Please advise by COB today 3/21: Additional questions related to SRG review of EHA grant

Reading Room Production, pp.197-198 · reading_room:email:00179

Date: 2023-03-21 10:37
Type: email · email
cc: Hugh Auchincloss, Hugh, Harper, Jill, Billet, Courtney, Emily Erbelding, Kelly, Gilles, Sharon
sender: Sara Selgrade
to: Robert Eiss, Linde, Emily
Topics: EcoHealth Alliance funding and grants Awards, honoraria and recognition

This text appears inside a quoted reply chain — it is evidence that the message was circulating, not necessarily a new message.

Good morning, Background kely to ded questions below): d. Did 2re ding this? ovide any edits or comments. If these questions are better referred to NIH/NIAID) [E] jitional documentation or have any ew of the initial RO1 grant. nsive to this request. As you recall, NIH OLPA reached out recently to make us aware of congressional requests for documents related to Scientific Review Group (SRG) review of the original and renewal EHA award. NIH OLPA has indicated that HHS is likely to provide these to the congressional requestors later this week. NIH OLPA has drafted the attached "media statement" that notes a few potential vulnerabilities from comments in the summary statements. They have asked us if we have additional information on these points (bolded questions below): Vulnerabilities: 1. In the 2013 review, critique number 3 mentions that a potential overlap with PREDICT was noted. Does NIAID have additional information that we could share about how it was determined this was not double billing? 2. In the same critique, there is a note that the potential risk to human subjects is not fully addressed. Did NIAID work with the grantee to address these concerns before funding? 3. In the 2019 review, critique number 2 mentions that the letters from the two Chinese institutions were identical. Do you know if there was follow-up regarding this? Action Item By COB today, Tuesday March 21, please review the "media statement" document and provide any edits or comments. Please also provide any information responsive to the bolded questions above. If these questions are better referred to OER or other NIH components, please let us know. Thanks, Sara _____________________________________________

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2023-03-21 10:37 Sara Selgrade

Good morning, Background kely to ded questions below): d. Did 2re ding this? ovide any edits or comments. If these questions are better referred to NIH/NIAID) [E] jitional documentation or have any ew of the initial RO1 grant. nsive to this request. As you recall, NIH OLPA reached out recently to make us aware of congressional requests for documents related to Scientific Review Group (SRG) review of the original and renewal EHA award. NIH OLPA has indicated that HHS is likely to provide these to the congressional requestors later this week. NIH OLPA has drafted the attached "media statement" that notes a few potential vulnerabilities from comments in the summary statements. They have asked us if we have additional information on these points (bolded questions below): Vulnerabilities: 1. In the 2013 review, critique number 3 mentions that a potential overlap with PREDICT was noted. Does NIAID have additional information that we could share about how it was determined this was not double billing? 2. In the same critique, there is a note that the potential risk to human subjects is not fully addressed. Did NIAID work with the grantee to address these concerns before funding? 3. In the 2019 review, critique number 2 mentions that the letters from the two Chinese institutions were identical. Do you know if there was follow-up regarding this? Action Item By COB today, Tuesday March 21, please review the "media statement" document and provide any edits or comments. Please also provide any information responsive to the bolded questions above. If these questions are better referred to OER or other NIH components, please let us know. Thanks, Sara _____________________________________________
2023-03-21 10:37 Sara Selgrade open

Good morning, Background kely to ded questions below): d. Did 2re ding this? ovide any edits or comments. If these questions are better referred to NIH/NIAID) [E] jitional documentation or have any ew of the initial RO1 grant. nsive to this request. As you recall, NIH OLPA reached out recently to make us aware of congressional requests for documents related to Scientific Review Group (SRG) review of the original and renewal EHA award. NIH OLPA has indicated that HHS is likely to provide these to the congressional requestors later this week. NIH OLPA has drafted the attached "media statement" that notes a few potential vulnerabilities from comments in the summary statements. They have asked us if we have additional information on these points (bolded questions below): Vulnerabilities: 1. In the 2013 review, critique number 3 mentions that a potential overlap with PREDICT was noted. Does NIAID have additional information that we could share about how it was determined this was not double billing? 2. In the same critique, there is a note that the potential risk to human subjects is not fully addressed. Did NIAID work with the grantee to address these concerns before funding? 3. In the 2019 review, critique number 2 mentions that the letters from the two Chinese institutions were identical. Do you know if there was follow-up regarding this? Action Item By COB today, Tuesday March 21, please review the "media statement" document and provide any edits or comments. Please also provide any information responsive to the bolded questions above. If these questions are better referred to OER or other NIH components, please let us know. Thanks, Sara _____________________________________________
2023-03-21 10:52 Andrew Ford open

Hey Erik, Per Sara's email below, documents related to the SRG review of the EHA award are likely to be provided to the congressional requestors later this week. Attached is a media statement (third attachment) drafted by OLPA that notes a few potential vulnerabilities from comments in the summary statements. Could you please review attached media statement and the questions bolded below and send to me any edits/comments/responses by COB today, Tuesday, March 21, 2023. Thanks, Andrew
2023-03-21 10:52 Andrew Ford open

Hey Erik, Per Sara's email below, documents related to the SRG review of the EHA award are likely to be provided to the congressional requestors later this week. Attached is a media statement (third attachment) drafted by OLPA that notes a few potential vulnerabilities from comments in the summary statements. Could you please review attached media statement and the questions bolded below and send to me any edits/comments/responses by COB today, Tuesday, March 21, 2023. Thanks, Andrew

Full conversation →