WorldWideScience

Sample records for scientific review committee

  1. EFSA Scientific Committee; Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment Terminology

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Hald, Tine

    of improving the expression and communication of risk and/or uncertainties in the selected opinions. The Scientific Committee concluded that risk assessment terminology is not fully harmonised within EFSA. In part this is caused by sectoral legislation defining specific terminology and international standards......The Scientific Committee of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the use of risk assessment terminology within its Scientific Panels. An external report, commissioned by EFSA, analysed 219 opinions published by the Scientific Committee and Panels to recommend possible ways......, the Scientific Committee concludes that particular care must be taken that the principles of CAC, OIE or IPPC are followed strictly. EFSA Scientific Panels should identify which specific approach is most useful in dealing with their individual mandates. The Scientific Committee considered detailed aspects...

  2. DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) Subcommittee Report on Scientific and Technical Information

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hey, Tony [eScience Institute, University of Washington; Agarwal, Deborah [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Borgman, Christine [University of California, Los Angeles; Cartaro, Concetta [SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory; Crivelli, Silvia [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Van Dam, Kerstin Kleese [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Luce, Richard [University of Oklahoma; Arjun, Shankar [CADES, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Trefethen, Anne [University of Oxford; Wade, Alex [Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation; Williams, Dean [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    2015-09-04

    The Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) was charged to form a standing subcommittee to review the Department of Energy’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and to begin by assessing the quality and effectiveness of OSTI’s recent and current products and services and to comment on its mission and future directions in the rapidly changing environment for scientific publication and data. The Committee met with OSTI staff and reviewed available products, services and other materials. This report summaries their initial findings and recommendations.

  3. Proceedings of RIKEN BNL Research Center Workshop, Volume 91, RBRC Scientific Review Committee Meeting

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Samios,N.P.

    2008-11-17

    The ninth evaluation of the RIKEN BNL Research Center (RBRC) took place on Nov. 17-18, 2008, at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The members of the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) were Dr. Dr. Wit Busza (Chair), Dr. Miklos Gyulassy, Dr. Akira Masaike, Dr. Richard Milner, Dr. Alfred Mueller, and Dr. Akira Ukawa. We are pleased that Dr. Yasushige Yano, the Director of the Nishina Institute of RIKEN, Japan participated in this meeting both in informing the committee of the activities of the Nishina Institute and the role of RBRC and as an observer of this review. In order to illustrate the breadth and scope of the RBRC program, each member of the Center made a presentation on his/her research efforts. This encompassed three major areas of investigation, theoretical, experimental and computational physics. In addition the committee met privately with the fellows and postdocs to ascertain their opinions and concerns. Although the main purpose of this review is a report to RIKEN Management (Dr. Ryoji Noyori, RIKEN President) on the health, scientific value, management and future prospects of the Center, the RBRC management felt that a compendium of the scientific presentations are of sufficient quality and interest that they warrant a wider distribution. Therefore we have made this compilation and present it to the community for its information and enlightenment.

  4. 76 FR 2914 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-18

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Risk Prevention and Health... . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section...

  5. DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) Report: Exascale Computing Initiative Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Reed, Daniel [University of Iowa; Berzins, Martin [University of Utah; Pennington, Robert; Sarkar, Vivek [Rice University; Taylor, Valerie [Texas A& M University

    2015-08-01

    On November 19, 2014, the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) was charged with reviewing the Department of Energy’s conceptual design for the Exascale Computing Initiative (ECI). In particular, this included assessing whether there are significant gaps in the ECI plan or areas that need to be given priority or extra management attention. Given the breadth and depth of previous reviews of the technical challenges inherent in exascale system design and deployment, the subcommittee focused its assessment on organizational and management issues, considering technical issues only as they informed organizational or management priorities and structures. This report presents the observations and recommendations of the subcommittee.

  6. The committee of scientific expertise coordination

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2003-01-01

    Placed under the MIES control, the Committee of scientific expertise coordination defines the needs, the contain and the planing of expertises realized in function of Climate national and international decisions and negotiations calendars. The Committee verifies the different expertises and offers the administrations, scientific tools and techniques useful for the negotiations. It can also define long-dated research needs which require the scientific community mobilization. This paper provides some document of the Committee: objectives, operating and priorities of the Committee, scenarios ''Factor 4'' and ''crack technology'', perceptions and practices, developing countries (China, India...), Euromed. (A.L.B.)

  7. 77 FR 26771 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-07

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Motor... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Obesity...

  8. 77 FR 50703 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-22

    ... . Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group; Nanotechnology Study... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Dermatology and...

  9. 78 FR 2681 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-14

    ...-435-1212, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Innate Immunity... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Pain and Hearing Date: February 12-13, 2013. Time... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Radiation Oncology. Date...

  10. 75 FR 27793 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-18

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Mechanisms of Psychiatric... Integrated Review Group; Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section. Date: June 10-11, 2010. Time: 8 a.m...

  11. 76 FR 22716 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-22

    ..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402- 5671, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical... Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Kidney, Urology Continues...

  12. Antibody Scientific Committee | Office of Cancer Clinical Proteomics Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    The Antibody Scientific Committee provides scientific insight and guidance to the NCI's Antibody Characterization Program. Specifically, the members of this committee evaluate request from the external scientific community for development and characterization of antibodies by the program. The members of the Antibody Scientific Committee include:

  13. 75 FR 22819 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-30

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special... 20892, 301-435- 0903, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special...

  14. 75 FR 2159 - Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-14

    ... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee... Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next meeting at the U.S. Geological... participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The Committee will receive updates and...

  15. The ESO Scientific and Technical Committee.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Léna, P.

    1982-03-01

    Since 1978, the structure of ESO involves a Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) which advises the Council on scientific and technical matters. This committee meets twice a year, usually at Garehing; its members are nominated by the Council and their term is 4 years. The STC has 10 members, who are as evenly distributed as possible among member countries, although indeed mainly chosen for their scientific abilities. The chairman is invited to attend Council meetings and to report to the members.

  16. 78 FR 14099 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-04

    ..., (301) 435-1165, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Biopsychosocial Issues in Patient Management. Date: March 22, 2013. Time: 3:00 p..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2365, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review...

  17. 75 FR 52764 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-27

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict..., Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435- 0684. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and....gov . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group...

  18. 78 FR 4419 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-22

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Biomedical Imaging and Engineering Area Review. Date... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Nanotechnology...

  19. 75 FR 1066 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-08

    ... Person: Patrick K. Lai, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes... Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Clinical Neuroscience and...

  20. 75 FR 36662 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-28

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Review of the Mass Spectrometry Research Center. Date... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel...

  1. 77 FR 293 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-04

    .... Contact Person: Patrick K Lai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group...

  2. 75 FR 54893 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-09

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Selected Topics... . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group, Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section... 5132, MSC 7843, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-6830. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Immunology...

  3. 76 FR 5597 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-01

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomaterials, Delivery Systems, and Nanotechnology... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict...

  4. 76 FR 12980 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-09

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1022, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific...

  5. 75 FR 27794 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-18

    ... Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Transplantation, Tolerance, and Tumor Immunology Study...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topics: Bacterial Pathogenesis. Date: [email protected] . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Cellular and Molecular Immunology...

  6. 78 FR 16860 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-19

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neuronal... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and...

  7. 77 FR 28397 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-14

    ...: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Somatosensory and Chemosensory....gov . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, AREA (R15...

  8. 77 FR 8270 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-14

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Diabetes, Obesity and Reproductive Sciences. Date... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Sensory and Motor Neuroscience...

  9. 77 FR 27073 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-08

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topic: Bioanalytical Chemistry. Date: June 6-7, 2012. Time... of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Immunity and Host Defense Study Section. Date: [email protected] . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Transplantation, Tolerance, and...

  10. 77 FR 65567 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-29

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Newborn Disorders. Date: November 28, 2012... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Gastrointestinal, Kidney and...

  11. 75 FR 32958 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-10

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Topics in Infectious Diseases and....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Immunology...

  12. 76 FR 6805 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-08

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Immunology. Date: March 10... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics on Infectious Diseases and Microbiology...

  13. 75 FR 54638 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-08

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Selected Topics...: Immunology Integrated Review Group, Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section. Date: October 14-15, 2010... 20892. 301-594-6830. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group...

  14. 75 FR 73114 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-11-29

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Topics in Microbiology. Date: December 28-29, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to... Committee: Oncology 2--Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group, Developmental Therapeutics Study....gov . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Acute...

  15. 77 FR 27480 - Outer Continental Shelf Scientific Committee; Announcement of Plenary Session

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-10

    ... data being produced to meet BOEM's scientific information needs for decision making and may recommend.../ecology, physical sciences, and social sciences) to review the specific research plans of BOEM's regional... Committee business. [[Page 27481

  16. 76 FR 53688 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-08-29

    ... . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Clinical...- 1153, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  17. 78 FR 26376 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-06

    ...; Bioengineering of Neuroscience, Vision and Low Vision Technologies Study Section. Date: May 30-31, 2013. Time: 8... of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vision...

  18. 75 FR 8979 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-26

    ... Review Special Emphasis Panel, Biomaterials, Delivery Systems, and Nanotechnology. Date: March 15-16... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR08-130...

  19. 77 FR 2738 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-19

    ... Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Hepatobiliary Pathophysiology... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  20. 75 FR 54156 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-03

    ... Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Gastrointestinal Mucosal... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  1. 77 FR 1699 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-11

    ... Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Gastrointestinal Mucosal... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  2. PROCEEDINGS OF RIKEN BNL RESEARCH CENTER WORKSHOP, VOLUME 77, RBRC SCIENTIFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING, OCTOBER 10-12, 2005

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    SAMIOS, N.P.

    2005-01-01

    The eighth evaluation of the RIKEN BNL Research Center (RBRC) took place on October 10-12, 2005, at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The members of the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) were Dr. Jean-Paul Blaizot, Professor Makoto Kobayashi, Dr. Akira Masaike, Professor Charles Young Prescott (Chair), Professor Stephen Sharpe (absent), and Professor Jack Sandweiss. We are grateful to Professor Akira Ukawa who was appointed to the SRC to cover Professor Sharpe's area of expertise. In addition to reviewing this year's program, the committee, augmented by Professor Kozi Nakai, evaluated the RBRC proposal for a five-year extension of the RIKEN BNL Collaboration MOU beyond 2007. Dr. Koji Kaya, Director of the Discovery Research Institute, RIKEN, Japan, presided over the session on the extension proposal. In order to illustrate the breadth and scope of the RBRC program, each member of the Center made a presentation on higher research efforts. In addition, a special session was held in connection with the RBRC QCDSP and QCDOC supercomputers. Professor Norman H. Christ, a collaborator from Columbia University, gave a presentation on the progress and status of the project, and Professor Frithjof Karsch of BNL presented the first physics results from QCDOC. Although the main purpose of this review is a report to RIKEN Management (Dr. Ryoji Noyori, RIKEN President) on the health, scientific value, management and future prospects of the Center, the RBRC management felt that a compendium of the scientific presentations are of sufficient quality and interest that they warrant a wider distribution. Therefore we have made this compilation and present it to the community for its information and enlightenment

  3. PROCEEDINGS OF RIKEN BNL RESEARCH CENTER WORKSHOP, VOLUME 77, RBRC SCIENTIFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING, OCTOBER 10-12, 2005

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    SAMIOS, N.P.

    2005-10-10

    The eighth evaluation of the RIKEN BNL Research Center (RBRC) took place on October 10-12, 2005, at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The members of the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) were Dr. Jean-Paul Blaizot, Professor Makoto Kobayashi, Dr. Akira Masaike, Professor Charles Young Prescott (Chair), Professor Stephen Sharpe (absent), and Professor Jack Sandweiss. We are grateful to Professor Akira Ukawa who was appointed to the SRC to cover Professor Sharpe's area of expertise. In addition to reviewing this year's program, the committee, augmented by Professor Kozi Nakai, evaluated the RBRC proposal for a five-year extension of the RIKEN BNL Collaboration MOU beyond 2007. Dr. Koji Kaya, Director of the Discovery Research Institute, RIKEN, Japan, presided over the session on the extension proposal. In order to illustrate the breadth and scope of the RBRC program, each member of the Center made a presentation on higher research efforts. In addition, a special session was held in connection with the RBRC QCDSP and QCDOC supercomputers. Professor Norman H. Christ, a collaborator from Columbia University, gave a presentation on the progress and status of the project, and Professor Frithjof Karsch of BNL presented the first physics results from QCDOC. Although the main purpose of this review is a report to RIKEN Management (Dr. Ryoji Noyori, RIKEN President) on the health, scientific value, management and future prospects of the Center, the RBRC management felt that a compendium of the scientific presentations are of sufficient quality and interest that they warrant a wider distribution. Therefore we have made this compilation and present it to the community for its information and enlightenment.

  4. 76 FR 21385 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-15

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict[email protected] . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience [[Page 21386...

  5. 76 FR 65739 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-24

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Review of the National Resource for Mass Spectrometry of Biological Macromolecules Date: November 13-15, 2011. Time: 8 a... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  6. 78 FR 52552 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-08-23

    ... & Technologies Integrated Review Group, Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: September 26-27, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict...

  7. 78 FR 28599 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-15

    ... Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Kidney Molecular Biology and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  8. 78 FR 54258 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-03

    ... Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Clinical, Integrative and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  9. 76 FR 31619 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-01

    ..., Delivery Systems, and Nanotechnology. Date: June 28, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Molecular...

  10. 78 FR 24224 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-04-24

    ... Integrated Review Group; Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: May 23-24, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel...

  11. 78 FR 6125 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-29

    ..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  12. 78 FR 29144 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-17

    ... Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group Biostatistical Methods and Research... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review..., 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015. Contact Person: Katherine M Malinda, Ph.D., Scientific...

  13. 77 FR 66623 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-11-06

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Mass Spectrometry Resource. Date: November 26-28, 2012. Time: 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. Agenda: To review... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  14. 76 FR 573 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-05

    ..., Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: February 3-4, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflicts...

  15. 77 FR 71604 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-12-03

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Nanotechnology and Tissue Engineering. Date: December 5, 2012. Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Agenda: To review... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  16. 78 FR 35943 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-14

    ... Panel; Overflow: Molecular Innate and Adaptive Immunology. Date: July 9, 2013. Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Bacterial....nih.gov . Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Immunology and...

  17. 75 FR 38111 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR10-082: Mass Spectrometry Instrumentation. Date: July 19-20, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  18. 78 FR 30318 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-22

    ... Computational Mass-Spectrometry. Date: June 19-21, 2013. Time: 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict...

  19. 77 FR 27468 - Center for Scientific Review, Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-10

    ..., (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Edwin C Clayton, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific...-408-9041, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Synthetic and Biological Chemistry B Study Section. Date: May 30-31, 2012. Time: 8...

  20. 75 FR 19408 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-14

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies, Community-Level Health...-1503, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 2406, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Oncology 2--Translational...

  1. 75 FR 9911 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-04

    ... 20892. 301-435-1169. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee...-408-9164. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis...

  2. 75 FR 11895 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-12

    .... (301) 435- 1258. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict...

  3. 75 FR 56115 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-15

    ... days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name.... (301) 435- 1046. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis..., Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435- 1052. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral...

  4. 78 FR 61376 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-03

    ...-1215, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for...-435-1137, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis...

  5. Committee on Scientific Values | Initiatives | Indian Academy of ...

    Indian Academy of Sciences (India)

    Academy Committee on Scientific Values. The Council of the Academy had in 2003 constituted a Committee to consider and submit a report on ethical guidelines which the fellowship of the Academy should follow. The Committee submitted its report to the Council, which at its meeting in December 2005 approved this report ...

  6. 77 FR 16845 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-22

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Center: Mass Spectrometry Resource for Biology and Medicine. Date: April 1-3, 2012. Time: 8 p.m. to 12 p.m. Agenda: To... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  7. 77 FR 48527 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-14

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR012-017: Shared Mass Spectrometry Instrumentation. Date: September 6-7, 2012. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Agenda... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  8. 75 FR 55592 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-13

    ... Conference Call). Contact Person: Tomas Drgon, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, HDM IRG, Center for Scientific..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group...: Risk Prevention and Health Behavior. Date: October 21-22, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To...

  9. 75 FR 7486 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-19

    ... Business: Cell Biology and Molecular Imaging. Date: March 11, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Developmental Biology and Aging. Date: March 2-3... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Cancer...

  10. 76 FR 24894 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-03

    ... Sciences Integrated Review Group; Arthritis, Connective Tissue and Skin Study Section. Date: June [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Genetics...

  11. 76 FR 30372 - Center for Scientific Review; Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-25

    ... Panel; Member Conflict: Speech and Cognition. Date: June 9-10, 2011. Time: 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Emotion...

  12. 78 FR 40487 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-07-05

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Biomedical Technology Research Center: A Biomedical- Informatics Research Network for Big Data. Date: July 30-August 1, 2013. Time: 6:00 p.m. to 1:00... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Gene Therapy Member Conflicts. Date: July 30, 2013. Time: 3:00 p.m...

  13. 78 FR 58547 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-24

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Oncology 2--Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Cancer... Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Fouad A El-Zaatari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer...

  14. 78 FR 3904 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-17

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict... Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Drug Discovery for the Nervous System. Date: February 8, 2013. Time: 1:00... 20892, 301-254-9975, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive...

  15. 76 FR 1442 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-10

    ...-451- 8504. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  16. 78 FR 57866 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-20

    ..., 301- 237-1487, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as [[Page...

  17. 78 FR 312 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-03

    ...: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group Clinical, Integrative and Molecular....nih.gov . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  18. 78 FR 32260 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-29

    ..., (301) 827-6390, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  19. 77 FR 56855 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-14

    ... 20892, 301-806-2515, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  20. 77 FR 27470 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-10

    ...: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group; Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: June 7-8... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Risk...

  1. 75 FR 10291 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-05

    ..., Skeletal Muscle Pathologies. Date: March 30, 2010. Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Skeletal Muscle. Date: March...

  2. 77 FR 8888 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-15

    ... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cell Biology...: Cancer Therapeutics. Date: March 6, 2012. Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant...

  3. 78 FR 29373 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-20

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review... Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Diseases and Pathophysiology of the Visual System Study Section. Date...

  4. 78 FR 27975 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-13

    ...: Culture, Health and Wellbeing. Date: June 11, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member conflict: Lung Diseases...

  5. 77 FR 53205 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-31

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict... Interpersonal Processes Study Section. Date: October 4-5, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To review...

  6. 75 FR 6044 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-05

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Topics in...: Immunology. Date: March 8-9, 2010. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant...

  7. 76 FR 23331 - Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Scientific Committee (SC); Announcement of Plenary Session

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-26

    ... and data being produced to meet BOEMRE scientific information needs for decision making and may...., biology/ecology, physical sciences, and social sciences) to review the specific studies plans of the... continue with Committee business. The meetings are open to the public. Approximately 40 visitors can be...

  8. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Processes: Letter Report

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pawelczyk, James A. (Editor); Strawbridge, Larisa M. (Editor); Schultz, Andrea M. (Editor); Liverman, Catharyn T. (Editor)

    2012-01-01

    At the request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened the Committee on the Review of NASA Human Research Program's (HRP's) Scientific Merit Assessment Processes in December 2011. The committee was asked to evaluate the scientific merit assessment processes that are applied to directed research tasks2 funded through the HRP and to determine best practices from similar assessment processes that are used in other federal agencies. This letter report and its recommendations are the product of a 10-member ad hoc committee, which included individuals who had previously conducted research under the HRP, were familiar with the HRP s research portfolio and operations, had specific knowledge of peer review processes, or were familiar with scientific merit assessment processes used in other organizations and federal agencies, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Science Foundation (NSF); and U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), and Transportation.

  9. 75 FR 66388 - Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-28

    ..., including the multi-hazards demonstration project and earthquake early warning prototype development. The... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [USGS-GX11GG009950000] Scientific Earthquake... Public Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next...

  10. Work Plans 2011 – Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety

    OpenAIRE

    Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety

    2011-01-01

    The annual work plan for 2011 summaries activities for the Scientific Steering Committee and the 9 panels of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM). VKM carries out independent risk assessments for the Norwegian Food Safety Authority across the Authority’s field of responsibility as well as environmental risk assessments of genetically modified organisms for the Directorate for Nature Management.

  11. 75 FR 80830 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-23

    ... Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Pregnancy... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... and evaluate grant applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda...

  12. 78 FR 19004 - Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-28

    ... Hazards Program. Focus topics for this meeting include induced seismicity, earthquake early warning and... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [GX13GG009950000] Scientific Earthquake Studies... Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next meeting...

  13. Scientific committee 83 on indentification of research needs

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Adelstein, S.J.

    1991-01-01

    Scientific committee 83 was appointed to identify research needs for radiation protection in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions requires that follows on a Presidential inquiry to the Council asking it to identify critical questions in research including laboratory and epidemiologic research related to radiation protection and requiring resolution at this time. The answers overwhelmingly identified low dose, low dose rate, LET, and radiation risk being the most important. Aspects of the problems that were singled out had to do with fractionation and protraction, shape of the dose response curve, molecular mechanism, decrement in risk with time as revealed by epidemiologic study, and the reality of hormesis. Against this background, the Committee formulated its scope and an outline of this report, as well as the time table and the mechanism to react with its consultant s who will also be asked to serve as its critical reviewers. The scope of the Committee was taken to be the identification of areas for additional research to improve the bases for making recommendations for protection against ionizing radiation. This paper has five parts, one dealing with sources and environmental transport, one with dosimetry and measurement, one with biologic consequences, epidemiology and risk estimates and one with public perception and policy

  14. 78 FR 109 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-02

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: January 31-February 1, 2013. Time: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  15. 77 FR 54583 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-05

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Integrated Review Group, Aging Systems and Geriatrics Study Section. Date: October 8, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 6...

  16. 76 FR 28237 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-16

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Societal and Ethical Issues in Research...

  17. 77 FR 66855 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-11-07

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Gene Discover...-HIV Diagnostics, Food Safety, Sterilization/Disinfection and Bioremediation. Date: November 15-16...

  18. 77 FR 73666 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-12-11

    ... Emphasis Panel; Integrative, Functional, and Cognitive Neuroscience Member Conflicts: Hearing and Taste... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict...

  19. 76 FR 66075 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-25

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated...-1165, [email protected] . Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group HIV...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Biology and Signaling. Date: November 30...

  20. 78 FR 26378 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-06

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... 5184, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892 301-435- 1242, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Clinical, Integrative and Molecular...

  1. 75 FR 78716 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-16

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... 20892. (301) 451-1323. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group. Hepatobiliary Pathophysiology Study Section. Date: January 31-February 1...

  2. 77 FR 52338 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-29

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review..., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9512, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Clinical, Integrative and Molecular Gastroenterology Study...

  3. 78 FR 55268 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-10

    ...-2409, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Review Group; Atherosclerosis and Inflammation of the Cardiovascular System Study Section. Date: October...

  4. 76 FR 14036 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-15

    ..., [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific... 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for...

  5. 78 FR 35292 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-12

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Child and Adolescent....gov . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333...

  6. 77 FR 5260 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-02

    ... Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Integrative and Functional Neuroscience. Date: February 28-29... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts...

  7. 76 FR 10382 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-24

    ... Biomedicine and Agriculture: Infectious Diseases, Immunology and the Circulatory System. Date: March 21, 2011... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Bioengineering Special Topics. Date: March...

  8. 77 FR 55851 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-11

    ..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Systems Development Study Section. Date: October 10-11, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and...

  9. 78 FR 66371 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-11-05

    ....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Child... . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical...

  10. 77 FR 61009 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-05

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Prenatal Stress and Child..., [email protected] . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine...

  11. 75 FR 3912 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-25

    ... (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Lawrence Baizer, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for... Health, HHS) Dated: January 15, 2010. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee...

  12. 78 FR 1864 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-09

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group, Pregnancy and Neonatology Study Section. Date: February 5-6, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m...

  13. 75 FR 1795 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... 20892. (301) 435-2477. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Cellular and Molecular Biology of the Kidney Study Section. Date...

  14. 77 FR 54580 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-05

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... 3108, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435- 3562, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Kidney Molecular Biology and Genitourinary Organ...

  15. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Opinion by written procedure – Review of scientific advice for 2013- part I – Advice on stocks in the Baltic Sea

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    The scientific advice on the stocks and fisheries in the Baltic Sea in 2013 evaluated and endorsed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) by written procedure in June 2012 on a request by the European Commission......The scientific advice on the stocks and fisheries in the Baltic Sea in 2013 evaluated and endorsed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) by written procedure in June 2012 on a request by the European Commission...

  16. 75 FR 3240 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-20

    ... notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by... 20892, 301-254-9975, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special..., Room 6164, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435- 1041, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee...

  17. 75 FR 48977 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-12

    .... [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific..., Room 5181, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435- 1033. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center...

  18. 76 FR 22716 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-22

    .... [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific..., Room 6170, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 4514. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee...

  19. 78 FR 60293 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-01

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Stem Cell... Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306...

  20. The committee of scientific expertise coordination; Le comite de coordination d'expertise scientifique

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2003-07-01

    Placed under the MIES control, the Committee of scientific expertise coordination defines the needs, the contain and the planing of expertises realized in function of Climate national and international decisions and negotiations calendars. The Committee verifies the different expertises and offers the administrations, scientific tools and techniques useful for the negotiations. It can also define long-dated research needs which require the scientific community mobilization. This paper provides some document of the Committee: objectives, operating and priorities of the Committee, scenarios ''Factor 4'' and ''crack technology'', perceptions and practices, developing countries (China, India...), Euromed. (A.L.B.)

  1. 78 FR 26644 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-07

    ...: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Xenobiotic and Nutrient Disposition and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  2. 77 FR 511 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-05

    ...: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Clinical, Integrative and Molecular... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  3. 41th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-12-03)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.; Bailey, N.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 41st plenary on 5-9 November 2012 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics d...... dealt were inter alia assessments of Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks, evaluations of fishing effort regimes, technical measures, review of scientific advice on stocks and fisheries of EU interest, fisheries management plans evaluation issues.......The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 41st plenary on 5-9 November 2012 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics...

  4. 76 FR 43694 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-07-21

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Cystic Fibrosis, Lung Fibrosis, and Lung Innate Immunity Applications. Date: August 8, 2011. Time: 9 a.m...

  5. 76 FR 47218 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-08-04

    ..., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Lawrence Ka-Yun Ng, PhD, Scientific Review..., HHS) Dated: July 28, 2011. Jennifer S. Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy...

  6. 75 FR 80508 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-22

    ... Panel, Member Conflicts: Cellular and Molecular Immunology. Date: January 7, 2011. Time: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m... of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Special Topic: Bioanalytical...

  7. 78 FR 36553 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-18

    ...: Revision applications for research on assessing the role of Stigma in HIV prevention and care. Date: [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project...

  8. 78 FR 2679 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-14

    ...; Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Structure/Function and Dynamics Study Section. Date: February 11-12, 2013. Time: [email protected] Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Lipids...

  9. 75 FR 3542 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-21

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... Board is to review rehabilitation research and development applications for scientific and technical...

  10. 75 FR 40036 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... is to review rehabilitation research and development applications for scientific and technical merit...

  11. 77 FR 61770 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-11

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer...: Multidisciplinary Studies of HIV/AIDS and Aging. Date: November 9, 2012. Time: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review...

  12. 75 FR 60763 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group, Biostatistical Methods and Research Design Study Section. Date: October 21, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda...

  13. 76 FR 53479 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-08-26

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cancer Biology and Genetics. Date....gov . Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Development--2 Study Section. Date... Emphasis Panel; Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience. Date: September 30, 2011. Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m...

  14. 78 FR 3905 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-17

    ... Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cell Biology. Date: February 15, 2013. Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p...: Oncology 1--Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Cancer Molecular Pathobiology Study Section. Date... of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Basic Biology of...

  15. 77 FR 61614 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-10

    ....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Brain...: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproduction. Date: November 8, 2012. Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To...

  16. 75 FR 5602 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-03

    ..., and Social Implications of Human Genetics Study Section. Date: February 23, 2010. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Immune Mechanisms. Date...

  17. 78 FR 64973 - Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC)

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-30

    ... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX14GG009950000] Scientific Earthquake Studies... Public Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next... Survey (USGS) on matters relating to the USGS's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards...

  18. 76 FR 63312 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-12

    ...: Lawrence E Boerboom, PhD, Chief, CVRS IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.... Jennifer S. Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2011-26355 Filed 10-11...

  19. 78 FR 66018 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-11-04

    ... Panel, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility. Date: December 2-3, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... personal privacy. Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS-associated...

  20. 78 FR 12071 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-21

    ...: Immunology. Date: March 13, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate [email protected] . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topics: Topics in Bacterial Pathogenesis. Date: March 14-15, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review...

  1. Ethical review from the inside: repertoires of evaluation in Research Ethics Committee meetings

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    de Jong, Jean Philippe; van Zwieten, Myra C. B.; Willems, Dick L.

    2012-01-01

    Evaluating the practice of ethical review by Research Ethics Committees (REC) could help protect the interests of human participants and promote scientific progress. To facilitate such evaluations, we conducted an ethnographic study of how an REC reviews research proposals during its meetings. We

  2. Effects of atomic radiation. Work of the UN Scientific Committee

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Appleyard, R.K.

    1959-01-01

    In December 19555, the First Committee of the Assembly, at the initiative of India and the United States, discussed the biological effects of ionizing radiation. Out of this discussion came a unanimous resolution establishing the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation- a committee of the General Assembly consisting of fifteen Member States, including the principal nuclear powers. Although the members were thus political entities, each was represented by a distinguished scientist and by this device the Committee was enabled to function as an active scientific body. The permanent United Nations missions were always available to advise the scientists on how to keep the discussions on a scientific as distinct from a political level. The principal task of the Radiation Committee, as it soon came to be called at United Nations Headquarters, was to collect information, study and analyze it, make certain evaluations, indicate research projects of interest in its field, report progress annually to the General Assembly and submit a comprehensive report within two and a half years. The Committee received over 200 special reports from governments in the two years during which it was actively preparing its comprehensive report, all of which had to be studied and related to the prodigious normal output of scientific literature in its field. Method and organization of work, nature of investigations as well as its role within the UN family are discussed. Throughout its activities, the Radiation Committee and its scientific staff have worked very closely with the various specialized agencies of the United Nations, several of which have important interests in the field, and particularly with the FAO, UNESCO, WMO and WHO, all of which contributed reports and a wealth of expert knowledge to the discussion. It expects in the future to work just as closely with the new IAEA, with which it has a number of interests in common. The SCEAR has established

  3. 76 FR 62082 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-06

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, AREA applications in Child and Adult..., Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846...

  4. 78 FR 64507 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-29

    ... Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cell, Computational and Molecular Biology. Date: November 6, 2013. Time: 8...: Orthopedic and Skeletal Biology. Date: November 6-7, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Diabetes and Metabolism. Date: November 6...

  5. 76 FR 72208 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-11-22

    ... 20892, (301) 402-4411, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Studies in...

  6. The committee of scientific expertise coordination; Le comite de coordination d'expertise scientifique

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2003-07-01

    Placed under the MIES control, the Committee of scientific expertise coordination defines the needs, the contain and the planing of expertises realized in function of Climate national and international decisions and negotiations calendars. The Committee verifies the different expertises and offers the administrations, scientific tools and techniques useful for the negotiations. It can also define long-dated research needs which require the scientific community mobilization. This paper provides some document of the Committee: objectives, operating and priorities of the Committee, scenarios ''Factor 4'' and ''crack technology'', perceptions and practices, developing countries (China, India...), Euromed. (A.L.B.)

  7. 77 FR 15382 - Outer Continental Shelf Scientific Committee; Notice of Renewal

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-15

    ... Committee provides advice on the feasibility, appropriateness, and scientific value of the OCS Environmental... relevance of the research and data being produced to meet BOEM's scientific information needs for decision...

  8. 78 FR 9706 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-11

    ...: Tools for Zebrafish Research. Date: March 5-6, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Lipid Metabolism and....333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892...

  9. 77 FR 60706 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-04

    ... Network Analysis and Health. Date: November 1, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... Panel, Small Business: Sensory Technologies. Date: November 1-2, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowships: Sensory and Motor...

  10. 77 FR 62246 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-12

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special..., 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5208, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1165, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  11. 76 FR 63315 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-12

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special... Rockledge Drive, Room 5110, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1174, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of...

  12. 75 FR 8370 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-24

    [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special..., Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-1159. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15...

  13. 77 FR 14533 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-12

    ..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408- 9971, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of...-435-1236, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis...

  14. 75 FR 9908 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-04

    ..., Room 4102, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1786, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project...

  15. 76 FR 13421 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-11

    ..., Room 3136, MSC 7759, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435-1258. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and.... [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Cancer...

  16. 77 FR 32652 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-01

    ... Molecular Genetics A Study Section. Date: June 25, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Skeletal Muscle Biology... Research in Diabetes, Obesity and Endocrine Disorders. Date: June 27, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m...

  17. 78 FR 18680 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-27

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Scientific Merit Review... Service, and the Chief Research and Development Officer on the scientific and technical merit, the mission... Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service...

  18. 43rd Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-13-01)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Casey, J.; Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 43rd plenary on 8-12 July 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics deal...... were inter alia assessments of the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet, fishing effort regime evaluations, future EU data collection, and review of stock advice.......The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 43rd plenary on 8-12 July 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics dealt...

  19. 77 FR 63845 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-17

    ... individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly...; Behavioral and Social Science Approaches to Preventing HIV/ AIDS Study Section. Date: November 8-9, 2012... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Diagnostics and...

  20. 75 FR 8371 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-24

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: AIDS/HIV... Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis. Date: March 24-25, 2010. Time: 10...

  1. 78 FR 35292 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-12

    ...: Functional Epigenomics: Developing Tools and Technologies for Manipulation of the Epigenome (R01). Date: July... Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Genome Integrity and Tumor Progression. Date: July 11, 2013. Time....gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict...

  2. 1997 report of the scientific evaluation committee of DAPNIA (Department of astrophysics, particle physics, nuclear physics and instrumentation)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Anon.

    1998-01-01

    The DAPNIA is a department of CEA, its main characteristic is to manage scientific teams working on astrophysics, nuclear physics, elementary particles and instrumentation. Every 2 years DAPNIA's activities are submitted to an evaluation made by a scientific committee whose members are experts independent from CEA. This committee reviews the work done, gives an opinion about the options chosen for the projects to come and writes out a report. In 1997 the committee had a very positive opinion of the work done by DAPNIA teams. The contributions to various and important national or international programs have been successful, we can quote: Ulysse mission, soho, iso, integral for spatial programs, aleph, delphi, H1 at Hera, atlas, cms, na48, nomad, babar, antares for particle physics and spiral, smc, compass for nuclear physics. The committee advises DAPNIA to favour more contacts between the theoreticians and the experimentalists who work on quantum chromodynamics and hadron physics. The committee shows its concern about improving the balance between the means dedicated to instrumentation designing and those dedicated to the analysis and interpretation of the experimental data collected. (A.C.)

  3. 77 FR 21622 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-04-10

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on April 20, 2012, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC...

  4. 75 FR 72872 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-11-26

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on December 13-14, 2010, at the Hilton Alexandria Old...

  5. The role of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation in relation to medical radiation exposures

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Shrimpton, P.C.

    2001-01-01

    In 1955, growing global concerns about ionizing radiation led the General Assembly of the United Nations to establish the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). The mandate of this committee, which presently includes 21 Member States, is to assess and report on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Accordingly, UNSCEAR applies scientific judgement in undertaking comprehensive reviews and evaluations concerning radiation and maintains an independent and neutral position in drawing its conclusions. These are published in authoritative reports to the UN General Assembly, with there having been 14 such substantive reports, with technical annexes, since 1958. The information provided by UNSCEAR assists the General Assembly in making recommendations in relation, for example, to international collaboration in the field of health. Governments and organizations all over the world rely on the committee's evaluations as the scientific basis for estimating radiation risk, establishing radiation protection and safety standards, and regulating radiation sources

  6. 77 FR 56661 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-13

    ... Group; Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section. Date: October 4-5, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m... Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Neurodevelopment, Plasticity, and Regeneration. Date: October 9, 2012... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Muscle and...

  7. 76 FR 10910 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-28

    ... Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-HD-11-101: Sleep and Social Environment... Emphasis Panel; RFA-HD-11-102: Sleep and Social Environment: Basic Biopsychosocial Processes (R21). Date... . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical...

  8. 77 FR 26300 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-03

    ..., (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Patricia Greenwel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for..., (301) 806-0009, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences...: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control. Date: June 5, 2012. Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda...

  9. 77 FR 296 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-04

    ..., (301) 435- 1153, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review..., Modeling and Analysis of Biological Systems Study Section. Date: February 8-9, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m...

  10. 78 FR 31951 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-28

    ... Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Genes, Genomes and Genetics. Date: June 24, 2013. Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project...; Small Business: Education, Psychology, and Biology in Health Behavior. Date: June 24-25, 2013. Time: 8...

  11. 78 FR 17219 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-20

    ..., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Biopsychosocial Issues in Patient Management. Date: April 10... 20892, 301-435-1719, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306...

  12. 77 FR 64118 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-18

    ... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, and Bioengineering. Date: November 15, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To... Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-140: Role of the Microflora in the Etiology of Gastro- Intestinal Cancer. Date...

  13. 78 FR 64510 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-29

    ... Digestive, Urinary, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Systems. Date: November 13, 2013. Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5...

  14. 78 FR 50144 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-08-16

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit... management, and nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit, mission... Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D...

  15. 77 FR 42365 - Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-07-18

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that various subcommittees of the Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will meet on August 28-30, 2012, at the Boston Omni Parker...

  16. 77 FR 35987 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-15

    ... . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Cell Biology and... Opportunistic Infections and Cancer Study Section. Date: July 10, 2012. Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To... Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Oral Biology and Craniofacial Development. Date: July 10, 2012. Time: 1:00...

  17. 76 FR 28781 - Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Report: Evaluation of the Validation Status of an In...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-18

    ... Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) recommended that the BG1Luc ER TA... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Report: Evaluation of the Validation Status of an In Vitro Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation Test Method...

  18. 77 FR 65004 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-24

    ..., [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific..., 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1211, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  19. 75 FR 75484 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-03

    .... [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific..., Room 4205, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435- 1501. [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being...

  20. 75 FR 57965 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-23

    ... Rockledge Drive, Room 1102, MSC 7760, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1747, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by... 20892, 301-435- 1211, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special...

  1. Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Donovan, Terence E; Marzola, Riccardo; Murphy, Kevin R; Cagna, David R; Eichmiller, Frederick; McKee, James R; Metz, James E; Albouy, Jean-Pierre

    2016-11-01

    It is clear the contemporary dentist is confronted with a blizzard of information regarding materials and techniques from journal articles, advertisements, newsletters, the internet, and continuing education events. While some of that information is sound and helpful, much of it is misleading at best. This review identifies and discusses the most important scientific findings regarding outcomes of dental treatment to assist the practitioner in making evidence-based choices. This review was conducted to assist the busy dentist in keeping abreast of the latest scientific information regarding the clinical practice of dentistry. Each of the authors, who are considered experts in their disciplines, was asked to peruse the scientific literature published in 2015 in their discipline and review the articles for important information that may have an impact on treatment decisions. Comments on experimental methodology, statistical evaluation, and overall validity of the conclusions are included in many of the reviews. The reviews are not meant to stand alone but are intended to inform the interested reader about what has been discovered in the past year. The readers are then invited to go to the source if they wish more detail. Analysis of the scientific literature published in 2015 is divided into 7 sections, dental materials, periodontics, prosthodontics, occlusion and temporomandibular disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, cariology, and implant dentistry. Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  2. 49 CFR 8.9 - Information Security Review Committee.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 49 Transportation 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Information Security Review Committee. 8.9 Section.../DECLASSIFICATION/ACCESS Classification/Declassification of Information § 8.9 Information Security Review Committee. (a) There is hereby established a Department of Transportation Information Security Review Committee...

  3. 75 FR 33814 - Tobacco Product Constituents Subcommittee of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-15

    ...] Tobacco Product Constituents Subcommittee of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of... to the public. Name of Committee: Tobacco Product Constituents Subcommittee of the Tobacco Products...-8900. Contact Person: Karen Templeton-Somers, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and...

  4. 44th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-13-03)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Casey, J.; Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 44th plenary on 4-8 November 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics...... dealt were inter alia assessments of the economic performance of the EU aquaculture and fish processing sectors, fishing effort regime evaluations, and review of stock advice....

  5. Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Trace, Samantha; Kolstoe, Simon Erik

    2017-11-28

    The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority (HRA) coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called "Shared Ethical Debate" (ShED) where multiple committees review the same project. Committee reviews are compared for consistency by analysing the resulting minutes. We present a description of the ShED process. We report an analysis of minutes created by research ethics committees participating in two ShED exercises, and compare them to minutes produced in a published "mystery shopper" exercise. We propose a consistency score by defining top themes for each exercise, and calculating the ratio between top themes and total themes identified by each committee for each ShED exercise. Our analysis highlights qualitative differences between the ShED 19, ShED 20 and "mystery shopper" exercises. The quantitative measure of consistency showed only one committee across the three exercises with more than half its total themes as top themes (ratio of 0.6). The average consistency scores for the three exercises were 0.23 (ShED19), 0.35 (ShED20) and 0.32 (mystery shopper). There is a statistically significant difference between the ShED 19 exercise, and the ShED 20 and mystery shopper exercises. ShED exercises are effective in identifying inconsistency between ethics committees and we describe a scoring method that could be used to quantify this. However, whilst a level of inconsistency is probably inevitable in research ethics committee reviews, studies must move beyond the ShED methodology to understand why inconsistency occurs, and what an acceptable level of inconsistency might be.

  6. 76 FR 23323 - Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM)

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-26

    ... the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological and safety testing methods that... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) AGENCY: National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of...

  7. 77 FR 40358 - Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM)

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-07-09

    ..., revised, and alternative safety testing methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) AGENCY: Division of the National Toxicology Program (DNTP...

  8. Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knopman, David; Alford, Eli; Tate, Kaitlin; Long, Mark; Khachaturian, Ara S

    2017-08-01

    For nearly 50 years, institutional review boards (IRB) and independent ethics committees have featured local oversight as a core function of research ethics reviews. However growing complexity in Alzheimer's clinical research suggests current approaches to research volunteer safety is hampering development of new therapeutics. As a partial response to this challenge, the NIH has mandated that all NIH-funded multi-site studies will use a single Institutional Review Board. The perspective describes a joint program to provide a single IRB of record (sIRB) for phases of multi-site studies. The approach follows two steps. One, an expert Scientific Review Committee (SRC) of senior researchers in the field will conduct the review principally of scientific merit, significance, feasibility, and the likelihood of meaningful results. The second step will be the IRB's regulatory and ethics review. The IRB will apply appropriate regulatory criteria for approval including minimization of risks to subjects and risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, equitable subject selection, informed consent, protections for vulnerable populations, and application of local context considerations, among others. There is a steady demand for scientific, ethical and regulatory review of planned Alzheimer's studies. As of January 15, 2017, there are nearly 400 open studies, Phase II and III, industry and NIH sponsored trials on disease indications affecting memory, movement and mood in the US. The effort will initially accept protocols for studies of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and related disorders effecting memory, movement and mood. Future aims will be to provide scientific review and, where applicable, regulatory and ethical review in an international context outside North America with sites possibly in Asia, Europe and Australia. Copyright © 2017 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  9. Review of the Fusion Theory and Computing Program. Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Antonsen, Thomas M.; Berry, Lee A.; Brown, Michael R.; Dahlburg, Jill P.; Davidson, Ronald C.; Greenwald, Martin; Hegna, Chris C.; McCurdy, William; Newman, David E.; Pellegrini, Claudio; Phillips, Cynthia K.; Post, Douglass E.; Rosenbluth, Marshall N.; Sheffield, John; Simonen, Thomas C.; Van Dam, James

    2001-01-01

    At the November 14-15, 2000, meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, a Panel was set up to address questions about the Theory and Computing program, posed in a charge from the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (see Appendix A). This area was of theory and computing/simulations had been considered in the FESAC Knoxville meeting of 1999 and in the deliberations of the Integrated Program Planning Activity (IPPA) in 2000. A National Research Council committee provided a detailed review of the scientific quality of the fusion energy sciences program, including theory and computing, in 2000.

  10. [Development and opportunities from de scientific committee of 25 SECA congress held in Barcelona, 2007].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Astier Peña, M P; Lorenzo Martínez, S; Santiñá, M; Martín, A

    2009-01-01

    To perform a self-assessment of the Scientific Committee of the 25th Conference of the Spanish Society for Quality in Healthcare held in Barcelona on October 2007 in order to identify improvement areas for future Conferences. Applying PDCA methodology to the tasks undertaken by the Scientific Committee (SC) of the Conference. Plan: A description of the preparation of the conference based on the abstract management of the Scientific Committee. Do: description of the implementation. Check: evaluation of activities. A: improvement proposals for the coming conferences. The SC (22 people) worked in the abstracts management, book publishing and development of the scientific aspects of the Conference. Abstracts evaluation was conducted by 11 pairs of blind evaluators who analysed 348 oral communications and 457 posters, and 10.09% were rejected. Oral communications were performed in a total of 36 oral presentations sessions and 24 poster sessions. The book was published with the abstracts, addresses and the Conference opening and closing sessions. Awards: communications graded over 7.5 applied for an award and were reassessed by the SC. The on-line conference was also well received. The satisfaction with the Conference regarding the scientific activities was good; however, several areas of improvement were identified.

  11. 7 CFR 929.125 - Committee review procedures.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK Rules and Regulations § 929.125 Committee review procedures... Committee within 30 days after receipt of the Committee's determination of sales history, a request for a...

  12. Scientific computer simulation review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kaizer, Joshua S.; Heller, A. Kevin; Oberkampf, William L.

    2015-01-01

    Before the results of a scientific computer simulation are used for any purpose, it should be determined if those results can be trusted. Answering that question of trust is the domain of scientific computer simulation review. There is limited literature that focuses on simulation review, and most is specific to the review of a particular type of simulation. This work is intended to provide a foundation for a common understanding of simulation review. This is accomplished through three contributions. First, scientific computer simulation review is formally defined. This definition identifies the scope of simulation review and provides the boundaries of the review process. Second, maturity assessment theory is developed. This development clarifies the concepts of maturity criteria, maturity assessment sets, and maturity assessment frameworks, which are essential for performing simulation review. Finally, simulation review is described as the application of a maturity assessment framework. This is illustrated through evaluating a simulation review performed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In making these contributions, this work provides a means for a more objective assessment of a simulation’s trustworthiness and takes the next step in establishing scientific computer simulation review as its own field. - Highlights: • We define scientific computer simulation review. • We develop maturity assessment theory. • We formally define a maturity assessment framework. • We describe simulation review as the application of a maturity framework. • We provide an example of a simulation review using a maturity framework

  13. 76 FR 11195 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Census Scientific Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-01

    ... technical expertise from the following disciplines: demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics... Advisory Committee are essential for sustained Advisory Committee membership as well as submission of... must have scientific and technical expertise in such areas as demography, economics, geography...

  14. Integer Linear Programming for Constrained Multi-Aspect Committee Review Assignment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Karimzadehgan, Maryam; Zhai, ChengXiang

    2011-01-01

    Automatic review assignment can significantly improve the productivity of many people such as conference organizers, journal editors and grant administrators. A general setup of the review assignment problem involves assigning a set of reviewers on a committee to a set of documents to be reviewed under the constraint of review quota so that the reviewers assigned to a document can collectively cover multiple topic aspects of the document. No previous work has addressed such a setup of committee review assignments while also considering matching multiple aspects of topics and expertise. In this paper, we tackle the problem of committee review assignment with multi-aspect expertise matching by casting it as an integer linear programming problem. The proposed algorithm can naturally accommodate any probabilistic or deterministic method for modeling multiple aspects to automate committee review assignments. Evaluation using a multi-aspect review assignment test set constructed using ACM SIGIR publications shows that the proposed algorithm is effective and efficient for committee review assignments based on multi-aspect expertise matching. PMID:22711970

  15. The data submitted by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation for the 1977 report to the General Assembly

    CERN Document Server

    Taylor, F E; Webb, G A M

    1976-01-01

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was established by the General Assembly in 1955 to report on the exposure of man to ionising radiation. In the subsequent twenty years the Committee has covered most aspects of the subject with repeated reviews of the levels of exposure from fallout due to weapons testing. The Committee is currently preparing a further report on doses from all sources and an evaluation of their biological effects. This is expected to be published in 1977. To aid it in compiling this report the Committee requested Member States of the UN to submit national data on a wide range of sources of exposure. The Board was asked by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to collate the information requested from the United Kingdom. Data were available in the scientific literature on some topics, such as medical irradiation and environmental radioactivity. On some other topics, particularly occupational exposure, data have been collected but seldom publishe...

  16. The data submitted by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation for the 1977 report to the General Assembly

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Taylor, F.E.; Webb, G.A.M.; Simmonds, J.R.

    1976-10-01

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was established by the General Assembly in 1955 to report on the exposure of man to ionising radiation. In the subsequent twenty years the Committee has covered most aspects of the subject with repeated reviews of the levels of exposure from fallout due to weapons testing. The Committee is currently preparing a further report on doses from all sources and an evaluation of their biological effects. This is expected to be published in 1977. To aid it in compiling this report the Committee requested Member States of the UN to submit national data on a wide range of sources of exposure. The Board was asked by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to collate the information requested from the United Kingdom. Data were available in the scientific literature on some topics, such as medical irradiation and environmental radioactivity. On some other topics, particularly occupational exposure, data have been collected but seldom published systematically

  17. Joint Integration Office Independent Review Committee annual report, 1985

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1986-08-01

    Comprised of seven persons with extensive experience in the issues of nuclear waste, the Independent Review Committee (IRC) provides independent and objective review of Defense Transuranic Waste Program (DTWP) activities managed by the Joint Integration Office (JIO), formerly the Defense Transuranic Waste Lead Organization (TLO). The Committee is ensured a broad, interdisciplinary perspective since its membership includes representatives from the fields of nuclear engineering, nuclear waste transportation, industrial quality control, systems and environmental engineering and state and local government. The scope of IRC activities includes overall review of specific TLO plans, projects and activities, and technical review of particular research and development projects. The Committee makes specific suggestions and recommendations based upon expertise in the field of TRU Waste Management. The IRC operates as a consulting group, under an independent charter providing objective review of program activities. This report summarizes the 12 major topics reviewed by the committee during 1985

  18. Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Todreas, N.E.

    1990-01-01

    The Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee has had a fundamental difficulty because of the atmosphere that has existed since it was created. It came into existence at a time of decreasing budgets. For any Committee the easiest thing is to tell the Director what additional to do. That does not really help him a lot in this atmosphere of reduced budgets which he reviewed for you on Monday. Concurrently the research arm of Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recognized that the scope of its activity needed to be increased rather than decreased. In the last two-and-a-half-year period, human factors work was reinstated, radiation and health effects investigations were reinvigorated, research in the waste area was given significant acceleration. Further, accident management came into being, and the NRC finally got back into the TMI-2 area. So with all of those activities being added to the program at the same time that the research budget was going down, the situation has become very strained. What that leads to regarding Committee membership is a need for technically competent generalists who will be able to sit as the Division Directors come in, as the contractors come in, and sort the wheat from the chaff. The Committee needs people who are interested in and have a broad perspective on what regulatory needs are and specifically how safety research activities can contribute to them. The author summarizes the history of the Committee, the current status, and plans for the future

  19. Ethics review of studies during public health emergencies - the experience of the WHO ethics review committee during the Ebola virus disease epidemic.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Alirol, Emilie; Kuesel, Annette C; Guraiib, Maria Magdalena; de la Fuente-Núñez, Vânia; Saxena, Abha; Gomes, Melba F

    2017-06-26

    Between 2013 and 2016, West Africa experienced the largest ever outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease. In the absence of registered treatments or vaccines to control this lethal disease, the World Health Organization coordinated and supported research to expedite identification of interventions that could control the outbreak and improve future control efforts. Consequently, the World Health Organization Research Ethics Review Committee (WHO-ERC) was heavily involved in reviews and ethics discussions. It reviewed 24 new and 22 amended protocols for research studies including interventional (drug, vaccine) and observational studies. WHO-ERC provided the reviews within on average 6 working days. The WHO-ERC often could not provide immediate approval of protocols for reasons which were not Ebola Virus Disease specific but related to protocol inconsistencies, missing information and complex informed consents. WHO-ERC considerations on Ebola Virus Disease specific issues (benefit-risk assessment, study design, exclusion of pregnant women and children from interventional studies, data and sample sharing, collaborative partnerships including international and local researchers and communities, community engagement and participant information) are presented. To accelerate study approval in future public health emergencies, we recommend: (1) internally consistent and complete submissions with information documents in language participants are likely to understand, (2) close collaboration between local and international researchers from research inception, (3) generation of template agreements for data and sample sharing and use during the ongoing global consultations on bio-banks, (4) formation of Joint Scientific Advisory and Data Safety Review Committees for all studies linked to a particular intervention or group of interventions, (5) formation of a Joint Ethics Review Committee with representatives of the Ethics Committees of all institutions and countries involved to

  20. Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review

    OpenAIRE

    Trace, Samantha; Kolstoe, Simon Erik

    2017-01-01

    Background The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority (HRA) coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called “Sha...

  1. 78 FR 37242 - Draft Report and Recommendations Prepared by the Research Committee of the Scientific Working...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-20

    ... Recommendations Prepared by the Research Committee of the Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death... Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death Investigation will make available to the general public a document entitled, ``Research in Forensic Pathology...

  2. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    BLOOMQUIST, DOUGLAS D.

    2002-01-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2002, a 15-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece (the Trivelpiece Committee) was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 7-9, 2002 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy (NNSA/DOE). The scope of the review included activities in high energy density physics (HEDP), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), radiation/weapon physics, the petawatt laser initiative (PW) and fast ignition, equation-of-state studies, radiation effects science and lethality, x-ray radiography, ZR development, basic research and pulsed power technology research and development, as well as electromagnetics and work for others. In his charge to the Committee, Dr. Jeffrey P. Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (Org. 1600) asked that the evaluation and feedback be based on three criteria: (1) quality of technical activities in science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, and (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions. In addition, the director posed specific programmatic questions. The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the Committee's finding

  3. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly 56. session (10-18 July 2008). Official Records: 63. session, suppl. no. 46(A/63/46)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2008-01-01

    Exposure to radiation has origins such as medical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; nuclear weapons production and testing; natural background radiation; nuclear electricity generation; accidents such as the one at Chernobyl in 1986; and occupations that entail increased exposure to artificial or naturally occurring sources of radiation. Since the establishment of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation by General Assembly resolution 913 (X) of 3 December 1955, the mandate of the Committee has been to undertake broad reviews of the sources of ionizing radiation and of the effects of that radiation on human health and the environment. In pursuit of its mandate, the Committee thoroughly reviews and evaluates global and regional exposures to radiation; and it evaluates evidence of radiation-induced health effects in exposed groups, including survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan. The Committee also reviews advances in the understanding of the biological mechanisms by which radiation-induced effects on health or on the environment can occur. Those assessments provide the scientific foundation used, inter alia, by the relevant agencies of the United Nations system in formulating international standards for protection of the public and of workers against ionizing radiation, those standards, in turn, are linked to important legal and regulatory instruments. The Committee held its fifty-sixth session in Vienna from 10 to 18 July 2008. Norman Gentner (Canada), Wolfgang Weiss (Germany) and Mohamed A. Gomaa (Egypt) served as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Rapporteur, respectively. The Committee scrutinized and approved for publication five scientific annexes that had last been considered at its fifty-fifth session (21-25 May 2007), as reported to the General Assembly in the report of the Committee on that session.3 As previously reported,4 the Committee had originally planned that those documents would be published by 2005. With regard

  4. 78 FR 25100 - Outer Continental Shelf Scientific Committee; Announcement of Plenary Session

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-04-29

    ... data being produced to meet BOEM's scientific information needs for decision making and may recommend.... Discipline breakout groups (i.e., biology/ecology, physical sciences, and social sciences) will meet from 1... Committee business will be discussed from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meetings are open to the public...

  5. [The role of bioethics committees in the systems protecting scientific biomedical research participants in France and in Poland].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Czarkowski, Marek; Sieczych, Alicja

    2013-08-01

    Bioethics committees are along with ethic regulations and rules of law one of three main pillars in the system of protection of scientific biomedical research participants. Although principal directives for bioethics committees are established by international guidelines, detailed regulations may differ in particular states. The aim of this article was to compare two bioethic committees systems: French and Polish one. Historical beginnings of the bioethics committees system in France and in Poland are briefly mentioned, Subsequently, the networks of bioethics committees in both countries are compared. Although the number of bioethics committees (Research Ethic Committees) in both countries is comparable, the procedure of their establishment varies. French committees are based on administrative division of the country and divide on regional and interregional committees. In Poland, bioethics committees are established by medical universities, medical research and development units or regional chambers of physicians and dentists. In France there is no equivalent of Appeal Bioethics Committee, however one could appeal from the negative bioethics committee's opinion. The composition of French bioethics committees is more diverse and half of the members are not related to medical professions. Members of French committees are named on indefinite term by headmaster of Regional Health Agency after having been chosen in competition for the post. In Poland members are called on three-year-term but the rotation of members is not overwhelming since there is no limit of terms for one member. French legal solutions seems more secure for scientific bioethics research participants. For this reason, a detailed research on legislation in other countries is necessary before introducing any new regulations in Polish law.

  6. Regulatory Review Committee update

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Steele, T. [Polishuk, Camman and Steele, London ON (Canada)

    2001-07-01

    The Committee's objectives, current membership and current issues are reviewed. Each current issue, notably the consultation process with the Ministry of Natural Resources, appeal of Ministry actions, orphan wells/security deposits, oilfield fluid disposal and labour code practices review are discussed in some detail. Dissatisfaction with the current appeals process to the Ministry is highlighted, along with a search for an all encompassing solution. The orphan well problem also received considerable attention, with similar demands for a comprehensive solution.

  7. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bloomquist, Douglas D.

    2000-01-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2000, a 14-member external peer review panel (the Garwin Committee) was convened on May 17-19, 2000 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the Department of Energy (DOE). The scope of the review included activities in inertial confinement fission (ICF), weapon physics, development of radiation sources for weapons effects simulation, x-ray radiography, basic research in high energy density physics (HEDP), and pulsed power technology research and development. In his charge to the committee, Jeffrey Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (1600) asked that the review be based on four criteria (1) quality of science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions, and (4) performance in the operation and construction of major research facilities. In addition, specific programmatic questions were posed by the director and by the DOE-Defense Programs (DP). The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the committee's findings

  8. United nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) and its forty-ninth session

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Pan Ziqiang; Xiu Binglin

    2000-01-01

    The author describes the brief history of United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and main issues under discussion at the Forty-ninth session of UNSCEAR. During the session UNSCEAR completed its 2000 Report and scientific Annexes to the General Assembly. The report with scientific Annexes will be published in this year. The author discusses noticeable aspects and make a suggestion for future work

  9. Report of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee. Volume 5. Summary - Piping Review Committee conclusions and recommendations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1985-04-01

    This document summarizes a comprehensive review of NRC requirements for Nuclear Piping by the US NRC Piping Review Committee. Four topical areas, addressed in greater detail in Volumes 1 through 4 of this report, are included: (1) Stress Corrosion Cracking in Piping of Boiling Water Reactor Plants; (2) Evaluation of Seismic Design; (3) Evaluation of Potential for Pipe Breaks; and (4) Evaluation of Other Dynamic Loads and Load Combinations. This volume summarizes the major issues, reviews the interfaces, and presents the Committee's conclusions and recommendations for updating NRC requirements on these issues. This report also suggests research or other work that may be required to respond to issues not amenable to resolution at this time

  10. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schuppli, C A; Fraser, D

    2007-05-01

    Research ethics committees - animal ethics committees (AECs) for animal-based research and institutional research boards (IRBs) for human subjects - have a key role in research governance, but there has been little study of the factors influencing their effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to examine how the effectiveness of a research ethics committee is influenced by committee composition and dynamics, recruitment of members, workload, participation level and member turnover. As a model, 28 members of AECs at four universities in western Canada were interviewed. Committees were selected to represent variation in the number and type of protocols reviewed, and participants were selected to include different types of committee members. We found that a bias towards institutional or scientific interests may result from (1) a preponderance of institutional and scientist members, (2) an intimidating atmosphere for community members and other minority members, (3) recruitment of community members who are affiliated with the institution and (4) members joining for reasons other than to fulfil the committee mandate. Thoroughness of protocol review may be influenced by heavy workloads, type of review process and lack of full committee participation. These results, together with results from the literature on research ethics committees, suggested potential ways to improve the effectiveness of research ethics committees.

  11. 42 CFR 61.15 - Moral character or loyalty; reference to Special Review Committee; review and recommendation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Moral character or loyalty; reference to Special... § 61.15 Moral character or loyalty; reference to Special Review Committee; review and recommendation. (a) Moral character or loyalty; reference to Special Review Committee. Whenever the Surgeon General...

  12. 42nd Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-13-01)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Casey, J.; Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 42nd plenary on 8-12 April 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics dea...... were inter alia assessments of Mediterranean Sea stocks, future EU data collection, and technical measures.......The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 42nd plenary on 8-12 April 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics dealt...

  13. 75 FR 52357 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-25

    ... Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Adult Psychopathology and....gov . Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Language and...

  14. 76 FR 26736 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-09

    ...: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group, Clinical and Integrative Cardiovascular Sciences... Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group, Bacterial Pathogenesis Study... Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group, Virology--B Study Section. Date...

  15. Final Progress Report for the activity called AMO2010 committee

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Donald Shapero; Michael Moloney

    2006-12-31

    The committee was charged to produce a comprehensive report on the status of AMO Science. The committee was charged to produce a report that: 1. Reviewed the field of AMO science, emphasize recent accomplishments, and identify new opportunities and compelling scientific questions; 2. Identified the impact of AMO science on other scientific fields, emerging technologies, and national needs; 3. Identified future workforce, societal and educational needs for AMO science; and 4. Made recommendations on how the US research enterprise might realize the full potential of AMO science. The committee also produced an intermediate report addressing key research issues and themes facing the research community.

  16. The 1986 and 1988 UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) reports: Findings and implications

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Mettler, F.A.; Sinclair, W.K.; Anspaugh, L.; Edington, C.; Harley, J.H.; Ricks, R.C.; Selby, P.B.; Webster, E.W.; Wyckoff, H.O.

    1990-01-01

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has published a substantive series of reports concerning sources, effects, and risks of ionizing radiation. This article summarizes the highlights and conclusions from the most recent 1986 and 1988 reports. The present annual per person effective dose equivalent for the world's population is about 3 mSv. The majority of this (2.4 mSv) comes from natural background, and 0.4 to 1 mSv is from medical exposures. Other sources contribute less than 0.02 mSv annually. The worldwide collective effective dose equivalent annually is between 13 and 16 million person-Sv. The Committee assessed the collective effective dose equivalent to the population of the northern hemisphere from the reactor accident at Chernobyl and concluded that this is about 600,000 person-Sv. The Committee also reviewed risk estimates for radiation carcinogenesis which included the new Japanese dosimetry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These data indicate that risk coefficient estimates for high doses and high dose rate low-LET radiation in the Japanese population are approximately 3-10% Sv-1, depending on the projection model utilized. The Committee also indicated that, in calculation of such risks at low doses and low dose rates, a risk-reduction factor in the range of 2-10 may be considered

  17. Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Napolitani, Federica; Petrini, Carlo; Garattini, Silvio

    2017-05-01

    The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn. This article proposes criteria for the conduct of reviewers and of those who select them. While commenting on new emerging models, it provides practical recommendations for improving the peer-review system, like strengthening the role of guidelines and training and supporting reviewers. The process of peer review is changing, it is getting more open and collaborative, but those same ethical principles which guided it from its very origin should remain untouched and be firmly consolidated. The paper highlights how the ethics of reviewing scientific publications is needed now more than ever, in particular with regard to competence, conflict of interest, willingness to discuss decisions, complete transparency and integrity. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  18. 78 FR 27244 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-09

    ... Review Group; Neurobiology of Motivated Behavior Study Section. Date: June 6-7, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to....gov . Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Risk... . Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section...

  19. Report of the Review Committee of the R and D subjects on Computational Science and Engineering

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1999-08-01

    The Ad Hoc Review Committee composed of seven experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of JAERI in order to review the R and D subjects to be implemented for five years starting in a 2000 fiscal year at the Center for promotion of Computational Science and Engineering. The review meeting took place on April 26, 1999. According to the review methods consisting of review items, points of review and review criteria given by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the materials submitted in advance and presentations of CCSE. The Research Evaluation Committee received the review report and its explanations from the Review Committee on July 5. The Research Evaluation Committee has acknowledged appropriateness of the review results. This report describes the review results. (author)

  20. Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee--2011 final report.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, Ann L; Sideras, James

    2012-12-01

    The 2011 annual report of the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee (RICMRC) is presented. Since 1997, the committee has reviewed 224 deaths to achieve its mission to "review infant and child deaths so that information can be transformed into action to protect young lives." In 2011, the committee reviewed 21 deaths (22 met the committee's criteria) of infants and children who were residents of Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Hanson and Brookings counties in South Dakota. The manner of 12 of the reviewed deaths was natural with eight of these the result of progressive neurological diseases or conditions. In 2011 there were no deaths attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), though there were two deaths of infants during sleep. One of these infants was ruled accidental as the baby died of aspiration and the other death occurred in an unsafe environment with its manner determined to be undecided. Six deaths were accidental, one of which occurred as a result of a fire in a home without functional smoke alarms. One motor vehicle death occurred, through no fault of the teen age driver. Another death resulted from tubing over a low head dam on the Big Sioux River. One youth suicide occurred to a resident of the region.

  1. Conclusions of the Ad-hoc Review Committee (ARC) on the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) (Paris, 7-8 November 2005)

    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (English)

    无

    2007-01-01

    @@ Background Following the recommendations of the IUGS Strategic Planning Committee (2000) and IUGS Strategic Action Plan (2001)to appoint Ad-hoc Review Committees (ARCs) to hold reviewsof all IUGS-funded scientific activities on a regular basis, theIUGS Executive Committee decided at its last meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania (March 2005) that an ARC should be convened toreview the IUGS International Commission on. Stratigraphy(ICS). ICS has been part of IUGS since 1965, and the last reviewof ICS by the IUGS was in 1995.

  2. 77 FR 54920 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-06

    ... Group; Bioengineering of Neuroscience, Vision and Low Vision Technologies Study Section. Date: October 1... . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review [email protected] . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review...

  3. 75 FR 25273 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-07

    ... Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group, Cancer Molecular Pathobiology Study... 20892, 301-435-1179, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular...: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group, Macromolecular Structure and...

  4. 77 FR 27240 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-09

    ... Integrated Review Group; Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Structure/Function and Dynamics Study Section. Date: June 7... . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group... 20892, (301) 435-1726, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and...

  5. 77 FR 2986 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-20

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group... Review Special Emphasis Panel, SBIB Pediatric and Fetal Applications. Date: February 15, 2012. Time: 2 p...-1248, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive...

  6. 77 FR 512 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-05

    ... 20892, (301) 435-0913, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition... Clinical Integrated Review Group, Clinical Oncology Study Section. Date: February 6-7, 2012. Time: 8 [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group...

  7. 78 FR 57169 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-17

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; [email protected] . Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases Study Section. Date: October 7-8, 2013. Time: 8...

  8. 75 FR 26972 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-13

    ... Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group, Tumor Cell Biology Study Section. Date..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1783, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group, Synthetic and Biological Chemistry A Study Section. Date: June...

  9. 78 FR 59361 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-26

    ... . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Synthetic and Biological Chemistry A Study Section. Date: October 21-22, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m... . Name of Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Microenvironment Study...

  10. 77 FR 6809 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-09

    ... 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 806-0009, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Healthcare..., Room 3166, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-254-9975, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee... Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group Community-Level Health Promotion...

  11. EPA scientific integrity policy draft

    Science.gov (United States)

    Showstack, Randy

    2011-08-01

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its draft scientific integrity policy on 5 August. The draft policy addresses scientific ethical standards, communications with the public, the use of advisory committees and peer review, and professional development. The draft policy was developed by an ad hoc group of EPA senior staff and scientists in response to a December 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The agency is accepting public comments on the draft through 6 September; comments should be sent to osa.staff@epa.gov. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/stpc/pdfs/draft-scientific-integrity-policy-aug2011.pdf.

  12. Report of the Review Committee on valuation of the research subjects in the fields of advanced science research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-07-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods, etc. the Ad Hoc Review Committee composed of eight experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the research theme completed in FY1998 and those planned for five years starting in FY2000 in the Advanced Science Research Center. The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on September 17, 1999. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research results/plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Research Group Leaders. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on March 14, 2000. As a result, the Research Evaluation Committee acknowledged appropriateness of the review results. This report describes the review results. (author)

  13. 15 CFR 2008.19 - Classification Review Committee.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 15 Commerce and Foreign Trade 3 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Classification Review Committee. 2008.19 Section 2008.19 Commerce and Foreign Trade Regulations Relating to Foreign Trade Agreements OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT E.O. 12065; OFFICE OF THE UNITED...

  14. 40th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-12-02)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.; Bailey, N.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 40th plenary on 9-13 July 2012 in Copenhagen (Denmark). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics...

  15. 39th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-12-01)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Abella, J. A.; Andersen, J.; Bailey, N.

    The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 39th plenary on 16-20 April 2012 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics...

  16. The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Baverstock, Keith; Ball, David J

    2005-01-01

    The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is charged with recommending to Government, by July 2006, options for the long term management of the UK's radioactive waste legacy. These options should inspire public confidence. Now, more than halfway into the time allotted, we, as two former members of the Committee, express our concerns at the wayward approach that has been adopted. The Committee has placed emphasis on gaining public confidence but this has been done at the expense of recruiting the best scientific expertise in the management of radioactive waste, an act which we believe will actually undermine public confidence. Furthermore, given also the immense importance of this decision to public safety, national security and the national interest, we believe urgent steps should be taken to review the Committee's process, its management and its sponsorship. (opinion)

  17. Ethics approval: responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bain, Luchuo Engelbert

    2017-01-01

    Meaningful progress of medicine depends on research that must ultimately involve human subjects. Obtaining ethical approval therefore, especially in medical sciences, should be a moral reflex for researchers. This unfortunately is not the case, with numerous researchers bypassing the ethics approval procedure, or simply unaware of its importance. Good research involves risks taken by research participants and uses tax payers' money in the process. These mandates the research endeavor to aim at attaining the highest degree of respect for the sacrifices made by others for science. Most researchers mistake scientific clearance or approval, for ethics approval. For a study to be ethical sound, it must be scientifically sound. This is only one of the activities carried out during protocol review. It is not uncommon for sensitive ethical concerns, especially in the social sciences to be overlooked and considered not to be accompanied by any serious risks for the research participants.The researcher has the responsibility of systematically consulting the competent ethics committee for advice and consequent approvals or ethical waivers. Journal editors and reviewers have the duty to systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of manuscripts submitted for review. Capacity building in research ethics and institutional support for Research Ethics Committees to speed up protocol review could reduce the incentive of carrying out research in human subjects without ethics approvals. It is hypocritical and idle to continue to expect optimal reviews on time and of good quality, from ethics committees functioning purely on altruistic grounds. Capacity building for researchers in research ethics, and institutional reforms and support for Research Ethics Committees appear not to have received the attention they truly deserve.

  18. IRIS Toxicological Review of Tert-Butyl Alcohol (Tert-Butanol) (External Review Draft)

    Science.gov (United States)

    The IRIS Toxicological Review of tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-Butanol) was released for external peer review in June 2017. EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis supporting ...

  19. Report of the review committee on evaluation of the R and D subjects in the field of nuclear fusion research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-10-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods and the Practices Manuals of the Institution Evaluation Committee, the Ad Hoc Review Committee composed of 12 experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the whole R and D subjects in fusion research, including post-review for those completed in FY1998, intermediate-review for those started in FY1999, and pre-review for those to be implemented in FY2001. The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on March 9, 2000. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research result/plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Department Directors. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on August 31, 2000. The Research Evaluation Committee recognized the review results as appropriate. This report describes the review results. (author)

  20. 75 FR 53317 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-31

    ...-435-1119. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Oncology 1--Basic Translational Integrated..., Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 451- 4467. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group, Synthetic and Biological Chemistry A Study Section. Date...

  1. Safety Review Committee - Annual Report 1991-1992

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1993-01-01

    During the year under review. The Safety Review Committee (SRC) assessed the safety of ANSTO's operations. This was done by site visits, examination of documentation and briefing by ANSTO officers responsible for particular operations, and includes HIFAR and Moata reactors, radioisotope production, packing and dispatch, radioactive waste management practices, occupational health and safety activities and ANSTO's arrangements for public health and safety beyond the site. This report describes the activities and findings of the SRC during the year ending 30 June 1992. 8 figs., ills

  2. Report of the review committee on evaluation of the R and D subjects in the field of nuclear safety research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-09-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods and the Practices Manuals of the Institution Evaluation Committee and Research Evaluation Committee, the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research composed of twelve experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the R and D subjects to be implemented for five years starting in FY2000 in the Nuclear Safety Research Center (Department of Reactor Safety Research, Department of Fuel Cycle Safety Research and Department of Safety Research Technical Support). The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on January 20, 2000. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Department Directors. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on August 31, 2000. The Research Evaluation Committee recognized the review results as appropriate. This report describes the review results. (author)

  3. IRIS Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) (External Review Draft)

    Science.gov (United States)

    The IRIS Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) was released for external peer review in June 2017. EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the ETB...

  4. 78 FR 738 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-04

    ... Psychology, Personality and Interpersonal Processes Study Section. Date: February 7-8, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m... 20892, (301) 435-4445, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive... . Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group...

  5. Report of the review committee on evaluation of the research subjects in the field of advanced science research (FY2000)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-10-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods and the Practices Manuals of the Institution Evaluation Committee, the Ad Hoc Review Committee composed of eight experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the research themes completed in FY1999, those to be ended through FY2000, and those planned for five years starting in FY2001 in the Advanced Science Research Center. The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on July 17, 2000. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research result/plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Research Group Leaders. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on August 31, 2000. The Research Evaluation Committee recognized the review results as appropriate. This report describes the review results. (author)

  6. Report of the marketing science editorial review committee

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Fader, Peter S.; Bronnenberg, B.J.J.A.M.; Lyer, Ganesh; Neslin, Scott A.; Netzer, Oded; Srinivasan, Kannan

    2014-01-01

    This is an abridged version of an evaluation report for Marketing Science, which was commissioned by the INFORMS Publications Committee as part of its periodic review of every INFORMS journal. The coauthors listed here comprised the task force that conducted the research project and strategic

  7. The Department of Energy's Atmospheric Chemistry Program: A critical review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1991-01-01

    In response to a request from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Health and Environmental Research (OHER), the Committee on Atmospheric Chemistry has reviewed OHER's Atmospheric Chemistry Program (ACP). This report contains the committee's evaluation and critique arising from that review. The review process included a two-day symposium held at the National Academy of Sciences on September 25 and 26, 1990, that focused on presenting the ACP's current components, recent scientific accomplishments, and scientific plans. Following the symposium, committee members met in a one-day executive session to formulate and outline this report. In undertaking this review, OHER and ACP management requested that the committee attempt to answer several specific questions involving the program's technical capability and productivity, its leadership and organization, and its future direction. These questions are given in the Appendix. This report represents the committee's response to the questions posed in the Appendix. Chapter I explores the committee's view of the role that atmospheric chemistry could and should assume within the DOE and its prospective National Energy Strategy. Chapter 2 assesses the current ACP, Chapter 3 presents recommendations for revising and strengthening it, and Chapter 4 restates the committee's conclusions and recommendations

  8. South African Research Ethics Committee Review of Standards of Prevention in HIV Vaccine Trial Protocols.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Essack, Zaynab; Wassenaar, Douglas R

    2018-04-01

    HIV prevention trials provide a prevention package to participants to help prevent HIV acquisition. As new prevention methods are proven effective, this raises ethical and scientific design complexities regarding the prevention package or standard of prevention. Given its high HIV incidence and prevalence, South Africa has become a hub for HIV prevention research. For this reason, it is critical to study the implementation of relevant ethical-legal frameworks for such research in South Africa. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews to explore the practices and perspectives of eight members of South African research ethics committees (RECs) who have reviewed protocols for HIV vaccine trials. Their practices and perspectives are compared with ethics guideline requirements for standards of prevention.

  9. 77 FR 54921 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-06

    ... Committee: Oncology 2--Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Basic Mechanisms of Cancer...: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and...: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and...

  10. 78 FR 55752 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-11

    ..., (301) 435- 2037, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience... of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Pathophysiological Basis of Mental Disorders and Addictions Study Section. Date: October 10-11, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5...

  11. 76 FR 372 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-04

    ... 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435- 0684, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Oncology 1--Basic..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-495- 1718, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Synthetic and Biological Chemistry B Study Section. Date...

  12. Private Science and Public Knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal and its Use of the Literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pinch, T. J.; Collins, H. M.

    1984-01-01

    Shows the part played by formal/informal literatures in the social construction of scientific knowledge, analyzing the work of the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal" (which critically investigates fringe-sciences). Indicates that popular literature can deconstruct facts while scientific…

  13. 78 FR 7438 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-01

    ... Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. Contact Person: Melinda Jenkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer... Henry, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health...

  14. 76 FR 23829 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-28

    ... of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Motor Function, Speech..., Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Cellular Aspects of Diabetes and Obesity Study...

  15. 77 FR 32649 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-01

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Diagnostics and Treatments. Date: June 28-29...). Contact Person: Fouad A El-Zaatari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  16. 75 FR 17953 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee Findings Related to the...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-08

    ... Repatriation Review Committee Findings Related to the Identity of Cultural Items in the Possession of the.... 3006(c)(3)), reviewed the record and made findings of fact related to the identity of 45 cultural items... Review Committee found that each of the 45 cultural items was both a ``sacred object'' (25 U.S.C. 3001(3...

  17. 76 FR 1622 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-11

    ...: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Social Psychology, Personality and... Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Cardiovascular Differentiation and Development Study Section..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group...

  18. Specialist committee's review reports for experimental fast reactor JOYO' MK-III performance tests

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Yamashita, Kiyonobu; Okubo, Toshiyuki; Kamide, Hideki

    2004-02-01

    Performance tests (startup-physics tests and power elevation tests) were planed for experimental fast reactor 'JOYO' MK-III where irradiation performances were upgraded by power increase from 100 to 140 MW. The reactor safety committee of O-arai Engineering Center has established a specialist committee for 'JOYO' MK-III Performance Tests at the first meeting of 2003 on 23th. April 2003, to accomplish the tests successfully. Subjects of the specialist committee were reviews of following items covering a wide range. 1) Contents of modification works. 2) Reflections of functional test results to the plant and facilities. 3) Reflections of safety rule modification to instruction and manual for operation. 4) Quality assurances and pre-calculation for performance test. 5) Inspection plan and its results. 6) Adequacy of performance test plan. 7) Confirmation of performance test results. Before test-starts, the specialist committee has confirmed by reviewing the items from 1) to 6) based on explanations and documents of the Division of Experimental Reactor, that the test plan and pre-inspections are adequate. After the tests, the specialist committee had confirmed by reviewing the item 7) in the same way, that the each test result satisfies the corresponding criterion. The specialist committee has concluded from these review's results before and after the tests that the 'JOYO' MK-III Performance Tests were carried out appropriately. Besides, the first criticality of the JOYO MK-III was achieved on 2nd. July 2003, and the continuous full power operation was carried on 20th. Nov. 2003. Finally, all performance tests were completed by the pass of the last governmental pre-serviced inspection (dose rate measurement during the shut down condition). (author)

  19. 76 FR 55929 - CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-09-09

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Oncology 2--Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Basic... Panel Synthetic and Biological Chemistry B. Date: October 4, 2011. Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Agenda: To... 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1728, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry...

  20. 77 FR 31029 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-24

    ... Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Bacterial Pathogenesis Study Section. Date: June 20...: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative and Clinical..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group...

  1. Whether Audit Committee Financial Expertise Is the Only Relevant Expertise: A Review of Audit Committee Expertise and Timeliness of Financial Reporting

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Saeed Rabea Baatwah

    2013-06-01

    Full Text Available This study reviews the literature on audit committee expertise and financial reporting timeliness. Financial reporting timeliness and audit committee expertise are two areas of research gaining the attention of a large number of stakeholders because they contribute to the reliability and the  relevancy of financial reporting. Indeed, the focus of this review is primarily on the recent developments in the pertinent literature in order to show the limitations of such research and encourage future research to overcome these limitations. By also looking at the development of the audit committee expertise literature, this study concludes that (1 like most audit committee literature, financial reporting timeliness literature continues to assume the absence of the contribution of expertise other than financial expertise, and ignore the role of audit committee chair; (2 most of this literature fails to find a significant effect because it ignores the interaction among corporate governance mechanisms. Accordingly, this study posits that ignoring the issues raised in such research by future research would lead to major mistakes in reforms relating to how the quality of financial reporting can be enhanced.

  2. Centers for manufacturing technology: Industrial Advisory Committee Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    1995-10-01

    An advisory committee, composed of senior managers form industrial- sector companies and major manufacturing trade associations and representatives from appropriate educational institutions, meets semi-annually to review and advise the Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology (ORCMT) on its economic security program. Individual papers have been indexed separately for the database.

  3. The use of non-animal alternatives in the safety evaluations of cosmetics ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vinardell, M P

    2015-03-01

    In Europe, the safety evaluation of cosmetics is based on the safety evaluation of each individual ingredient. Article 3 of the Cosmetics Regulation specifies that a cosmetic product made available on the market is to be safe for human health when used normally or under reasonably foreseeable conditions. For substances that cause some concern with respect to human health (e.g., colourants, preservatives, UV-filters), safety is evaluated at the Commission level by a scientific committee, presently called the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). According to the Cosmetics Regulations, in the EU, the marketing of cosmetics products and their ingredients that have been tested on animals for most of their human health effects, including acute toxicity, is prohibited. Nevertheless, any study dating from before this prohibition took effect is accepted for the safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The in vitro methods reported in the dossiers submitted to the SCCS are here evaluated from the published reports issued by the scientific committee of the Directorate General of Health and Consumers (DG SANCO); responsible for the safety of cosmetics ingredients. The number of studies submitted to the SCCS that do not involve animals is still low and in general the safety of cosmetics ingredients is based on in vivo studies performed before the prohibition. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  4. 78 FR 27247 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-09

    ... 5176 MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1713, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Community-Level Health Promotion Study Section. Date... Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8428, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee...

  5. Report of the review committee on evaluation of the R and D subjects in the field of high-temperature engineering and research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-09-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods and the Practices Manuals of the Institution Evaluation Committee and Research Evaluation Committee, the Ad Hoc Review Committee on High-Temperature Engineering and Research composed of nine experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the R and D subjects to be implemented for five years starting in FY 2000 in the Departments of HTTR Project and Advanced Nuclear Heat Technology. The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on December 27, 1999. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Department Directors. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on August 31, 2000. The Research Evaluation Committee recognized the review results as appropriate. This report describes the review results. (author)

  6. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

    2014-01-01

    Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current

  7. Report of the second meeting of the SSDL Scientific Committee. Vienna, 1-4 June 1987

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1987-01-01

    The SSDL Scientific Committee was appointed by the Director General of the IAEA - in consultation and with the concurrence of the Director General of the WHO - in 1985. As indicated in its Terms of Reference, the main objective of the Committee is to advise the Directors General of IAEA and WHO regarding the programme of work of the IAEA/WHO Network of Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratories (SSDLs). The first meeting of the Committee was held in May 1986 and the recommendations were reported in IAEA SSDL Newsletter No. 25, October 1986. Programme CARE was formulated at the first meeting of the Scientific Committee in May 1986, and was described in SSDL Newsletter No. 25 (October 1986). As reported in that Newsletter, the name ''Programme CARE'' was adopted in order to emphasize the importance of Coherent and Accurate REference instrumentation, as the basis for a world-wide network of secondary calibration laboratories. The Committee noted that, as proposed at the first meeting, a set of self-checking transportable dosimeter was completed and test measurements were carried out at the OMH (Hungary) and were continued at the NBS (USA). The Committee recommended that calibration comparisons, between the IAEA Dosimetry Laboratory and the SSDLs, should be started using these instruments as soon as the tests demonstrate an adequate stability. Other possible reference dosimeters should be investigated, and should undergo the same type of test procedure. Calibration comparisons using TLD should be continued until an adequate capability for ionometric comparisons has been developed. Because of the increasing involvement of the SSDLs in radiation protection calibration, Programme CARE should be extended to include radiation protection measurement standards at the SSDLs. In principle, Programme CARE will be the same for protection-level or for therapy-level radiation, and ionometric techniques are preferred. In this case also there are two methods that may be used to

  8. Recommendations of the first meeting of the SSDL Scientific Committee. Vienna, 12-15 May 1986

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1986-01-01

    The Advisory Group on Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratories, convened 19-23 November 1984, recommended the utilization of the ionometric method for comparison of standards within the SSDL Network. The SSDL Scientific Committee has noted that the principles and the first recommendations laid down by the Advisory Group at its 1984 meeting have been implemented. The Committee is confident that a continued improvement of the SSDL Network is possible. The Committee has examined the SSDL Reports for 1985 during its current meeting and has noted that 37 out of 49 SSDLs submitted a report. The Committee was impressed by the work reported by a number of SSDLs. However, no report has been received from 12 SSDLs and some of the laboratories were minimally active. For these reasons the Committee recommends that a programme be initiated that could evaluate and increase the efficiency of the Network. The Committee considers it necessary that direct traceability to the International Bureau of Weights nd Measures (BIPM) be maintained with adequate accuracy. Such traceability already exists between the IAEA Dosimetry Laboratory and the BIPM. Although the BIPM cannot deal directly with all of the members of the Network, the IAEA Laboratory can provide such traceability without essential loss in accuracy. As a first step in achieving the proposed programme, the Committee recommends that the SSDLs be officially informed that membership in the Network is dependent upon periodic successful participation in performance evaluations that demonstrate adequate consistency with the international system of measurements. If, in a given country, an SSDL organization exists, then this organization must choose one of its member laboratories to take part in such a performance evaluation. The Committee recommends that the first performance evaluation be completed for all current SSDLs before July 1988. The Committee proposes two methods that may be used to perform such evaluations. The IAEA

  9. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Health Physics. Result evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Health Physics in accordance with the 'Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the R and D accomplishments achieved for five years from Fiscal Year 1995 to Fiscal Year 1999 at Department of Health Physics in Tokai Research Establishment and at related departments in other Establishments of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of six specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from October 2000 to January 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on October 10, 2000, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Health Physics. (author)

  10. 78 FR 27246 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-09

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group....m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW.... Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Avenue Hotel Chicago, 160 E. Huron Street...

  11. 75 FR 4090 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

    ... El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130. Contact Person: William A. Greenberg, PhD., Scientific Review... (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Fouad A. El-Zaatari, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, Center for... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Experimental Cancer Therapeutics. Date...

  12. Spent nuclear fuel Canister Storage Building CDR Review Committee report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Dana, W.P.

    1995-12-01

    The Canister Storage Building (CSB) is a subproject under the Spent Nuclear Fuels Major System Acquisition. This subproject is necessary to design and construct a facility capable of providing dry storage of repackaged spent fuels received from K Basins. The CSB project completed a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) implementing current project requirements. A Design Review Committee was established to review the CDR. This document is the final report summarizing that review

  13. Evaluation and review of planning for greater-confinement disposal by the Independent Peer Review Committee, July 9-10, 1985. Final report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1985-07-01

    This evaluation and review was performed under contract by Argonne National Laboratory in support of their role for developing the ''Planning for Greater Confinement Disposal'' Document for the Low-Level Waste Management Program Office for the Department of Energy, Office of Defense Waste and Byproducts Management. The Independent Peer Review Committee was composed of 13 well-qualified and recognized experts in their fields and pertinent disciplines, collectively representing considerable expertise and experience in waste disposal operations, waste management, environmental assessment and impact analysis, and other aspects of radioactive waste disposal. The members of the Peer Review Committee, their organizations, and thier area of expertise are given in Appendix 1. The general consensus of the Independent Review Committee was that the ''Planning for Greater-Confinement Disposal'' document was reasonably comprehensive, covering nearly all topics necessary to provide a good planning guide. There is, however, a definite need to reorganize the document into two volumes with appendices and the relationship of the GCD document to other LLWMP documents needs to be clarified in the introductory volume. Specific recommendations made by the committee on the DCD document are given in Section 3.2. Recommendations by the committee that have a somewhat broader scope than just the GCD document are given in Section 3.3

  14. 77 FR 12605 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-01

    ..., (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Eduardo A Montalvo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for... Person: Allen Richon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes...: Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Bioengineering. Date: March 15-20, 2012. Time: 11 a.m. to 5 p.m...

  15. 76 FR 36555 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-22

    ...-1219, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for..., Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1236, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee...

  16. 33 CFR 385.22 - Independent scientific review and external peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... external peer review. 385.22 Section 385.22 Navigation and Navigable Waters CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT... RESTORATION PLAN CERP Implementation Processes § 385.22 Independent scientific review and external peer review... members, shall not attempt to influence the panel's review or assign this panel any other tasks, nor...

  17. Report From the International Linear Collider Technical Review Committee

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Loew, Gregory A.

    2003-01-01

    The International Linear Collider Technical Review Committee (ILC-TRC), formed in 1994, was reconvened in February 2001 by the International Committee for Future Accelerators (ICFA) to assess the current technical status of all electron-positron linear collider designs at hand in the world: TESLA, JLC-C, JLC-X/NLC and CLIC. The ILC-TRC worked for exactly two years and submitted its report to ICFA in February 2003. This paper presents the motivation behind the study, the charge to the committee and its organization, a table of machine parameters for 500 GeV c.m. energy and later upgrades to higher energies, the methodology used to assess the designs, and a ranked list of R and D tasks still deemed necessary between now and the time any one of the projects is selected by the HEP community and begins construction. Possible future developments are briefly discussed

  18. Boards of directors, audit committees and financial reporting quality. A systematic review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Karolina Skorulska

    2016-12-01

    Full Text Available Measurement of financial reporting quality is a problematic task because financial reporting is difficult to observe and measure. The aim of the article is to present the methods of financial reporting quality meas-urement and a systematic review of literature on the effects of corporate governance reforms on the qualityof financial reporting. The main research questions are: (1 what are the possibilities of measuring financial reporting for research purposes, (2 which of the methods of measuring the quality of financial reporting are used in research on corporate governance, and (3 which variables used in measuring corporate gov-ernance factors affect financial reporting quality? To answer these questions, a critical analysis of literature and a systematic review of research results using meta-analysis was made. For selecting the best articles a three-step collection strategy was used, which resulted in a database of 38 publications. The review has shown that for measuring the quality of financial reporting researchers most frequently use models based on measurement of risk management, and the most common independent variables describing corporate governance are: the size of the audit committee, presence of independent directors on the supervisory board, dual role of CEO, proportion of independent directors in the audit committee, size of the supervisory board, proportion of accounting experts in the audit committee, and frequency of audit committee meetings

  19. 78 FR 52206 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-08-22

    ...: Biophysics, Biochemistry and Chemistry. Date: September 18-19, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Agenda: To..., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: John L Bowers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer..., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701...

  20. 78 FR 36789 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-19

    .... Contact Person: Aruna K Behera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National...: Biochemistry & Macromolecular Biophysics. Date: July 15-17, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Agenda: To..., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: James W Mack, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer...

  1. Report of the International Review Committee of the joint proposal of the Japan Hadron Facility (KEK) and the Neutron Science Project (JAERI)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1999-08-01

    The International Review Committee composed of twelve Japanese and foreign experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of JAERI, and has reviewed the proposed joint project combining JAERI's Neutron Science Project and KEK's Japan Hadron Facility into one major facility. The review meeting took place on April 26-27, 1999, at JAERI Head quarters, Tokyo. According to the points of review given in advance, the review was implemented based on the joint project report submitted and presentations of both institutions. The Research Evaluation Committee received the review report and its explanations from the Review Committee on July 5. The Research Evaluation Committee has acknowledged appropriateness of the review results. This report describes the review results. (author)

  2. Report of the Review Committee on evaluation of the R and D subjects in the fields of Environmental Science and Health Physics

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2000-07-01

    On the basis of the JAERI's Basic Guidelines for the Research Evaluation Methods, etc., the Ad Hoc Review Committee composed of nine experts was set up under the Research Evaluation Committee of the JAERI in order to review the R and D subjects to be implemented for five years starting in FY2000 in the Department of Environmental Science and Department of Health Physics. The Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting was held on August 30, 1999. According to the review methods including review items, points of review and review criteria, determined by the Research Evaluation Committee, the review was conducted based on the research plan documents submitted in advance and presentations by the Department Directors. The review report was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee for further review and discussions in its meeting held on March 14, 2000. As a result, the Research Evaluation Committee acknowledged appropriateness of the review results. This report describes the review results. (author)

  3. 75 FR 2877 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-19

    ..., CA 92109. Contact Person Paek-Gyu Lee, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...: Hotel Monaco, 700 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Contact Person Peter B. Guthrie, PhD, Scientific...

  4. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research...

  5. 78 FR 30319 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-22

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated...: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Renaissance, Washington, DC Hotel, 999 Ninth Street... Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group; Gene and Drug Delivery Systems...

  6. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Information Technology. In-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Information Technology in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D programs pertaining to the establishment and utilization of the Information Technology Based Laboratory (ITBL) to be implemented for five years starting in Fiscal Year 2001 at Center for Promotion of Computational Science and Engineering and Department of Environmental Sciences of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of eight specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from February to March 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on February 9, 2001, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Information Technology. (author)

  7. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research. Result evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the R and D accomplishments achieved for five years from Fiscal Year 1995 to Fiscal Year 1999 at Department of Reactor Safety Research, Department of Fuel Cycle Safety Research, Department of Environmental Safety Research and Department of Safety Research Technical Support in Tokai Research Establishment at JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of 11 specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from December 2000 to February 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on December 11, 2000, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research. (author)

  8. 77 FR 60446 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-03

    ... Panel; Genomic, Molecular Genetics Variation Studies Using Model Organisms AREA Review. Date: October 19...: David J Remondini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes...

  9. 78 FR 28230 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-14

    ...: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative and Clinical... . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Clinical..., DC 20037. Contact Person: Samuel C Edwards, Ph.D., Chief, Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience...

  10. 77 FR 55847 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-11

    ...: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Clinical Research and Field Studies of...-435- 0903, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience... and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Clinical and Integrative Diabetes and Obesity Study...

  11. 78 FR 58323 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-23

    ... and Hematology Integrated Review Group, Vascular Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section. Date... Diabetes and Obesity Study Section. Date: October 17, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review... 20892, 301-435-1043, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group...

  12. Sexual Consent as a Scientific Subject: A Literature Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fenner, Lydia

    2017-01-01

    Despite the presumed centrality of sexual consent to definitions of sexual violence, it remains an ambiguous and often unexamined concept both in lay and professional/scientific discourses. The following literature review of peer-reviewed research studying sexual consent as a scientific object will thematically present major findings from said…

  13. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. Ex-post evaluation in fiscal year 2003

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2004-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D results achieved for five years until Fiscal Year 2002 at Department of Materials Science in Tokai Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of eight specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from October 2003 to February 2004. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on November 14, 2003, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 8, 2004. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. (author)

  14. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Computational Science and Engineering. Result evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Computational Science and Engineering in accordance with the 'Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the R and D accomplishments achieved for five years from Fiscal Year 1995 to Fiscal Year 1999 at Center for Promotion of Computational Science and Engineering of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of seven specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from December 2000 to March 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on December 27, 2000, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Computational Science and Engineering. (author)

  15. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research. Result evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the R and D accomplishments achieved for five years from Fiscal Year 1995 to Fiscal Year 1999 at Department of Reactor Safety Research, Department of Fuel Cycle Safety Research, Department of Environmental Safety Research and Department of Safety Research Technical Support in Tokai Research Establishment at JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of 11 specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from December 2000 to February 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on December 11, 2000, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Nuclear Safety Research. (author)

  16. 75 FR 57475 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-21

    ... evaluate grant applications. Place: InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, 999 California Street, San....m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Melrose Hotel, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Ethical, Legal...

  17. 75 FR 16078 - Census Scientific Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-31

    .... ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Hilton Crystal City Hotel, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of...

  18. 77 FR 65570 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-29

    ... Conference Call). Contact Person: Carol Hamelink, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific...--Convention Center, 900 10th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. Contact Person: Mark P Rubert, Ph.D... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biophysics...

  19. 75 FR 37453 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-29

    ...: Cognition, Language and Perception. Date: July 12, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and... Francisco, CA 94108. Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  20. 75 FR 80511 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-22

    ...: Cognition and Perception. Date: January 19-20, 2011. Time: 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  1. 75 FR 26261 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-11

    ... Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Neurogenetics, Neurodevelopment, and Bioengineering. Date: June 2, 2010... Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group; Molecular Neurogenetics...

  2. 75 FR 46950 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-04

    ... Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Clinical Neuroscience and... Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Pathophysiological Basis of Mental Disorders and Addictions Study Section. Date: September 30-October 1, 2010. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To...

  3. IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-Triazine (RDX) (External Review Draft)

    Science.gov (United States)

    The IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) was released for external peer review in September 2016. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis suppor...

  4. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. In-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2002

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2002-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D programs to be implemented for five years starting in Fiscal Year 2003 at Department of Materials Science in Tokai Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of eight specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from April 2002 to August 2002. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 5th, 2002, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on August 5th, 2002. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. (author)

  5. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. In-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2002

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2002-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D programs to be implemented for five years starting in Fiscal Year 2003 at Department of Materials Science in Tokai Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of eight specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from April 2002 to August 2002. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 5th, 2002, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on August 5th, 2002. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Materials Science Research. (author)

  6. Report of the evaluation by the ad hoc review committee on radiation application research. In-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2001

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Radiation Application Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D programs to be implemented for five years starting in Fiscal Year 2002 at Department of Material Development, at Department of Ion-Beam-Applied Biology and at Advanced Radiation Technology Center in Takasaki Radiation Chemistry Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of ten specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from May to July 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 25, 2001, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on July 12, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Radiation Application Research. (author)

  7. 76 FR 3643 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-20

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Societal and Ethical Issues in Research. Date: February... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Synapses, Cytoskeleton and Trafficking Study Section. Date: February 10...

  8. 77 FR 297 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-04

    ... Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Kidney Pathobiology and Molecular Biology and Genitourinary Organ... of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Developmental Brain Disorders Study Section. Date: January 26-27, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate...

  9. 75 FR 52009 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-24

    ...: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Cell Biology Study Section. Date: October 4-5...-435-0603, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Synthetic and Biological Chemistry B Study Section. Date: October 5-6, 2010. Time: 8...

  10. 77 FR 19675 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-04-02

    ... Panel, RFA-MH12-130: Basic Research on Decision Making: Cognitive, Affective and Developmental... . Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group Biomaterials and...

  11. Report of the Committee to review safeguards requirements at power reactors

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1983-05-01

    In October 1982, NRC's Executive Director for Operations appointed a five-member Committee to review NRC security requirements at nuclear power plants with a view toward evaluating the impact of these requirements on operational safety. During visits to five power reactor sites and more than a dozen days of meetings over a period of four months, the Committee observed plant operating conditions and obtained views from abut 100 persons representing 16 nuclear utilities and industry organizations. They also interviewed about 40 NRC employees, including Resident Inspectors, and members of the Regional and Headquarters staffs. Overall, the Committee did not identify any clear operational safety problems associated with implementation of the NRC's security requirements. However, they did find that the potential existed, to varying degrees, at licensed facilities. The Committee's report, dated February 28, 1983, contains five basic findings and a number of associated recommendations intended to minimize the potential impact of security on safety

  12. Governance and oversight of researcher access to electronic health data: the role of the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for MHRA database research, 2006-2015.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Waller, P; Cassell, J A; Saunders, M H; Stevens, R

    2017-03-01

    In order to promote understanding of UK governance and assurance relating to electronic health records research, we present and discuss the role of the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for MHRA database research in evaluating protocols proposing the use of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We describe the development of the Committee's activities between 2006 and 2015, alongside growth in data linkage and wider national electronic health records programmes, including the application and assessment processes, and our approach to undertaking this work. Our model can provide independence, challenge and support to data providers such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database which has been used for well over 1,000 medical research projects. ISAC's role in scientific oversight ensures feasible and scientifically acceptable plans are in place, while having both lay and professional membership addresses governance issues in order to protect the integrity of the database and ensure that public confidence is maintained.

  13. The Revista Scientific

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Oscar Antonio Martínez Molina

    2017-02-01

    Full Text Available The Revista Scientific aims to publish quality papers that include the perspective of analysis in educational settings. Together with www.indtec.com.ve, this electronic publication aims to promote and disseminate, with seriousness and rigor, the academic production in this field. Editorial of the new stage Revista Scientific was created with the aim of constituting a reference space for scientific research in the field of research analysis that is carried out within the universities in Latin America, once the distribution list hosted on the INDTEC platform (http://www.indtec.com.ve is consolidated as a space for dissemination and development of new ideas and initiatives. The first presentation of INDTEC Magazine was held in August 2016 in Venezuela. Thanks to the support of the INDTEC platform, SCIENTIFIC Magazine has been able to develop from the cooperative work of the people who make up its Editorial Committee, Academic Committee and Scientific Committee in Electronic Edition, and of the referees of each one of the numbers. Part of the success is due to the motivation of its co-editors and excellent professionals from different parts of the world: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, which form the various committees, with enthusiasm and joy participating in this project (whose organizational structure is presented in this edition and continues in increcendo. Also, the strategy adopted to edit a monographic number from the various events organized in the framework of the universities, has contributed to provide SCIENTIFIC with a point value speaker of intellectual progress in the field of education. SCIENTIFIC Magazine is currently indexed in ISI, International Scientific Indexing, Dubai - UAE; ROAD, the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ISSN International Center, France; REVENCYT-ULA, Venezuela; Google Scholar (Google Scholar, International Index; Published in Calaméo; ISSUU; Academia

  14. 75 FR 53702 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-01

    ... Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Cardiovascular and Sleep[email protected] . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93...

  15. European Committee for Future Accelerators

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Mulvey, John

    1983-01-01

    Nearly 21 years ago, in December 1962, Viktor Weisskopf and Cecil Powell, then respectively CERN's Director General and Chairman of the Scientific Policy Committee, called together a group of European high energy physicists to advise on steps to reach higher energy. The CERN PS had been in operation since 1959, its experimental programme was well established and the time had come to think of the future. The Chairman of the group, which later took the title 'European Committee for Future Accelerators', was Edoardo Amaldi and his influential report, presented to the CERN Council in June 1963, reviewed the whole structure and possible development of the field in the CERN Member States. Its proposals included the construction of the Intersecting Storage Rings (ISR), and of a 300 GeV proton accelerator which was then envisaged as being the major facility of a second CERN Laboratory elsewhere in Europe

  16. 77 FR 40412 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-07-09

    ...: August 7 Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease; Rehabilitation Engineering and Prosthetics/Orthotics; and... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that subcommittees of the Rehabilitation Research and Development...

  17. ANCCLI Scientific Committee - Opinion related to the level 2 incident related to the management of an equipment contaminated by tritium between October 2009 and November 2011

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2012-01-01

    After a recall of the facts and of requests expressed by the ANCCLI and its Scientific Committee about the incident, this report proposes an analysis of answers made to these requests by the different actors about the reasons and circumstances of the event, the follow-up at the regulatory level, the follow-up at the health level (environmental follow-up, assessment of population and employee exposures and health monitoring, measures implemented to help the involved subcontracting company and other companies). An appendix evokes the main measurement results, proposes the open letter published by the ANCCLI and its Scientific Committee, and the answer made by the ASN

  18. 76 FR 6486 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-04

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Topics in Bacterial Pathogenesis. Date... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neurodegeneration, Trauma, Immunology and Imaging. Date: March 7-8... 6487

  19. 75 FR 28623 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-21

    ... Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowships: Biophysical and Physiological Neuroscience. Date: June 14-15, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biology of Development and Aging Integrated Review Group, Aging...

  20. 76 FR 9354 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-17

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cancer Biology and Therapy. Date... (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Fouad A. El-Zaatari, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for...

  1. 77 FR 8269 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-14

    .... Place: Mayflower Park Hotel, 405 Olive Way, Seattle, WA 98101. Contact Person: Rebecca Henry, Ph.D... 20814. Contact Person: Melinda Jenkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  2. 78 FR 32698 - Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Committee Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-31

    ... DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 8340] Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Committee... Technical Co-operation Committee --Protection of vital shipping lanes --Periodic review of administrative... of the Organization since the twenty-eighth regular session of the Assembly --External relations...

  3. 75 FR 41505 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-16

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Mass Spectrometry Shared Instrumentation Study Section... Instrumentation: Mass Spectrometers. Date: August 5-6, 2010. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  4. 75 FR 32487 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-08

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomaterials, Delivery Systems, and... Digestive Diseases and Nutrition. Date: June 28-29, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and...

  5. 76 FR 10912 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-28

    ... 22202. Contact Person: Lawrence E Boerboom, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review... Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: February 18, 2011. Jennifer S. Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory...

  6. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A Gallo

    Full Text Available Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.

  7. Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gallo, Stephen A.; Carpenter, Afton S.; Glisson, Scott R.

    2013-01-01

    Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects. PMID:23951223

  8. 76 FR 1444 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-10

    ... Integrated Review Group. Anterior Eye Disease Study Section. Date: February 7-8, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m...: Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Contact Person: Michael M... . Name of Committee: Vascular and Hematology Integrated Review Group, Vascular Cell and Molecular Biology...

  9. 75 FR 28033 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-19

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review... Diabetes Study Section. Date: June 11, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant... Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Orthopedic and Skeletal Biology. Date: June 11, 2010. Time: 8 a.m...

  10. 76 FR 5650 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-01

    ... Rehabilitation. March 1--Rehabilitation Engineering and Prosthetics/Orthotics. March 1-2--Psychological Health... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and Development...

  11. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on High-Temperature Engineering and Research. Result evaluation in fiscal year 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-06-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 14 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on High-Temperature Engineering and Research in accordance with the 'Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the R and D accomplishments achieved for five years from Fiscal Year 1995 to Fiscal Year 1999 at Department of HTTR Project and Department of Advanced Nuclear Heat Technology in Oarai Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of nine specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from December 2000 to February 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advanced and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on December 8, 2000, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on March 16, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on High-Temperature Engineering and Research. (author)

  12. Report of the expert committee on the review of data on atmospheric fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1984-01-01

    The terms of reference of the committee were to review the published scientific literature and other relevant scientific data on the short and long-term effects of fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia; to comment on the adequacy of the data available and the collection methodology; to assess the fallout levels arising from each of the tests, the immediate and subsequent hazards from the fallout to the Australian population and individual Australians, including Australian personnel involved and aborigines in South Australia, and the adequacy of the criteria for safe firing of each of the tests. A comparison is made of radiation protection standards adopted during the nuclear test period with current standards. The recommendations include the setting up of a public inquiry to determine how the conduct and consequences of the British nuclear tests affected the health and well-being of Australians

  13. 78 FR 32670 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-31

    ... Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Diagnostics and Treatments (CDT). Date: June 27-28, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m...). Contact Person: ouad A El-Zaatari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  14. 75 FR 36698 - Committee Management Renewals

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-28

    .... Committees Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 1173 Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 1115 Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment..., and Transport Systems, 1189 Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry, 1191 Proposal Review Panel for Civil...

  15. 77 FR 9731 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-17

    ...--Rehabilitation Engineering and Prosthetics/Orthotics. March 7--Career Development Award Program. March 13--Spinal... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit...-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and Development...

  16. 78 FR 9931 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-12

    ... Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Abdelouahab Aitouche, Ph...). Contact Person: James J Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National...: Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biophysics Date: March 6-7, 2013 Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review...

  17. Editorial Note: Reevaluating Book Reviews: As Scientific Contributions

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Günter Mey

    2000-12-01

    Full Text Available In the first part of this text, I would like to describe some advantages book reviews offer. The book reviews—providing the fact that they succeed in offering more than just a short content description to the reader—can also contribute to scientific discourses in a similar way regular contributions do. One of the reasons why book reviews currently often do not fulfil this possible function is due to the existing restrictions within traditional print media publishing. Additionally worth mentioning are actual standards within the scientific community which tend to underestimate the value of book reviews or review essays. In the second part, I will discuss some developmental potentials in book reviews which up to now were hardly recognized: Especially with the Internet and its characteristics-nearly unlimited space resources; flexible publishing time and design of the contributions; chance for a direct exchange between researchers, for example using discussion boards—a re-evaluation of book reviews and review essays seems to be possible and reasonable. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0003400

  18. Kaleidoscope: Scientific Quality Committee - final report

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone; Laurillard, Diana

    To shape a body of reference at a scientific level for the European TEL research communities. To make recommendations (i) to support a policy for the enhancement of research in Europe in this field, (ii) to survey the development of the field, and (iii) to build scientific collaboration on top of...

  19. 78 FR 107 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-02

    ... Biochemistry of Membranes. Date: January 23, 2013. Time: 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... 20036. Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review... Santa Monica Hotel, 530 West Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Contact Person: David R. Jollie, Ph...

  20. 77 FR 77080 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-12-31

    ... Biochemistry of Membranes. Date: January 23, 2013. Time: 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... 20036. Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review... Santa Monica Hotel, 530 West Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Contact Person: David R. Jollie, Ph...

  1. 78 FR 55266 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-10

    ... the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... evaluate grant applications. Place: Torrance Marriott South Bay, 3635 Fashion Way, Torrance, CA 90503...

  2. 77 FR 51033 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-23

    ...: Biochemistry. Date: August 27, 2012. Time: 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant... Conference Call). Contact Person: Nuria E. Assa-Munt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific...

  3. Audit committee: Some evidence from Malaysia.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Zulkarnain Muhamad Sori

    2006-11-01

    Full Text Available This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of senior managers of Malaysian publicly listed companies on issues relating to audit committee authority and effectiveness. Questionnaire survey technique was employed to seek the respondents perceptions on five issues, namely audit committee appoints the auditor, audit committee determines and reviews audit fees, audit committee determines and reviews the auditor’s scope and duties, and audit committee’s reports and meetings. The majority of respondents agreed that auditor would be more effective and independent if audit committee assumed the responsibility to appoint the auditor, determine and review the audit fees, and determine and review the external auditor’s scope and duties. It is also found that disclosure of audit committee report and quarterly meeting would enhance the perceptions of users of financial statement concerning the effectiveness of the committee.

  4. Ethical considerations in malaria research proposal review: empirical evidence from 114 proposals submitted to an Ethics Committee in Thailand.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Adams, Pornpimon; Prakobtham, Sukanya; Limphattharacharoen, Chanthima; Vutikes, Pitchapa; Khusmith, Srisin; Pengsaa, Krisana; Wilairatana, Polrat; Kaewkungwal, Jaranit

    2015-09-14

    Malaria research is typically conducted in developing countries in areas of endemic disease. This raises specific ethical issues, including those related to local cultural concepts of health and disease, the educational background of study subjects, and principles of justice at the community and country level. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are responsible for regulating the ethical conduct of research, but questions have been raised whether RECs facilitate or impede research, and about the quality of REC review itself. This study examines the review process for malaria research proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine at Mahidol University, Thailand. Proposals for all studies submitted for review from January 2010 to December 2014 were included. Individual REC members' reviewing forms were evaluated. Ethical issues (e.g., scientific merit, risk-benefit, sample size, or informed-consent) raised in the forms were counted and analysed according to characteristics, including study classification/design, use of specimens, study site, and study population. All 114 proposals submitted during the study period were analysed, comprising biomedical studies (17 %), drug trials (13 %), laboratory studies (24 %) and epidemiological studies (46 %). They included multi-site (13 %) and international studies (4 %), and those involving minority populations (28 %), children (17 %) and pregnant women (7 %). Drug trials had the highest proportion of questions raised for most ethical issues, while issues concerning privacy and confidentiality tended to be highest for laboratory and epidemiology studies. Clarifications on ethical issues were requested by the ethics committee more for proposals involving new specimen collection. Studies involving stored data and specimens tended to attract more issues around privacy and confidentiality. Proposals involving minority populations were more likely to raise issues than those that did not

  5. 78 FR 9455 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-08

    .... Rehabilitation Engineering and February 20, 2013 Courtyard DC/U.S. Prosthetics/Orthotics. Capitol. Brain Injury... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the subcommittees of the Rehabilitation Research and...

  6. 77 FR 34395 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-11

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Virology....306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93...

  7. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bayne, Stephen C; McGivney, Glen P; Mazer, Sarah C

    2003-02-01

    This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

  8. 76 FR 63314 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-12

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR-10-235: Climate Change and Health. Date: November 8... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... grant applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892...

  9. 78 FR 56871 - Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-16

    ... Germantown Update on Exascale Update from Exascale technical approaches subcommittee Facilities update Report from Applied Math Committee of Visitors Exascale technical talks Public Comment (10-minute rule) Public...

  10. State of the Arctic Coast 2010: Scientific Review and Outlook

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rachold, V.; Forbes, D. L.; Kremer, H.; Lantuit, H.

    2010-12-01

    The coast is a key interface in the Arctic environment. It is a locus of human activity, a rich band of biodiversity, critical habitat, and high productivity, and among the most dynamic components of the circumpolar landscape. The Arctic coastal interface is a sensitive and important zone of interaction between land and sea, a region that provides essential ecosystem services and supports indigenous human lifestyles; a zone of expanding infrastructure investment and growing security concerns; and an area in which climate warming is expected to trigger landscape instability, rapid responses to change, and increased hazard exposure. Starting with a collaborative workshop in October 2007, the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) Project and the International Permafrost Association (IPA) decided to jointly initiate an assessment of the state of the Arctic coast. The goal of this report is to draw on initial findings regarding climate change and human dimensions for the Arctic as a whole provided by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) and Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR) to develop a comprehensive picture of status and current and anticipated change in the most sensitive Arctic coastal areas. Underlying is the concept of a social ecological system perspective that explores the implications of change for the interaction of humans with nature. The report is aimed to be a first step towards a continuously updated coastal assessment and to identify key issues seeking future scientific concern in an international Earth system research agenda. The report titled “State of the Arctic Coast 2010: Scientific Review and Outlook” is the outcome of this collaborative effort. It is organized in three parts: the first provides an assessment of the state of Arctic coastal systems under three broad disciplinary themes - physical systems, ecological systems, and human concerns in the coastal zone; the

  11. Review of the British scientific sounding rocket and balloon programmes

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Delury, J.T.

    1978-01-01

    This review describes the UK scientific sounding rocket programmes which have utilised Skylarks for 21 years, Petrels for 10 years and Fulmars for 2 years. The SRC's ongoing programme is now based on the Petrel and Fulmar rockets, and approved proposals by 5 UK scientific groups covering 1978 and 1979 are outlined. The British scientific balloon programme, which serves 14 scientific groups within UK universities, involves a planned 10 flights per annum using balloons of 3 M cu ft to 31 M cu ft capacity and payloads up to 2 tons in weight. The review outlines the balloon programme of flights planned mainly from Palestine in Texas and Alice Springs/Mildura in Australia. (author)

  12. 76 FR 55400 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-09-07

    ...; Arthritis, Connective Tissue and Skin Study Section. Date: October 3-4, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda..., [email protected] . Name of Committee: Oncology 1--Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor...

  13. Committee on Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Sciences (CAMOS)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1992-01-01

    The Committee on Atomic, Molecular and Optical Sciences (CAMOS) of the National Research Council (NRC) is charged with monitoring the health of the field of atomic, molecular, and optical (AMO) science in the United States. Accordingly, the Committee identifies and examines both broad and specific issues affecting the field. Regular meetings, teleconferences, briefings from agencies and the scientific community, the formation of study panels to prepare reports, and special symposia are among the mechanisms used by the CAMOS to meet its charge. This progress report presents a review of CAMOS activities from February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1993. This report also includes the status of activities associated with the CAMOS study on the field that is being conducted by the Panel on the Future of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Sciences (FAMOS)

  14. Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dietz, Simon; Morton, Alec

    2011-01-01

    In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view "fit for purpose," they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern. © 2010 Society for Risk Analysis.

  15. 78 FR 11896 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-20

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cell, Computational, and Molecular Biology. Date... Research in Diabetes, Obesity and Endocrinology Disorders. Date: March 13, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Diabetes, Metabolism and Obesity. Date: March 13...

  16. The Evolution of American Hospital Ethics Committees: A Systematic Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Courtwright, Andrew; Jurchak, Martha

    2016-01-01

    During the 1970s and 1980s, legal precedent, governmental recommendations, and professional society guidelines drove the formation of hospital ethics committees (HECs). The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organization's requirements in the early 1990s solidified the role of HECs as the primary mechanism to address ethical issues in patient care. Because external factors drove the rapid growth of HECs on an institution-by-institution basis, however, no initial consensus formed around the structure and function of these committees. There are now almost 40 years of empirical studies on the composition, administration, and activities of HECs in the United States. We conducted a systematic review of the available empirical literature on HECs to describe their evolution. As HECs changed over time, they increased their total number of members and percentage of members from nursing and the community. Although physicians increasingly chaired these committees, their presence as a percentage of overall members declined. The percentage of administrative members remained steady, although committees became increasingly likely to have at least one administrative member. HECs were also increasingly likely to report to an administrative body or to the board of trustees or directors rather than to the medical staff. Finally, consultation volume increased steadily over time. There has not, however, been a national survey of the composition of ethics committees, their administration, or volume of consultation in more than 10 years, despite increasing calls for professional standards and quality improvement assessments among HECs. Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

  17. 77 FR 57571 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-18

    [email protected] . Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Child... Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878...

  18. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

    An important factor in the success of America's national research system is that federal funds for university-based research are awarded primarily through peer review, which uses panels of scientific experts, or "peers," to evaluate the quality of grant proposals. In this competitive process, proposals compete for resources based on their…

  19. Special committee review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's severe accident risks report (NUREG--1150)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kouts, H.J.C.; Apostolakis, G.; Kastenberg, W.E.; Birkhofer, E.H.A.; Hoegberg, L.G.; LeSage, L.G.; Rasmussen, N.C.; Teague, H.J.; Taylor, J.J.

    1990-08-01

    In April 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) published a draft report ''Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five US Nuclear Power Plants,'' NUREG-1150. This report updated, extended and improved upon the information presented in the 1974 ''Reactor Safety Study,'' WASH-1400. Because the information in NUREG-1150 will play a significant role in implementing the NRC's Severe Accident Policy, its quality and credibility are of critical importance. Accordingly, the Commission requested that the RES conduct a peer review of NUREG-1150 to ensure that the methods, safety insights and conclusions presented are appropriate and adequately reflect the current state of knowledge with respect to reactor safety. To this end, RES formed a special committee in June of 1989 under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee, composed of a group of recognized national and international experts in nuclear reactor safety, was charged with preparing a report reflecting their review of NUREG-1150 with respect to the adequacy of the methods, data, analysis and conclusions it set forth. The report which precedes reflects the results of this peer review

  20. Report of the evaluation by the ad hoc review committee on advanced photon and synchrotron radiation research. In-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2001

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Photon and Synchrotron Radiation Research in accordance with the 'Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the adequacy of the R and D programs to be implemented for five years starting in Fiscal Year 2002 at Advanced Photon Research Center and at Synchrotron Radiation Research Center in Kansai Research Establishment of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of ten specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from May to July 2001. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advanced and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 21, 2001, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on July 12, 2001. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Photon and Synchrotron Radiation Research. (author)

  1. 76 FR 37380 - Committee Management Renewals

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-27

    ... Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences, 1110 Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources, 1119...) management officials having responsibility for the advisory committees listed below have determined that... Review Panel for Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 1766 Proposal Review Panel for Biological...

  2. 78 FR 38736 - Committee Management; Renewals

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-27

    ... Cyberinfrastructure, 25150 Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources, 1119 Advisory Committee for...) management officials having responsibility for the advisory committees listed below have determined that... Settings, 59 Proposal Review Panel for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 1766 Proposal Review Panel...

  3. Ethical assessment of research protocols: the experience of the Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sonia Maria Oliveira de Barros

    2005-03-01

    Full Text Available This is a review article on the origin of the ethical analysis ofresearch protocols, the Brazilian and International legislation,including the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital IsraelitaAlbert Einstein. Since 1997, when the Committee was validatedits role has been recognized as that of a consultant and educator,participating on local and national scientific events andcollaborating with researchers in order to improve their projectsand learn to recognize ethical dilemmas in their protocols.

  4. 78 FR 42969 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-07-18

    ... Instrumentation: PET/CT/SPECT. Date: August 6, 2013. Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2013-17190 Filed 7...

  5. 76 FR 5182 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-28

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR-10-235: Climate Change and Health. Date: March 1... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...: Cancer Health Disparities and Diversity in Basic Cancer Research. Date: March 1, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5...

  6. 76 FR 44942 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-07-27

    ...: Sensation and Perception. Date: August 17-18, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: John Bishop, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific..., MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call) Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, PhD, Chief, Center for...

  7. 76 FR 29770 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-23

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Regulation of Mammalian Meiosis...

  8. Crystalline Repository Project: Review and comment of the Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee: Draft area recommendation report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1986-09-01

    The Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee (LLRBC) has reviewed five documents related to the US Department of Energy's Crystalline Repository Project (CRP). They are the ''National Survey of Crystalline Rocks,'' ''General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste Repositories;' Final Siting Guidelines (10 CFR Part 960),'' ''Regional Characterization Reports for the North Central Region,'' the ''Region to Area Screening Methodology Document'' (SMD) and the ''Draft Area Recommendation Report'' (DARR). The comments and discussions of issues contained in this review will be considered in the preparation of the Final Area Recommendation Report, which will formally identify potentially acceptable sites for a second national repository for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. Following a review of the above referenced documents, the LLRBC has concluded that the identification of potentially acceptable sites in the Draft Area Recommendation Report is based upon inferior and incomplete technical information being applied to a flawed screening process which, among other deficiencies, pays little attention to the importance of hydrological factors in the siting process. Although the DOE prefers that comments from states and tribes be directed at the Draft Area Recommendation Report alone, the Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee is extremely concerned about inadequacies in the ''National Survey of Crystalline Rocks'' (ORCD-1), which serves as the foundation for all siting work done to date. The national survey was conducted utilizing little of the time or staffing required for this important phase of the Crystalline Repository Program. As a result, the national survey is based upon out-of-date scientific literature, exaggerates certain screening variables that favor the selection of regions in the eastern US and arbitrarily eliminated the few western crystalline rock bodies that passed the questionable screening process utilized

  9. 78 FR 56239 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-12

    ... personal privacy. Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences... and Related Clinical Sciences Study Section. Date: October 10-11, 2013. Time: 8:00 am to 6:00 pm...: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative Nutrition...

  10. 76 FR 14674 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-17

    ...-435- 1033, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for... 4142, [[Page 14675

  11. Practical epistemology: the role of peer review in organizing scientific research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Alexei V. Shestopal

    2014-01-01

    Full Text Available The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal process, wherein observance of this procedure can be seen as the main criteria, which separates scientific evidence from mere testimony. The description of the main elements of the peer review procedure is based on the "Statement of principles for scientific merit review" the summary of the results of the Global Summit on Merit Review, which brought together heads of science funding organizations from more than 50 countries. The Statement listed the following principles: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, integrity and ethical considerations. Although these principles are seen as a way to guarantee efficient peer review one has to consider the peculiarities of a particular research area, first of all the differences between social and natural sciences. Accordingly the article gives an overview of key traits of peer review in the social sciences and humanities. The authors also consider the main procedural elements - preparation of individual reviews, consideration by panels, anonymity of reviewers. Finally the article addresses the problems of peer review such as non-transparent process, elitism in selecting reviewers, conservativeness of decisions, and possible ways of handling these problems.

  12. Overcoming the gender gap: increasing gender diversity, scientific scholarship and social legitimacy of our profession.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Golding, Penny M

    2015-06-01

    This article examines a recent college review of the gender distribution on Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry (RANZCP) committees. It includes an analysis of the key reasons we should seek to address the gender disparity in our committees and conference speakers and strategies by which to achieve this. The gender gap in Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry leadership influences the perception, social legitimacy, problem-solving capacity and scientific direction of our field. We could improve equality in our college committees and conference speakers by adopting strategies used by governments and other professional associations. © The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2015.

  13. A New Ethical Challenge for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs/Ethics Committees (ECs in the Assessment of Pediatric Clinical Trials

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Klaus Rose

    2015-05-01

    Full Text Available Both the US and EU have introduced pediatric pharmaceutical legislation to facilitate clinical trials in children and development of better medicines for children. The first concerns were published in 2014 that the European Medicines Agency (EMA’s Pediatric Committee (PDCO may be over-enthusiastic and has compelled questionable pediatric clinical trials from pharmaceutical companies. Numerous clinical trials are mandated in rare conditions for which not enough patients exist for even one trial. Furthermore, where these trials are mandated in adolescent patients, the legal age limit of the 18th birthday is confused with a medical age limit and can result in separate clinical trials in adolescent patients that neither make medical nor scientific sense nor will ever recruit enough patients for a meaningful outcome. To confirm our concerns we searched the registry clinicaltrials.gov and found examples for PDCO-triggered unethical trials. We conclude that such trials should not be accepted by institutional review boards (IRBs/ethics committees (ECs and that clinical trials resulting from negotiations with EMA’s PDCO need extra careful scrutiny by IRBs/ECs in order to prevent unethical studies and damage to pediatric research and unnecessary risks to pediatric patients.

  14. 42 CFR 50.405 - What is the structure of review committees?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false What is the structure of review committees? 50.405 Section 50.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS POLICIES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY Public Health Service Grant Appeals Procedure § 50.405 What is the...

  15. The 2007 annual report of the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Randall, Brad; Wilson, Ann L

    2008-08-01

    The mission of the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee (RICMRC) is to review infant and child deaths so that information can be transformed into action to protect young lives. The 2007 review area includes South Dakota's Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Moody, Lake, McCook, Union, Hansen, Miner and Brookings counties. Although there were no deaths in 2007 that met the criteria of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in our region, there were three infant deaths associated with unsafe sleeping environments (including adult co-sleeping) that either caused or potentially may have caused these infants' deaths. We need to continue to promote the "Back to Sleep" campaign message of not only placing infants to sleep on their backs, but also making sure infants are put down to sleep on safe, firm sleeping surfaces and that they are appropriately dressed for the ambient temperature. Parents need to be aware of the potential hazards of co-sleeping with their infants. Compared to nine such deaths in 2006, only four deaths in 2007 involved motor-vehicle crashes, none of which were alcohol related. Two drowning deaths illustrated the rapidity in which even momentary caregiver distractions can lead to deaths in children in and around water. Since 1997 the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee (RICMRC) has sought to achieve its mission to "review infant and child deaths so that information can be transformed into action to protect young lives." For 2007, the committee reviewed 25 deaths from Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Moody, Lake, McCook, Union, Hansen, Miner and Brookings counties that met the following criteria: Children under the age of 18 dying subsequent to hospital discharge following delivery. Children who either died in these counties from causes sustained in them, or residents who died elsewhere from causes sustained in the 10-county region. The report that follows reviews the committee's activities for 2007. No deaths meeting the criteria

  16. The philosophy of scientific experimentation: a review

    Science.gov (United States)

    2009-01-01

    Practicing and studying automated experimentation may benefit from philosophical reflection on experimental science in general. This paper reviews the relevant literature and discusses central issues in the philosophy of scientific experimentation. The first two sections present brief accounts of the rise of experimental science and of its philosophical study. The next sections discuss three central issues of scientific experimentation: the scientific and philosophical significance of intervention and production, the relationship between experimental science and technology, and the interactions between experimental and theoretical work. The concluding section identifies three issues for further research: the role of computing and, more specifically, automating, in experimental research, the nature of experimentation in the social and human sciences, and the significance of normative, including ethical, problems in experimental science. PMID:20098589

  17. Social-scientific global change research in the Netherlands. A future study by order of the Human Dimensions Programme (HDP) Committee

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Correlje, A.F.

    2000-09-01

    Problems of global change, associated with climate change and water management, are perceived as increasingly urgent. New issues emerge around the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Imperative questions are being asked about the impacts of continuing economic growth and free trade on the global environment, and about the way in which these impacts can be addressed. Difficulties in the management of water systems suggest the need for more effective, integral approaches to the governance of those systems. The analysis of these problems and their consequences for humankind, as well as the formulation of strategies to reduce the impacts, urge for global change problems to be translated into research questions for the social sciences. The four 'International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change' (HDP) Science Projects have produced considerable progress in this field. The Netherlands HDP Committee intends to influence national organisations like Departments, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the universities in their decisions regarding the funding of social scientific global change research. This report suggests that the most promising way forward for the Netherlands HDP Committee is to formulate a limited number of themes for research, taking into notice the research infrastructure in the Netherlands. Research projects can be undertaken under the auspices of various Dutch and foreign programmes and organisations. Yet, through formulating a limited number of research themes, the Netherlands HDP Committee seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for embedding strategic and fundamental social sciences research. The establishment of such a framework will contribute to the exchange and mutual reinforcement of ideas, resources and results and, thus, to an enhanced role of the social scientific global change research in the Netherlands. The report proposes three main foci for social scientific global change research in

  18. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Boyack, Kevin W; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2014-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the scientific community and the taxpaying public. Towards this purpose, we have created the first system-level description of peer review at CSR by applying text analysis, bibliometric, and graph visualization techniques to administrative records. We identify otherwise latent relationships across scientific clusters, which in turn suggest opportunities for structural reorganization of the system based on expert evaluation. Such studies support the creation of monitoring tools and provide transparency and knowledge to stakeholders.

  19. 78 FR 15373 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-03-11

    ....S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C...). Contact Person: Yi-Hsin Liu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National...

  20. 76 FR 36931 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-23

    ... U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C...: Yi-Hsin Liu, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of...

  1. 75 FR 51082 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-18

    ... U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C... Conference Call). Contact Person: Yi-Hsin Liu, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review...

  2. On superconductivity and superfluidity. A scientific autobiography

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Ginzburg, Vitaly L.

    2009-01-01

    This book presents the Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg's views on the development in the field of superconductivity. It contains a selection of Ginzburg's key writings, including his amended version of the Nobel lecture in Physics 2003. Also included are an expanded autobiography, which was written for the Nobel Committee, an article entitled ''A Scientific Autobiography: An Attempt,'' a fundamental article co-written with L.D. Landau entitled ''To the theory of superconductivity,'' an expanded review article ''Superconductivity and superfluidity (what was done and what was not done),'' and some newly written short articles about superconductivity and related subjects. So, in toto, presented here are the personal contributions of Ginzburg, that resulted in the Nobel Prize, in the context of his scientific biography. (orig.)

  3. On superconductivity and superfluidity a scientific autobiography

    CERN Document Server

    Ginzburg, Vitalii Lazarevich

    2009-01-01

    This book presents the Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg's views on the development in the field of superconductivity. It contains a selection of Ginzburg's key writings, including his amended version of the Nobel lecture in Physics 2003. Also included are an expanded autobiography, which was written for the Nobel Committee, an article entitled "A Scientific Autobiography: An Attempt," a fundamental article co-written with L.D. Landau entitled "To the theory of superconductivity," an expanded review article "Superconductivity and superfluidity (what was done and what was not done)," and some newly written short articles about superconductivity and related subjects. So, in toto, presented here are the personal contributions of Ginzburg, that resulted in the Nobel Prize, in the context of his scientific biography.

  4. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on advance science research. Result evaluation, interim evaluation, in-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2003

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2003-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Science Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the accomplishments of the research completed in Fiscal Year 2002, the accomplishments of the research started in Fiscal Year 2001, and the adequacy of the programs of the research to be started in Fiscal Year 2004 at Advanced Science Research Center of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of nine specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from May to July 2003. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 24, 2003, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on August 4, 2003. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Science Research. (author)

  5. Report of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advance Science Research. Result evaluation, interim evaluation, in-advance evaluation in fiscal year 2002

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2002-11-01

    The Research Evaluation Committee, which consisted of 13 members from outside of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), set up an Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Science Research in accordance with the Fundamental Guideline for the Evaluation of Research and Development (R and D) at JAERI' and its subsidiary regulations in order to evaluate the accomplishments of the research completed in Fiscal Year 2001, the accomplishments of the research started in Fiscal Year 2000, and the adequacy of the programs of the research to be started in Fiscal Year 2003 at Advanced Science Research Center of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee consisted of eight specialists from outside of JAERI. The Ad Hoc Review Committee conducted its activities from May to July 2002. The evaluation was performed on the basis of the materials submitted in advance and of the oral presentations made at the Ad Hoc Review Committee meeting which was held on June 4, 2002, in line with the items, viewpoints, and criteria for the evaluation specified by the Research Evaluation Committee. The result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee was submitted to the Research Evaluation Committee, and was judged to be appropriate at its meeting held on August 5, 2002. This report describes the result of the evaluation by the Ad Hoc Review Committee on Advanced Science Research. (author)

  6. [Responsibilities of ethics committees].

    Science.gov (United States)

    von Bergmann, K

    2000-05-01

    Increasing numbers of clinical research projects are submitted to ethical committees (institutional review boards) for approval. New therapeutic developments have to be evaluated by these committees to protect patients/volunteers. Thus, the responsibility of ethical committees is increasing. The "Nürnberger Kodex" and the "Declaration of Helsinki" are the background for these evaluations. According to the German drug law the physician is obligated by law to submit the protocol to such a committee. In addition, local state physician authorities require such a procedure. Important considerations during the review process besides ethical aspects are the informed consent, which should be written in an understandable form, and the obligations of the insurance.

  7. 78 FR 64516 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-29

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated... of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; HIV/AIDS Vaccines Study Section... the Microflora in the Etiology of Gastro- Intestinal Cancer. Date: November 7, 2013. Time: 2:00 p.m...

  8. 75 FR 51277 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-19

    ...: Clinical and Care Delivery Member Conflict SEP. Date: September 16, 2010. Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda...-435- 0681. [email protected] . Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and..., Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic...

  9. Research governance and scientific knowledge production in The Gambia

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Frederick U. Ozor

    2014-09-01

    Full Text Available Public research institutions and scientists are principal actors in the production and transfer of scientific knowledge, technologies and innovations for application in industry as well for social and economic development. Based on the relevance of science and technology actors, the aim of this study was to identify and explain factors in research governance that influence scientific knowledge production and to contribute to empirical discussions on the impact levels of different governance models and structures. These discussions appear limited and mixed in the literature, although still are ongoing. No previous study has examined the possible contribution of the scientific committee model of research governance to scientific performance at the individual level of the scientist. In this context, this study contributes to these discussions, firstly, by suggesting that scientific committee structures with significant research steering autonomy could contribute not only directly to scientific output but also indirectly through moderating effects on research practices. Secondly, it is argued that autonomous scientific committee structures tend to play a better steering role than do management-centric models and structures of research governance.

  10. Practical epistemology: the role of peer review in organizing scientific research

    OpenAIRE

    Alexei V. Shestopal; Vladimir I. Konnov

    2014-01-01

    The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal pro...

  11. How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Soligard, Torbjørn; Schwellnus, Martin; Alonso, Juan-Manuel; Bahr, Roald; Clarsen, Ben; Dijkstra, H. Paul; Gabbett, Tim; Gleeson, Michael; Hägglund, Martin; Hutchinson, Mark R.; Janse van Rensburg, Christa; Khan, Karim M.; Meeusen, Romain; Orchard, John W.; Pluim, Babette M.; Raftery, Martin; Budgett, Richard; Engebretsen, Lars

    2016-01-01

    Athletes participating in elite sports are exposed to high training loads and increasingly saturated competition calendars. Emerging evidence indicates that poor load management is a major risk factor for injury. The International Olympic Committee convened an expert group to review the scientific

  12. Marketing of radurised food in South Africa: review of a steering committee

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Basson, J.K.; Basson, R.A.; Brodrick, H.T.; Du Plessis, T.A.

    1993-01-01

    The marketing of radurised food has been developed by a Steering Committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture in 1981. Membership included representatives from relevant government departments, scientific institutions, organised agriculture, commerce, consumer organisations and the food industry. Its investigations concentrated on the application of the radurisation process to the commercial treatment of food in South Africa and included marketing trials, public perception, safety aspects and possible international trade. Results of a recent status report are presented, which could serve as an example to other countries developing commercial radurisation. (Author)

  13. 75 FR 78719 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-16

    ...--Topics in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. Date: January 6, 2011. Time: 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Agenda... . Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group. Clinical... . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical...

  14. 76 FR 64330 - Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-10-18

    ... Report from Applied Math Workshop on Mathematics for the Analysis, Simulation, and Optimization of....gov . You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days prior to the meeting... the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment...

  15. 78 FR 64229 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-28

    ... Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Molecular and Cellular Biology Study...: Cancer Drug Developments & Therapeutics. Date: November 14-15, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda... Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Cancer Health Disparities/Diversity in Basic Cancer Research. Date: November 18...

  16. 78 FR 60297 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-01

    ..., Rockville, MD 20852. Contact Person: Leonid V. Tsap, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific...: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Patrick K Lai, Ph.D...

  17. 78 FR 735 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-04

    ..., CA 94102. Contact Person: Eileen W Bradley, DSC, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific...-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: December 31, 2012. Melanie J. Gray...

  18. Standing Concertation Committee

    CERN Document Server

    HR Department

    2009-01-01

    Main points examined at the meeting of 24 June 2009 Results of the 2009 MARS exercise The Committee took note of the results of the 2009 MARS exercise presented by the Head of the HR Department, expressing satisfaction for the early availability of the statistics and for the fact that the analysis of the results covered the last three years. Status report on the work on the five-yearly review The Committee took note of a presentation by P. Gildemyn on the data collection procedure for the 2010 five-yearly review (staff, fellows, associate members of the personnel, CHIS) and of the proposed work schedule. Implications for employment conditions of the discussions at the Finance Committee and Council on 17 and 18 June 2009 The Chairman briefly reported on the discussions at the meetings of the Finance Committee and Council in June 2009, on the 2010-2014 medium-term plan and the 2010 preliminary draft budget, as well as on the modified strategy and goals for 2009. The Committee ...

  19. The Service Review Committee: Royal College of Radiologists. Philosophy, role, and lessons to be learned

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Thind, R.; Barter, S.

    2008-01-01

    The Service Review Committee (SRC) was established by the Board of the Faculty of Clinical Radiology in 2000. At the time, the RCR identified a clear need to respond appropriately and swiftly to requests for review of service provision in clinical radiology departments where trusts were concerned about standards or performance issues. It was recognized by the College that the poorly performing radiologist is often part of a department that is itself dysfunctional, and that sub-optimal performance may often reflect inadequate management, lack of support, overwhelming workload, or inadequate facilities. Following the completion of a range of service reviews during its first 6 years, the SRC recognized that among the reviews there were recurring themes and causes for poorly functioning departments. The committee felt it appropriate to share these with the wider radiological community. In doing so, it is hoped that other departments may recognize their own problems at an early stage and take appropriate steps to prevent any escalation of difficulties

  20. 76 FR 22907 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-25

    ... Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015. Contact Person: Patrick K Lai, PhD... 20892, 301-408- 9901, [email protected] . Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Developmental Brain Disorders Study Section. Date: June 2-3, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5...

  1. On superconductivity and superfluidity. A scientific autobiography

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Ginzburg, Vitaly L. [Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (Russian Federation). P.N. Lebedev Physical Inst.

    2009-07-01

    This book presents the Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg's views on the development in the field of superconductivity. It contains a selection of Ginzburg's key writings, including his amended version of the Nobel lecture in Physics 2003. Also included are an expanded autobiography, which was written for the Nobel Committee, an article entitled 'A Scientific Autobiography: An Attempt,' a fundamental article co-written with L.D. Landau entitled 'To the theory of superconductivity,' an expanded review article 'Superconductivity and superfluidity (what was done and what was not done),' and some newly written short articles about superconductivity and related subjects. So, in toto, presented here are the personal contributions of Ginzburg, that resulted in the Nobel Prize, in the context of his scientific biography. (orig.)

  2. Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia. The finding of an independent scientific review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Swan, J.M.; Neff, J.M.; Young, P.C.

    1994-01-01

    It is widely recognised that uncontrolled discharge of petroleum products or other materials from offshore oil and gas exploration and production wells, and from associated industrial operations including treatment and service facilities that are required to be on or near the coast, can have direct and sometimes deleterious impacts on the marine environment. In mid-1992, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association (APEA) commissioned five scientific reviews to examine the environmental implications of offshore petroleum developments in Australia. The reviews, carried out by an Independent Scientific Review Committee on behalf of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association (APEA) and the Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) deal with: (1) the preliminary geophysical exploration of the sea bed and underlying strata using seismic surveys, and especially the effects of bursts of underwater sound energy on biological communities; (2) the drilling of offshore wells, especially the disposal of drilling fluids and drill cuttings; (3) the production of oil and gas from proven wells, especially the disposal of large quantities of produced formation water (fossil water); (4) the construction and operation of coastal support facilities and associated activities which might have consequences for marine habitats; (5) oil spills associated with any of the above operations and especially the likely short- and long-term effects of an accidental oil spill on marine biota and on the aesthetic and commercial values of an impacted coastline. Comments on the findings are preceded by a brief summary of background information, relevant technologies and the main implications for the marine environment. Some suggestions are provided for possible future research, monitoring and environmental management. refs., figs., tabs

  3. Mineral nutrition of cocoa : a review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Vliet, van J.A.; Slingerland, M.A.; Giller, K.E.

    2015-01-01

    This literature review on mineral nutrition of cocoa was commissioned by the Scientific Committee of the Cocoa Fertiliser Initiative to address the following questions: What knowledge is currently available about mineral nutrition of cocoa? What are the current knowledge gaps? What are the key areas

  4. Points from the September Committee Meetings

    CERN Multimedia

    2002-01-01

    After a turbulent year, the Committee meetings during the week beginning 16th September took a calmer nature, even if the follow-up of the cost-to-completion review was still a central topic of discussion. The detailed Action Plan and timetable for implementing the recommendations of the External Review Committee were among the principle items. The Plan is based on actions that address specific recommendations, from the redeployment of staff to the LHC to improved financial controls and budgetary tools. It was well received by the Committees and will be presented to the full CERN Council in December. In the meantime, many actions are underway, such as the restructuring of the Accelerator Sector, and the establishment of an external committee to review costs and progress of the LHC on an annual basis. The Finance Committee examined the proposed budget for 2003, which will also be presented to Council for approval in December. In addition, the Committee approved the volume of Industrial Support contracts for 20...

  5. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Bouësseau Marie-Charlotte

    2008-03-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants. Discussion Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices. The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals. Conclusion Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of

  6. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report: Development and Major Conclusions.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Millen, Barbara E; Abrams, Steve; Adams-Campbell, Lucile; Anderson, Cheryl Am; Brenna, J Thomas; Campbell, Wayne W; Clinton, Steven; Hu, Frank; Nelson, Miriam; Neuhouser, Marian L; Perez-Escamilla, Rafael; Siega-Riz, Anna Maria; Story, Mary; Lichtenstein, Alice H

    2016-05-01

    The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is published every 5 y jointly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the USDA and provides a framework for US-based food and nutrition programs, health promotion and disease prevention initiatives, and research priorities. Summarized in this report are the methods, major conclusions, and recommendations of the Scientific Report of the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). Early in the process, the DGAC developed a conceptual model and formulated questions to examine nutritional risk and determinants and impact of dietary patterns in relation to numerous health outcomes among individuals aged ≥2 y. As detailed in the report, an expansive, transparent, and comprehensive process was used to address each question, with multiple opportunities for public input included. Consensus was reached on all DGAC's findings, including each conclusion and recommendation, and the entire report. When research questions were answered by original systematic literature reviews and/or with existing, high-quality expert reports, the quality and strength of the evidence was formally graded. The report was organized around the following 5 themes: 1) food and nutrient intakes and health: current status and trends; 2) dietary patterns, foods and nutrients, and health outcomes; 3) diet and physical activity behavior change; 4) food and physical activity environments; and 5) food sustainability and food safety. The following 3 cross-cutting topics were addressed: 1) sodium, 2) saturated fat, and 3) added sugars. Physical activity recommendations from recent expert reports were endorsed. The overall quality of the American diet was assessed to identify overconsumed and underconsumed nutrients of public health concern. Common food characteristics of healthy dietary patterns were determined. Features of effective interventions to change individual and population diet and physical activity behaviors in clinical, public

  7. How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lippi, Giuseppe

    2018-02-01

    Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee's background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals.

  8. Extra-Judicial Complaints Review: First Experiences of the Dutch Public Procurement Experts Committee

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Jansen, C.E.C.; Janssen, J.G.J.; Muntz-Beekhuis, J.S.

    2014-01-01

    Article 4.27 of the Dutch Public Procurement Act 2012 (‘Aanbestedingswet’) provides for a statutory basis for extra-judicial public procurement complaints review by an independent body: The Public Procurement Experts Committee (‘Commissie van Aanbestedingsexperts’), hereinafter referred to as: ‘the

  9. 75 FR 3241 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-20

    ... Review Group; Bioengineering, Technology and Surgical Sciences Study Section. Date: February 11-12, 2010... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Addiction and Toxicity. Date: February...

  10. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Lutz Bornmann

    Full Text Available Does peer review fulfill its declared objective of identifying the best science and the best scientists? In order to answer this question we analyzed the Long-Term Fellowship and the Young Investigator programmes of the European Molecular Biology Organization. Both programmes aim to identify and support the best post doctoral fellows and young group leaders in the life sciences. We checked the association between the selection decisions and the scientific performance of the applicants. Our study involved publication and citation data for 668 applicants to the Long-Term Fellowship programme from the year 1998 (130 approved, 538 rejected and 297 applicants to the Young Investigator programme (39 approved and 258 rejected applicants from the years 2001 and 2002. If quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement, the results of (zero-truncated negative binomial models show that the peer review process indeed selects scientists who perform on a higher level than the rejected ones subsequent to application. We determined the extent of errors due to over-estimation (type I errors and under-estimation (type 2 errors of future scientific performance. Our statistical analyses point out that between 26% and 48% of the decisions made to award or reject an application show one of both error types. Even though for a part of the applicants, the selection committee did not correctly estimate the applicant's future performance, the results show a statistically significant association between selection decisions and the applicants' scientific achievements, if quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement.

  11. [The treatment of scientific knowledge in the framework of CITES].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lanfranchi, Marie-Pierre

    2014-03-01

    Access to scientific knowledge in the context of CITES is a crucial issue. The effectiveness of the text is indeed largely based on adequate scientific knowledge of CITES species. This is a major challenge: more than 30,000 species and 178 member states are involved. The issue of expertise, however, is not really addressed by the Convention. The question was left to the consideration of the COP. Therefore, the COP has created two ad hoc scientific committees: the Plants Committee and the Animals Committee, conferring upon them an ambitious mandate. The article addresses some important issues at stake which are linked to institutional questions, as well as the mixed record after twenty-five years of practice.

  12. 75 FR 56554 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-16

    ... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1212, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations... meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center...

  13. 78 FR 78985 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-12-27

    ... 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1741, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle..., (301) 435-1741, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior...

  14. 78 FR 79705 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-12-31

    ... 20892-7844, 301-435-1033 [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of..., MD 20892, 301- 435-1722, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and...

  15. The 2008 annual report of the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Randall, Brad; Wilson, Ann

    2009-12-01

    The 2008 annual report of the Regional Infant and Child Mortality Review Committee (RICMRC) is presented. This committee has as its mission the review of infant and child deaths so that information can be transformed into action to protect young lives. The 2008 review area includes South Dakota's Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Moody, Lake, McCook, Union, Hansen, Miner and Brookings counties. Within our region in 2008, there were six infant deaths labeled as Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths (SUID), of which two met the criteria for the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The four non-SIDS SUID deaths all represented deaths where asphyxia from unsafe sleeping environments could not be excluded. In addition, there were two accidental deaths from asphyxia in unsafe sleeping enviroments. We need to continue to promote the "Back to Sleep" campaign message of not only placing infants to sleep on their backs, but also making sure infants are put down to sleep on safe, firm, sleeping surfaces and are appropriately dressed for the ambient temperature. Parents need to be aware of the potential hazards of bed-sharing with their infants. In both 2007 and 2008, four children died in motor vehicle crashes, none of which were alcohol-related. Three fire-related childhood deaths were associated with one house fire involving a nonfunctional smoke alarm and a sleeping arrangement without an easy egress from a fire. Since 1997, the RICMRC has sought to achieve its mission to "review infant and child deaths so that information can be transformed into action to protect young lives". For 2008, the committee reviewed 21 deaths from Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Moody, Lake, McCook, Union, Hansen, Miner and Brookings counties that met the following criteria: Children under the age of 18 dying subsequent to hospital discharge following delivery. Children who either died in these counties from causes sustained in them, or residents who died elsewhere from causes sustained in the ten-county region.

  16. 75 FR 32956 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-06-10

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Bone and Cartilage Biology. Date... Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Cell Biology and Molecular Imaging. Date: June 30, 2010...

  17. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ulrich ePöschl

    2012-07-01

    Full Text Available The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to the demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public.The advantages of open access, public peer review and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmo¬sphe¬ric Chemistry and Physics (ACP and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU and the open access publisher Copernicus.The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in

  18. 78 FR 3009 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-15

    .... Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Marina del Rey Hotel, 13534 Bali Way, Marina... North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review...

  19. 76 FR 24897 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-03

    ...: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group, Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: June 9-10... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Biophysics Integrated Review Group, Macromolecular Structure and Function A Study Section. Date: June 2, 2011...

  20. Assessment of the Jabiluka Project - Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World heritage Committee. Supervising Scientist report 138

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Johnston, A.; Prendergast, J.B.

    1999-01-01

    This report has been prepared in response to the request of the World Heritage Committee that the Supervising Scientist conduct a full review of scientific issues raised by the Committee's Mission to Kakadu National Park in October-November 1998. Perceived scientific uncertainty with respect to these issues had led to the Mission's conclusion that the natural values of Kakadu are threatened by the Jabiluka project. This detailed review has demonstrated that there were a number of weaknesses in the hydrological modelling presented by ERA in the EIS and the PER. Accordingly, a number of recommendations have been made which should be implemented by ERA in completing the detailed design of the Jabiluka project. On the other hand, the review has demonstrated quite clearly that, if the design of the water management system proposed by ERA in the PER had been implemented, the risk to the wetlands of Kakadu National Park, and the risk of radiation exposure to people of the region would have been extremely low. This conclusion is valid even in extreme circumstances leading to the complete failure of the structure of the water retention pond at Jabiluka. Copyright (2000) Commonwealth of Australia

  1. 76 FR 17928 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-31

    ...- 0684, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for... Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1777, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of...

  2. 75 FR 27351 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-14

    ... 20892, 301-435- 0952, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... Rockledge Drive, Room 5116, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435- 1171, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of...

  3. 76 FR 33322 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-08

    ...-402-4454, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for..., 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)435-3504, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name...

  4. 75 FR 55591 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-13

    ...-435- 0952, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center... Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1781, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of...

  5. 75 FR 4830 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-29

    ..., (301) 435-1767, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-4445, [email protected]csr.nih...

  6. 78 FR 72684 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-12-03

    ...-1246, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1775, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  7. 75 FR 64736 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-20

    ...-1215, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6194, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594- 7945, [email protected]csr.nih...

  8. 76 FR 12124 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-04

    ...-435-1501, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for..., (301) 435-1258, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the...

  9. 77 FR 37685 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-22

    ..., (301) 806-2515, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3493, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  10. 77 FR 38849 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-29

    ... 20892, 301-435-1038, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5208, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1165, [email protected]csr.nih...

  11. 78 FR 66754 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-11-06

    ..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 0677, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of... 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-3323, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of Committee: Center for...

  12. 78 FR 13361 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-27

    ...-435- 1211, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for..., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1050, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days...

  13. 75 FR 4095 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

    ..., (301) 435-1233, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center... Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1175, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . Name of...

  14. 76 FR 6803 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-02-08

    ... 20892, (301) 435-1219, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4811, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892 301-435-1203, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  15. 78 FR 48179 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-08-07

    ... 20892, (301) 435- 1712, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118A, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 5575, [email protected]csr.nih...

  16. 76 FR 28793 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-18

    ...-435- 0696, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Oncology 2..., Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451- 3493, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being...

  17. 77 FR 59198 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-26

    ... 20892, (301) 435-1741, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee... Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5170, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2406, [email protected]csr...

  18. 76 FR 17929 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-31

    ...-435- 1050, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for... Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1775, [email protected]csr.nih.gov...

  19. 77 FR 30021 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-05-21

    ... North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. Contact Person: Toby Behar, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer.... Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Marina del Rey Hotel, 13534 Bali Way, Marina...

  20. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume I: Sources

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-01-01

    Over the past few years the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation has undertaken a broad review of the sources and effects of ionizing radiation. In the present report, the Committee, drawing on the main conclusions of its scientific assessment summarizes the developments in radiation science in the years leading up to the next millennium. It covers the following: the effects of radiation exposure; levels of radiation exposure; radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident; sources of radiation exposure including natural exposures, man-made environmental exposures, medical and occupational exposures; radiation associated cancer. This volume includes five Annexes covering: dose assessment methodologies; exposure from natural sources; exposures to the public from man-made sources of radiation and occupational radiation exposures

  1. 77 FR 3277 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-23

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR-11-044: Indo-US Collaborative Program on Low-Cost Medical... Review Group; Biochemistry and Biophysics of Membranes Study Section. Date: February 16-17, 2012. Time: 8...

  2. General outline of scientific programme for 1971

    CERN Multimedia

    1971-01-01

    A description of the 1971 scientific and technical programme at CERN was prepared for the Scientific Policy Committee and was used to accompany the budget document. The opening chapter is reproduced here with a few minor modifications.

  3. Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ghosh, Satrajit S; Klein, Arno; Avants, Brian; Millman, K Jarrod

    2012-01-01

    Peer-reviewed publications are the primary mechanism for sharing scientific results. The current peer-review process is, however, fraught with many problems that undermine the pace, validity, and credibility of science. We highlight five salient problems: (1) reviewers are expected to have comprehensive expertise; (2) reviewers do not have sufficient access to methods and materials to evaluate a study; (3) reviewers are neither identified nor acknowledged; (4) there is no measure of the quality of a review; and (5) reviews take a lot of time, and once submitted cannot evolve. We propose that these problems can be resolved by making the following changes to the review process. Distributing reviews to many reviewers would allow each reviewer to focus on portions of the article that reflect the reviewer's specialty or area of interest and place less of a burden on any one reviewer. Providing reviewers materials and methods to perform comprehensive evaluation would facilitate transparency, greater scrutiny, and replication of results. Acknowledging reviewers makes it possible to quantitatively assess reviewer contributions, which could be used to establish the impact of the reviewer in the scientific community. Quantifying review quality could help establish the importance of individual reviews and reviewers as well as the submitted article. Finally, we recommend expediting post-publication reviews and allowing for the dialog to continue and flourish in a dynamic and interactive manner. We argue that these solutions can be implemented by adapting existing features from open-source software management and social networking technologies. We propose a model of an open, interactive review system that quantifies the significance of articles, the quality of reviews, and the reputation of reviewers.

  4. PFOA and possible health effects : A review of scientific literature

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Rijs KJ; Bogers RP; M&G; M&V

    2017-01-01

    Associations were found between blood concentrations of PFOA in humans and possible health effects and functioning of the body. This is the result of a review of previously performed reviews of the scientific literature on studies conducted among humans by the National Institute for Public Health

  5. 75 FR 65020 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-21

    .... Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, NW...: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, 999 California... Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Review...

  6. 77 FR 63844 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-17

    ...: Personality Studies. Date: November 12, 2012. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Metabolism, Obesity and Diabetes. Date: November...

  7. Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees

    OpenAIRE

    Li Hao; Wing Suen

    2009-01-01

    This article reviews recent developments in the theory of committee decision-making. A committee consists of self-interested members who make a public decision by aggregating imperfect information dispersed among them according to a pre-specified decision rule. We focus on costly information acquisition, strategic information aggregation, and rules and processes that enhance the quality of the committee decision. Seeming inefficiencies of the committee decision-making process such as over-cau...

  8. 77 FR 65568 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-10-29

    ..., (301) 435- 2398, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center..., [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the...

  9. 77 FR 73474 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-12-10

    ... 20892, (301) 806-3323, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee..., [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the...

  10. 76 FR 4924 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-27

    ..., (301) 435- 2344, [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: [email protected]csr.nih.gov . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing...

  11. Report of the third meeting of the SSDL Scientific Committee (SSC). Vienna, 19-23 September 1988

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1988-01-01

    The SSDL Scientific Committee (SSC) was appointed in 1985 by the Director General of the IAEA, in consultation with and the concurrence of the Director General of the WHO. As indicated in its Terms of Reference, the main objective of the SSC is to advise the Directors General of the IAEA and WHO regarding the programme of work of the IAEA/WHO Network of Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratories (SSDLs). The first meeting of the SSC was held in May 1986 and the recommendations were reported in IAEA SSDL Newsletter No. 25, October 1986. The second meeting of the SSC was held in June 1987 and the recommendations were reported in the SSDL Newsletter No. 26, October 1987. Discussions and recommendations of this meeting are covered in this report

  12. 77 FR 1704 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-11

    ...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; R15: Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Oral, Bone and Skeletal Muscle Biology. Date: February 7-8, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Agenda: To review and...

  13. 77 FR 4049 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-26

    ...: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Urologic and Genitourinary Physiology and... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Delivery Systems Study Section. Date: February 23-24, 2012. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and...

  14. Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ignacio Segarra

    2017-07-01

    Full Text Available The efforts toward individualized medicine have constantly increased in an attempt to improve treatment options. These efforts have led to the development of small molecules which target specific molecular pathways involved in cancer progression. We have reviewed preclinical studies of sunitinib that incorporate sex as a covariate to explore possible sex-based differences in pharmacokinetics and drug–drug interactions (DDI to attempt a relationship with published clinical outputs. We observed that covariate sex is lacking in most clinical outcome reports and suggest a series of ethic-based proposals to improve research activities and identify relevant different sex outcomes. We propose a deeper integration of preclinical, clinical, and translational research addressing statistical and clinical significance jointly; to embed specific sex-divergent endpoints to evaluate possible gender differences objectively during all stages of research; to pay greater attention to sex-divergent outcomes in polypharmacy scenarios, DDI and bioequivalence studies; the clear reporting of preclinical and clinical findings regarding sex-divergent outcomes; as well as to encourage the active role of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry to foster a new scientific culture through their research programs, practice, and participation in editorial boards and Institutional Ethics Review Boards (IRBs and Research Ethics Committees (RECs. We establish the IRB/REC as the centerpiece for the implementation of these proposals. We suggest the expansion of its competence to follow up clinical trials to ensure that sex differences are addressed and recognized; to engage in data monitoring committees to improve clinical research cooperation and ethically address those potential clinical outcome differences between male and female patients to analyze their social and clinical implications in research and healthcare policies.

  15. How do I peer-review a scientific article?—a personal perspective

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-01-01

    Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee’s background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals. PMID:29610756

  16. 75 FR 8369 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-24

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM-09-007: Pilot-Scale Libraries for High Throughput Screening. Date: March 15, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications...

  17. 78 FR 12422 - Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-22

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit, mission relevance, and the... Program Manager, Scientific Merit Review Board, Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research...

  18. 78 FR 46358 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-07-31

    ..., (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Careen K Tang-Toth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for... Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cognition and Perception. Date: August 28-29, 2013. Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6... Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Mark Lindner, Ph.D., Scientific...

  19. 78 FR 6854 - Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-31

    ... DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit... Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will meet on February 13-14, 2013, at the... research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit. Recommendations regarding funding...

  20. 75 FR 19982 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-16

    ...: Social Sciences and Population Studies. Date: May 7, 2010. Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Agenda: To review...--Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Basic Mechanisms of Cancer Therapeutics Study Section. Date: May... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Immunology Mechanism. Date: May 27, 2010. Time: 9...

  1. 75 FR 64720 - DOE/Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-20

    ...: Tuesday, November 9, 2010: View from Washington, ASCR Update, Program Response to Math COV, Exascale... ). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days prior to the meeting... the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment...

  2. 77 FR 37422 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-21

    ... Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Diabetes and Obesity. Date: July 17, 2012. Time: 8... Motor Function. Date: July 18, 2012. Time: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant...

  3. 76 FR 29722 - Elko Resource Advisory Committee

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-05-23

    ... (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The...- Determination Act; (2) Review roles of RAC committee members and Committee Chairman; (3) Overview of project...

  4. Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pöschl, Ulrich

    2012-01-01

    The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including

  5. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume II: Effects

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2000-01-01

    Over the past few years the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation has undertaken a broad review of the sources and effects of ionizing radiation. In the present report, the Committee, drawing on the main conclusions of its scientific assessment summarizes the developments in radiation science in the years leading up to the next millennium. It covers the following: the effects of radiation exposure; levels of radiation exposure; radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident; sources of radiation exposure including natural exposures, man-made environmental exposures, medical and occupational exposures; radiation associated cancer. This volume includes five Annexes covering: DNA repair and mutagenesis; biological effects at low radiation doses; combined effects of radiation and other agents; epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer and exposure effects of the Chernobyl accident

  6. 76 FR 2399 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-13

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Selected Topics in Transfusion Medicine. Date: February... Epidemiology Integrated Review Group, Cardiovascular and Sleep Epidemiology Study Section. Date: February [email protected] . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93...

  7. A technical review and assessment of the BEIR V [Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V] report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1990-03-01

    This report was prepared by the DOE BEIR V Technical Review Committee (TRC) to provide a technical review and assessment of the National Research Council's Bilogical Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Committee's Report entitled ''Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation'' (BEIR V). This report contains seven sections. The first section serves as an introduction and reviews the charge to the TRC. The second section is a chapter-by- chapter summary of the BEIR V Report. The third section is a summary of the risk estimates and conclusions of the BEIR V Committee for genetic effects, cancer induction, and in utero effects. The fourth section is a summary and analysis of the new scientific information used by the BEIR V Committee in developing its risk recommendations and conclusions. The fifth section is an assessment of the scientific information and methods used by the BEIR V Committee in developing their risk estimates and conclusions and an analysis of the key assumptions underlying the use of these risk estimates in risk assessment. The sixth section is the TRC'S assessment of the regulatory implications of the BEIR V risk estimates and conclusions for DOE nuclear operations. The seventh and final section is the TRC'S recommended actions for DOE's consideration concerning the BEIR V Report risk estimates and conclusions. 23 refs., 5 tabs

  8. Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

    2016-03-01

    Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills. Students enrolled in the Scientific Writing course completed multiple writing assignments, including three revisions after receiving peer and instructor feedback. Students self-assessed their knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to science and writing in pre- and postcourse surveys (n = 26 with complete data). Seven survey items related to scientific literacy and writing skills impacted by peer review were selected for analysis. Scores on these survey items were summed to form a composite self-rating score. Responses to two questions regarding the most useful learning activities were submitted to frequency analysis. Mean postcourse scores for individual survey items and composite self-rating scores were significantly higher than precourse means (P writing skills. In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing. Copyright © 2016 The American Physiological Society.

  9. Advice 14-2014 of the Scientific Committee of the Belgian Food Safety Agency and the Superior Health Council Nr. 9160 on food safety

    OpenAIRE

    Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain

    2014-01-01

    In the search for alternative dietary protein sources, insects appear to offer great potential. Currently there are no specific regulations neither in Belgium, nor in Europe, on the breeding and marketing of insects destined for human consumption. The trade of a number of insect species destined for human consumption is however tolerated in Belgium. In this context, the Scientific Committee and the Superior Health Council are asked to give advice on the potential risk...

  10. 77 FR 3478 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-24

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... evaluate grant applications. Place: Sheraton Delfina Santa Monica Hotel, 530 West Pico Boulevard, Santa... Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892...

  11. 77 FR 33476 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-06

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Hematology. Date: June 25-26, 2012. Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant..., Drug Use, Food Insecurity. Date: June 26, 2012. Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and...

  12. Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bentz, E.J. Jr.; Bentz, C.B.; O'Hora, T.D.; Chen, S.Y.

    1997-01-01

    The 1,350 square-mile Nevada Test Site and additional sites in Nevada served as the continental sites for US nuclear weapons testing from 1951 to 1992. The Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program (NRAMP) is a currently on-going effort of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the firm of E. J. Bentz and Associates, Inc., in cooperation with the US Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Program. Argonne National Laboratory is one of several public and private organizations supporting personnel appointed by the NRAMP to the NRAMP Scientific Peer Review Panel. The NRAMP is part of a national effort by the DOE to develop new sources of information and approaches to risk assessment, risk management, risk communication, and public outreach relevant to the ecological and human health effects of radioactive and hazardous materials management and site remediation activities. This paper describes the development, conduct, and current results of the scientific peer review process which supports the goals of the NRAMP

  13. Computational physics and applied mathematics capability review June 8-10, 2010 (Advance materials to committee members)

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Lee, Stephen R [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2010-01-01

    Los Alamos National Laboratory will review its Computational Physics and Applied Mathematics (CPAM) capabilities in 2010. The goals of capability reviews are to assess the quality of science, technology, and engineering (STE) performed by the capability, evaluate the integration of this capability across the Laboratory and within the scientific community, examine the relevance of this capability to the Laboratory's programs, and provide advice on the current and future directions of this capability. This is the first such review for CPAM, which has a long and unique history at the laboratory, starting from the inception of the Laboratory in 1943. The CPAM capability covers an extremely broad technical area at Los Alamos, encompassing a wide array of disciplines, research topics, and organizations. A vast array of technical disciplines and activities are included in this capability, from general numerical modeling, to coupled mUlti-physics simulations, to detailed domain science activities in mathematics, methods, and algorithms. The CPAM capability involves over 12 different technical divisions and a majority of our programmatic and scientific activities. To make this large scope tractable, the CPAM capability is broken into the following six technical 'themes.' These themes represent technical slices through the CP AM capability and collect critical core competencies of the Laboratory, each of which contributes to the capability (and each of which is divided into multiple additional elements in the detailed descriptions of the themes in subsequent sections): (1) Computational Fluid Dynamics - This theme speaks to the vast array of scientific capabilities for the simulation of fluids under shocks, low-speed flow, and turbulent conditions - which are key, historical, and fundamental strengths of the laboratory; (2) Partial Differential Equations - The technical scope of this theme is the applied mathematics and numerical solution of partial

  14. 75 FR 64735 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-20

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Experimental Cancer Therapeutics... Conflict: HIV/AIDS. Date: November 16, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant...

  15. Dealing with scientific integrity issues: the Spanish experience.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Puigdomènech, Pere

    2014-02-01

    Integrity has been an important matter of concern for the scientific community as it affects the basis of its activities. Most countries having a significant scientific activity have dealt with this problem by different means, including drafting specific legal or soft law regulations and the appointment of stable or ad hoc committees that take care of these questions. This has also been the case in Spain. After the period of transition between dictatorship to a democratic regime, and, particularly, after the entrance in the European Union, scientific activity has increased in the country. As it could be expected, problems of misconduct have appeared and different institutions have been dealing with these matters. One of the best examples is that of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), the largest institution devoted to scientific research belonging to the Spanish Government. The experience of the CSIC’s Ethics Committee in dealing with conflicts related to scientific practices is discussed here.

  16. (No) Limits to Anglo-American Accounting? Reconstructing the History of the International Accounting Standards Committee ; A Review Article

    OpenAIRE

    Botzem, S.; Quack, S.

    2009-01-01

    The development of the current International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from the earlier International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) provides insight into many issues of international financial reporting, among them the characteristics of international accounting standards themselves. This article reviews Camfferman and Zeff’s [Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets. A history of the international accounting standards committee 1973...

  17. Radioactive Operations Committee Review of the Intermediate-Level Waste Evaporator Facility, Building 2531 February 17, 1972

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Liberman, B.; Brooksbank, R.E.

    1972-01-01

    A subcommittee of the Radioactive Operations Committee met with the Operators of the Intermediate Level Waste Evaporator Facility on February 17, 1972, to discuss the status of the facility and its operations since the review of October 7, 1970, and reported in ORNL-CF-70-11-12. This review was made to determine the status of the ILWEF since the last review, to discuss compliance with previously recommended changes, and to review any new items of safety significance. Several recommendations were made.

  18. Executive summary and guide to final report: Advisory committee on human radiation experiments

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    1995-01-01

    On January 15, 1994, President Clinton appointed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments to investigate reports of possibly unethical experiments funded by the government decades ago. The Committee was directed to uncover the history of human radiation experiments during the period 1944 through 1974 and to examine cases in which the government had intentionally released radiation into the environment for research purposes. The Committee was further charged with identifying the ethical and scientific standards for evaluating these events, and with making recommendations to ensure that whatever wrongdoing may have ocurred in the past cannot be repeated. The Committee undertook three projects: A review of how each agency of the federal government that currently conducts or funds research involving human subjects regulates this activity or oversees it; An examination of the documents and consent forms of research projects that are today sponsored by the federal government in order to develop insight into the current status of protections for the rights and interests of human subjects; and, Interviews of nearly 1,900 patients receiving out-patient medical care in private hospitals and federal facilities throughout the country. This booklet provides an overview of the Final Report, summarizing each chapter.

  19. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Galipeau, James; Barbour, Virginia; Baskin, Patricia; Bell-Syer, Sally; Cobey, Kelly; Cumpston, Miranda; Deeks, Jon; Garner, Paul; MacLehose, Harriet; Shamseer, Larissa; Straus, Sharon; Tugwell, Peter; Wager, Elizabeth; Winker, Margaret; Moher, David

    2016-02-02

    Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the

  20. 75 FR 51081 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-18

    ...: Pregnancy, Neonatology, and Nutrition. Date: September 7-8, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review...

  1. 78 FR 59040 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-09-25

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... review and evaluate grant applications. Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC..., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435- 1775...

  2. 75 FR 54159 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-09-03

    ...; Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section. Date: September 27-28, 2010. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m... Review Group; Social Psychology, Personality and Interpersonal Processes Study Section. Date: October 11... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neurodegenerative Disorders. Date: October 11-12, 2010...

  3. 76 FR 24036 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-04-29

    ...: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group, Pathobiology of Kidney Disease Study... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Group, Somatosensory and Chemosensory Systems Study Section. Datea: June 7-8, 2011. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p...

  4. 76 FR 3914 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-21

    ...: Tumor Biology and Therapy. Date: February 1-2, 2011. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Biomedical Sensing, Measurement and Instrumentation... Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333...

  5. 78 FR 61377 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-03

    ... commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel;PAR-13-007: Early-Stage Pharmacological Validation of... Conflict: Cognition and Perception. Date: October 31, 2013. Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Agenda: To review...

  6. 75 FR 26262 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-05-11

    ... evaluate grant applications. Place: Little America Hotel, 500 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101....m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Little America Hotel, 500 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, PhD, Scientific Review Officer...

  7. PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN PSYCHOLOGY: DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COMPLAINTS REVIEWED BY THE COPC ETHICS COMMITTEE

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mila Arch

    2013-09-01

    Full Text Available In recent decades a significant increase has been observed in the number of complaints filed with ethical committees. The possibility of being the subject of a complaint is therefore a growing concern for professionals. However, research on ethics and codes of conduct in psychology is still very limited and real data on the complaints filed with Ethics Committees against psychologists are practically nonexistent. This article describes the results of a descriptive analysis of the complaints reviewed by the COPC Ethics Committee from 1998 to 2011. A total of 324 complaints were filed, but only 20% led to opening disciplinary proceedings, the judicial context being the professional area in which the highest percentage of complaints were filed (85%. Among the most prevalent reasons for complaints were making assessments without prior examination and partiality.

  8. Improving the Quality of Host Country Ethical Oversight of International Research: The Use of a Collaborative 'Pre-Review' Mechanism for a Study of Fexinidazole for Human African Trypanosomiasis.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Coleman, Carl H; Ardiot, Chantal; Blesson, Séverine; Bonnin, Yves; Bompart, Francois; Colonna, Pierre; Dhai, Ames; Ecuru, Julius; Edielu, Andrew; Hervé, Christian; Hirsch, François; Kouyaté, Bocar; Mamzer-Bruneel, Marie-France; Maoundé, Dionko; Martinent, Eric; Ntsiba, Honoré; Pelé, Gérard; Quéva, Gilles; Reinmund, Marie-Christine; Sarr, Samba Cor; Sepou, Abdoulaye; Tarral, Antoine; Tetimian, Djetodjide; Valverde, Olaf; Van Nieuwenhove, Simon; Strub-Wourgaft, Nathalie

    2015-12-01

    Developing countries face numerous barriers to conducting effective and efficient ethics reviews of international collaborative research. In addition to potentially overlooking important scientific and ethical considerations, inadequate or insufficiently trained ethics committees may insist on unwarranted changes to protocols that can impair a study's scientific or ethical validity. Moreover, poorly functioning review systems can impose substantial delays on the commencement of research, which needlessly undermine the development of new interventions for urgent medical needs. In response to these concerns, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), an independent nonprofit organization founded by a coalition of public sector and international organizations, developed a mechanism to facilitate more effective and efficient host country ethics review for a study of the use of fexinidazole for the treatment of late stage African Trypanosomiasis (HAT). The project involved the implementation of a novel 'pre-review' process of ethical oversight, conducted by an ad hoc committee of ethics committee representatives from African and European countries, in collaboration with internationally recognized scientific experts. This article examines the process and outcomes of this collaborative process. © 2014 The Authors. Developing World Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  9. ETHICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF FUNCTIONING OF ETHIC COMMITTEES IN BULGARIA

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mariela Deliverska

    2017-06-01

    Full Text Available Scientific research has to be based on ethical standards that promote the protection of human rights. On a national level, the domestic legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria foresees a procedure for obtaining an opinion from the Ethics Committee for Multicentre Trials in order to introduce a substantial change in a clinical trial and non-interventional study. The procedure aims to evaluate the compliance of the planned clinical trial with the norms of good clinical practice, the requirements of the Medicinal Products in Human Medicine Act. On European Union level, standards have been set down in Regulation (EC No. 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use. The licensing regime that has been introduced on a national level requires the performance of documentation evaluation that addresses a major change in a clinical trial and non-interventional research. Legal definitions of the terms "principal investigator" and "coordinating investigator" have been introduced. The "principal investigator" is the medical doctor or the dentist, designated by the sponsor, who leads the overall execution of the clinical trial in accordance with the approved protocol and good clinical practice guidelines and is responsible for the researchers. The "coordinating researcher" is a researcher appointed to coordinate researchers from different centres participating in a multicentre trial. Ethic committees performing review have to provide independent advice on the extent to which a biomedical research proposal complies with recognized ethical standards. Scientific research must necessarily conform to commonly accepted scientific principles and be based on thorough knowledge of scientific literature and other relevant sources of information.

  10. 78 FR 9064 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-02-07

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review... Panel; PAR Panel: Lymphatics in Health and Disease in the Digestive, Urinary, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Systems. Date: March 4-5, 2013. Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant...

  11. 78 FR 60294 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-01

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: The Molecular Immunology of Host... Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics in Bacterial Pathogenesis and Antimicrobial Resistance...

  12. Compendium of Scientific Linacs

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Clendenin, James E

    2003-05-16

    The International Committee supported the proposal of the Chairman of the XVIII International Linac Conference to issue a new Compendium of linear accelerators. The last one was published in 1976. The Local Organizing Committee of Linac96 decided to set up a sub-committee for this purpose. Contrary to the catalogues of the High Energy Accelerators which compile accelerators with energies above 1 GeV, we have not defined a specific limit in energy. Microtrons and cyclotrons are not in this compendium. Also data from thousands of medical and industrial linacs has not been collected. Therefore, only scientific linacs are listed in the present compendium. Each linac found in this research and involved in a physics context was considered. It could be used, for example, either as an injector for high energy accelerators, or in nuclear physics, materials physics, free electron lasers or synchrotron light machines. Linear accelerators are developed in three continents only: America, Asia, and Europe. This geographical distribution is kept as a basis. The compendium contains the parameters and status of scientific linacs. Most of these linacs are operational. However, many facilities under construction or design studies are also included. A special mention has been made at the end for the studies of future linear colliders.

  13. ESO and Chile: 10 Years of Productive Scientific Collaboration

    Science.gov (United States)

    2006-06-01

    ceremony, along with ambassadors in Chile of ESO members States, and representatives of the Chilean government and the scientific community. To review the impact of the numerous projects financed over the last decade, ESO presented the book "10 Years Exploring the Universe", based on the reports of the beneficiaries of the ESO-Chile fund. Since the beginning, the ESO-Chile fund has granted over 2.5 million euros to finance post-doc and astronomy professors for main Chilean universities, development of research infrastructure, organisation of scientific congresses, workshops for science teachers, and astronomy outreach programmes for the public. In addition to the 400,000 euros given annually by ESO to the ESO-Chile Joint Committee, around 550,000 euros are granted every year to finance regional collaboration programmes, fellowships for students in Chilean universities, and the development of radio astronomy through the ALMA-Chile Committee. In total, apart form the 10 percent of the observing time at all ESO telescopes, ESO contributes annually with 950,000 euros for the promotion of astronomy and scientific culture in Chile. The growth of astronomy and related sciences in Chile in the last years has been outstanding. According to a study by the Chilean Academy of Science in 2005, the number of astronomers has doubled over the last 20 years and there has been an 8-fold increase in the number of scientific publications. It is gratifying to see that 100 percent of the observing time granted by international observatories in Chile is actually used by the national community. The same study stated that astronomy could be the first scientific discipline in Chile with the standards of a developed country, with additional benefits in terms of technological improvement and growth of human resources. The English edition of the book "10 Years Exploring the Universe" is available here. The Spanish edition can be downloaded here.

  14. Scientific and technical advisory committee review of the nutrient inputs to the watershed model

    Science.gov (United States)

    The following is a report by a STAC Review Team concerning the methods and documentation used by the Chesapeake Bay Partnership for evaluation of nutrient inputs to Phase 6 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. The “STAC Review of the Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model” (previously referred to...

  15. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Weng, Naidong

    2012-11-01

    In the pharmaceutical industry, bioanalysis is very dynamic and is probably one of the few fields of research covering the entire drug discovery, development and post-marketing process. Important decisions on drug safety can partially rely on bioanalytical data, which therefore can be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Bioanalytical scientists have historically contributed significant numbers of scientific manuscripts in many peer-reviewed analytical journals. All of these journals provide some high-level instructions, but they also leave sufficient flexibility for reviewers to perform independent critique and offer recommendations for each submitted manuscript. Reviewers play a pivotal role in the process of bioanalytical publication to ensure the publication of high-quality manuscripts in a timely fashion. Their efforts usually lead to improved manuscripts. However, it has to be a joint effort among authors, reviewers and editors to promote scientifically sound and ethically fair bioanalytical publications. Most of the submitted manuscripts were well written with only minor or moderate revisions required for further improvement. Nevertheless, there were small numbers of submitted manuscripts that did not meet the requirements for publications because of scientific or ethical deficiencies, which are discussed in this Letter to the Editor. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  16. 78 FR 60296 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-10-01

    ... Review Group; Prokaryotic Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section. Date: October 25, 2013. Time: 8:00 a... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Eye Diseases 6. Date: October 25, 2013. Time: 9:00 a.m..., Dupont Circle, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037. Contact Person: James P. Harwood Ph.D...

  17. 75 FR 9616 - Committee Management Renewals

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-03-03

    ... NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee Management Renewals The NSF management officials having... follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration... Industrial Innovations and Partnerships, 28164. Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Research and...

  18. 77 FR 12086 - Committee Management Renewals

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-02-28

    ... NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee Management Renewals The NSF management officials having... follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration... Industrial Innovations and Partnerships, 28164 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Research and...

  19. 77 FR 511 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-05

    ... Emphasis Panel, PAR-11-228: Shared Instrumentation: Cell Biology, Physiology and Robotics. Date: February 1...: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Multidisciplinary Healthcare Delivery Research AREA...

  20. 77 FR 51544 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-08-24

    ... for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Adult and Child Psychopathology and....gov . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333...

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.