Document bydJ5GV6E7wbO45nwK0D3Q0E1

DRAFT - July 24, 2001 Conference Call Summary July 23, 2001 Technical Review Committee Benzene Health Research Consortium Participants: Patrick Beatty (Chevron) Shan Tsai (Shell) Stuart Cagen (Shell) Bill Broddle (Conoco) Don Burnett (BP) George Woodall (API) Lorraine Twerdok (API) Issues 1 trick Beatty was chosen unanimously. 2 Interaction with the Executive si Liaison between the Independent cien fic eview P el an the Ov sight Committee, serving to foster de co nica s bu ot to t as a fi ring mechanism. The Oversight Comm ake a final de .sions over t e financing of the study, and the Scientic eview Panel wi authority over technical issues. Consultant in Technical and Financial decisions - fi by the Oversight Committee 1) Passive Option - keep the Oversight Co participate in the decision process 2) Active Option - participate in some level of decisions (e.g., what parts of the project need to be scaled back if financing becomes an issue) as determined by the Oversight Committee. Chair of the Technical Review Committee will serve as an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Oversight Committee. The same would also apply to the Chair of the Communications Committee. Review of Manuscripts and Reports No Comment Option - Receive copies of reports and other documents to keep informed but no comments given. Advisement Comments - Comments given but with no binding obligation upon the Investigators to accept them. I SH ELL-MCCLU RG-060548 DRAFT - July 24, 2001 Interactions with the Investigators Passive Option - Keep informed on issues and needs for decisions to pass along to the Oversight Committee and/or the Scientific Review Panel, bringing critical issues to their attention for action. Active Option - There are several tiers of activity that are listed below. o Serve as a resource for the Investigators during periods between meetings of the Scientific Review Panel (making some decisions and providing advisement) o Monitor progre on t project, ensuring that the Investigators meet milestones a a stay with! budget. (This would be in concert with the role of API as a inist t for t e project and the Scientific Review Panel as e te hnic I pr g ss of the project.) Other 3 documented. Epidemiology (2) Nancy Mueller (Harvard) - A specialist in epi of ly pho sand NHL. One of the original reviewers. Made a strong contribut n to e review at that time. Martha Linet (NCI) - She was part of the original team in China, but seems to be more objective about their work than Hayes or Rothman. My understanding is that she has left that project. Her presence on the Panel would bring significant credibility. Robert Millikan (u. North Carolina) - Originally a Ph.D. in Biochemistry/Molecular biology with subsequent return to school for Public Health degree. Would be useful reviewer of Molecular Epi and epi aspects of the Disease Progression study. Elizabeth Delzell (University of Alabama at Birmingham) - Also one of the original reviewers, but with a stronger tie to the industry that may make her seem less independent to outside view. Industrial Hygiene/Exposure Assesment (2) Robert Herrick (Harvard) - Extensive experience and credentials. Credibility as former NIOSH adminsitrator. Has consulted as reviewer for an EMBSI study. 2 SH ELL-MCCLU RG-060549 DRAFT - July 24, 2001 Robert Harris (u. North Carolina) - Lots of experience. Participated in early Pliofilm work. Not sure if he is retired. Recommended by Dennis Paustenbach as non-aligned and respected Lance Wallace (USEPA Ret'd) - Not an IH'er but well known name in exposure monitoring, although predominantly not occupational. Could meet the requirement for a regulatory representative Neil Zimmerman (Purdue) - Second tier name from Paustenbach. Younger than the 2 above. Experi with occupational epi and solvents. Steve Rappaport Nort Carolina) - This one is controversial. He has published on b zene-relate hydroquinone aducts to protein. He has one paper arguing that e b ze e PE is not protective for workers. Paustenbach says that he d agree wit EL ev 0 ent process in general and used benzene as an ex pIe, t th he ective reviewer. Biggest value is his . ility ith r a~~ and GOs. Rob Schnatter says that he is a pe ever~wor including his own. Hematology (2) Richard Larson (u. Chicago) - Clinical Hematolo . tlOn logist. Participated in Ottawa Conference and on previous review of C ma tocols. He was very useful in that first review. Good solid reputation. Mark Minden (Ontario Cancer Institute) - Molecular hematologist. Publications in area of leukemia progression and molecular biology of leukemia (especially AML) induction and regulation. Could be an excellent person to review the disease progression study. Hematopathology (1) James Brunning (U Minn.) - Recommended by Larson. Currently emeritus professor, but active. Involved in recent WHO reclassification of MDS. (The two really big names, John Bennett and Harold Vardirnan are wanted by Irons for a pathology working group to review tissue slides as needed. This may make them ineligible as reviewers of their own work.) Genetic Toxicology (1) Richard Albertini (u. Vermont) - Big name in genetic biomarkers. Participated in Butadiene study of Czech workers. Participant in initial review of China 3 SH ELL-MCCLU RG-060550 DRAFT - July 24, 2001 protocols. Was not a strong participant. Will participate in 2nd review upcommg. Need a 2nd candidate to discuss in this category. 4 SHELL-MCCLURG-060551