Download meeting notes - Boston University

________________________
Community Liaison Committee
National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories
________________________
MEETING NOTES
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
9:00 am. * Victoria Diner
ATTENDING
Dolly Battle; Glen Berkowitz; Sheila Grove; Michael Kozu; Kenneth Olken; Sandra
Silver; John Murphy, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator, National Emerging Infectious
Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL); Wayne Budd, Public Member-At-Large, NEIDL
Institute Executive Committee; Kevin Tuohey, Executive Director of Operations &
Public Safety and Carla Richards, Director of Community Relations, Boston University
Medical Center
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Richards welcomed and thanked the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) and guests
for attending and gave a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting. Members
introduced themselves.
STRUCTURE & FUNCTION
Jack Murphy opened discussion on the structure and function of the CLC. Going forward,
Murphy asked for concrete suggestions on 1) the kind of information CLC members
would find useful to them and the communities they represent, and 2) the type of
strategies that might help communicate the same.
In brainstorming fashion, CLC members identified what they saw as key issues
community members need to be better educated about and/or receive more information
on. These included:


More work needs to be done to make sure residents understand the science behind
the lab since there is no guarantee of “no infectivity”. Better use needs to be made
of websites and more periodic updates in newspapers should be made available
(Kozu).
Better efforts are needed at communicating “what if” scenarios (Grove)
particularly since part of the criticism BU initially received centered on its sole
use of Anthrax in its risk assessments (Silver).


A clear list of the diseases that will be worked on in the lab alongside information
on ‘what happens if’ as it relates to those diseases would be useful. Community
residents are not afraid of what they know, only what they don’t (Battle).
Best practice models from other laboratories should be looked at particularly in
light of the real threat posed by terrorists (Budd) and the possibility that they
might use airborne diseases as one means of attack (Batle).
Murphy agreed that greater detail on the ‘what ifs’ is needed particularly since the
laboratory could serve as one place where agents could be brought in the event of
terrorist activity. He added that a good enough job had not been done at conveying the
type of information members identified. To address this, a more robust internal
community relations team, under his leadership and with assistance from Tuohey and
Richards, has now been put in place. The team will work closely and directly with the
CLC to better educate the latter and engage the community—more frequent meetings,
perhaps every six or so weeks, and greater participation by the CLC, may be needed.
Touhey added that the enhanced community relations team would facilitate more indepth discussion and answers to many of the questions posed by residents at community
meetings over the years. He stated that the CLC should be the driver that determines the
kind of education and information BUMC makes available to the community.
Kozu agreed with an enhanced vision for the CLC but cautioned that the CLC should not
be the only vehicle for getting information out to the community; members can help out
but should not be a buffer for BU. Battle noted that if the community had been involved
from the beginning, the CLC would not be meeting that day. Murphy agreed.
Olken pointed out that the real challenge is not communicating the benefits of the
laboratory but answering questions about the decision to site the facility where it is being
built. Berkowitz mentioned that he will personally encourage his neighborhood
association not to ask questions about siting. He suggested the next nine months to a year
focus on rebuilding trust and communication with the community, perhaps through a
series of educational forums sponsored by the CLC and co-sponsored with interested
neighborhood groups or associations.
Battle expressed support for the educational forums and stated that BU has to rebuild the
trust it has lost, for example, by having a scientific debate that includes both supporting
and opposing scientists. Richards noted that in the past, debates held with opposing
scientists like King at MIT and Ozonoff and Hynes at BU have proven to be an
ineffective means of educating the community or providing useful information about the
lab.
Murphy stated his support for forums designed to educate the community and help
rebuild trust but expressed concern that these could easily become debates of ideology.
2
Grove noted that it was unclear to her why a forum that includes opposing views would
necessarily translate into an ideological debate.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Meeting Frequency
Murphy asked members to consider increasing the frequency of CLC meetings. Silver
proposed the CLC meet on a monthly basis at set dates and times during the morning.
Battle noted that morning meetings may conflict with her schedule down the line. Kozu
mentioned he could not meet before 9am and on most days he has commitments that
could prevent him from attending meetings in the evenings. Grove was in support of not
holding meetings before 9a.m. Olken noted his schedule was perhaps the most flexible
because he is retired.
Silver noted that while she understood member conflicts, she also understands that a
sincere time commitment should be made if an individual is interested in continuing to
serve on the CLC. Members agreed to tentatively hold meetings on the 2nd Tuesday
morning of each month. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, February 13 at 9:00
a.m. at which time a permanent set date and time will be chosen.
Group Size
Murphy mentioned that some concern has been expressed about the small size of the
group and asked members for feedback on expanding CLC membership. Members
expressed support for expanding the CLC but cautioned that if the group gets too large,
greater than 10 or so, it could easily become unmanageable and ineffective.
Alternates
Murphy asked for feedback on allowing alternates to attend in a member’s stead when
that individual is unable to be present. Grove noted that Olken has served as her alternate
on the CLC and has successfully and effectively kept her abreast of the issues discussed.
However Battle stated that having an alternate attend a meeting is not the same as having
that member attend; she would be inclined to lose interest if an alternate were able to
attend in her stead.
Meeting Location
Members agreed that continuing to hold meetings on the medical campus, in proximity
to the site, would be most useful.
10:20 a.m. Meeting Adjourned.
3