Overview
Title
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is having a secret meeting to talk about allergy and asthma projects because it involves private details they can’t share.
Summary AI
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, has announced a closed meeting of the Special Emphasis Panel focused on Allergy and Asthma Statistical & Clinical Coordinating Center (AA-SCCC). Scheduled for March 10, 2021, the meeting will be held virtually from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It will review and evaluate contract proposals, and because it involves sensitive information like trade secrets and personal data, it will not be open to the public. Participants can contact Dr. Louis A. Rosenthal for more details.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is an official notice from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It announces a closed meeting of the Special Emphasis Panel for the Allergy and Asthma Statistical & Clinical Coordinating Center (AA-SCCC), scheduled for March 10, 2021. The meeting will be conducted virtually and is meant to review and evaluate contract proposals. Due to the sensitivity of the information being discussed, such as trade secrets and personal data, the meeting will not be open to the general public.
General Summary
The announcement provides logistical details about the meeting, such as the date, time, and virtual location. It also names Dr. Louis A. Rosenthal as the contact person for further information. The notice complies with legal requirements by referencing relevant sections of the U.S. Code that justify the meeting's closed status to protect confidential information and personal privacy.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the main concerns with the document is its lack of specificity regarding the need for confidentiality beyond general legal citations. While it follows statutory guidelines by referencing sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5 U.S.C., these references could be unclear to those who are not familiar with legal terms. A more explicit explanation could enhance public understanding and trust.
Additionally, the document does not provide details about the contract proposals under review, which could leave the public or interested stakeholders in the dark about the meeting's purpose and scope. Moreover, it does not outline potential outcomes or follow-up actions from the meeting, which would help stakeholders anticipate the implications of the discussions.
Public Impact
The document likely has limited direct impact on the general public, but it does underscore the ongoing work of governmental bodies in managing health challenges such as allergies and asthma. However, due to the meeting's closed nature, the public might perceive a lack of transparency in how taxpayer money is being allocated or how decisions are being made regarding important health issues.
Stakeholder Impact
Specific stakeholders, such as researchers, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies involved in allergy and asthma management, may find the closed nature of the meeting both beneficial and frustrating. On the one hand, confidentiality protects proprietary information, which is crucial for organizations and individuals submitting proposals. On the other hand, it limits the ability for broader involvement and input from other interested parties, which could potentially enhance the outcomes of research and policy decisions.
In summary, while the document serves its function as a formal announcement, a lack of transparency in its specifics might lead to concerns among stakeholders and the general public. The agency could improve stakeholder and public engagement by offering more accessible explanations of the legal requirements for closing the meeting and provide more context regarding the proposals and their potential impact.
Issues
• The document lacks clarity on why the meeting needs to be closed to the public beyond the general provisions of confidentiality and privacy; more specific justifications could improve transparency.
• The purpose and specifics of the contract proposals under review are not detailed, leading to potential ambiguity about the meeting's objectives.
• The document does not provide any information about the outcomes or follow-up actions expected from the meeting.
• The language is generally clear but contains some bureaucratic terms, such as '552b(c)(4)' and '552b(c)(6)', that may not be immediately understood by the general public without additional explanation.