FR 2020-29144

Overview

Title

National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The National Institute on Aging is having a secret meeting on February 12, 2021, to talk about picking the best ideas for studying Alzheimer's Disease. They will do this meeting online and keep it private so people’s secrets and private stuff stay safe.

Summary AI

The National Institute on Aging is holding a special meeting on February 12, 2021, to review and discuss grant applications related to Alzheimer's Disease research. This meeting will be closed to the public to protect confidential information, such as trade secrets and personal data of individuals involved with the grant applications. The meeting will take place via video conference, and the contact person is Dr. Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park. This is in accordance with regulations under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Type: Notice
Citation: 86 FR 318
Document #: 2020-29144
Date:
Volume: 86
Pages: 318-318

AnalysisAI

The document from the Federal Register announces a closed meeting organized by the National Institute on Aging, a branch of the National Institutes of Health under the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of the meeting is to review and evaluate grant applications focusing on Alzheimer's Disease research.

General Summary

This notice informs the public about a meeting scheduled for February 12, 2021, which will be held via video conference. It provides essential details such as the time, agenda, and contact information for the Scientific Review Officer, Dr. Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park. The meeting will be closed to the public due to the potential disclosure of confidential information, as permitted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and related statutes.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue with the document is its lack of detailed criteria explaining why the meeting is closed beyond referencing general provisions. While the document mentions protecting confidential trade secrets and personal privacy, it does not delve into specifics. This lack of clarity may raise concerns about transparency for those interested in the grant applications or the meeting process itself.

Additionally, the notice is somewhat vague about the nature of the grant applications being reviewed. Although it highlights the focus on Alzheimer's Disease, it does not detail the scope or types of proposals under consideration. This could make it hard for the scientific community and the public to understand the potential impact of the research being discussed.

Another concern is the limited availability of contact options. While Dr. Park's contact information is provided, there is no alternative contact or method for public inquiries, which could hinder communication, especially for individuals seeking more information.

Furthermore, there is no mention of how the outcomes or decisions made during the meeting will be communicated to the public. This lack of follow-up information could be perceived as a shortfall in transparency and accountability.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this document indicates the government's ongoing efforts to support research in Alzheimer's Disease, a significant public health concern affecting millions. However, because the meeting is closed, it may breed skepticism among some individuals who advocate for open government proceedings.

Positive and Negative Impacts on Stakeholders

For researchers and institutions involved in Alzheimer's research, the meeting represents an opportunity to secure funding, potentially resulting in advancements in understanding and treating the disease. The closed nature of the meeting arguably supports an environment where sensitive information can be safely shared, protecting intellectual property and personal identities.

Conversely, individuals with an interest in government transparency or those invested in the outcomes of such research might view the closed meeting as exclusionary. They might argue for more detailed public disclosure of the topics discussed and decisions reached, promoting greater accountability.

In summary, while the document fulfills basic legal requirements for public notice, it leaves room for improvement in terms of transparency, detailed explanations, and public engagement.

Issues

  • • The notice does not specify the criteria for closing the meeting to the public beyond referring to general provisions, which may limit transparency.

  • • The purpose of reviewing and evaluating grant applications could benefit from additional detail to clarify the scope and nature of the proposals being considered.

  • • Contact information is provided for the scientific review officer, but no alternative contact or method is provided for public inquiries.

  • • There is no mention of how the results or outcomes of the meeting will be communicated to the public, which could be viewed as lacking transparency.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 1
Words: 308
Sentences: 14
Entities: 39

Language

Nouns: 118
Verbs: 16
Adjectives: 8
Adverbs: 2
Numbers: 27

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.22
Average Sentence Length:
22.00
Token Entropy:
4.68
Readability (ARI):
17.31

Reading Time

about a minute or two