FR 2021-02303

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a section of the National Institutes of Health, has announced a closed meeting to discuss grant applications. This meeting is scheduled for February 25, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and will be conducted virtually. The discussion will focus on grants related to the "Collaborative Cross Mouse Model Generation and Discovery of Immunoregulatory Mechanisms (R21)". Tara Capece, Ph.D. is the Scientific Review Officer to contact for further information.

Summary of the Document

The notice informs the public about a closed meeting held by the NIAID to review and evaluate grant applications. Such meetings are closed to protect sensitive information, including trade secrets, commercial property, and personal information of individuals associated with the applications. The notice is filed under the Federal Register document number 2021-02303 and was published on February 4, 2021.

Significant Issues or Concerns

There are several notable issues with the document:

1. Transparency in Evaluation: The document does not clarify the specific criteria or processes for evaluating the grant applications. This lack of transparency can raise public concerns about fairness and objectivity in awarding grants.

2. Confidentiality Measures: While the meeting is closed to preserve confidentiality, the document lacks details on the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of information. In an era of increasing data breaches, this may lead to concerns about the adequacy of data protection practices.

3. Potential for Conflicts of Interest: The document does not discuss any mechanisms to prevent bias or favoritism during the evaluation process. Ensuring impartiality is crucial in maintaining trust in the NIH’s grant-awarding procedures.

4. Scope Clarification: The terminology used, such as “Collaborative Cross Mouse Model Generation and Discovery of Immunoregulatory Mechanisms (R21)” is not explained, which might confuse readers unfamiliar with scientific research. Providing clarity on such terms would help in understanding the meeting's focus.

5. Privacy Concerns: The inclusion of direct contact details for Dr. Tara Capece could raise privacy issues, both for her and for potential applicants who may contact her.

Public Impact

For the general public, this document provides insights into how government-related health research is managed and funded. However, the issues identified could lead to a perception of opacity in federal decision-making processes, potentially undermining public confidence.

The exclusion of the public from these discussions is necessary to protect confidentiality but also limits public oversight and understanding of how taxpayer money is utilized in health research development.

Impact on Stakeholders

• Researchers and Institutions: For researchers and institutions seeking grants, the lack of transparency and clarity might lead to frustration or doubts about the fairness of the grant evaluation.

• Privacy Advocates: Privacy advocates might be concerned about the publication of personal contact information and the assurance of data protection during closed meetings.

• Public Health Community: While these meetings are crucial for advancing scientific research, the concerns about favoritism and data protection could affect the perception of integrity within the public health community.

In conclusion, while such meetings are a standard and necessary part of the federal research funding landscape, addressing these issues in future documents could enhance transparency, ensure fairness, and strengthen public trust in the process.