AACBNC
Council of Academic Societies Spring Meeting
March 22-25, 2001
~ Westin Riverwalk ~ San Antonio, Texas

Twenty-First Century Medicine:
Getting IT Done in Research, Education and Healthcare
MEETING SUMMARY

More than 120 people attended the Council of Academic Societies Spring Meeting
held March 22-25, 2001 in San Antonio, Texas. Within the Association of American
Medical Colleges, the Council provides faculty perspectives and input into a wide
range of current issues affecting academic medicine. Before the formal meeting
program began, the CAS Administrative Board and various CAS committees and Task
Forces met.


THURSDAY, MARCH 22


The CAS Professionalism Task Force sponsored a daylong Professionalism
Roundtable
.  The session, which was by invitation only, was held to begin developing
a CAS statement on the roles and responsibilities of faculty in regards to
professionalism.  Immediately before the meeting, Tony Mazzaschi, Director of CAS
Affairs, provided an
Orientation Session for new CAS representatives .

Plenary I: The Twenty-First Century Healthcare System

The session began with a keynote address by Jeff Goldsmith, Ph.D., President, Health
Futures, Inc.  Dr. Goldsmith discussed how the prototypical knowledge business - the
health sector - has been astonishingly resistant to adopting modern information
management tools and architectures. Assisted by advances in expert systems and
enterprise software, network computing applications promise to speed the
conversion of information into knowledge both in biomedical science and health
services, and dramatically enhance the ability to achieve multi-site collaboration in
care and investigation.  Suggested readings from this session included:
Networking
Health: Prescription for the Internet
by the Computer Sciences and
Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 2000 and Lawrence Lessig,
Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, 1999.

A member of the IOM Committee on Quality of Health Care in America,
Joseph E.
Scherger, M.D.
, Associate Dean for Primary Care, University of California, Irvine
College of Medicine, summarized the Committee’s new report,
Crossing the Quality
Chasm
. The report concludes that the nation's health care industry has foundered in
its ability to provide safe, high-quality care consistently to all Americans.
Reorganization and reform are urgently needed to fix what is now a disjointed and
inefficient system.  The report stresses that a solid commitment of public funds and
other resources is needed to redesign the health care delivery system so all
Americans can benefit.

Dr. Joel Baseman, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Microbiology,
University of Texas San Antonio Health Science Center, provided a commentary on
the first two presentations. In an  age of information creation, assimilation and
distribution, the power of cyberspace applications and the magnitude and costs of
informational growth are mind-boggling. The enormous impact of these changes on
our campuses necessitates that we transform ourselves and keep pace with this
rapidly evolving epidemic of biomedical data by creating knowledge-dispensing IT
sites that are cost-effective, manageable, interdisciplinary, integrative and quality-
controlled.  Today, we can blend scientific know-how with academic curiosity to
promote innovative and insightful concepts and strategies.  This intellectual mobility
allows us to exchange and intersect streams of relevant, yet diverse information.
These developments are promoting faculty networking, collegiality and effectiveness
and enhancing the quality and scope of science.  Furthermore, we have dramatically
altered the learning landscape for students to include real and virtual classrooms,
asynchronous communication, live learning and interactive chat rooms and
discussion boards, and video/teleconferencing.  We can logon to Web sites and
engage in dialogues with students, teachers, and collaborators anywhere and
anytime and sense a spectrum of multimedia effects.  And this is just the beginning of
the twenty-first century; the pace at which science and technology are progressing is
awe-inspiring.  So, hold on and enter the academic world of the imaginable of just a
few years ago.  Remember, it’s only our imagination that holds us back!


FRIDAY, MARCH 23

Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Three concurrent breakout sessions were held. Vanessa Northington Gamble, M.D., Ph.
D.
, Vice President for Minority and Community Affairs, AAMC, led a session on the
AAMC’s definition of “Underrepresented Minorities” and other issues related to
minorities in academic medicine. Robert Dickler, Senior Vice President for Health
Care Affairs, AAMC, led a session updating CAS representatives on regulatory
changes affecting the Medicare program.

Lawrence J. Rhoades, Ph.D., Director, Division of Education and Integrity, DHHS Office
of Research Integrity, led a session on ORI’s education programs in the responsible
conduct of research.  ORI is currently meeting with PHS agency representatives to
discuss issues concerning the PHS Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct
of Research (RCR) that was suspended in February.  The suspension was the result
of congressional concerns about its issuance as a policy rather than a regulation.  No
resolution is likely to occur until a new Assistant Secretary for Health is appointed.   
Nevertheless, ORI plans to proceed with the development of an education program
in RCR no matter how the current controversy is resolved because ORI believes it is
the “right thing” to do for biomedical research, specifically, and science, generally.
The research community has recommended the establishment of RCR programs in
reports from The National Academies and the Commission on Research Integrity
since 1989.  The core instructional areas listed in the PHS policy subsume the three
categories of behavior - research misconduct, questionable research practices,
other misconduct - which a National Academies report asserted “required attention.”  
ORI wants to collaborate with stakeholders in the research community to develop the
content for the core instructional areas because consensus does not exist on the
seriousness of various behaviors that violate traditional values of the research
enterprise or on standards for behavior in such matters.  ORI activities supporting
the RCR effort include conferences/workshops, a research program, websites, the
development of educational resources, and the nurturing of an RCR community.

Plenary II: Emerging Technologies Being Driven by the IT Revolution

James R. Baker, Jr. , M.D., Professor of Medicine, Chief, Allergy and Immunology,
Director, center for Biologic Nanotechnology, University of Michigan School of
Medicine, started the session with a presentation on “Nanomedicine: Playing on the
Size Scale of Biology Itself.” Dr. Baker described the development of smart
nanodevices, such as anticancer therapeutics. These devices are made from
dendrimers (spherical polymeric molecules). The goal is to deliver a lethal dose of an
anticancer drug to just the cancerous cells, while leaving normal cells entirely
unharmed. Researchers have produced working examples of four of the five nano-
components that make up the nanodevice. Work is under way to assemble the
components into one device, which will perform all of the tasks. A generalized
"smart" anticancer therapeutic will perform these functions: cancer cell recognition,
diagnosis of cancer cause, drug delivery, reporting tumor location, and reporting
cancer cell death. Remarkable progress has been made in a very short time in this
exciting research area validating the view that fostering science at the interface of
the biological and engineering sciences will very materially speed up the
development of biologically active nanotechnology.

Richard M. Satava, M.D., Professor of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, and Special
Assistant, Advanced Medical Technologies, U.S. Army Medical Research and Material
Command, addressed the “The Biointellegence Age: Science and Medicine after the
Information Age.”  Dr. Satava explored the perception that we are at the height of the
Information Age revolution and that it is growing exponentially and will continue to do
so. He contended that the Information Age is NOT the future, the
Information Age is
the present. A new era has been brewing, and for lack of another name, a
placeholder title of the Biointelligence Age has been given. This is the combination
of the biologic, physical and information “worlds” into single entities. Dr. Satava
provided numerous examples of new technologies that are emerging as a bellwether
of things to come.

Dr. Satava noted that even as the struggle continues to understand the vortex of
change around us, there are words of caution.  Ray Kurzweiler, in his
Age of Spiritual
Machines
, and Eric Drexler, in his Engines of Creation, caution about the ability to
control the new technologies that are being unleashed.  Bill Joy has raised the
specter of a future where our creations will take on a life of their own as described in
Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.  Concerned scientists are beginning to seriously
deliberate these questions, wondering if the new directions of research are a
Faustian bargain. Unlike any time in history, scientists are proactively considering the
long-term social consequences for mankind of their scientific inquiry.  The success
of cloning in animals has forced the world to address its implications for humans and
consider regulatory barriers; will such regulation be necessary for the technologies
of the BioIntelligence Age? In a world enamored by technology and exhilarated by the
accelerated rate of change, how can we proceed prudently without slowing the rate
of progress? Dr. Satava challenged the scientific community to squarely face these
issues and participate in their evaluation and, if necessary, their regulation before
external forces take the decisions out of the hands of scientists.  Technology has
provided an opportunity for a future that is bright, but we must walk into the
Biointelligence Age with our eyes wide open.

CAS Business Meeting and Luncheon – See the attached minutes.


SATURDAY, MARCH 24

Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Three concurrent breakout sessions were held. David P. Stevens, M.D., Co-Secretary,
LCME, and Vice President for Medical School Standards and Assessment, AAMC, led a
discussion of issues related to LCME accreditation.

Ken Berns, M.D., Ph.D., Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean, College of
Medicine, University of Florida School of Medicine, led a session on the Medical
School Objective Project (MSOP) draft report on "Basic Science in Undergraduate
Medical Education." The report is a summary of the conclusions reached by a panel
of basic scientists concerning the extent to which recent advances in scientific
knowledge (e.g., the genome project and bioinformatics) should affect the teaching
of basic sciences to medical students.  The report recommended changes in
requirements for admission to medical school and an increased emphasis on
inclusion of information designed to lead to a general understanding of the scientific
basis of medicine.  This was considered to be of increasing importance as the ability
to apply the information directly to patient care grows.  CAS members participated
actively in the discussion and there was seemingly general agreement with the
panel's recommendations.  Of note was the diversity of the areas of interest of the
participants, which ranged from anatomy to family practice.  Numerous suggestions
were made for editorial improvements and additional input is encouraged.

James F. Burris, M.D., Deputy Chief Research and Development Officer, Veterans
Health Administration, led a discussion of issues related to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. There are two new appointments of major importance at VA: Mr.
Anthony Principi is the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Dr. Stephanie Pincus is
the new Chief Officer for Academic Affiliations, the office responsible for VA’s
academic partnerships with medical and other health professions schools. President
Bush has indicated that his proposed federal budget will limit the growth of
discretionary spending to no more than 4 percent for FY 2002.  Consequently next
year is likely to be a tight funding year for science programs other than NIH.  [N.B.
Since the CAS meeting, the President’s budget proposal has been released, with VA
Research & Development allotted a $10 million increase to a total of $360 million for
FY02.]  The VA Research & Development program has now implemented most of the
recommendations of the Secretary’s Research Realignment Advisory Committee.
Highlights of recent VA initiatives include: focusing the program on the high priority
health care needs of veterans, establishing a National Research Advisory Council,
revitalizing the Career Development program for young investigators, enhancing
protections for human participants in research, strengthening the technology
transfer program, and promoting greater public awareness of VA research.

Plenary III: The Effects of E-Everything on Faculty Scholarship

Paul R. Hagner, Ph.D., Former NLII Fellow and currently Special Advisor for
Technology Planning and Assessment, University of Hartford, started the plenary with
an address on “Faculty Engagement and Support in the New Learning Environment.”
Dr. Hagner discussed efforts to promote faculty development by introducing
enhanced, computer-based techniques and processes into the learning
environment.  He specifically addressed how institutional leaders can identify,
support and engage faculty with varying attitudes and skill sets.  The “first-wave”
adopters or “entrepreneurs” are those who seek out the resources and the
expertise to implement their personal commitment to incorporating technology into
their own learning environments.  The “second-wave” faculty are those who have
strong commitments to quality learning but who are wary of the new technologies.  
Institutional change is possible when these second-wave faculty members come to
perceive the national disciplinary and institutional support and reward structure as
an opportunity rather than a threat.  Although united in their commitment to quality
learning environments, these two groups of faculty are very different in both their
technical capabilities and their attitudinal readiness to embrace these new
technologies. Dr. Hagner cautioned that it would be a serious mistake for
administrators to make allocation decisions based solely on the characteristics of the
entrepreneurs, since their needs and their motivations can differ greatly from those
of the second-wave faculty.

Lois Margaret Nora, M.D., J.D., Associate Dean, Academic Affairs and Administration,
and Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine,
addressed “Finding Time for Faculty Scholarship in an IT Academic Environment.”
New technologies are emerging as academic medicine begins to incorporate an
expanded view of scholarship and as pressures on medical faculty members
increase.  It is important that faculty members' time be used for activities that will
further the goals of the institution and the faculty member.  Dr. Nora’s presentation
focused on the four types of scholarship - discovery, integration, application, and
teaching and the challenges and opportunities that the new technologies present for
faculty members engaged in each of the scholarship areas.

No IT issue presents itself solely within the context of a single form of scholarship.  
However, particular challenges were presented in the context of each of the
scholarships.  For faculty members engaged in the scholarship of discovery, IT
opportunities include an expanded network of potential associates and mentors and
access to materials not previously available. Challenges include appropriate
development programs to prepare faculty members for the communication issues
that present with e-communication, particularly as cross-cultural and international
communication will become more common.  For those involved in the scholarship of
integration, IT offers unheralded opportunities to link across disciplines and
publication opportunities in a variety of new journals, many with shortened time to
publication and real-time review processes.  A critical challenge is advising junior
faculty members appropriately about the use of e-journals and the potential impact
on promotion, as well as educating promotion committees about the new e-
publishing venues and their relative quality.  New technologies, including personal
hand-held computers, offer busy clinical faculty members opportunities to participate
in the scholarship of application to a much greater degree than previously.  A
challenge is finding the time necessary to learn to use these resources.  
Technologies also have the potential to transform the scholarship of teaching both
through the production of new products and by providing ways to objectively
measure impact of teaching scholarship.  One challenge will be ensuring a focus on
learning through the use of these technologies in developing learning products,
rather than technology being the sole driver.

Julia Blixrud, Director of Information Services, Association of Research Libraries, and
Assistant Director, Public Programs, Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources
Coalition, addressed, “The Ownership and Management of Faculty Scholarship in an
IT World.” Technology has raised an awareness of underlying issues surrounding the
ownership and management of faculty scholarship.  New information technologies
have also changed the nature of the discussions of who should own what and now
faculty, publishers, and universities are re-thinking and re-establishing their roles to
own and manage what can be an extremely valuable resource.  While patents and
copyrights are still legal tools, technology opens up new ways to encourage wide
dissemination of property and provides new barriers to scholarly fair use access.  
Money and control are dominant forces in this new environment.  Ms. Blixrud’s
presentation briefly reviewed the laws that established patents and copyright,
summarized the "fair use" factors that limit the exclusive rights of copyright owners,
identified areas of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act that affect higher
education, discussed some of the economic stresses on the current marketplace
caused by intellectual property controls, suggested some traditional and new
management models, and encouraged faculty and society members to consider more
active participation in the management and control of their intellectual property.

Luncheon Address

Alvis R. Swinney, Vice President of Marketing, U.S. Oncology (former Vice President
for Marketing and Planning, Duke University Health System), addressed, “Who Are
These People? Consumerism Comes to the Medical Center.” The health care industry
is more dynamic today than at any time in history.  The demographics of an aging
society and increased longevity assure demand for health care services will continue
to experience robust growth.  At the same time, value is migrating from the traditional
hospital centric model of health care delivery to new “disruptive” consumer
sensitive models of care delivery.  Mr. Swinney said that redesigning everything from
health infrastructure to service delivery to medical school curriculums to payor
systems will require a renewed sensitivity to and understanding of the perceptions,
needs and wants of key demographic groups and market segments.  He discussed
various market research findings related to three key segments: the boomers,
women and the “Bob Hope” generation.  Mr.Swinney said that the next generation of
health care providers will face a period of dramatic industry transition.  With the
uncertainty will come an extraordinarily rich opportunity to influence the innovative
redesign of everything from health care services and facilities to medical school
curriculums to payor systems to legislative agendas.  Clearly, these times call for
visionary leadership with the willingness and ability to make “hard decisions."

Dinner Address

Juliette Schlucter, Coordinator, Family-Centered Care, The Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia, made a moving presentation titled, “A Family's Perspective on Medical
Education.”  The development of patient and family-centered care is creating a new
world for medicine.  In this new world, neither doctors nor families must face medical
uncertainties alone, or pretend that they don't exist.  Instead, they collaborate as
partners to share their strengths and manage their uncertainties. The core of
Collaborative Medicine is sharing expertise--learning from one’s doctor how to make
medical assessments at home and individuals teaching their physicians about their
families. At the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the commitment to Collaborative
Medicine is so intertwined in their philosophy that they partnered with a group of
parents that formed a Family Faculty to teach new physicians about healing health
care. It is a curriculum based not on science, but on the families and physicians own
practical wisdom.  In the eyes of a busy doctor, what's paramount may be the medical
data and science: the tests, the protocols, and the prognosis. In the eyes of families,
what's paramount are all the realities of their daily lives: a child's fears, a parent's
desire to protect, a family's hope.  At The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the
education programs are now devoted to bringing these two worlds together--right
where they should be.


SUNDAY, MARCH 25

Special Session:
Engaging Academic Societies and Faculty Leaders in Cultural
Competency

Paul McCarthy, M.D. , past chair of the CAS, and a member of the CAS Task Force on
Cultural Competency, moderated the session.  He shared with the attendees the
results of the Task Force’s survey of society activities in this area.  The results were
disappointing in that most societies had no related activities to report.

Donald E. Wilson, M.D. , Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean, School of
Medicine, University of Maryland, stated that as our society becomes more diverse,
the need for cultural competency in all of our interactions increases dramatically.  
The importance of cultural competency cannot be overstated. Each of us
experiences illness and access to the health care system within the context of our
underlying cultural identity.  This cultural identity is based on heritage, as well as
individual circumstances and personal choice.  It is affected by such factors as race,
ethnicity, gender, age, language, country of origin, socioeconomic status, and how
we are perceived by society, among other factors.  Each person’s perception of
reality is filtered through his or her cultural competence.  Cultural bias occurs in
health care and in academic settings.  A lack of sensitivity is often noticed by
colleagues, but may be overlooked.  Cultural competence cannot be achieved
through any single effort or training program.  It requires a long-term and institutional
commitment to change.  Cross cultural competency is essential for success in the
diverse world that already exists within and outside the walls of our institutions.  
Knowledge about the differences presented by gender, race, and ethnicity is
important to really understanding our colleagues.  Members and leaders of CAS can
play a key role in strengthening the cultural competency of our institutions.

Joan Y. Reede, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Diversity,
Harvard Medical School, shared her perspectives on the issue of cultural
competency. The under-representation of minority medical and public health
professionals coupled with an inadequate number of physician-leaders prepared to
address the health needs of minority and disadvantaged populations impacts the
ability of the health care system to address issues of health disparities.  Both Dr.
Reed and Dr. Wilson offered suggestions for future activities of the Council of
Academic Societies on cultural competency activities.

Plenary IV: IT and the Medical and Graduate Education Continuum

Charles P. Friedman, Ph.D. , Associate Vice Chancellor and Director, Center for
Biomedical Informatics, Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine, addressed the issue of “Medical Education: Stuck in Space, Time, and
Content.” Dr. Friedman argued that medical education has become "stuck" not only in
time, but also in space and content.  It has become stuck in time because events
considered to be educational largely occur through interactions that require the
learners and the faculty to be simultaneously participating in these interactions.  It
has become stuck in space because its mechanisms of delivery are largely bound to
a specific physical location, the academic medical center with its classrooms and
associated health care delivery venues. It has become stuck in content because the
topics that are the focus of educational interactions are insufficiently under the
control of the students, and the teachers.

Dr. Friedman contends that medical education can gradually be "unstuck" in space,
time, and content through appropriate use of emerging technology, with emphasis on
simulation methods that have become widespread in the use of training pilots and
professionals in other disciplines.  The "marvelous medical education machine," is
the complete simulator for medical education, analogous to the best of contemporary
flight simulators.  The Marvelous Machine does not yet exist, although bits and
pieces of it do exist, and these suggest what might be possible in the not-too-distant
future.  The presentation described the need for the Marvelous Machine in greater
detail, discussed what it can potentially do when built, exposed the internal anatomy
of the complete machine, and reviewed some of the pieces that exist now and how
we might build it.  This presentation, in its entirety, argued that building the
Marvelous Machine should be a top priority for medical education nationally and
internationally.

Debra DaRosa, Ph.D. , Vice Chair for Education, Professor of Surgery, Northwestern
University School of Medicine, responded to Dr. Friedman’s remarks.  Changes have
occurred in medical education, albeit at a slow rate.  Barriers to easily achieving
purposeful change in medical education can be attributed to organizational and
curriculum structures, and some faculty.  But facilitating forces exist that will
continue to propel change forward.  Such forces include health care system
modifications that effect the roles of physicians and the blurring interface between
specialties to name a few. Other facilitating forces include technology and a
heightening fervor for accountability. For decades there has been an evolution of
changes initiated by Medicare in the 1960’s, medical technology, prospective
payment systems, a shift to the ambulatory setting, minimally invasive surgery, the
IOM Report and the BBA.  A critical consideration, however, is that we must plan and
create the future of medical education, and not find ourselves simply reacting to
external forces.  We must preserve the components of medical education that we
know are critical to effectively fostering the intellectual as well as the personal and
professional growth and development of our learners.

Penny Jennett, Ph.D. , Professor, Faculty of Medicine and Head, Health Telematics
Unit, University of Calgary, discussed “The Future of Distance Learning in Medical
Education.” Dr. Jennett’s presentation focused on progressive pedagogies and
learning environments in the continuum of medical education.  She discussed the
need to promote and develop pedagogies that bridged the levels of medical
education, and to work towards an educational continuum that facilitates life-long
interdisciplinary learning in academic and professional medicine. She went on to
describe leading information and communications technologies currently used to
support these pedagogies in medical education, and explained how technology
encourages this type of learning.  The presentation ended with a consideration of
accreditation issues surrounding the implementation of continuum-focused
technology-mediated learning, including issues of accountability, quality control,
standards, and vision, as well as other policy issues, such as ethical and legal
considerations.  Dr. Jennett spoke briefly about the development of learning
communities that foster reflective practice to encourage lifelong medical education.
She described a number of examples that illustrate technology-mediated learning
tools currently developed or under development that serve the entire continuum of
medical education. As well, she mentioned examples of systemic academic and health
delivery changes that support cross-continuum and discipline learning.  She
speculated on future technologies and changes to health care systems that will
incorporate the concept of life-long learning into the realms of health care delivery.  
The presentation included an extensive listing of references.

David P. Stevens, M.D., Co-Secretary, LCME, and Vice President for Medical School
Standards and Assessment, AAMC, responded to Dr. Jennett’s presentation.  The
LCME, as well as state and provincial certification agencies also need to adapt to the
evolution of distance learning in medical education.
CAS Draft Business Meeting Summary Minutes
March 23, 2001

San Antonio, Texas
I. Call to Order

The Council of Academic Societies (CAS) Business Meeting was called to order by
Dr. Terry Cooper, chair of the CAS, at 12:45 p.m.

II. Chair’s Report

Dr. Cooper welcomed the representatives to the 2001 Spring Meeting and
encouraged them to share with him input on the meeting and ideas for future
meeting topics. Dr. Cooper recognized the efforts of the 2000-2001 CAS
Administrative Board, as well as those of the AAMC staff.  Dr. Cooper reported on
the strong state of the CAS, as evidenced by its 91 member societies, a record
Spring Meeting attendance, and a record level of AAMC resources devoted to the
CAS and its activities. He then went on to discuss recent accomplishments of the
Council and current works-in-progress.

Dr. Cooper discussed the special CAS Administrative Board meeting held earlier in
the day.  During this session, the Administrative Board considered two initiatives: 1)
a revised charge for the CAS Chairs Task Force and 2) the creation and charge of a
CAS Basic Science Leadership Forum.  The creation of the Forum was approved,
and both draft charges were approved with minor modifications. The Forum will
provide a locus for the discussion of issues related to the role of basic science
chairs and basic science departments in the medical school enterprise.  In addition,
it will serve as the program advisory committee for an AAMC national conference of
basic science department chairs being scheduled for late 2002.  The CAS Chairs
Task Force will assist in organizing data resources to assist chairs in strengthen
their institutional roles.  The Task Force will also be organizing a Chairs Objectives
Project that will help describe the attributes (knowledge, skills, attitudes and
values) that chairs need in order to fulfill their institutional missions.

III. October 30, 2000 Business Meeting Minutes

On motion, seconded and carried, the minutes of the October 30, 2000, CAS
Business Meeting were approved.

IV. CAS Task Forces and Committees

Dr. Cooper began the discussion on CAS Task Forces and Committees by noting that
the strength of these groups can be attributed to their focused and time-limited
missions and by the involvement of both Ad Board and Non-Ad Board members.

Task Force on Professionalism
Reporting on recent activities of the Task Force on Professionalism, Dr. Cooper         
enthusiastically reported on the Professionalism Roundtable session held on
Thursday, March 22, 2001.  From this discussion session, the Task Force plans to
propose a CAS Statement on Faculty Roles and Responsibilities pertaining to
professionalism.  Lastly, Dr. Cooper mentioned that the Task Force continues to
work cooperatively with other groups within AAMC, most closely with the Group on
Educational Affairs (GEA).

Task Force on Chairs
Dr. Cooper announced the creation of a CAS Task Force on Chairs.  He noted that
the Task Force is charged with developing data resources for chairs, and will begin
working on a Chairs Objectives Project which will describe the attributes needed in
order for chairs to fulfill their institutional missions.  The Task Force will be chaired
by Dr. Lloyd Michener.

Basic Science Leadership Forum
Dr. Cooper also noted the development of a new Forum to foster discussion of
issues related to the role of basic science chairs and basic science disciplines.  The
Basic Science Leadership Forum will be co-chaired by Drs. Toni Scarpa and Bill
Dantzler.  A key activity of the Forum will be to advise AAMC staff on the
programming for a national meeting in 2002 to address issues of importance to basic
science chairs.

Membership Committee
Dr. Barbara Schuster reported on the activities of the Membership Committee.  Dr.
Schuster noted that the total CAS membership now stands at 91 member societies,
representing a combined total of over 400,000 members.  Three new societies were
accepted to the CAS during the February Administrative Board Meeting.  These
include the Academy for Health Services Research and Health Policy, the
Association of Medical School Psychologists, and the Surgical Infection Society.  Dr.
Schuster also reported that a membership application is being reviewed.


V. AAMC President’s Report

Dr. Jordan Cohen delivered his address to the CAS via teleconference.  His report
identified several key issues on which the AAMC is currently engaged.  First, Dr.
Cohen discussed the importance of human research subjects protection to
academic medicine.  In response to this issue, AAMC has joined a number of other
organizations in establishing a unique, not-for-profit, corporation to accredit IRB’s.  
This new corporation, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Subjects
Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), includes, along with AAMC, the following
members: Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R); the Association
of American Universities (AAU); the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC); the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB); the Consortium of Social Sciences Association
(COSSA); and the National Health Council (NHC).  Sponsors include, the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Burroughs
Wellcome Foundation, and the Doris Duke Foundation (pending).

Dr. Cohen also announced the formation of the AAMC Task Force on Financial
Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research.  Dr. Cohen disclosed the members of the
Task Force, who represent a broad spectrum, including academic leadership,
researchers, attorneys, ethicists, industry, media, and the public.  The Task Force
will be chaired by Dr. William Danforth.  Drs. David Korn and Jennifer Kulynych will
serve as the AAMC staff liaisons. Dr. Cohen concluded his report by touching on the
AAMC and CAS initiatives in addressing the needs of department chairs.

VI. AAMC Chair’s Report

Dr. George Sheldon gave a brief address on workforce challenges facing academic
medicine including the aging nurse population, the declining medical school
application pool, the growth of non-physician providers, and the increasing
popularity of alternative medicine.

VII. Adjournment

With no further business to discuss, Dr. Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.


[
Nota Bene:  Government Affairs Report - In a late schedule change, Dr. Richard Knapp
provided a legislative update during the morning plenary session.

Dr. Knapp detailed the current political climate and identifying several new
members in government and their policies on health related issues.   He then
moved to the 2001 AAMC advocacy agenda and touched briefly on each of the
following key elements: 1) the uninsured; 2) Medicare; 3) appropriations; and 4)
science policy issues.]
Fellow Members of AACBNC:

I enjoyed representing our Association at the CAS meeting held in San Antonio,
Texas on March 22 thru 25, 2001.   In my opinion, the most exciting presentation at
the meeting was by James Baker Jr., M.D. on "Nanomedicine: Playing on the Size
Scale of Biology Itself". As discussed on page 3 of the meeting summary,
nanotechnology shows great promise in delivering anti-cancer drugs to specific
cancer cells. What is not summarized is that Dr. Baker is also attempting to create
namospheres that could substitute for viral vectors in gene therapy. For our
Association the continued development of the Basic Science Leadership Forum
within CAS is of substantial political importance. This Forum will foster discussion of
issues related to the role of basic science chairs and basic science disciplines
within Medical Schools and should give us a far stronger presence within the
AAMC. The Leadership Forum will have its first meeting immediately following the
Biomedical Caucus meeting in Washington, DC in mid-June.

In our leisure time, the CAS representatives attended the 2001 Division I Men's
Basketball Midwest NCAA Regional. I thank you again for sending me as your
representative to the meeting.

Cheers,

Steve Goodman
A Note from our Representative