Notes from ICARA Meeting, Lisbon 29-30 September, 2012

Notes from ICARA Meeting, Lisbon 29-30 September, 2012

Attendee’s

Rebecca McKetin APSAD (Australia)

Ted Cicero , CPDD (USA)

Elisardo Becoña Socidrogalcohol (Spain)

Ralph Hingson ( NIAAA (USA)

Franca Beccaria Kettil Bruun Society for Social and Epidemiological Research on alcohol (Int.)

Raul Caetano , ABEAD, (Brazil)

Karl Mann , ISBRA and EUFAS (Int. and European)

Amador Calafat , Socidrogalcohol (Spain)

Katariina Warpenius, Finnish Association of Alcohol and Drugs Researchers (AHTS). (Finland)

Maristela Monteiro, Monteiro, Dra. Maristela (WDC) , PAHO (Panamerica)

Sungsoo Chun, , , Korean alcohol research association (Korea)

Bruce WheeJer, , SRNT (int.)

Jacques Le Houezec, , SRNT (Europe)

Tom Babor , ISAJE

Kerstin Stenius (ISAJE) (Int.)

Isidore Obot (CRISA), (Nigeria),

Alison Ritter (ISSDP), (Int.)

Jean Bernard Daeppen (SFA), (France),

Roland Simon pa . EU, EMCDDA (Europa)

David Ndetei, , African Mental Health Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya

Andrea Mitchell , , SALIS, (Int)

Day 1: 29th September, 2012

1. Introductions

Each of the participants introduced themselves, the organizations they are affiliated with, and the nature, size and focus of the organization. The 21 participants were affiliated with 9 national societies, 6 international societies, 2 research institutes and 1 public health organization.

According to one participant’s rough estimate, approximately 12,000 addiction professionals were represented across the delegates/societies present at the meeting. It was noted that there are a number of societies not represented, for example RSA, ESBRA, European network prevention, INEBRIA, European SPR, Thai health promotion, Korean Society for AOD Research, Int Society for the study of history of AOD, American PH Association, WHO, ICAA, SSA, IHRA etc… It would be very helpful for ICARA to have a full list of all professional societies – this needs to be generated from those present.

Tom Babor gave a brief overview of ICARA (See Tom’s slides)

ACTIONS:

-  All to contribute other organisation names to the full list.

-  Please send to Kerstin Stenius – Acronym, full name, contact person

2. How to keep a Research Society flourishing?

Presentations from 5 society representatives:

APSAD –Rebecca McKetin

-  Engagement with members through annual conference and the journal

-  Newsletter – communication with members

-  Growth of role as an advocate, for evidence-based practice (disseminate info on best practice)

-  Example of challenge re different disciplines: Addiction Medicine Specialist (doctors) – want greater role in APSAD

AHTS- Katariina Warpenius

-  Issue of consensus – temperance vs. researchers

Consensus not able to be achieved, so perhaps should not be an aim

-  Wide membership (ca 250 members), multiple actors

Connection between research and practice is important

-  Scientific seminars (3-4 p.a.) free for members

Eager, young researchers organise these voluntarily

(no conference fees – because seminars are free)

-  Yearbook, since 2002

Bibliography attached to yearbook funded by Alcohol Monopoly originally, then Health Department

Funding has ended – looking for new collaborators each year (Coalitions)

(Collections of articles on selected topics – no longer a yearbook and bibliography)

CPDD – Ted Cicero

-  Large endowment built over the years and NIDA annual grant

-  Membership fee kept low, to encourage as many to join as possible

-  Conference (1500 delegates). Turns a profit

-  Journal (Drug and Alcohol Dependence) not a money maker, although costs are minimal

-  Requests to provide advice to Congress and Senate and ask for more research money. Advice to NIDA and how to assist them on non-controversial issues.

-  Very broad range of disciplines and research – animal, brain, clinical…

Shifts in priorities of CPDD – from animal models to applied sciences/epidemiology

International Narcotics Research – splinter group

-  Balancing diverse constituency – a key challenge

-  Conference abstract submission does drive the agenda of the conference/focus of the conference

-  Emergence of more specialist societies, to better meet members’ needs

-  Risk = loss of focus for a society

-  Consensus on issues not necessarily possible

-  Funding sources a challenge

-  Journal reputation is really important – but takes time to build a high impact journal

Yes – research societies need to have a journal

-  Quality of the conference is essential

CRISA – Isadore Obot

-  Actually a Centre, rather than Research Society, to bring people together

-  Conference (every 2 years) break even, grants for the conference

-  Grown to attract more countries and delegates

-  Journal – “quite a success”

Forum for studies that would not have been otherwise published

-  2012 formally starting a society

-  Membership criteria – e.g. issue of law enforcement people as members

ISSDP – Alison Ritter

-  New societies vs. old societies

-  Why join? Altruism

-  Journals may no longer be the way of the future.

-  Importance of creating a network and annual scientific meeting – as a place for bringing people together.

Discussion

Following the five presentations, there was group discussion about how to keep a research society flourishing. Discussion surrounded the issue of members, how many members, how to keep members, along with maintaining communications and networks of researchers, society funding and journals. A summary of the points raised is provided here:

General points:

-  Goals of the society (mission) – e.g. some examples of diverse missions:

-  Research, scholarly focus

-  Clinical workforce development focus – practitioner focussed

-  Policy influence, advocacy for evidence-based policy, etc.

-  Disseminate information

-  It’s essential that mission is clear/focussed and this is what members want to belong to

-  Importance of a “network” (e.g. development of WHO’s international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was facilitated by professional societies). Exchange ideas - on a daily basis via list serves, emails, etc.

-  ISAJE as an example of sharing information (i.e., about publisher arrangements, which strengthens the negotiating position of the society and the editor)

-  KBS list serv – eg of network of researchers… Ask questions, share information etc.

-  Visibility for your work – as a key motivator for a society

-  Conferences as places to meet many people (e.g. AIDS conference, tobacco conference). Go to learn the full range and to meet senior scientists

Membership:

-  SRNT has had debates about what different members (basic sciences, clinical, policy) were getting for their dues, with some being more privileged than others

-  One solution: to have conference with 3 tracks so everyone has their own stream (streamed conferences)

-  Setting up ‘networks’ within SRNT – as per interest groups notion. Gives each group a sense of their home within the larger organisation

-  Changes within the USA have highlighted issues for different interest groups within societies: NIDA vs. NIAAA – (and whether tobacco should move from NIDA to the Cancer institute.

-  Example of issue re SRNT had to take a stand even tho membership was split. Discussion paper and survey created opportunities to discuss a controversial issue. Then board revised their position. Importance of giving the members a place to talk/a voice in the process

-  Staffing: Association Planning Company (where each Association can draw on relevant expertise)

-  Bigger societies – federated models more common with committees, interest groups, etc. – to ensure that all have peers that are homogeneous

-  Societies in developing countries – have few permanent members

-  Organise meetings for the non-members (as this is where most people will come from)

-  For smaller societies –keep focused, rather than getting too broad e.g. KBS focuses on social sciences

-  Focus/specialisation vs. very broad constituency that covers the whole gamut of addictions. Different models for large vs. small societies

-  Depends on the goals of the society – workforce development, e.g. of very broad constituency and hence have a conference that is very broad. And possibly making streams

-  Developing countries: less likely to split Alcohol, Drug & Tobacco. Looking at developed country models – and trying to apply them. E.g. of meetings/conferences which allow all to attend: not just researchers, for example

-  Developing countries – hard to maintain membership when there are many other society options

-  A society with no members? Most discussion considered this a poor idea: some reasons:

-  Problem with who your constituency is

-  Problem with status and reputation – need to be seen as powerful

-  Need to have decision – makers

-  Altruism – engagement is important

-  Gives collective voice to members/stakeholders

-  What do members get? (societies get more from members than members get from the society)?

-  Confer prestige and legitimacy

-  A scientific mtg organised for various stakeholders e.g. special conference for young scholars

-  Reduced conference fees

-  Journal access

-  Feeling of belonging – invisible/visible college

-  Voting privileges

-  Can serve on the board

-  Why join? Because there is a tradition

-  Question about membership criteria – must have them to meet the “prestige” criterion

-  Developing countries – less notion of a research career – researchers come from clinicians/practitioners who then become active in research… Research career differences will meant that societies in developing countries will need different approaches.

Funding:

-  Funding is a problem-funds are dwindling

-  Long history of some societies – means they have built up legacy funds

-  Sponsorship (e.g. NIDA, NIAAA, good supporters)

-  Research funds that cover costs for conference attendance – NIDA, NIAAA, expect that investigators will present research findings

-  Volunteers’ time – boards, planning committees, etc., etc.

-  Societies may not need much money

-  Developing, low income countries – no funds. Must innovate. One way is to. get others interested in what the society does – donate time

-  E.G. engaging employers (universities)

-  E.g. partnerships with high income countries including research partnerships on specific studies

-  Small amounts of funds make a huge difference in LAMI

-  Costs of running an office. US $250,000 to maintain central office – all volunteer time

-  Universities – need to appreciate that these roles are prestigious: universities benefit from academics having roles in societies

-  North/South issue – things may be quite different in 10 years. New societies being formed in LAMI. Increasing affluence in Asia, Latin America etc. will drive consumption of alcohol and other drugs. They will need more research support, etc.

-  ICARA could compile a list of funding opportunities on the national and international levels

-  Use of new technologies – webinars, Skype, etc. etc. to reduce costs

3. Industry sponsorship of meetings

Presentations

KBS – Franca Beccaria

-  KBS is concerned with alcohol research – so no dealing with the alcohol industry.

-  Issue raised frequently

-  Main concern = alcohol industry representatives attending KBS meetings – meetings are open, so a small handful from industry register each year

-  June 2012 unanimous decision – we are for open communication of science, so we should not restrict attendance and it’hs difficult to regulate. Participation = come to listen, not to present papers. Concern was that new research, yet to be completed – will have access to this. But overall agreed.

-  By-laws of society means industry reps can’t be members of society so that problem did not exist

-  Disclosures of interest for each meeting paper. But yet to implement it

-  No history of alcohol industry sponsoring KBS meeting but past example of pharmaceutical sponsorship for meeting

-  Own thoughts – pharmaceutical much more complicated than alcohol, tobacco (e.g. Italy, buprenorphine, Reckitts paid for meeting, education sessions etc. for opinion leaders)

-  Journal – advertising by pharmaceutical industry (but not alcohol)

-  Sponsorship re keynote speakers – not a good idea. General costs to meeting OK, but not specific speakers

-  Need to also consider government funding. Eg of govt commissioned research, where govt prohibited publication of the results (and wrote letter to newspaper saying research was not scientific!)

SRNT – Bruce Wheeler

-  Two industry groups: tobacco and pharmaceuticals

-  One produces something that kills people, one produces something that helps people

-  Three areas where they intersect (membership, meeting and journal):

-  Membership: prohibit tobacco industry workers/as per WHO definition of industry

-  Meeting:

o  attendance: open to all (note: SRNT Europe doesn’t allow industry to the meeting)

o  presentations: do allow pharmaceuticals and tobacco to submit then it’s peer-reviewed. Declarations of interest required. Trying not to pre-judge quality of science based on funder/author

o  sponsorship:

-  no tobacco industry

-  pharma

o  Strict policy no organisation names to be put on any sessions (e.g. Pfizer opening session with logo) this is due to perception of influence. Applies to everyone including government and NIDA. No names allowed.

o  General donations only

o  Thank X, Y, Z to support the mission of SRNT (not to support the conference)

-  Journal: allow pharma/tobacco submissions but all peer reviewed. No advertisements.

-  SRNT logo cannot be in proximity of any other logos

-  Very specific policies

-  Address perceptions

-  Clear firewalls

- 

SRNT Europe – Jacques le Houezec

-  Slightly different and more strict regulation

-  Not allowed to come to the conference (but partly b/c of local condition, Helsinki)

-  SRNT Europe: same position as above re journal

o  Good science + peer reviewed

o  Declaration of funding

-  Pressure to bar tobacco industry from the meeting (due to strategic advantage)

Spanish Society – Elisardo Becona

-  No pressure from industry (alcohol, tobacco); no lobbying (they don’t perceive us as important/not afraid of us)

-  Clear understanding that we don’t want them, but we don’t do anything about it

-  Pharma

o  Special symposia that they pay for

o  They pay for registrations

o  E.g. buprenorphine lobbied for by the society itself

·  Government sponsorship not without risk, e.g. re lobbying role

·  Pharma in Spain, very open market, 30% of budget on propaganda

o 

EUFAS – Karen Mann

-  EUFAS yet to have a position on all this (but given no conference and no journal will be less of a problem)