Meeting Participants

Advisory Board Members:

1. Neil Berman
2. Heather Bryant (Chair)
3. Sharon Buehler
4. Carol Cass
5. Gerald Johnston
6. Anne Leis
7. Neil MacDonald
8. William Mackillop
9. Joseph Pater
10. Diane Proulx-Guerrera
11. Ian Smith
12. James Till (Vice-Chair)
13. James Woodgett

Guests:

14. Gloria and Domenic Cuccione, Carrie and Richard Young (The Michael Cuccione Foundation)
15. Stuart Edmonds (NCIC Acting Director, Research Programs)
16. Diane Finegood (CIHR-INMD Scientific Director)
17. Victor Ling (CIHR Governing Council Member)
18. Anne Martin-Matthews (CIHR-IA Scientific Director)
19. Simon Sutcliffe (BC Cancer Agency President & CEO and Chair of CSCC)

CIHR and ICR Staff:

20. Philip Branton (Scientific Director)
21. Judy Bray (Assistant Director, Special Projects)
22. Patrick Haag (Project and Communications Officer)
23. Mohammed Hannan (Deputee Director, Knowledge Creation Programs, Research Portfolio)
24. Benoît Lussier (Assistant Director)
25. Linda McKenzie (Program Delivery Officer, IG, ICR)
26. Claudia Mongeon (Accounting Clerk)
27. Diana Sarai (Administrator)

Regrets :

28. Angela Brooks-Wilson (IAB Member)
29. Roy Cameron (IAB Member)
30. Joan Loveridge (IAB Member)
31. Michael Wosnick (NCIC Executive Director)

Monday, April 5^th

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. and Heather Bryant asked everyone to introduce themselves to the new guests.

The minutes of the 11^th IAB Meeting were approved with amendments on line 4 of page 4.

The agenda for this meeting was also approved with the addition of the following items:

• Term of mandate for the Scientific Director of ICR
• Presentation from the Michael Cuccione Foundation
• Discussion on future IAB meetings

The Jean-François St-Denis Fellowship in Cancer Research

Dr. Branton mentioned that CIHR developed a new fellowship award in cancer research in memory of Dr. Jean-François St-Denis, who died of cancer last month. A grant of $10,000 will be awarded to a top-ranked post-doctoral fellow and ICR will partner with CIHR on this award as an appreciation of Dr. St-Denis's work.

Report on the National Cancer Research Initiative (NCRI) Meeting and the CSCC Research Action Group

Dr. Branton summarized the NCRI meeting that took place on March 21-23, 2004 in Toronto. He recalled the first meeting on December 17-18, 2003 where participants agreed to launch a national cancer initiative and suggested two projects: the national clinical research initiative and the cancer cohort study. Two committees were then created by the Council to work on these projects: Brent Schacter (with the collaboration of E. Eisenhauer, Brent Zanke, and Carol Cass) is leading the clinical research initiative and Terry Sullivan and H. Bryant are leading the Cohort Study. As a follow-up, the Council organized the Young Investigators (YI) meeting on March 21-22 (34 participants) and a 2^nd Organizing Council Meeting on March 23^rd. Participants of the YI Meeting were geographically balanced and the four pillars and expertise were well represented. This group also arrived at the same two projects suggested initially by the Council and further discussed each of them prior to submitting their ideas to the Council the next day. Two participants based in Toronto were appointed by the YI group to make this presentation.

The Council suggested expanding its membership by inviting other parties to the Organizing Council meetings, i.e. representatives from NIH, the Terry Fox Foundation, and CFI. Genome Canada had been invited but a rep was not sent to the December and March meetings.

The cohort project was presented by Rob Bristow and it was pointed out that this project involved more a "practical" database of patients and was not truly a cohort study. Mike Tyers and Brent Zanke presented the clinical project and focused on pipeline rather clinical trials. It was agreed that the two working groups, supplemented by members of the Young Investigators group, would continue to flesh out the two initiatives in the form of reports that will be presented at the next Council meeting on June 23^rd for a final budgetary decision.

Dr. Branton explained that one of CIHR's crosscutting initiatives is clinical research, which has been manned so far by Bruce McManus. However, Dr. Branton met this morning with John Cairns who is now managing the project and they discussed this crosscutter which has evolved into a much broader scope.

Dr. Branton added that the March meetings were facilitated by Judy Bray who also wrote the reports. She was thanked for her tremendous help and complimented for her quality of writing. ICR had also consulted with Dorothy Strachan prior to the meeting for general guidelines.

A discussion then followed on the two proposed research projects. Some comments were made about the extent of the clinical research project and how it would affect NCIC-CTG. It was also suggested that, as was the case in the U.K., a clinical research initiative in cancer could stimulate similar initiatives in other areas of clinical research. Concerning the cohort studies, H. Bryant summarized the three areas being considered which could have some overlap between them: (1) Aging cohort (2) Birth cohort and (3) Chronic diseases cohort. These studies have been discussed between H. Bryant, J. Siemiatycki and T. Sullivan. It was commented that cohorts are expensive to carry out (up to $100,000 per year) and there are currently no funds readily available. CIHR is currently undergoing a rethinking process about their cohort efforts.

Dr. Mackillop mentioned that he would like to bring his comments on the two projects mentioned in the NCRI document. He was asked to send them to Judy Bray.

The Council of NCRI had decided to identify this large initiative as the "Canadian Cancer Research Initiative" (CCRI).

As a final note, the Scientific Director inquired whether the IAB was favorable in pursuing the NCRI project and there was a general consensus reached.

Cancer Research at the B.C. Cancer Agency (BCCA)

(See slide presentation in Appendix I)

Dr. Vic Ling first mentioned that he never had a chance to meet with the IAB Members of ICR although he knows most of them, and he greatly appreciates the opportunity to make a presentation at this meeting.

Dr. Ling is the VP Research at BCCA and his role is to incorporate research in the health care organization. BC and AB are the best organized provinces in cancer control and also have the lowest mortality rate. The mandate of BCCA is to be responsible for cancer control in the province. Important programs include the creation of tumour groups (lung, ovarian, etc.), an impressive screening mammography program and a cervical screening program.

BCCA resources include a core support for the BC Cancer Research Centre from the Michael Smith Foundation ($20M per year) and competitive research funding excluding clinical trials money, e.g. CFI. This area is growing fast; one third comes from the US (NIH). Dr. Ling commented on the fact that there is more research money from the U.S.A. in BC than any other province in Canada.

BCCA developed many initiatives: the Genome Science Centre in 1999, the Clinical Trials Research in 2000, the Tumour Tissue Repository in 2002, the New Translational research strategic plan in 2003, a functional imaging facility in 2005 and a Phase II translation research building in 2006

Dr. Ling also gave a little history of the location of BCCA. A new building will be constructed and will hold twice the square footage - 250,000 sq. ft. - of lab research.

Dr. Ling was enthusiastic when discussing the Integrated Translational Research model as he said that Canada could be a world class leader in this field because it is investing more in population research. Examples of investments in translational research were enumerated.

He also discussed at length the Genome array studies being undertaken at BCCA, which better detect cancer. He explained that data can be stored digitally, like a bar code, which makes the process of detecting genetic alterations in genome much easier. It essentially tailors clinical management based on individual's patients DNA structure.

He also presented the alarming statistics about lung cancer and the need to do more pilot projects but no funding is available right now and BCCA is striving do obtain funds in this area. He also explained the applications of genomics for lung cancer.

Dr. Ling ended his presentation on the challenges in implementing innovation in Health Care.

Patient registry and medical records of patients is an important part in developing clinical trials or clinical research. Primary physicians are a crucial part of the process in order to establish oncology networks but it is also important to create network by partnering with communities of professionals in health care and engaging non-oncologist individuals.

Report from NCIC

Dr. Stuart Edmonds said that the Board met last Friday to approve programs and budget. Once again, he reiterated the fact that NCIC has gone through a difficult year in terms of funding research grants, specifically because there has also been a 50% increase in operating grants applications. The cut-off line has been "brutal", only a 18-19% success rate. Recommendations were made to the board to adjust some of the funding, so rather than cutting every grant, the Board decided to eliminate travel funds given on top of grants and abolish funding for equipment except for new investigators. This way, the success rate was maintained at 25%.

NCIC is encouraging grants in palliative care and to accommodate and reflect such applications, their review panel descriptive and name has been changed. The new panel will be in place for the September grant competition. Dr. Branton added that CIHR was interested in exploring setting up a joint palliative care panel with NCIC.

About 50% of the NCIC research budget is allocated to operating grants and two thirds of it is awarded to investigator-initiated grants.

NCIC commissioned an environmental scan survey in the community and at an international level. The survey will be finished in June and will feed into the strategic planning process. There is also a review team to evaluate NCIC in mid July; however NCIC is still looking for one more international reviewer in the biomedical research field. Dr. Edmonds invited the board for suggestions. The evaluation is expected to roll out next year.

Dr. Edmonds mentioned that the meeting between CCS and NCIC will take place on November 6-7, 2004. As Dr. Wosnick had already explained at the last IAB Meeting, NCIC has planned such a meeting so that it can demonstrate to the CCS decision makers the impact of their research on the health of population.

Neil MacDonald was encouraged to hear about a potential joint palliative care panel but had some concerns about the fair evaluation of applications between CIHR and NCIC. He also mentioned that cancer is not the only chronic disease and wanted to ensure that they will attract the full range of disorders. Dr. Branton has discussed this issue numerous times with Mark Bisby but has been told that it is unlikely that CIHR will create a new panel. The joint panel would be managed by NCIC with input from CIHR.

Stuart Edmonds was asked to show the success rate of NCIC funding of programs across the "four pillars".

Update on CSCC

Dr. Simon Sutcliffe gave a presentation on the International Workshop planned by CSCC before giving an update on the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (CSCC).

International workshop

Other countries are dealing with a national strategy for cancer control. The International Union Against Cancer (UICC) deals on the "what" but not the "how" and most cancer meetings do not address cancer control. Therefore a subset of the governing council of CSCC proposed an international workshop directed to countries that already make commitments on national strategies but that would also be open to countries that are not familiar with cancer control and that can learn how to address their own cancer control problems. Organizations and countries involved so far are WHO, Pan Health, UICC, Australia, New Zealand, and UK. CSCC is also seeking participation from the European Union. The workshop is planned for the year 2005 in Vancouver and will focus on how cancer control should be done and implemented to be effective.

The content of the workshop will comprise four sessions: The first session will deal with signs of cancer control activities that are beneficial; the second session will handle the content of cancer control, what to organize, etc.; the third session will focus on the organization of a cancer control strategy and the fourth session on the role of participants. There will be proceedings issued after the workshop and CSCC plans to hold this forum every two years or so. Secretarial support will be provided by the CSCC secretariat. Funding is sought through various organizations such as banks, insurance companies, etc. to attract other countries to participate. CSCC hopes to attract about 400 participants.

The Scientific Director invited Dr. Sutcliffe to submit an application to ICR for funding as it considers this an important event. Although research will not be discussed as a separate subject, it is integrated into the four sessions above as an essential element in implementing a national strategy.

The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control

The CSCC governing council is moving forward in priority directions with action groups. The budget of $650,000 comes from Health Canada and CCS-NCIC; however more funding is needed. There has been an evaluation plan for the strategy and the advocacy has been a key aspect. There are five organizations in Canada that are advocates for CSCC and efforts are made to unify them with one message.

• CCS-NCIC
• Cancer Control Advocacy Network
• CAPCA
• CCAC (Pat Kelly)
• National Cancer Leadership Forum (which has the short-term mandate to raise awareness for the need of a national strategy in 2004)

A stakeholder conference will take place with broad invitation for people to see the progress and implementation of CSCC.

Dr. Branton mentioned that he would like to link the large cancer initiative with CSCC and has discussed this issue with Mark Sarner, a Communications Consultant.

The Michael Cuccione Foundation

Carrie Young from the Board of Directors thanked the IAB Members for the opportunity to make a presentation on the Michael Cuccione Foundation created by Gloria and Domenic Cuccione after their son died of cancer. The foundation wishes to build a stronger relationship with CIHR as it is seeking various avenues to enhance pediatric research. They presented a short video about their son and his devotion on raising funds for pediatric cancer research. There are 20 members of the Board of directors who work on a voluntary basis. The money raised in each city remains locally and is donated to a children's hospital. This Foundation is in partnership with CIHR-ICR for $40,000 per year.

The meeting was adjourned at 17:35 and followed by a reception with the local community of researchers, volunteers and policy makers in the field of cancer research.

TUESDAY, APRIL 6^th

The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m.

Presentation from the CIHR Deputy Director

(See slide presentation in Appendix II)

Mohammed Hannan gave a presentation on RFA and Priority Announcement results and/or status reports. He mentioned that the Palliative and End of Life Care pilot project grants competition was a very successful initiative with a success rate of 39%. Eight partners were involved and contributed a total amount of $1,308,110. A discussion followed on the level of contribution by some partners. Although CBCRA initially approved $2M, they will only be able to contribute $200K because of the nature of the applications submitted and awarded. Dr. Hannan also gave a summary of the reviewers' comments and presented the results of the June RFAs:

• Career Transition Awards: only 2 applications were received and both were funded by ICR for a total of $53,000.
• NET grants: an international panel team is in place with 9 members including representatives from the U.S. 22 LOIs were received, of which 18 applicants were invited to apply and 17 submitted an application. A meeting is planned on April 28^th, 2004.
• National Tumour Bank Network grant: a national application was submitted and a teleconference of the panel was held on March 15, 2004 which involved a Canadian Chair, and members from the UK, USA and the Netherlands. The application was approved for $1,165,000 for the first year and $665,000 for years 2 to 5.
• Novel Technology Applications in Health Research: the review panel is not yet completed and the group is expected to meet in June 2004. External reviewers might be needed because of the nature of applications. A total of 70 applications were submitted, of which 11 are cancer related. Ian Smith suggested approaching NSF in USA to borrow some of their panel reviewers as all specialized people in Canada have submitted an application. M. Hannan said that there is a need in the cellular and molecular biology imaging technologies. Dr. Smith will suggest names of reviewers to Dr. Hannan for this RFA.

Dr. Branton mentioned that last month he met with M. Hannan, L. Mackenzie, and J. Bray regarding the panel review process and he was pleased with the work at CIHR.

Dr. Hannan noted a trend in transdisciplinary research. About 200 applications submitted are related to integrated research and this was also outlined by the young investigators group in March.

Report on the Palliative Care Pilot Projects

Neil MacDonald wished to discuss an overall strategy for palliative care research. He is concerned about its continuity and although NCIC has created a review panel for palliative care research, he is not certain that it will take into account non-cancer palliative care research and psychosocial issues. However, ICR can only push forward the cancer issue and is not in a position to link the other groups. He would like to see CIHR put in place a permanent panel review for palliative care as he fears that the great efforts that have been made in this area will be truncated for lack of appropriate reviewers and funding. Mark Bisby is aware of this need and Dr. Branton is confident that it will happen but for the moment the joint panel with NCIC would be a start. Dr. Macdonald would also like to see ICR renew the empowerment of endeavors of the Large Working Group on palliative care. IAB members voted in favor of the motion below.

Motion: To bring support of a national working group on palliative care through a long-term strategy for palliative care research involving ICR and other stakeholders for the fall IAB meeting.

Terms of References had been drafted by Dr. Macdonald and Ms. Lachance. Neil Macdonald will send a request to Dr. Edmonds to have a representative from NCIC join the large working group.

Dr. Branton will talk again to Mark Bisby to sort out the issue of a proper panel review by the summer.

ICR Strategic Budget

(See slide presentation in Appendix III)

IAB members need to revise budgetary decisions made in January as the $1 million increase forecast in January did not materialize.

Federal Budget

Dr. Lussier gave an overview of the Federal Budget and its impact on CIHR. There has been a $39 million budget increase for CIHR for a total actual budget of $662 million. The support for a commercialization budget will be shared by three granting councils and a consortium of universities and hospitals at $10 million per year for 5 years. The creation of Canada Public Health Agency might affect CIHR's budget. Resources within Health Canada will be shifted to other agencies who will report to the Minister of Health; this involves $404 million transferred out of Health Canada to the Population and Public Health Branch. Moreover, $165 million over two years will be used to immediately address gaps, e.g. Surveillance and International coordination and collaboration. An amount of $100 million will go to Canada Health Infoway to supply software and hardware to provinces and territorial ministries of health for infectious disease and integration of existing disease-based surveillance systems.

The Governing Council of CIHR has not yet decided how to distribute the $39 million. However Dr. Branton mentioned that, at the last RPPC teleconference, members discussed the option of reinstating the 5% cut in grants (total of $20M) and recommended investing about $4.5M for the commercialization strategy. In this regard, proof of a principal program and chemical biology will be recommended for funding. Funds set aside for cross cutting initiatives may be divided among the institutes ($3.5M).

ICR Strategic Budget

Dr. Lussier first gave a summary of the decisions that the Board made at the last meeting. He informed the Board that in March 2004, the Institute Strategic Budgets have been flat-lined for 3 years at $6.8 million so the funds available for the new initiatives for 2004-05 have dropped from $2.48 million to approximately $1 million.

Consequently, ICR disposes of only $556,000 in 2005-06 for the following four items:

• Delayed 2 palliative care grants
• Increase contribution to Tobacco Initiative
• Non-cytotoxic clinical trials
• CPCRI TAG (starting July 2005)

There are actually 9 proposed new budget elements on the table for 2005-06:

• 1 New Palliative care NET (2004 - $300 K)*
• 1 New Technologies grant (2004 - $150K)*
• 2 Palliative care NETs (2005-$300 K each)
• 1 Tobacco initiative top-up ($50 K)
• 1 Tobacco initiative supplement ($100 K)
• 2 non-cytotoxic Drug trials ($250 K each)
• 1 CPCRI TAG grants ($250 K)

These were new commitments decided in the January meeting (refer to budget table in the background book). Decisions on the CPCRI have implications for NCIC as this initiative is partnered. Dr. Lussier suggested the following option for the revised budget:

Option

• Keep additional palliative NET grant and New Technology grants for 2004
• For 2005-06: $550 K new commitments
  • Only 1 delayed Palliative NET ($300 K)
  • No Increase for CTCRI
  • Only $250 K for non-cytotoxic intervention trials
  • No contribution to CPCRI TAG program

J. Bray mentioned that she talked to six partners and three of them are interested to support the non-cytotoxic clinical trials (Health Canada, CBCRA and CIHR-INMD). It was noted that intervention trials are randomized trials and differ from non-cytotoxic clinical trials. Comments were made that there are enough partners to support the additional palliative care NETs. There are in total 17 NET applications and ICR has committed to 2 grants, but the partners have not yet been finalized; ICR might be looking at 6 out of 17 applications.

Motion: Members were in favor with moving the above option forward. It could still be revisited in June meeting. The May NET applications might be informed of funding and would be dealt with by a teleconference.

Update on CTCRI, CPCRI, CBCRA

CTCRI - P. Branton mentioned that applications rated well for the three programs and RFAs will be re-launched again. However, ICR might not be able to increase its support. The total budget of CTCRI is about $4-5 million.

CPCRI - ICR will now not be able to partner in the translation research initiative and wonders how NCIC might respond. Both organizations have budgetary cuts. ICR has only allocated a one-time commitment of $100K.

CBCRA - CBCRA has re-launched the translation research initiative. Normally operating grants are funded with central money and funds from the NCIC joint competition. This year, CBCRA barely managed to fund applications down to the cut-off line of NCIC and will not be partnering with ICR for breast cancer grants below the cut-off line. They are discussing new initiatives for funding. Information on the Board's strategic decisions can be found on their web site.

Training Conference

Dr. B. Lussier reiterated that the Board had agreed to hold a scientific meeting for recipients of Cancer Training Program Grants. He sent out a letter to the principal investigators and the majority was enthusiastic about the idea and willing to be part of the program committee. There are 22 training centres, of which 9 are in Ontario. ICR plans to have the meeting in a more relaxed setting, such as a resort. Some discussion took place with NCIC to include NCIC awardees to create a joint meeting. G. Johnston mentioned that these types of meetings are well appreciated by scientists as they create valuable networks and a sense of community, and the timing is good to get training program grantees together. NCIC is interested in being involved in the organization. Partners of the Training Program Initiative will be informed of this meeting prior to an announcement but will not necessarily be solicited for funding. All partners will be acknowledged in the promotional material of this meeting which will involve about 200 participants (8 trainees per centre).

General planning for future IAB meetings

Members discussed the option of holding 3 IAB Meetings per year instead of 4 during the months of January, May and September. A teleconference would be organized if the need to discuss RFAs becomes necessary. The Board agreed and the meeting in Halifax would take place in May instead of April; a specific date for this meeting will be planned at the June IAB in Montreal. Furthermore, it was mentioned that a little celebration would be organized for the three IAB members that would end their membership in August 2004.

Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program

(See slide presentation in Appendix IV)

Dr. Lussier gave a brief summary of the CCCSCP meeting he attended on March 10. Four partners are involved in this program for childhood cancer surveillance. Health Canada is now only providing salary support. They might approach CIHR-ICR for emergency funding in the amount of $200K - which would be withdrawn from the operating budget, not the strategic. The organization is looking at an investment of $600K to do the web data collection of 2001, as a one-time emergency fund. The following organizations will be solicited:

• POGO ($225K in kind)
• Paediatric Treatment Centres ($75K inkind)
• ICR ($200k)
• Candlelighters ($50K)
• CCS ($50k)
• CCPHOD - Research Network ($50K)

Members thought that this request should be submitted to CCSA as it relates essentially to surveillance. The Board will evaluate this request at the June meeting but they would like to ensure that this support will translate somehow into research. Dr. Lussier will inquire CCCSCP about the research content involved in this assignment as it will be a critical factor in the Board's funding decision.

Institute Evaluation

(See slide presentation in Appendix V)

Dr. Lussier mentioned that all the thirteen Institutes will be evaluated every 5 years as per the CIHR Act by the Governing Council. CIHR will be evaluated in 2006. There is a common performance measurement and evaluation framework for the 13 Institutes, which was approved at the end of 2003. A formative evaluation will now take place to provide feedback on Institute development and build on ongoing performance measurements to be implemented in early 2004. The first formative evaluation covers 2 years; it will address the relevance of the Institute, its effectiveness and provide alternatives. Fifteen common indicators will be used to evaluate performance and they have been grouped into five categories:

• organizational excellence
• linkages, alliances, partnership and public engagement
• excellent researchers in robust health research environment
• outstanding research
• knowledge translation and use

Data will be collected; surveys will be made with stakeholders, IABs, students, etc. Each Institute is responsible for disbursing costs of evaluation; however efforts are made to avoid all Institutes approach the same stakeholders for the same things. The point was raised whether there should be an IAB sub-committee to oversee the ICR's evaluation process, and to suggest and validate additional performance indicators. Dr. Lussier was favorable to an IAB sub-committee. Volunteers were called for and the following members will be part of this sub-committee: A. Leis, W. MacKillop and R. Cameron.

Communications Strategy

Dr. Branton summarized the unsuccessful first two attempts in establishing a communications strategy. Now he is in contact with Mark Sarner from Manifest Communications who will be involved in the large initiative and is currently involved with the CSCC advocacy group. Dr. Branton commented that Mr. Sarner has a good knowledge of the cancer scene and will be useful to ICR. His communications proposal will be evaluated and discussed at the next meeting for the large initiative. J. Bray thinks that M. Sarner will be essential for NCRI but not for ICR's internal use. Someone else, as suggested by Roy Cameron, could be doing the writing aspect of communications. There is a pressing need to inform the research community about ICR's activities on a regular basis. Diane Finegood commented that her Institute also has problems with communications and her Board is thinking of recruiting a coop student for the writing. Neil MacDonald suggested contacting Bill Evans in Ontario as he knows a good writer.

Young PI Investigators Meeting organized by CIHR-IG

Rod McInnes organized last year a young PI meeting with CIHR-INMHA and it was well received by the community. He wants to repeat the meeting this year with ICR for the month of November. Both Institutes already met and discussed the content of the meeting which would cover the four pillars of research. Participants are not necessarily CIHR grantees but it was suggested that the Deans of relevant faculties should be invited.

Ethics Meeting

(See documents in Appendix VI)

Dr. Buehler distributed and discussed the complete consultation draft of the Guidelines for Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the design, conduct and evaluation of health research. This document is meant for primary researchers but also outside groups and it will be posted on the CIHR Web site. She gave a report at the last Ethics committee meeting as she is the IAB Ethics designate for ICR. There are 5 groups:

1. Ethics office - which involves a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Ethics (SCE) for allegations of non-compliance
2. Standing Committee on Ethics (SCE)
3. CIHR Cross-Institute Ethics Advisory Board (CIEAB)
4. The Interagency Panel on Research Ethics (PRE)
5. National Council on Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR)

Dr. Buehler asked Board members for feedback on this consultation draft.

Report on the meeting of voluntary sector representatives on Institute Advisory Boards

(See documents in Appendix VII)

Mrs. Diane Proulx-Guerrera mentioned that the meeting was welcomed by all of the voluntary sectors. She first gave Joan Loveridge's report in her absence before presenting hers. These reports were submitted for three purposes:

• as a reminder of what non-scientists can bring to an IAB table
• to convey a sense of how differently some IABs are operating
• as a lead-in to the IAB evaluation which looms for all Institutes

Twelve of the 13 institutes attended this meeting and the two foci of discussion were the voluntary sector's role on the IAB and knowledge translation. Some of the significant outcomes included:

• the CIHR needs to model the voluntary sector accord for the federal public service and to acknowledge what NGO's have to offer
• the GC membership should involve voluntary sector reps
• cross linkages of Institutes must be fostered for effective communication

Diane Proulx's report as a new IAB member focused more on the integration of lay members into the IAB and how to improve their orientation. She recommended providing to new members a glossary with lists of acronyms for example and how each Institute link together, as well as a matching/mentoring system for support and guidance to facilitate comprehension of IAB procedures. Diane Finegood commented on this issue and suggested to have IAB members meet with new members within their cities for a briefing to enable a better integration. Diane Proulx commented that she appreciates working for this Board and was impressed with ICR.

Presentation from CIHR Scientific Directors in Vancouver

Dr. Branton introduced the two scientific directors that were invited to this meeting to give a presentation on their Institute. The Board was informed that Anne Martin-Matthews is now officially the new SD of Institute of Aging.

Diane Finegood (INMD)
(See slide presentation in Appendix VII)

Outstanding Research:

• Set up in the first year NETs with CIHR-IA
• Training program grants
• Obesity area through various tools (KT, Pilot projects, Global health, Operating grants, NETs, training, planning and development, target obesity, etc. ) for $17M committed over 7 years

INMD is trying to build capacity in target obesity (PhD, PDF and New investigators) in partnership with HSF, ICR, IMHA and Canadian Diabetes Association. They address the childhood obesity in partnership with the Canadian Association of Pediatric Health Centres (a report will be posted on the web). They promote the Canada on the Move project to encourage physical activity. They partnered with Kellogg last September 5^th (pedometers) to build a research platform through a web site that was designed between them and which involves filling out a survey and entering information. Effective Partnerships were made with Active Health Kids in addition to the above. The Institute also promotes physical activity by involving their IAB members in volleyball, badminton, tai chi, etc.

New priority identification: Document review; Consultation with other Institutes and partners; Consultation with research community; and Priority setting within current strategic initiative and for new initiatives.

Their renewed strategic plan will stay focused on obesity/healthy body weight, specifically childhood obesity, but will also expand into other areas as well.

Neil MacDonald invited Dr. Finegood to have one of their Board members in the palliative care initiative. The idea was welcomed as long as it is relevant to obesity. She did not appear to be interested in wasting aspects of palliative care. It was noted that Type II obesity is under funded as compared to Type I obesity. By concentrating on obesity, INMD was able to form their own panel review committee for their initiatives, as all the four pillars of research are involved. More than 50% of the panel members are international.

A. Martin-Matthews (IA)
(See document in Appendix VIII)

CIHR-IA will focus mainly on one research platform. Dr. Martin-Matthews first gave a brief summary of the context of IA by explaining that Dr. Réjean Hébert was the initial SD for this Institute and that he left in January to fill the position of Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sherbrooke. As Vice-Chair of IAB, Dr. Martin-Matthews realized that there was no procedure to replace the Scientific Director.

The Institute of Aging spans the four pillars of research, and at the time Dr. Lussier was also part of the strategic planning process which involved a strong link between IA and INMHA. Cognitive impairment was identified as primary strategic area between both Institutes, followed by mobility as the second strategic area (transportation, etc.). IA also participated with other Institutes in further areas, such as palliative care research. In addition to cognitive impairment in aging, the Institute will be building on consultation process with seniors. A national senior research forum was organized to identify research areas. Over the next 12-14 months, regional workshops will be conducted, e.g. Regina in June, Halifax in late September, Toronto and Montreal later in fall, Vancouver and also North of country for aboriginal people. She will be informing local IABs of these workshops.

Dr. Martin-Matthews also distributed copies of an executive summary of the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging. The greatest gift would be to champion this study and making it happen. An RFA was developed under Dr. Hébert's directorship on this initiative and a protocol was elaborated over 18 months and submitted in February. The peer review committee evaluated the protocol in March and she just received the draft of the comments from this committee. Over two hundred researchers have participated in the development of this protocol and IA is working with Statistics Canada on a sampling frame. The governance of this study is a challenge because of its magnitude; there are 50,000 Canadians over 40 years old that will be followed over 20 years. Appropriate levels of funding must be found to implement this study as it is too large for the Institute to handle alone. It was noted that the RFP was set up to provide funding for the development of the proposal, so it is owned by CIHR-IA.

Other business

Dr. Branton's membership as a Scientific Director will be finished by December 2006.

During the next IAB meeting in June, there will be more talk about science; e.g. Dr. David Thomas (Chair, McGill Biochemistry) will be invited to talk about chemical biology.

Day 2 of the meeting was adjourned at 15:15.

Action Items

1. Forward to IAB members the list of young investigators that participated in the March 21-22 meeting in Toronto (Diana Sarai)
2. For the next IAB meeting, obtain the success rate of NCIC funding of programs across the "four pillars" (Stuart Edmonds)
3. Talk to Mark Bisby to sort out the issue of an appropriate panel review for palliative care (Phil Branton)
4. Ask CCCSCP about the research content involved in the $600K assignment (2001 data collection) as it will be a critical factor in the Board's funding decision (Benoît Lussier)

Submitted by Diana Sarai