32nd Institute Advisory Board Meeting – Institute of Infection and Immunity
January 25-26, 2011Fairmont Royal York
Toronto, ON
Minutes
| Present: | L. Barreto, E. Brown, R. Duncan, P. Ernst, A. Fernandes, M. Grant, A. Jevnikar, C. Kaposy, V. Loo, C. Power, J. Stankova, B. Ward, G. Wu |
|---|---|
| Staff: |
J. Bray, D. Christin, S. Desnoyers, S. Dos Santos, J. Gunning, D. Hartell, A. Hosey, J. Hutchison, A. Matejcic, M. Ouellette, M. Perrault, A. Rajhathy, J. Raven, M. Sajedi |
| Guests: | M. Park, M. Schechter (via teleconference), P. Sherman, K. Siminovitch |
| Regrets: | R. Hogg, M. Karmali |
Agenda and Minutes
C. Power moved to approve the agenda for the meeting. The motion was unanimously approved.
Motion to accept minutes from the September 2010 meeting (E. Brown/J. Stankova).
Scientific Director's Report
At the last scientific council, the reform of the peer review system was discussed. The change is prompted in part by the fact that the same reviewers are repeatedly recruited for the panels, and are experiencing "reviewer fatigue". CIHR needs to train new reviewers, potentially mentored by their more experienced colleagues. The primary idea is to create a college of reviewers that would serve as both reviewers and trainers for new recruits. There have also been discussions about the rising travel costs associated with peer review panels. Face-to-face meetings are the preferred option, but teleconferences are a possibility for smaller panels. The international strategy of CIHR was discussed as well, as many countries contact the organization in the hopes of forming partnerships. These should be strategic decisions as much as possible. Scientific council also held a joint meeting with the Governing Council, primarily about governance issues. A change to the funding for large grants was discussed by SC, and there will now be a specific, $12.5 million per year envelope for large grants. This strategic envelope includes the funds for randomized clinical trials, and the team grant program will remain unchanged. CIHR needs to support clinical trials for several reasons. The revenue for a lot of pharmaceutical companies is decreasing, as a lot of their drugs are going off patent. In addition, there are some trials that are important to conduct, but that companies are unlikely to fund, and which may help give small biotechnology operations and small molecule developers a foot in the door.
There are several upcoming events related to the Microbiome initiative, including the press conference in Toronto on October 14th, the IHMC meeting in Vancouver March 9-11, the CIHR Microbiome workshop and Café Scientifique on March 8th. This workshop is intended to be the first of many held in the early stages of initiatives, with the goal of increasing networking and identifying areas for collaboration among investigators.
III is looking to forge additional links with the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and Marc participated in a teleconference with Mohamed Karmali, Rainer Englehardt, Frank Plummer, and other Directors General at PHAC to discuss any potential interest on their part. On December 17th, he gave a presentation to PHAC on Emerging Threats. The belief is that our budget is unlikely to increase or to contain any dedicated funding for this topic, therefore we will need to collaborate with other agencies. A tentative follow-up meeting with representatives of PHAC has been scheduled during the IAB in Winnipeg. The board members agree that this is a good idea since PHAC has proven itself as a good funding partner in the past, and there is a good precedent for collaboration, with benefits for both agencies.
The international review is approaching and data collected indicate that CIHR received 2338 applications to the fall competition, of which 1475 were deemed fundable, primarily in pillars 1 and 2 (biomedical and clinical, respectively). The increase in applications is partially due to the new eligibility criteria for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) applications, and the reduced output of National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) grants. Of these 1475 applications, 501 will be funded, including Priority Announcements (PAs) and bridge funding. There is currently a petition circulating in the research community regarding the success rate of CIHR competitions, creating the perception that we will attempt to spin the numbers to look better for the agency. The success rate is dictated by a number of factors beyond our control, including the number of applications received. Potential measures to limit this were proposed, including imposing a limit on the number of times you can apply unsuccessfully for funding, or a cap on the amount of CIHR funding an individual can hold.
The petition itself is a sign that CIHR can be more effective in its communication with the research community. Another issue is the belief of young investigators that securing funding for their research is guaranteed, which unfortunately is not the case. Even those who are funded through the young investigator program may not be able to secure funding for subsequent projects. The best approach may be to admit that there is a lot of competition for every dollar, and that CIHR is doing its best.
The 2011 Federal Budget will be released in March, and III has been participating in and/or contributed to several asks, but the outcomes of these asks are not known. Historically, we have never received funds through a budget ask led by CIHR, but we may benefit from asks led by other agencies within the health portfolio. For this reason it is important to partner with other agencies or branches that have similar interests.
Budget
D. Hartell gave an overview of the current Institute Strategic Initiatives (ISI) budget. Since the last IAB meeting in September, III has supported 4 bridge grants (1 renewal and 3 new grants), and partially funded 2 regenerative and nano-medicine initiative grants: one targeting viral genomics and the other on multiple sclerosis. Each team is funded at the level of $100,000 per year. III is also contributing $96,000 in 2011-12 to the Canada-China Joint Health Research Initiative, supporting one project on T cells in tuberculosis and another on gut bacteria in inflammation. We will fund 8 MPD grants for a total of $87,000. Additional grants to be funded in the coming year include the team grants in the Canada-UK Partnership in Antibiotic Resistance, (launched in June 2010), MPD Planning Grants (launched June 2010), MPD Dissemination Grants (launched August 2010), and Network Development Grants. The Institute is on budget, and has only $90,000 remaining for 2011-12 which can be used for additional MPDs or a small bridge grant. The budget allocations for 2012-13 and 2013-14 will be discussed today and based on previous discussions it is expected that in the future III will fund the CIHR-NSERC Collaborative Health Research Program, the Transplantation Initiative, and the Inflammation Initiative, contribute to the Personalized Medicine and Primary Health Care Roadmap Signature Initiatives. Un-committed funds cannot necessarily be allocated to large initiatives, since our degrees of freedom are restricted and we can only lead one large initiative per year. We can contribute these funds to signature initiatives like SPOR, inflammation, etc. When planning our new initiatives, we need to develop a reporting system that allows us to capture and/or distinguish between research that the initiative inspired and what the investigators would have done on their own.
Current Business
New Investigator Forum
S. Desnoyers gave an update on the planning of the 2011 New Investigator Forum (NIF). The forum will take place from October 14-16 at Le Manoir du Lac Delage, approximately 45 minutes from Québec City. Brian Coombes from McMaster is the chair of the organizing committee, and several past NIF participants have been contacted to see if they would be interested in joining the committee. 250 department chairs from universities across Canada have been contacted and asked to nominate new investigators from their institution. The goal is to have 55 new investigators attend. André Veillette will deliver the keynote lecture on building and maintaining a successful research career. The rest of the session topics will be decided by the working committee. The possibility of inviting international investigators to promote international collaborations at an early stage was discussed, but it was believed that it would cut into valuable networking time between young investigators.
Canadian Microbiome Workshop
J. Bray outlined the final details of the workshop organized for the teams funded under the Human Microbiome Initiative. III is subsidizing travel and accommodation for 3 people per team; any additional participants will be paid for by the teams themselves. Registration for the International Human Microbiome Consortium meeting will be covered for 7 trainees as well. The total number of meeting participants will be around 50, including representatives from all of the partner organizations. This workshop will begin with each team giving an overview of their research and goals, allowing the identification of areas of overlap, collaboration, and resources that could be shared between teams. The overarching goal of these research projects is not the cataloging of microflora, but the determination of the relevance of these microflora to human disease. Large sequencing projects are being well handled by other countries, and are not the priority of the funded Canadian teams. Future meetings might also include teams that are not funded through the initiative but are still conducting relevant research, as they might also tie in to the upcoming inflammation initiative.
Network Catalyst Grants
The Knowledge Translation branch launched a Network Catalyst Grant competition, on which III was a partner. The Institute currently has $1.2 million available to fund 2 such networks for $200,000 per year for 3 years. These networks encourage national and international collaborations, resource sharing, capacity building and dissemination in priority areas. Potential application topics included vaccines, transplantation, systems biology, inflammation, human immune responses, and emerging threats posed by infectious agents. The application deadline was November 15th, and III received 5 applications to review for relevance. The results should be available in May 2011. No applications relevant to vaccines were received, possibly because most Canadian vaccine researchers are a part of the PHAC-CIHR Influenza Research Network (PCIRN), and existing networks are excluded from applying by the eligibility criteria. We want to ensure that we are getting the best return on our investment in these networks, but at present there is no mechanism to sustain networks once they are initiated.
Bhagirath Singh New Investigator Award in Infection and Immunity
S. Desnoyers gave an overview of the criteria and objectives of the Bhagirath Singh New Investigator Award. This prize was established to honour the outstanding work of III's inaugural Scientific Director Dr. Bhagi Singh, and will award $25,000 annually to a new investigator in the field of Infection and Immunity, with the highest ranking by percentile in the Fall and Spring Open Operating Grants Competitions. The award is not a salary award, and must be used as a research supplement. The recipient for 2010 has been selected, and will be announced later this spring.
Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative
J. Raven gave an overview of the Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative (PPSRI), and a preliminary look at the impact on influenza research. Since it began in 2006, the PPSRI has invested over $45 million in influenza and pandemic preparedness research, through a wide range of funding mechanisms. The strategic funding in this field has helped to increase the success rate of these types of projects in the open competitions. There was a sharp increase in the number of biomedical projects funded, but all pillars displayed a significant relative increase in the number of projects funded. The number of publications in peer-reviewed journals by Canadian researchers in this field has also increased since the PPSRI began, as well as the number of policy and position papers prepared for various government departments.
A final meeting was held in November 2010 for researchers supported by the PPSRI, and other Canadian researchers working on related projects. This meeting sought to present and discuss PPSRI-funded research results, facilitate networking and collaboration between researchers and knowledge users, and identify future directions for research in this area. Several key advancements identified during the breakout sessions were: identification of key mutations contributing to influenza virulence; increased understanding of host responses to influenza infections and the effect on severity; the discovery of novel antiviral candidates and new strategies for the use of existing licensed products for the treatment of influenza infections; increased understanding of the ethical issues that arise during a pandemic; the creation of critical vaccine and immunization program studies providing essential information to public health officials; the development of mathematical models to support health officials in planning intervention measures; and better understanding of natural influenza infections in the community. Research results from the PCIRN and other PPSRI-funded investigators were taken up by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as provincial agencies. Certain studies, such as the egg allergy study will change the way vaccines are used. PCIRN in particular was able to provide results in real time; critical during a pandemic. It would be useful to prepare a short 1- or 2-page document highlighting the main advancements of the initiative.
This initiative is one of our biggest success stories, but there is no indication that we will receive additional funding for pandemic preparedness. Preparing for and responding to existing and emerging threats to health remains one of the priorities of the CIHR Health Research Roadmap, but our concept paper was not selected for development into a signature initiative. The recommendation was to further develop our partnership with PHAC, which is why we are planning a meeting between PHAC and the III IAB in May. Although the government makes substantial investments every year in pandemic preparedness, research is the only area that has not received ongoing funding. People are realizing more and more that this is important, but we need to make sure that the message reaches the right people.
HIV/AIDS Research Initiative
J. Gunning and A. Matejcic gave an update on the HIV/AIDS Research Initiative. A breakdown of the initiative budget shows that in 2010-11, $9 million was invested in biomedical and clinical research, $5.5 million in health services and population health research, $4.5 million in the Canadian HIV Trials Network, $3 million in the Community-Based Research program, and $1.2 million in the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI). Issues of co-infection and co-morbidities is one of the thematic priorities of the Initiative, as people living with HIV/AIDS are experiencing multiple morbidities such as other chronic diseases, co-infection with other viruses, depression, substance abuse or misuse, and neuro-cognitive disorder. After consultations with stakeholders, literature reviews, and a roundtable meeting of experts in the field, the topics of aging with HIV and the intersection of HIV with Mental Health and Neurological Conditions were selected as the topics for the next RFA. The identified co-morbidity priorities differed between patients and researchers, particularly in regards to aging. CIHR will invest $15 million over 7 years in this program, and will use a variety of funding tools including knowledge synthesis grants, catalyst grants, operating grants, team grants and knowledge translation grants. Because mental health is an important element of the co-morbidities initiative, the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA) and the Institute of Aging (IA) could be valuable partners; III is currently in talks with them. Other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also interested in this initiative, which will hopefully forge new partnerships between these organizations and researchers.
Current activities within the CHVI are focused on advancing basic science through large team grants. The total amount available is $17 million over 5 years, and it is expected at that least 4 teams will be funded at $850,000 per team per year. $5 million of this is from CIHR, while the other $12 million is from CIDA, which is a good leveraging of funds for the CHVI. Fifteen Letters of Intent (LOI) were received for the initial stage of the RFA, including teams with partners from low-middle income countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. When Canadian labs receive funds through this program, they must clearly demonstrate how these research funds are divided amongst them and their international collaborators.
Ethics Update
C. Kaposy gave an update on the CIHR ethics activities. The ethics designates from each of the CIHR Institutes will no longer have their yearly meeting, which also means that they will no longer have the opportunity to meet with the Standing Committee on Ethics. This decision was made by management, and will not be changed in the foreseeable future. Teleconferences between the designates may be held if an issue arises that affects multiple Institutes, and will be coordinated by the Ethics Branch of CIHR. The board agreed that there is a need to build capacity in research ethics. It has been suggested that mandatory ethics training for all CIHR-supported trainees would be beneficial. A session on research ethics is planned as a part of the NIF, and will be led by C. Kaposy. Two members of the Standing Committee on Ethics have also expressed an interest in the Transplantation Initiative (to be discussed in detail later), especially with regards to Aboriginal issues. The updated version of the Tri-Council Policy Statement was released in December, and contains important guidelines for ethical review. Updated sections include: fairness and equity, research with Aboriginal peoples, and registration of trials.
New Business
End of Grant Reports
CIHR announced a new research reporting system (RRS), which will focus on grants expiring on or after March 31, 2011. The expected benefits include the collection of standardized information on the value and impact of funding, collection of data on numerous topics related to the funded project, and the availability of reported data to funding partners, the research community and the public. The reporting form is quite long, but sections of it will be pre-populated by Common C.V., so information can be linked to specific grants. Progress reports will also be integrated into the end-of-grant reports as well, in an effort to make it relatively user friendly. CIHR wants to ensure that these forms are completed, and may impose some small penalty for those that don't submit their reports. The HIV/AIDS initiative and the PPSRI have drafted and collected their own progress reports in the past, and III may wish to continue this practice for strategic initiatives to ensure that we capture the most important information. RRS can serve as a safety net to prevent the loss of information in cases of Institute transition or staff turnover, and hopefully the use of both forms will provide information for the next international review. Motion to reject the document in its current format, and strongly urge CIHR to further streamline it (C. Power/ A. Jevnikar); passed unanimously.
Inflammation in Chronic Disease Initiative
S. Desnoyers gave an overview of the Inflammation in Chronic Disease Initiative (ICDI), on behalf of J. Aubin, Scientific Director of the Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA). The goal of this initiative is to develop a unified Canadian strategy on inflammation that will support health research for the discovery and validation of common biomarkers, therapeutic targets, and inflammatory mechanisms among chronic diseases, with the ultimate goal of preventing and/or treating chronic disease by reducing inflammation and pain through novel interventions. The 10-member steering committee contains members from different universities across Canada. Members include Yves Bethiaume (Université de Montréal), Debbie Feldman (Université de Montréal), Amir Klip (Sick Kids), Wally MacNaughton (University of Calgary), Pam Ohashi (University of Toronto), Dana Philpott (University of Toronto), Jana Stankova (Université de Sherbrooke), André Veillette (Institut de recherche cliniques de Montréal), Lori West (University of Alberta), and Youwen Zhou (University of British Columbia). There are 5 CIHR Institutes currently participating in this initiative: IMHA, III, the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (ICRH), and the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes (INMD), and there are a lot of other potential partners, including some of the other Signature Roadmap Initiatives, Canadian NGOs, and international funding agencies. The initiative will be launched in 2 phases, starting with basic biomedical studies, imaging clinical studies and cohorts, secondary data analysis of existing population-based studies, and then moving to further validation studies and intervention research. The ultimate goal is to effect changes to practice and policy.
A consensus conference is planned for May 17-18 in Toronto, to identify gaps in the current landscape, and define the objectives of the initiative. Ideally there will be 150 participants, with 20 participants per initiative, plus partners and stakeholders. The cost of the workshop will be shared by the Institutes, out of the Institute Support Grant (ISG). To leverage funding from the CIHR corporate budget the plan must be very well developed. The current planned commitment from III is $500,000 per year, but this is not set in stone. There should be some overlap between ICDI and transplantation, but we need to clearly define how they will be integrated because the research questions are not identical. The selection of which grants/projects within the larger initiative may be of concern to some partners, as the relevance for their Institute will vary. This is not anticipated to be a problem for III, as most applications will be relevant to immunity.
Transplantation Initiative
J. Bray gave an update to the board on the progress of the transplantation initiative, the next large initiative that III is launching. The goal of the initiative is to address the challenges of meeting the increased demand for organs, cells and tissues and in achieving long-term graft survival accompanied by a good quality of life for transplant recipients. The expert working group, led by A. Jevnikar and also containing Dana Devine (Canadian Blood Services), Amit Garg (University of Western Ontario), Marie-Josée Hébert (Université de Montréal), Kirk Schultz (University of British Columbia) and Lori West (University of Alberta) have worked with III staff to organize a consultation workshop. This workshop will be held in Montréal on February 1-2, and seeks to: improve networking and communication across the various research groups involved in transplantation; provide an overview of the current state of transplantation research in Canada; identify research areas not being adequately addressed through existing funding sources; and provide recommendations to Institute staff and steering committee members on the scope and focus of a range of potential strategic research initiatives that would improve clinical outcomes of transplantation. A report describing the observations, conclusions and future directions for Canadian transplantation research will be prepared after the meeting by Maura Ricketts. Total participation in the meeting will be around 60 people, and the meeting structure will include plenary talks and small table discussions. If all of the potential partners invest in the initiative, then the yearly budget will be $2 million per year. It is important to include the opinions of the community, as they will have different priorities than the researchers. Researchers working on small molecules will be included in the workshop as well, and so will representatives from pharmaceutical industry to discuss the investment in transplant rejection drugs, and the possibility of incorporating this into the initiative. If biomedical engineering is included as a topic, it may bring in NSERC as a partner. Although there are tie-ins with inflammation, III should move forward as if we were acting alone, since funding support from this initiative is not a guarantee.
Personalized Medicine
M. Park, Scientific Director of the ICR, gave an overview of the Personalized Medicine business case. Personalized medicine refers to the tailoring of preventative, diagnostic, or therapeutic interventions to the characteristics of an individual or population. This can allow for better prevention and intervention strategies and earlier and/or targeted interventions to improve health outcomes. This means that early on, patients can be stratified based on known factors that dictate risk, response to treatment, or adverse events. The goal is to apply such a strategy to diseases such as diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, infectious diseases, and others. Although the pipeline for personalized medicine in Canada is historically slow, it is not quite rapid, and several provinces have identified personalized medicine as a priority. It is not without its challenges however, including public misconceptions, the lack of a formal national strategy for systematic biomarker validation and triage, health economics, policy, ethics and the current health care system. The Canadian research community is strong in the fields of discovery and clinical trials, and there is existing infrastructure that can be exploited. In the summer of 2011, a national consultation workshop will be held to identify priorities for research addressing health care challenges. The ultimate goals are to engage the biomedical, clinical, population health economics, ethics and policy researchers, with provincial health authorities to: identify health care burdens; to support research to effectively triage, develop and integrate biomarkers and diagnostics into policy and practice; and to support translational research for the effective prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases or infectious agents.
The board enjoyed the proposal, and felt it was realistic, particularly in recognizing the challenges it will face with public perception. The plans for the initiative could be coupled with existing/ongoing clinical trials related to diagnostics in the cancer field.
Strategy on Patient-Oriented Research
P. Sherman, Scientific Director of INMD, presented the Strategy on Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). The goal of SPOR is to improve health outcomes through clinical research, by enhancing the clinical application and economic impact of health innovations, and providing health professionals and decision makers with information on how to deliver high-quality care and services in a cost-effective manner. This strategy will hopefully bridge the valleys between basic biomedical research and clinical science and knowledge, and again to clinical practice and health decision making. The four major components of SPOR are: improve the research environment and infrastructure; develop mechanisms to better train and mentor health professionals and non-clinicians; strengthen organizational, regulatory and financial support for multi-site studies; and support best practices in health care. This will be achieved through the formation of multi-disciplinary Clinical Trials Networks and SUPPORT Units. These units will provide the infrastructure and skills for highly specialized research networks to identify and tackle key clinical questions. Together, these will increase the human capacity for patient-oriented research. The program will also strive to strengthen the organizational, regulatory and financial support for clinical trials. CIHR has conducted nationwide consultations; 24 in-person consultations with various groups and over 400 attendees, and a web-based survey with 300 respondents. The SPOR is based on the existing Networks for National Health Service in England. Their strategy is based on a disease-specific approach, rather than geographical distribution which may be better in some cases. The exact system that Canada will employ has not been decided yet. Although the provinces enjoy their autonomy, there is interest in the SUPPORT units, particularly among smaller provinces. There will initially be a large investment in infrastructure, but the research will come, guided by the steering committee. The total investment in SPOR will be $150 million over 5 years.
Review of Business Cases relevant to III
M. Ouellette gave an overview of the business cases in development that are of interest to III. Our commitment to the ICDI is firm, we are a leading partner. The initiative addressing "Pathways to Health Equity for Aboriginal Peoples" has elements that may be relevant to the HIV/AIDS initiative, as they have funds targeted to Aboriginal Communities. PHAC will soon be releasing an evaluation on Aboriginal health, gaps and opportunities, and III may need to consider the information in this report when looking at future funding. Building capacity is important, as is cooperation and support from the Aboriginal communities themselves.
The "Canadian Epigenetics, Environment and Health Research Network" includes a focus on susceptibility to infections, as well as autoimmunity, which will be of interest to the III community. The issue of epidentetics is also relevant to the transplantation initiative, so III should strongly consider getting involved once we see how the initiative is shaping up.
"Community-Based Primary Health Care" (CBPHC) is another initiative that is highly relevant to the HIV/AIDS initiative. The CBPHC initiative appears to closely align with the HIV/AIDS co-morbidity initiative, particularly regarding the development of an accessible health care system. The provincial system of health care delivery presents a challenge for a national research initiative, but there are numerous elements also relevant to the mandate of the main institute, such as community management of infectious diseases by family doctors and nurses.
Threats and Emerging Infections
J. Raven outlined the III proposal for an initiative on threats and emerging infections. The CIHR Health Research Roadmap includes a focus on preparing for and responding to existing and emerging threats to health. This is directly relevant to the mandate of III. Researchers are appreciating more and more than human health is closely linked with ecological and animal health, and a cohesive approach is likely to be more effective than separate initiatives. Key areas in a potential new initiative could include: influenza pandemics; antibiotic resistance; vaccine uptake; safe food and water; an accessible health care system; and climate change. Previous initiatives led by III would provide the foundation for such an initiative. The original concept paper submitted by III was well received, but several problems were identified with the submission, including the lack of a clear threat to prepare for, and poorly defined roles for important stakeholders. It was recommended that III hold consultations with stakeholders to define objectives and goals, which is why the IAB will be meeting with representatives from PHAC in Winnipeg.
This topic is relevant to all pillars, particularly in pandemic situations. It is important for III to submit a successful concept paper next time. If we are going to resubmit it as a concept paper, then other potential partners include Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO)-Intervac, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Infectious Disease Society of America, and the Canadian Armed Forces. Other CIHR Institutes may be interested as well, though their interest will be primarily pillars 3 and 4. If III will be pursuing a stand-alone initiative, then the list of partners will need to be trimmed down. The main partner would likely be PHAC, and their priority is zoonosis, particularly the recurring threat of influenza. Influenza is useful as a model for general pandemic preparedness, and therefore our chances of success may be greater if we limit our focus.
Presentations by the Local Community
Four members of the Toronto research community presented their CIHR-supported work to the IAB.
Sean Rourke (University of Toronto): "CIHR Centre for REACH in HIV/AIDS"
Katherine Siminovitch (University Health Network): "Genetic dissection of rheumatoid arthritis – the end of the beginning"
Alan Davidson (University of Toronto): "Engineering Bacteriophages as an Alternative to Antibiotics"
Jianhong Wu (York University): "Modeling and Geo-simulation Capacity for Preparedness & Real-time Management of Emerging Diseases"
Mock Assessment Panel – International Review
In February of 2011, all CIHR Institutes will participate in expert review panels as part of the second CIHR International Review process. The panel evaluating III is composed of Hidde Ploegh (MIT), Deborah Smith (University of York), and Rudi Balling (Université de Luxembourg). This group will interview 3 members of the III community: Martin Schechter (University of British Columbia), Katherine Siminovitch (University Health Network), and Chris Power (University of Alberta, and IAB Chair), in addition to other key stakeholders. In March, Dr. Balling will relay the panel's comments to the main blue ribbon panel. The IAB held a mock assessment panel with the three III representatives, to help identify the critical achievements of the Institute during the past 5 years.
Meeting Adjourned: 12:50 pm