form the foundation of the effort, and the incentives have to be more than providing funds to attract scientists from other fields. There must be long-term and sustained dedication to the science.
VII. DISCUSSION: A PLAN TO EVALUATE TRAINING PROGRAMS
Dr. Kevin Hardwick
The purpose of this presentation was to provide an update to Council on Institute plans to evaluate certain aspects of the NIDCR training program. Dr. Hardwick recalled a report to the Council in May 2007 of an NIH study of the career outcomes of NRSA post-docs trainees and fellows who were supported between 1975 and 1992. He noted the NIH definitions of “trainee” as someone who was trained on an institutional training grant (T32), and “fellow” as someone who was trained via an individual NRSA fellowship (such as F32). Trainees apply to and are selected by the institution with a T grant, while fellows apply directly to the NIH, and gain experience in the application, review and funding process. The result of that study showed that the fellows performed better than the trainees in terms of applying for and receiving RO1 grants, as well as in other career areas, and this result was consistent both across the NIH as well as specifically within NIDCR.
Dr. Hardwick explained that a similar evaluation is under way to look at the career outcomes of all trainees and fellows supported by NIDCR in the 1995 to 2000 time period., NIDCR staff recently completed a pilot study in which an attempt was made to identify every individual supported during fiscal year 1997, and to determine his/her earned degrees, current career status and grants award history. Of 166 total NRSA trainees, 134 were located; of 148 T32 trainees, 119 were identified. There were only 17 F32 fellows, 15 of who were located; only two were dentists. Finally, there was one F31 fellow (the program for underrepresented minorities) and that individual could not be located.
Dr. Hardwick pointed out that 75 % of this single year cohort of NIDCR-supported NRSA trainees are in full-time research, but dentists lagged their PhD counterparts in the program significantly. Ninety percent of non-dentists are currently in full-time research or academic positions, compared with 55% of the dentists. 45% of all dentists trained are currently in private practice. In terms of subsequent grant outcomes, 14 of the 166 total trainees (8%) have received an RO1 grant at some time after leaving the program; only 3 those successful are dentists (3/66, or 5%). Dr. Hardwick also demonstrated various ways to break out the data, comparing trainees vs. fellows, predicts vs. postdocs, etc, and noted that although the numbers are small in this pilot, the trend towards greater research career success for fellows continues.
Dr. Hardwick explained that the next step is to duplicate the pilot study methodology on all trainees and fellows supported by NIDCR from 1995 to 2000, a six-year period. It is anticipated that identifying individuals may improve with the matching of data from the ADEA Faculty Survey. He stated that he would provide a detailed report to the Council at the June meeting.
There was a brief discussion about the mechanics of the study design and the methods for tracking individuals after leaving the program. Dr. Tabak commented that, NIH-wide, there has been a discussion about the relative merits of the individual versus the institutional awards, and it is clear that those who pursue the individual award process tend to fare better.
He added that the NIDCR is currently supporting approximately 65 individuals who are working towards having both a dental degree and a research doctoral degree – either predocs in the DSTP program, or clinicians who already have a dental degree and are pursuing PhDs. Anecdotal evidence shows that when they graduate, dual degree holders are typically entering clinical specialty training, possibly because of expectations that dental schools require specialty certification as a prerequisite for a faculty appointment. The 1997 pilot data show that DDS/PhDs are less likely than other dentist trainees to go into private practice, but still do so at a rate of 38%. More concerning is the apparent inability of these dual degree holders to compete successfully for subsequent NIH funding.
Dr. Hardwick concluded by noting that the Council could consider whether the outcomes presented in the studies are appropriate and whether or not there are other factors and opportunities that NIDCR should consider. Dr. Taylor suggested that the Council might consider establishing a committee to consider the issues and to prepare a recommendation for Council consideration. Such a committee would be most useful to help analyze and interpret the data from the broader study, which will be presented in June.
VIII. COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES
Dr. Norman Braveman
Dr. Braveman stated that the Council operating procedures must be reviewed and approved on an annual basis. He stated that the operating procedures document distributed to Council members for their review was unchanged in content but had been reformatted from the previous year’s document. He invited a motion for approval.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Operating Procedures were unanimously approved for the year 2008.
VIII. CLOSING COMMENTS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE OPEN SESSION
Dr. Braveman invited Dr. Angerer and Dr. Dombroski to introduce new members of the NIDCR. Dr. Angerer introduced Dr. Katherine Carbone, who came to NIDCR from FDA to serve as Deputy Scientific Director. Dr. Dombroski introduced Ki-Cha Flash and Romeo Tengey, recently employed as Grants Management Specialists. Both came to NIDCR from the NIH Management Fellowship Program.
Dr. Braveman adjourned the open session.
CLOSED SESSION
This portion of the meeting was closed to the public in accordance with the determination that it was concerned with matters exempt from mandatory disclosure under Sections 552b©(4) and 552b©(6), Title 5, U.S. Code and Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
X. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
Grant Review
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.
________________________ _________________________
Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak Dr. Norman S. Braveman
Chairperson Executive Secretary
National Advisory Dental and National Advisory Dental and
Craniofacial Research Council Craniofacial Research Council
ATTACHMENTS
I. Roster of Council Members
II. Table of Council Actions
III. Director’s Report to the NADCRC, January 2008
NOTE: A complete set of open-portion handouts is available from the Executive Secretary.