|
Chair: |
Louise Nadeau (by telephone) |
|
|
| ||
|
Members: |
Denise Alcock |
Kevin Keough |
|
Regrets: |
Alan Bernstein |
|
|
| ||
|
Staff: |
Carol Anne Esnard |
Patricia Kosseim |
|
|
Benoit Morin |
Karen Mosher |
|
|
Kelly Van Knoughet |
|
1. Selection Process for Standing Committee on Ethics
(Background)
The Governing Council approved the terms of reference for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Ethics (SCE) in December, 2001. The recruitment process for SCE members began in May, 2001. A two - prong approach for soliciting members for the SCE was developed; namely, to send a letter of request to specific individuals and organizations; and to create a master list of potential candidates from CIHR data bases, peer review panels, committees and unsolicited suggestions. This solicitation process generated over 100 potential candidates for the review of the Nominating Committee.
(Discussion and Outcomes)
To facilitate the development of a short list, members of the Nominating Committee agreed to the following guiding principles:
that any proposed candidate who is currently on a CIHR Institute Advisory Board who was nominated for his/her ethics background and expertise should not be considered for the Standing Committee on Ethics, in order to respect the integrity of a carefully balanced membership slate for the thirteen CIHR Institutes;
that candidates be short listed on the basis of the range of skills and expertise they bring to the table, rather than on the basis of being a representative of a specific organization;
that candidates be short listed following predetermined selection criteria (formally trained academic experts and researchers in ethics, law and the socio-cultural issues of health and health research; individuals with perspectives on applied clinical, industry experience knowledgeable of ethical issues arising at the non-commercial/commercial interface of research, consumer or patient, social justice inequities) as well as respecting subsidiary criteria of gender, geography, language and institution.
In addition to the operating principles, the Nominating Committee also considered regional representation in its selection process which resulted in a short list of 37 potential candidates.
For the next Nominating Committee meeting, CIHR staff will compile suggestions of other potential candidates who could fill the gaps noted in the short list with respect to regional representation, as well as patient/consumer, social justice inequities, and industry perspectives.
2. Institute Advisory Board Renewal
(Background)
Governing Council approved in January 2001 209 members for CIHR's 13 Institute Advisory Boards (IABs). An initial phase of refinements was approved by the Executive Committee in February 2001 as a result of individuals declining to serve, or because of justification given by Scientific Directors for the addition of one or several individuals. This first phase of refinement resulted in a net increase of 9 individuals for a new total of 218 individuals serving on CIHR's 13 Institute Advisory Boards.
A second phase of refinements is required on the inaugural membership of certain Institute Advisory Boards due to perceived gaps in expertise, or due to resignations.
(Discussion and Outcomes)
Members of the Nominating Committee expressed concern with the non-compliance to the membership numbers stated in each IAB's terms of reference; ie. 15 members, as well as concern over the increased cost factor to travel an average of 17-18 members to each IAB meeting. It was recommended that a policy be developed and presented to Governing Council at its November 2001 meeting which will state the maximum number of members for each IAB is 15, and that Scientific Directors and the Chairs of IABs be alerted in anticipation of a future IAB renewal process.
Members of the Nominating Committee discussed the proposed changes for a second phase of refinements and agreed to the following:
(1) approval of the addition of two individuals with required expertise in the areas of ethics and basic science for the Institute of Healthy Aging.
(2) approval of the replacement of an individual with the required expertise from the federal government department of Health Canada for the Institute of Population Health.
(3) postponement of a recommendation on the request for a replacement for a provincial government representative for the Institute of MusculoSkeletal & Arthritis Research until sufficient justification and rationale has been presented by that Institute.
(4) recommendation to Governing Council that the Institute of Circulatory & Respiratory Research approach the alternate candidate who was approved in the inaugural slate for this Institute by the Governing Council in January 2001. This individual has the ethics expertise requested by the Institute.
3. Process for Replacing Institute Advisory Board (IAB) Members
A preliminary draft of a process for replacing IAB members will be brought to the Nominating Committee in the Fall 2001. The process would reflect a two-track model; that is, a mechanism for renewal of members at the end of their lapsed terms, as well as a mechanism for the appointment of members to fill vacancies. This process will also take into consideration feedback and comments from Scientific Directors who will be assessing their IABs membership over the next several months, in terms of perceived gaps, strengths, weaknesses as well as performance.
