Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Merck & Co., Inc. 

ACNP

  April 2003 - American College of Neuropsychopharmacology- Volume 9 No. 2 

 

        Advocacy Committee Meeting    

Advocacy Committee Meeting on April 9, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in the Wyndham City Center Hotel - Georgetown Room.

The Advocacy Committee will meet in Washington, DC on April 9 in conjunction with the Academic Consortium efforts to make the case for mental health research funding. Our meeting will precede the Academic Consortium briefing, reception and lobbying efforts.


In addition to the usual discussion of mutual interests of ACNP members and ACNP Advocacy Affiliates, the focus of our committee meeting will be on the effects of the new HIPAA regulations on clinical research. Our guest speaker will be Dennis Swanson, Director of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pittsburgh.

Return to top

        ACNP Website Update  

James H. Meador-Woodruff

The ACNP Website has seen rapid growth over the past three years, with a number of features related to the annual meeting and multiple aspects of membership most recently being placed online. More important for the College's scientific presence is the highly visited scientific content that we have made available on the website, which includes the entire text of the Fourth Generation of Progress book (through three electronic revisions) as well as the rapid publication site for our journal, Neuropsychopharmacology. In large part due to this high quality scientific content, we experienced nearly one and a half million hits to the website in 2002.


Quite exciting for those of us who work with the website is that we were ranked number one in the Google Page Rank Index for the Google list of websites of psychiatric and related organizations. The Google Page Rank is an innovative metric to assess the quality of a given website. This ranking does not depend on the sheer volume of hits to a website, but rather on the quality of the hits, especially in terms of how efficiently sought information was retrieved, as well as the quality and importance of referring websites. In essence, more important pages (as Google defines them) weigh more heavily if they are the referring source to a given website. Of note, our first place ranking is in a pool of websites that includes those of the American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The World Psychiatric Association, and other notable organizations. We are quite pleased with this recognition for the quality of our website. I suspect that this ranking is in large part due to the high quality scientific content that we make available on our website. I expect that the volume of traffic that we receive to our website, as well as our high ranking amongst websites of comparable organizations, will continue when we make the Fifth Generation of Progress content publicly available on the website in the near future.

Return to top
 

        Report from NABR Annual Meeting

Anthony Grace

The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) held their 2003 annual meeting February 23-25 in Washington, DC. The meeting was attended by 150 members, who are representatives of national organizations, universities, research groups, pharmaceutical companies, and similar entities. As many of you know, NABR is an organization dedicated to representing scientists in defense of the use of animals in biomedical research. The purpose of this meeting was to update the member organizations on the state of animal research in the United States, how it is under attack, and the most effective means for ensuring that the future of animals in biomedical research may be preserved.

One of the major issues discussed regards the developing trend to establish legal rights for animals. Unfortunately, the animal rights groups have begun to make significant strides in this direction. As an initial step, there has been a focus on changing the legal definition of the relationship between humans and their pets from ownership to guardianship. Such a change in definition has already taken place in several major cities and in the state of Rhode Island. This is viewed as an attempt to change the legal definition of pets from property to entities with legal rights, similar to the type of guardianship that may be legally established for humans that do not have the capacity to represent themselves. Such an argument is clearly being used in an attempt to blur the line between humans and non-humans. The argument is that a chimpanzee has the capacity to communicate with symbolic language and possesses cognitive skills and therefore should be assigned the same legal rights as disabled children. And animal rights groups are seeking legal standing in court. It is further argued that the USDA is not sufficiently staffed to adequately represent the interests of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.


While animal rights activists like to equate their efforts to the civil rights movment, there are several arguments that can be made as to why civil rights arguments do not apply to animals, but many believe scientific arguments will not be effective with respect to the cognitive differences between disabled humans and chimpanzees. An argument based on human needs is a possibility, but the question of who has the legal standing to sue on behalf of medical progress is an issue. Based on philosophical or religious reasoning regarding lack of moral judgement by animals, equating rights with responsibilities, and that personhood does not equal cognitive ability but instead relates to the unique quality of being human, is considered by legal experts as the most effective strategy.


Another topic addressed was that of changing attitudes within the general public. There are two ways in which legislation and attitudes converge; one is that social attitudes change, and the laws follow. The other is that legislation drives changes in social attitudes. The animal rights groups believe that they can use the courts to change social attitudes the way the civil rights movement did. In fact, the comparison between animal rights and civil rights is employed quite often in these arguments. The concept upon which this is built is domination; i.e., men over women, whites over blacks, masters over slaves, and extending the analogy to humans over nonhumans.

There are also several current trends that are alarming. Germany has recently included animal rights in their constitution, the full implications of which remain to be determined. Another is the fact that in more than 25 law schools in the U.S., animal rights law is now part of the curriculum. This continues the educational objective of the animal rights movement, by spreading their doctrine first in primary schools, then in high schools, and now in postgraduate education, including law schools and medical schools.

One of the most informative and instructive topics of the conference involved the proper way to prepare and respond to actions by an animal rights infiltrator. One case in particular was the incident at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In this instance, a member of PETA took a job as an animal care technician, and over a 6-month period used video cameras to methodically document alleged abuse of laboratory rats and mice. The timing of this announcement by PETA was done to coincide with and attempt to defeat the Helms amendment, that sought to exclude rats, mice and birds from the Animal Welfare Act statute. However, as a result of quick and decisive action by the university officials, this situation was effectively diffused. It is clear that the largest public outcry typically does not arise from the act itself, but instead is often a consequence of the perceived attempt by the institution to minimize or cover-up the occurrence. In this case, UNC contacted NABR, and devised an effective response strategy based on full disclosure, including opening records, inviting the press to tour the facilities, an investigating and reporting on every aspect of the allegations. Thus, without a hint of a cover-up, the issue quickly resolved. NABR pointed out that a critical component of a response is to create an institutional crisis management team before a crisis develops, and to seek assistance from NABR to aid in establishing such a unit.

NABR also unveiled a new media campaign in support of biomedical research. This is the "Survivors" campaign. Dr. Terry Fossum, a prominent clinician and professor of small animal medicine and surgery at Texas A&M University's College of Veterinary Medicine, has generously agreed to serve as spokesperson, thereby lending professional credibility to the campaign message. The campaign is based on market research data that revealed that more people support biomedical research with animals for the sake of animal health than they do for human health. In the Survivors campaign, the issue is powerfully presented and emphasizes that animal research saves animals, too! It is believed that such an approach will not only be effective with the general public, but will be exceptionally difficult for animal rights groups to respond to negatively. A clever and poignant 30-second commercial is currently being aired as a public service announcement; however, to be maximally effective it will need to be aired during times when it can attract the most attention, and this will require substantial financial support. By the way, financial contributions of any amount are gratefully appreciated to support this campaign.


When it comes to Congress, biomedical research has not had a loud enough voice. The biomedical research community is notorious for not writing to express their views to Congress. However, it's a fact of life that, to a certain extent, Congressmen respond to numbers, and for each letter written in support of animal research, there is a deluge written in opposition. Being "right" bears little meaning when elected officials feel the need to represent the majority of their constituents. Furthermore, within the past couple of years, the animal rights movement has become much more sophisticated politically. Recently, a consortium of animal rights groups have founded a political action committee (PAC) and are now committing $100,000 - $300,000 per election cycle to political candidates. NABR is one of the few avenues that we have supporting us on Capitol Hill and dedicated to fighting our battles with animal rights activists. Yet, the financial commitment on the part of those who depend upon animal research is negligible. This must be changed, since NABR is one of the few avenues that corporations and universities will be able to support in the battle against animal rights. It has become common knowledge that investments of thousands of dollars today will help to circumvent millions of dollars of response in the future. NABR believes that they can have an effective political action committee with only $25,000-$35,000 per election cycle.

As members of the ACNP, we all are eligible for access to the NABR web page. This is an extremely valuable resource, listing upcoming legislation regarding animal research and pending issues, as well as to whom we should write letters. To access this site, go to www.nabr.org. If you'd like access to the Members Only part of the site, contact Sandra Boyd at sboyd@nabr.org to set up a password.

It is clear that Frankie Trull and NABR have been working valiantly on our behalf, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to garner support for NABR. Individual contributions, contributions by companies that depend on biomedical research, and participation in letter writing campaigns are an absolute necessity if we are to be able to continue to successfully practice our profession and improve the health and welfare of people.

Return to top

        ACNP Congressional Briefing 


Human Subjects in Research
March 11, 2003

ACNP held its third Congressional Breakfast and Briefing on Tuesday, March 11, in the Capitol. The topic, "Human Subjects in Research: Special Challenges for People with Brain Disorders," was of particular interest to Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the Congressional representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Mr. Van Hollen sponsored the educational breakfast briefing where ACNP President-Elect Carol Tamminga, M.D served as moderator.

Scott Y. H. Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Humanities and Director of the Program in Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, and William T. Carpenter M.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Pharmacology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, each spoke from a researcher's perspective on the issue of informed consent among individuals with brain diseases. Lydia Lewis, President of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) spoke from the perspective of patients and research subjects.

Providing this type of educational service to Congressional staff is an important contribution from the ACNP to the legislative process. It not only helps to educate those staff members who play a critical role in preparing and writing legislation, but it also continues to build the image of the ACNP as a leading source of cutting edge information in the areas of the brain, behavior, and psychotropic drug research. A videotape of the entire program is available on the ACNP Website at www.acnp.org.

In his remarks, Will Carpenter discussed the foundation of ethical human research as based in scientific merit, respect for person, justice, reasonable risks in proportion to benefits, and the voluntary participation of informed subjects. Using schizophrenia for illustration, he explained how some patients are not competent to provide informed consent and how screening procedures can exclude these patients from studies. In the main, however, the problem is that patients are decisionally challenged based on cognitive impairments. Informed consent, conducted as an educational process, can usually result in valid informed consent. Straightforward testing of consent information can document that valid consent was obtained prior to subject entry.

In addition, he described work by Laura Roberts which shows that mentally ill persons and non-ill control subjects are similar in evaluating risks and benefits of protocols, and making research participation decisions.

Scott Kim spoke to the ethics of involving decisionally incapable adults in research. This issue will continue to grow in importance as more research is conducted with this population in a climate of heightened ethical scrutiny of clinical research. Despite a wave of initiatives in the late 1990's to clarify policy, surrogate consent for research continues to be a murky legal area. There is evidence that conservative risk-management strategies by institutional review boards and their institutions may severely restrict research with decisionally impaired subjects. A passive approach to this problem may no longer be feasible. A recent Federal advisory report and a legislative initiative in California could begin to provide a blueprint for future policymaking. It is imperative that the scientific community, patients and their advocates, and policymakers at all levels establish a constructive dialogue to clarify the ethical and legal standards in this area.

Dr. Kim provided the following handout:

Surrogate Consent for Clinical Research: Need for Better Policy
Scott Kim, University of Rochester (scott_kim@urmc.rochester.edu)
March 11, 2003

  • Definition: When an adult research subject is too brain-impaired to give his or her own informed consent, a third party (legally authorized representative, or LAR) gives permission in the subject's place.
  • Is this an esoteric topic that affects only a few? No. Surrogate consent for research involves some of the biggest public health problems in the US (e.g., Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, AIDS with neuropsychiatric complications, severely ill medical patients).
    Example: Alzheimer's disease affects 4 million Americans currently, 1/10 of those over 65, nearly ½ of those over 85, and costs society $100 billion annually.
  • What is the current policy? Two main policy domains:
    o Who can serve as legally authorized representative?
           .Currently left up to the states to define-a big, confusing mess!
           .Result: Major institutions halting ALL research involving surrogate consent (UCLA, Vanderbilt, Mt. Sinai); other institutions struggling to formulate policies
    o Even if LAR gives permission, should there be special protections for decisionally incapable persons in research? For example, amount of risk that should be permitted, or more rigorous process of IRB review, etc.
           .No specific provisions in Federal regulations.
  • Why now?
    o Science has progressed; more research possible than 25 years ago (new drugs, gene therapy, stem cell therapy, vaccines, etc).
    o Research ethics now a major societal focus: more demand for accountability-major institutions are being publicly disciplined for research ethics violations.
  • What can the Federal government do?
    o Promulgate specific regulations regarding surrogate consent for research.
    o Examine whether Federal government can define LAR for research consent rather than leaving this to the states?
  • What will Federal action accomplish?
    o Provide specific protections to a vulnerable group.
    o Give researchers, IRBs, and institutions clear legal guidance and umbrella under which important research can occur.
    o Even if the Federal government does not solve the LAR issue, providing specific regulations for surrogate consent for research will make it easier for the states to address the LAR issue.
  • What is likely to happen without policy reform? Idiosyncratic risk-management decisions will drive the practice of research with incompetent adults-to the detriment of both research volunteers and clinical science.

In her comments Lydia Lewis outlined appropriate safeguards that should be in place for people with mental illnesses. She also stressed that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to obtaining informed consent is discriminatory and does not work. She said, "One of the worst outcomes imaginable is to establish so many bureaucratic levels to human research protections that scientists choose to stop research -- research that may someday cure or eliminate diseases like depression and bipolar disorder. We believe as long as safeguards are in place, research into novel treatments and cures must increase."

Congressman Chris Van Hollen welcomes the group to the Capitol.
Carol Tamminga, moderator of the ACNP breakfast briefing
Lydia Lewis, Scott Kim, and William Carpenter

 

Return to top

        Report from Washington

NIH Funding

The FY2003 Appropriations process was finally completed on Wednesday, February 12, with the passage of a $397.4 billion omnibus bill (H.J. Res. 2). The bill included an across the board reduction of .65 percent to offset additional discretionary funds.

Labor-HHS funding is set at $130.9 billion, an increase of $3.3 billion from FY2002 spending. The bill includes $27.2 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase of $3.8 billion from FY2002, effectively completing the doubling of NIH, notwithstanding the .65 percent cut.

With the delay in funding for FY2003, Congress quickly moved to FY2004 funding. The House and Senate Budget committees each passed a FY2004 Budget Resolution. The House version provides $27.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), $700 million (3 percent) more than the FY2003 level. The measure assumes NIH would spend $3.6 billion on anti-bioterrorism activities in FY 2004. The Senate version includes an amendment offered by Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) to add $2.8 billion to budget function 550 (health). This would provide $1.8 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The House and Senate will choose conferees who will meet next to resolve differences between the two bills. Leadership hopes to bring a conferenced bill to the floor before the spring recess begins April 11.

While the Budget serves as a blueprint for appropriators, the actual allocation will be determined when the appropriations process is completed at the end of the fiscal year. It is helpful, though that the amendment to increase NIH was offered by an appropriations subcommittee chair.

Therapeutic Cloning

On March 27, Sam Brownback (R-KS), Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, held a hearing on how therapeutic cloning could affect women's health and create a market for human eggs.

In his opening statement, Sen. Brownback (R-KS), who drafted "The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003" (S. 245), which bans all forms of human somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), noted that the purpose of the hearing was to "examine what would be necessary in order to realize the promise held out to those suffering by those who are advocating human cloning as a means to cure the diseases that plague humanity."

In his press statement, Brownback referenced Executive Director of the Christian Medical Association, Dr. David Stevens' quote that, "To get enough eggs to seek clone cures for these four diseases (ALS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Diabetes), every woman in the U.S. aged 18-44 (approximately 55 million) would have to endure two cycles of ovarian hormone hyper-stimulation and then undergo surgery". Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who coauthored S. 245, testified as the first witness. She expressed concern that a new industry would be created in which women would become a commodity and research would be dictated by the market. She has expressed concern in the past that poor women would be exploited if SCNT were allowed to proceed.

Dr. Maria Bustillo of the South Florida Institute for Reproductive Medicine noted that there "is a long history of egg donation for reproductive uses. Protections and safeguards for both donor and recipient are in place and could easily be modified to accommodate egg donation for research or clinical applications of embryonic stem cells."

R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics of the University of Wisconsin Law School testified that there are no studies on the cost to encourage one million women to donate eggs because the premise is unrealistic. Research would initially be limited with new patients added once researchers perfected their techniques. She urged Congress to focus on legislation that prevents the "unsafe practice" of reproductive cloning, but emphasized that regulations should be put in place to provide for responsible research and therapeutic applications of cloning.

Return to top

        ACNP Taskforce on Geriatric Neuropsychopharmacology

Dilip V. Jeste

"The world is quickly going gray" was the title of a recent headline in the Los Angeles times. The article discussed a United Nations study of global aging, and concluded that the whole world was getting older at a pace that has taken demographers by surprise and presented governments with economic and social challenges. Whereas about 10% of the world's population is over 60 years old today, that percentage will more than double to 22%, and people over 60 will outnumber children under 15 by 2050 - an unprecedented statistic in the entire human history. The main reason for this demographic shift is the aging of the large cohort of the baby boomers. What is not well appreciated, however, is that the numbers of elderly mentally ill persons will increase by an even greater proportion, thanks to improvement in the treatment of mental illnesses in general. A national consensus statement published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 1999 predicted that the numbers of elderly mentally ill persons will increase from the present 6 million to 15 million by 2030 - a whopping 250% increase in just 3 decades. There are not enough clinicians, teachers or researchers in geriatric mental health today; the scenario in the next 30 years will be of crisis proportions unless we take concrete actions now.


Equally importantly, aging-related studies provide unique opportunities for understanding behavioral neuroscience across age spectrum. For example, it would be nearly impossible to understand the issues involved in long-term course or later onset of illnesses without research on older people. Some of the most exciting recent advances in the areas of neurodegeneration and neuroplasticity are likely to lead to revisions in traditional theories of brain functioning.


It was on this background that Chuck O'Brien and Alan Schatzberg formed an ACNP Task Force on Geriatric Neuropsychopharmacology in December 2001. While the ACNP has not, in the past, focused on geriatric research to a significant degree, it is in the best possible position to lead the field in this area because of the broad-based expertise among its membership. There are major scientific opportunities for the ACNP in geriatric neuropsychopharmacology. Just as the ACNP and NIMH jointly focused on molecular biology and genetics a few years ago, they can now focus on geriatric mental health issues.


The mission of this Task Force, which has a two-year-term, is to formulate both a short-term and a long-term plan for expanding the field of geriatric neuropsychopharmacology in general and its role in the ACNP in particular. Its membership includes Dilip Jeste (Chair), Ira Katz (Co-Chair), George Alexopoulos, Ken Davis, Barry Lebowitz, David Oslin, Oakley Ray, Charles Reynolds, Trey Sunderland, Myrna Weissman, and Peter Whitehouse. Over the past 15 months, the Task Force has been very active, and has made progress on several fronts. Below are examples of the type of work being done.


1) Geriatric Neuropsychopharmacology Model Curriculum:

The Task Force recognized the need to raise awareness of geriatric neuropsychopharmacology within the College and amongst our colleagues. As a result, a Workgroup was created to develop a set of lectures to serve as a Model Curriculum in Geriatric Neuropsychopharmacology. The Workgroup is comprised of David Oslin, MD (Chair), Ira Glick, MD, Dilip Jeste, MD, and Craig Nelson, MD. The principal audience for this curriculum will be psychiatric residents, fellows and some faculty. The lectures will be packaged in a CD-ROM and distributed to the appropriate medical schools. A CD-ROM was chosen as the medium given the relative ease in duplication and low cost. Currently access to experts on the broad array of clinical issues relevant to geriatric neuropsychiatry is not available in many training programs. In fact, most training programs have only limited expertise beyond issues related to depression and dementia.


In order to be efficient in this task, the expertise and assistance of leaders in the field of geriatric neuropsychiatry was sought. Each contributor provided a PowerPoint slide presentation on selected topics. These include: Depression, Anxiety Disorders, Bipolar disorder, Psychosis, Dementia, Non-cognitive Behavioral Problems Related to Dementia, Late Life Addiction, Delirium, Treatment of Depression in Nursing Home Residents, Sleep Disorders, Legal Issues, Drug Interactions, Health Services for Older Adults, and Careers in Geriatric Psychiatry. The topics were chosen by the Workgroup as representative of the clinically relevant issues in geriatric neuropsychiatry. The content of a lecture on a specific disorder includes its epidemiology, clinical presentation and course, and treatment. The first request for presentations was made in the fall of 2002. The response was very positive from all the contributors. These presentations were then formatted and packaged into a user-friendly CD-ROM. We will shortly send the CD containing the lectures to the Task Force members for their comments. When the CD is complete (probably by May), it will be submitted to the ACNP Council for approval. We will recommend that the Model Curriculum be distributed to the Residency Training Program Directors as well as Chairs of the departments of psychiatry, and also put on the ACNP website (at no charge).


2) Working with the Aging Consortium at NIMH:


In 2001, an NIMH Task Force on Geriatrics was formed by Steve Hyman in response to concerns about erosion of support for geriatric research at NIMH. Richard Nakamura subsequently expanded it into a Consortium that is chaired by Jason Olin and co-chaired by Trey Sunderland and Bruce Cuthbert. A representative from the National Institute on Aging was recently added to the group as a consultant. Two workshops sponsored by this Consortium were conducted in July 2002 - one on proxy consent for geriatric neuropsychiatry research, and another one on non-specific mood disorders in late life. A third workshop on research training in geriatric mental health was held last October. The most recent workshop on translational research (integration of basic and clinical neuroscience) in geriatric psychiatry took place a couple of months ago. A concrete product of these workshops will be Consensus Statements to be published in major journals, with suggestions for means to enhance research in those areas. One such Consensus statement on Research Training co-authored by members of the NIMH Aging Consortium and this ACNP Task Force is already in press in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, while another one on Proxy Consent is under review.


A new NIMH-funded training program called START-MH (Summer Training in Aging-Related Topics in Mental Health) for undergraduates, graduate students and medical students has just been initiated. There were more than 85 excellent applicants for 25 possible slots, suggesting the critical need for such a program.


3) Bioethical Issues:


Bioethical issues, especially decision making capacity of neuropsychiatric patients, have acquired political prominence and may severely hamper research. These issues become even more problematic in elderly patients due to cognitive impairment and physical comorbidity. This Task Force worked in collaboration with the ACNP Bioethics Task Force in planning the Plenary Session on Issues in Ethics at the 2002 ACNP meeting, focusing on decisional capacity and its enhancement in seriously mentally ill people. Currently members of this Task Force are working with the Ethics Committee of the International College of Geriatric Psychoneuropharmacology (ICGP) to draft appropriate guidelines for ethics in research on elderly neuropsychiatric patients.


4) Advocacy Groups:


While the ACNP has had excellent relationship with the NAMI and other advocacy groups for mentally ill people, there has been little opportunity for collaboration with the aging-focused advocacy groups such as the AARP. Such partnership will be mutually beneficial. A member of AARP will be invited by the ACNP Secretariat to attend the Advocacy Committee meeting in Washington, DC on April 9. The chair of the Coalition for Mental Health will help us select the most appropriate person for this activity.


5) ACNP Membership:


The Task Force has considered ways of bringing in qualified geriatric psychiatrists and psychologists, basic neuroscientists, and neurologists working on aging-related problems. This Task Force worked with the one on Outreach (chaired by Sam Barondes) to solicit and recommend scientists in this field into ACNP. Last year, geriatric psychiatry and neurology were recognized as two of the three priority areas (the other being molecular genetics) for membership. This Task Force worked with the Outreach Task Force to recommend members from these fields to the Credentials Committee and the Council. There was also an increase in the number of geriatric neuropsychiatry applicants for regular and associate membership of the ACNP, generated by the Task Force.


Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done. We will greatly appreciate any suggestions from other ACNP members in this regard.


Return to top

        Deadlines

 

Travel Awards

For Details go to:
Aventis Fellowship Awards
ACNP Memorial Travel Awards
ACNP/NIMH Travel Awards
BristolMeyersSquibb Fellowship Awards
GlaxoSmithKline Fellowship
in Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology

May 16, 2003

Panel and Study Group Proposals

Click here for instructions

June 9, 2003

Media Award

Click here for instructions

June 20, 2003

Honorific Awards

For details go to:
Daniel H. Efron Research Award
Joel Elkes Research Award
Paul Hoch Distinguished Service Award

June 20, 2003

Poster, Panel and Study Group Abstracts

 

September 22, 2003

Hot Topics

 

September 22, 2003

ACNP Education and Training Committee Public Outreach Program

Click here for instructions

 

October 1, 2003
ACNP ANNUAL MEETING
December 7-11, 2003
   
   
   
   

Return to top

        Calendar of Events

 

June 1-4, 2003
26th Annual Meeting of the CCNP
Montreal, Quebec

For information:

Rachelle Anderson
Tel: 1 780 407 6597
Fax: 1 780 407 6672
E-mail: rmena@ualberta.ca

June 20-24, 2004
24th CINP Congress
Paris, France
For Information:

Avenue de L.Atlantique 1222
B-1150 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: 32 3 779 59 59
Fax: 32 2 779 59 60
Email: cinp2004@iceo.be
Website: www.cinp2004.com

 

 

 

July 11-13, 2003
ACNP Program Committee Meeting
Palm Beach, FL

For information:

ACNP Secretariat
2014 Broadway, Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615-322-2075
Fax: 615-343-0662

September 20-24, 2003
16th ECNP Congress
Prague-Czech Republic

For information:

Organizing secretariat:
Congrex Holland
PO Box 302
1000 AH Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: 31 20 50 40 200
Fax: 31 20 50 40 225


December 7-11, 2003
42nd ACNP Annual Meeting
San Juan, Puerto Rico

For information:

ACNP Secretariat
2014 Broadway, Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615-322-2075
Fax: 615-343-0662

December 12-14, 2003
3rd ICGP Annual Meeting
San Juan, Puerto Rico
For Information:

ICGP Executive Office
2014 Broadway, Suite 250
Nashville, TN 37203 USA
Tel: 1-615-322-4247
Fax: 1-615-322-4246
Email: icgp@icgp.org
Website: www.icgp.org

October 9-13, 2004
17th ECNP Congress, Stockholm Sweden

For information:

Organizing secretariat:
Congrex Holland
PO Box 302
1000 AH Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: 31 20 50 40 200
Fax: 31 20 50 40 225

Return to top

 

 

Table of Contents