FR 2021-00487

The document from the Federal Register announces an upcoming meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council, which will be held virtually on February 2, 2021. This session by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is set to have both an open and a closed portion, each with specific agendas. The open meeting in the afternoon is accessible to the public, while the morning session is closed, focusing on the sensitive matter of reviewing grant applications.

General Summary

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has organized a dual-format meeting: a closed session from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. for grant applications review and an open session from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for discussing program policies and issues. The meeting, held virtually, will be streamed as a videocast, with access information available on the NHLBI website prior. Individuals interested in attending or making an oral comment during the public session are advised to contact Laura K. Moen, Ph.D., ahead of the meeting.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several concerns arise from the document:

• Lack of Detailed Information: The notice does not specify details about the grant applications or their potential costs, making it difficult to evaluate for possible budget concerns or wasteful spending. Transparency in this regard is vital to assure the public of responsible financial stewardship.

• Process for Oral Comments: There's insufficient information on how individuals are invited to present oral comments. Without clarification on the selection criteria, there is a risk of biased or preferential treatment towards certain speakers or organizations.

• Partial Disclosure: While the document provides reasons for the closed session, referencing privacy concerns, it could benefit from more explicit justification. This would enhance trust in the decision to restrict access during those discussions.

• Access Details: The document mentions that links to the videocast will be made available shortly before the meeting, which might limit access for those who plan to attend but require more preparation time. This could be improved by providing earlier announcements with clear instructions.

• Complex Language: The technical language used might not be easily understood by the general public, potentially limiting broader engagement or understanding of NIH operations.

• Representation Concerns: The document does not establish how diverse perspectives and input will be balanced or ensured, which might lead to concerns about fair representation during the public session.

Impacts on the Public

For the general public, this document indicates an opportunity to engage with the NIH and observe discussions on vital health topics. However, issues like limited access details and complex language might hinder participation or understanding. The public generally benefits from transparency in how public funds are appropriated, hence the need for more accessible information regarding the grant reviews.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Researchers and Academic Institutions: This group may see a direct impact from the closed portion, though specifics on the grants under review are not disclosed. Clarity and fairness in these reviews are critical for stakeholders.

• Advocacy and Patient Groups: They might be interested in the open session discussions on policy and programs. The ability to present comments provides them an essential platform, although the document does not clarify how their participation will be managed or prioritized.

• The General Public: There's a broader implication regarding public trust in government operations. Transparency, especially relating to financial and privacy concerns, can help maintain or improve this trust.

In conclusion, while the document outlines a structured approach to the meeting, improvements in transparency, accessibility, and clarity could enhance public engagement and trust in the NIH's operations and decision-making processes.