So as a member of the council, I’m supposed to go to the meetings three times a year, and in between our meetings, we will have some times that we review proposals—grant proposals that have already gone through a first level of review.
The bottom line is, we have to concur or not with what the first-level of review people have done, you know, do we really concur with the decisions of the review committee?
But, we also get to comment on things like, are there concerns about human subjects, are there concerns about animal research, etcetera, etcetera.
The meetings are always split, so the first half, or the first day, is a closed session.
But the following day is open to the public, and it is often—I think it’s webcast—and it is really pretty well attended by members of the advocacy community, the professional organizations, and they can take the information from that meeting to their groups.
By statute, there have to be 12 researchers, I don’t remember the exact language of how they’re described, and then there are 6 members that are from the general public.
As an educator and a clinician, what I learn about at the meetings really helps me bring back the latest trends in what people are considering to be helpful for addiction.