National Eye Institute
National Advisory Eye Council (NAEC)
One Hundred Thirty-ninth Meeting
January 22, 2015
The National Advisory Eye Council (NAEC) convened for its one hundred and thirty-ninth meeting at 8:30 am on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at the T-Level Conference Center at 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20852. Paul A. Sieving, MD, PhD, the Director of the National Eye Institute (NEI), presided as Chair of the Council, Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, as Interim Executive Secretary, and Michael A. Steinmetz, PhD, as Acting Director of Extramural Research. The meeting was open to the public from 08:30 am until 12:00 pm when the meeting was closed to the public for a session from 01:00 pm until 04:00 pm for the review of confidentiality and conflict of interest procedures and a review of grant and cooperative agreement applications.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dr. Hollis Cline
Dr. Laura Frishman
Dr. Jonathan Haines
Dr. Eric Pierce
Dr. Monica Vetter
Dr. Jayne Weiss
Dr. Rafael Yuste
Dr. Marco Zarbin, ex officio
NEI STAFF PRESENT:
Dr. Houmam Araj
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal
Dr. Steven Becker
Ms. Pamela Bobbitt
Ms. Sylvia Braxton
Ms. Vicki Buckley
Ms. Preethi Chandler
Dr. Hemin Chin
Ms. Monique Clark
Mr. William Darby
Ms. Kathryn DeMott
Ms. Linda Dingle
Mr. Don Everett
Dr. Shefa Gordon
Dr. Thomas Greenwell
Mr. Dustin Hays
Dr. Brian Hoshaw
Dr. Jeanette Hosseini
Ms. Tina Jones
Dr. Ellen S. Liberman
Dr. George McKie
Dr. Matt McMahon
Mr. Chris Nee
Dr. Lisa Ann Neuhold
Dr. Gyan Prakash
Ms. Karen Robinson-Smith
Dr. Gale Saunders
Dr. Anne E. Schaffner
Dr. David Schneeweis
Dr. Eleanor Schron
Dr. Belinda Seto
Dr. Grace L. Shen
Dr. Paul A. Sieving
Dr. Michael Steinmetz
Ms. Chantelle Stevenson
Dr. Dan Stimson
Mr. Gerod Thigpen
Dr. Santa Tumminia
Dr. Cheri Wiggs
Dr. Louise Wideroff
Dr. Jerome R. Wujek
OTHER NIH STAFF PRESENT:
Dr. Michael Chaitin, CSR
Dr. Samuel Edwards, CSR
Dr. Nataliya Gordiyenko, CSR
Dr. Don Luckett, CSR
Dr. Geoff Schofield, CSR
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC PRESENT AT THE OPEN SESSION:
Dr. Israel Goldberg, Health Research Associates
Dr. Jeffrey Goldberg, UCSD (by video)
Dr. William Guido, U of Louisville
Mr. James Jorkasky, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research (NAEVR)
Dr. Michael Oberdorfer, Consultant
Ms. Joanne Olson, ARVO
Ms. Iris Rush, ARVO
Dr. Matt Windsor, ARVO
OPEN SESSION OF THE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING REMARKS - Dr. Paul Sieving
Budget for 2015
Dr. Sieving welcomed everyone and introduced Mr. Chris Nee, an NEI budget officer, who is on the agenda for the budget report. Future staff additions are planned for extramural, IT and the communications office. Both the NIH and NEI budgets are shrinking. The 2015 budget is constrained by a continuing resolution (CR), which sets caps based on the previous year’s budget. The current budget leaves us below the 2012 level ($707 million vs $660 million), which has major implications for research opportunities. Institutes are looking for creative ways to maximize resources. Beginning in January 2016, NIGMS will impose a one grant limit on investigators who have substantial funding (defined as > $400,000 in direct costs) from other sources, such as Howard Hughes. Data from NIGMS indicate that the top 5% of grantees get a total of 24% of available funds. They expect to free up about $6 million (M) with this approach. The NEI is not considering imposing such limits at the present time; however, if budgets continue to shrink, the NEI will have to be creative in its own funding process. In response to a question from a Council member, it is not known how GM considers multi-PI awards in this process.
BRAIN and BD2K Initiatives in 2015
An update for the BRAIN Initiative will be given by Rafael Yuste, but Dr. Sieving reiterated important numbers. The initiative was funded by several NIH institutes to the level of $46 M in 2014. The target for 2015 was a total of $100 M. However, Congress appropriated only $25 M, specifically to NIMH and NINDS, for a total of $71 M. The NEI is committing $1 M in FY 2015. BRAIN leadership decided to re-issue 5 of the 6 FOAs that came out in 2014 in the belief that there are still novel opportunities that can be realized through those announcements, along with several new initiatives.
Big data sets are being generated from all areas of biomedical research, including large scale sequencing. The NIH created a new position, Associate Director for Data Science. That position is currently held by Dr. Philip Bourne, who was recruited from UCSD. Jonathan Haines will present more information on BD2K during the morning agenda.
Audacious Goal Initiative (AGI)
A workshop on optic nerve regeneration was held in October during the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC. There were 40 invited attendees with co-chairs Bill Guido and Jeff Goldberg. There was good discussion, good ideas were generated, and a white paper will be available within a month. Based on the white paper, the NEI will formulate an FOA, and the results will be presented to Council. A second workshop on photoreceptor regeneration is scheduled for May 2, a day before the ARVO meeting. Again, it will be a meeting by invitation, the output of which will be other FOAs whose results will be presented to Council. During ARVO there will be 2 symposia related to AGI. Wei Li and Scott Nawy have a symposium on Sunday, May 3, Regenerate and Reconnect: The Road Ahead for an Audacious Goal. On Thursday, May 7, Bill Brunken, Mary Elizabeth Hartnett and Robert Mullins have a symposium on Fundamentals of Ocular Development: Building an Eye through Powerful Connections and Interactions. Regenerative medicine is front and center, and the NEI AGI is tapping into the current interest in neural regeneration.
State of the Union and Precision Medicine
The NIH anticipated the growing interest in the area of Precision Medicine, and has already held a number of discussions at the leadership level. President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, mentioned several examples of cystic fibrosis patients who benefitted from drugs that were based on specific knowledge of the individual’s genome sequence. Such drugs are effective but also very expensive. Other such drugs for medical care, based on specific genetic mutation and protein dysfunction in the pathways involved, are likely to come out of the Precision Medicine initiative, and hopefully at a lower cost. It is anticipated that monies will be available in the FY 2016 budget for this type of medicine.
One Council member mentioned that one of the best uses of precision medicine relates to therapies for genetic eye diseases. He hoped the NEI will have opportunities to engage in the Precision Medicine Initiative. Dr. Sieving said the NEI would be proactive in this regard.
Consideration of Minutes – Dr. Anne E. Schaffner, Executive Secretary
The Executive Secretary then called for approval of the October 9, 2014 NAEC Minutes. There were no corrections or additions. There was a motion, a second, and unanimous vote in favor of accepting the Minutes as written.
OPEN SESSION PRESENTATIONS
Budget Update – Mr. Chris Nee, Budget Analyst, Financial Management Branch
Chris gave a brief update on appropriation history at the NEI. The FY 2015 budget approved by Congress was $684 M, and minus an AIDS transfer, resulted in $676 M. This represents $1.2 M or 0.2% over 2014. We are still $25 M under the FY 2012 level. The budget is divided into three areas: extramural, intramural and RMS (research management and support/administrative costs). The NEI expects to spend 85.6% on extramural, 10.8% on intramural and 3.6% on RMS. Changes in the 2015 budget include a 2% increase in stipends for training grants and an increase in intramural and RMS budgets due to increased mandatory costs. The NEI expects to fund 255 competing grants and 767 non-competing grants for a total of 1022 grants in FY 2015. The NEI success rate (number of funded grants divided by the total number received) in 2014 was well above the NIH average, at 27% versus 18% respectively. The NEI rate is expected to drop in 2015 to approximately 22%, based on the high number of non-competing grants and an increase in the number of NIH grant applications assigned to the NEI. The 0.2% increase is similar across all the NIH institutes.
Council Operating Procedures – Mr. William Darby, Chief, Grants Management Branch
A revision was presented in October, and there were no changes for the new year. There was a motion, a second and unanimous vote to accept the current Council operating procedures.
Biennial Report on Inclusion – Mr. William Everett, Group Leader, Collaborative Clinical Trials
The policies governing inclusion of women and minorities in all clinical research studies and Phase III clinical trials are mandated by Congress. Exclusion must be scientifically justified. The NEI is in compliance with NIH policies on inclusion of women and minorities, and our numbers closely mirror the percent of those groups in the US population. In some instances there is slight over or under representation of a particular group (women, Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics), and this is due to the aging population and the nature of ongoing NEI clinical studies and treatment trials. The representation of African Americans should increase dramatically over the next 2 years based on recently funded epidemiological and genetic studies on eye disease in this racial group. NEI strategies for education and compliance include highlighting the policies on the NEI web site, detailed policies in all FOAs, instruction of peer reviewers by NEI SROs and training of new NEI POs.
BD2K - Jonathan Haines, Multi-Council Working Group
Dr. Haines presented information on BD2K as a member of the Multi-Council Working Group (MCWG). There are massive amounts of digital data that arise from genetic studies, proteomics, metabolomics and imaging data, electronic medical records etc. that are not being shared or well annotated. Storage is also an issue. BD2K arose as a result of the needs of the current and ever-growing digital research enterprise. The trans-NIH nature of the initiative helps solve common problems and provides a cohesive and efficient approach across all NIH institutes. The mission is to make these large data sets available, develop tools to analyze them, train people on handling large data sets and build a better “ecosystem” that allows the digital enterprise to operate. The NIH would like to see a $100 M commitment each year for BD2K efforts. Contributions will come from the Common Fund and from individual institutes. Last year about $32 M was awarded to 12 large centers of data excellence, a Data Discovery Index Coordination Consortium, online training and career development awards. There will be efforts to include the gaming world since they work with large data sets. Going forward, there will be a focus on software development, diversity awards, intramural training initiatives and an FOA for institutional training awards. Policy issues will also be addressed, such as the difficulty of accessing data from dbGaP. BD2K has a fairly complex organizational structure. Awards are made through a process that involves an initial solicitation for grant applications, SEP review, presentation to an IC Council in charge of that particular initiative, presentation to the MCWG, which makes the final decision, and then back to the original IC for funding and administration.
Several questions were asked by Council members regarding the use of sub-contractors for BD2K business, the relationship between BD2K and the Global Alliance, and whether other types of data, such as imaging are included in the initiative. Dr. Haines commented that many of the centers have commercial partners to take advantage of outside expertise. Dr. Bourne has been in contact with people on the international scene in an effort to coordinate with other initiatives like the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health and the Wellcome Trust. There is an intent to include other types of data, but there is a current focus on genomics. Dr. Seto added that in the funding of the first 12 centers there was an attempt to cover a broad range of data such as mobile and biosensor data. Information on BD2K, including funding opportunities is available on the NIH BD2K web site: http://bd2k.nih.gov. The BD2K initiative should be especially valuable for correlating NEI genomic and imaging data. Another question was raised as to whether other government security and intelligence agencies who deal with huge amounts of data could be approached. It was suggested that Dr. Haines mention this to BD2K leadership. It is not known how much the NIH can adopt from these other agencies, but sharing information would accelerate the process. A Council member mentioned that the government agency, IARPA, a conglomerate of national intelligence agencies, is already involved in the Brain Initiative, and their angle is big data analysis. They have issued an RFA focused on how the visual cortex encodes the world, to see if there are algorithms they can use to extract patterns from large data sets. Dr. Haines said that BD2K is considering a data Commons, which would use consistent ways of annotating and storing data, and making it easily accessible, such as in the cloud. A business model would have to be developed to allow access, cost sharing etc. Data ownership is also an issue, especially for NEI clinical trial data, and clinical data should be considered as a part of BD2K. Don Everett commented that raw, anonymized data from the two NEI networks, DRCR and PEDIG are available on request. Cost of storage and the length of time that clinical data should remain available will be important issues.
Report from Co-Chairs on the Optic Nerve Regeneration Workshop - Dr. William Guido, University of Louisville and Dr. Jeffrey Goldberg, University of California San Diego
The Optic Nerve Regeneration Workshop was convened during the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC on November 19, 2014. A presentation on the results of that workshop was led by Bill Guido. Jeff Goldberg contributed via video. Dr. Guido began with a reiteration of the background and goals of the AGI and a description of the workshop, which was a roundtable discussion involving 33 invited attendees from various research areas relevant to optic nerve regeneration from developmental neurobiology to visual processing. The steps to optic nerve regeneration were stressed, including RGC survival, axon growth and guidance, central target selection and synapse formation/circuit integration. The workshop discussion was focused on gaps in knowledge, barriers to scientific progress (both scientific and logistical), and an opportunity for each attendee to say what the goals and milestones of such a project would be. There was considerable dialog among the participants as to whether the question of regeneration should be framed in the context of development, which has taught us a lot about pathway selection, target selection, the role of activity/nonactivity, and molecular guidance cues in guiding regenerating axons through the chiasm and into the correct brain nuclei. Growth of axons across injury sites has been a promising avenue. However, many midline decisions have to be made at the level of the chiasm, and one challenge will be determining the role of chiasm and the guidance cues present there that guide more distal elongation of axons. Another challenge is the existence of ~ 30 types of morphologically and functionally distinct RGCs; a specific class of RGCs must make synaptic contact with the correct subcortical target in the brain and then be integrated into a circuit. The group then discussed the gaps in knowledge, which the co-Chairs encapsulated as 1) a lack of knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms of retinal axon regeneration, 2) appropriate animal models that are translatable to humans, 3) a lack of uniformity and standardization among current experimental models, 4) the role of RGC class and glial response to injury, 4) mechanisms of regenerative growth, and finally, 5) appropriate behavioral and biological outcomes to measure connectivity and function. Barriers to progress were seen as both scientific (i.e., a need for functional and behavioral assays, deep brain imaging technologies and more “omics” information) and sociological (better mechanisms to promote collaboration, communication and resource sharing). Finally, goals and milestones of the project were summarized and included 1) demonstration of regeneration that is translatable to humans, such as a goal of a thousand axons regenerating, 2) establishment of a hierarchy of behavioral milestones from simple to complex, 3) exploration of the micro environment of regeneration, including the role of activity and glia, 4) a high throughput approach to different cell types, guidance cues, and omics, and 5) funding collaborative teams to functionally image the structure and function of RGCs in parallel to basic science work.
Jeff Goldberg emphasized the importance of being able to work on more expensive models like non-human primates, moving putative, positive hits from the bench into the clinic to learn from the initial human trials, collaborations across disciples, central repositories for resources such as viral vectors, and access to animal models. He highlighted the idea that even though the overall goal is audacious, the steps should be allowed to be incremental. Dr. Sieving thanked the co-Chairs for their leadership in the conduct of the workshop and the presentation, which he found both exhilarating and daunting. He also emphasized that the AGI is not a directed science, but a coordinated science. There were questions and comments about vertebrate animals that display optic nerve regeneration, such as fish and amphibians, and what can be learned from those systems. Although it was stated that the goal would be met if there was restoration of visual function in one model, one insult, one target, one behavior, Dr. Goldberg emphasized that this did not preclude support or investigation of other models, targets etc. While at some point the studies must be taken forward into the higher vertebrates, all past and ongoing information coming from lower systems, including in vitro systems, would be taken into consideration to see if those results were translatable to higher vertebrates, especially humans. There was a question regarding specific priorities that might have been identified at the workshop. The co-Chairs agreed that the greatest emphasis was on the idea of bringing people together to work towards the common goal. For example, we are at the edge of regenerative growth—we can get axons to grow past an injury site—but we need to involve others interested in target selection or guidance cues working with people in the area of axon regeneration.
Report on AGI Governance and Implementation - Dr. Steven Becker, AGI Liaison
Dr. Becker described the general flow of information. Ideas generated at workshops, planned and executed by NEI Staff in collaboration with the research community, result in white papers that are followed by development and execution of an FOA. The process involves oversight and collaboration among NEI Staff, the AGI Steering Committee and the NAEC. A timeline was presented for future workshops and FOAs. The first FOA on Imaging was released in April, 2014; applications had an August due date and were reviewed in December, 2014. Council will consider those applications during the Closed Session. The Optic Nerve Regeneration Workshop was held in November, 2014. A white paper from the workshop is planned for February, 2015 with the release of an FOA in April, 2015. In association with the ARVO meeting in Denver, there are plans for a workshop on photoreceptor (PR) regeneration, with Drs. David Gamm and Rachel Wong as the proposed co-Chairs, and a workshop on retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) at the 2015 Neuroscience meeting in Chicago. Both of these workshops will be followed by white papers, FOAs and applications to be reviewed and funded.
The Council members were asked for concept clearance on the development of an FOA/RFA on optic nerve regeneration and the photoreceptor workshop at ARVO. There were motions, seconds and unanimous approval to move forward with the FOA and future workshop.
A question was raised about combining PRs and RGCs into one workshop. A decision had been made to separate the two cell types based on their biology (local regrowth versus growth into the CNS) and the fact that there was so much to learn from each group individually. There was the suggestion by several Council members that a broader representation of knowledge be present at the PR workshop to further inform the discussion and bring diverse groups together for potential collaboration. This would include people involved in RGC science, and those using bioengineering strategies such as implants. Valuable information might also be forthcoming from planned human retrosense trials using viral transfection with channel rhodopsin. Patients could be studied carefully after transfection to look at the consequences of activating all RGCs simultaneously. Steve agreed that the AGI Working Group would consider all of these suggestions going forward.
Report from AGI Working Group on Portfolio Analysis - Dr. Cheri Wiggs, Group Leader, Myopia and Refractive Error, and Low Vision and Blindness Rehabilitation, and Mr. Donald Everett, Group Leader, Collaborative Clinical Trials
Don Everett began the presentation by describing an extensive analysis of AGI-relevant projects that DER Program Officers completed for their respective portfolios. Approximately 800 active grants from FY 2013-2014 in the retinal, glaucoma and central visual processing programs were initially identified as being potentially relevant to the AGI. Further analysis, based on the grant’s having at least one specific aim testing an AGI hypothesis, identified 78 research projects. The top three categories were grants examining RGCs, development/regeneration and stem cells. Dr. Wiggs then presented five examples of projects in the top 3 categories that included a snapshot of the grant–the PI, their institutional affiliation, title of the project, a one-liner of the research strategy, and the current program officer overseeing the grant. The data will be translated into some narrative form to assess the NEI’s current investment in the AGI and develop methods for measuring progress of the AGI.
Discussion afterwards raised several interesting points. The 78 active grants represent about 6% of the total number of the current NEI-funded applications. One Council member wondered if this number felt “right” in terms of the NEI investment in the AGI. Dr. Wiggs reiterated that 78 was a very conservative number, and other research projects should not be disadvantaged, and might in fact be necessary to realize the AG. Drs. Wiggs and Steinmetz added that the data from portfolio analyses will be seen by the AGI Steering Committee, who can provide an overall view of the portfolios and provide constant feedback to the NEI. For U01 applications funded through the AGI FOAs, there will be NEI input as well as oversight and technical input from an Executive Committee specific to each funded application. A Council member felt that the 6% might actually relieve some anxiety in the vision community; clearly, not all of NEI resources are going into the AGI. Several Council members suggested that the white papers be published and another contest be held to synthesize all the information and propose new experiments in regenerative medicine. This approach would involve much broader input from the vision community. Another suggestion was to bring PIs on all AGI-related grants together at a meeting to discuss common goals and foster cross-talk. Dr. Sieving responded that he would like to convene such an annual meeting. Progress and new priorities moving forward also need to be addressed, and this could be accomplished by a group of funded PIs along with additional, cross-disciplinary individuals.
General Council Discussion
Dr. Rafael Yuste reviewed the results of the Brain Initiative’s kick-off meeting for NIH participants held after the Society for Neuroscience meeting. Forty-six PIs were invited to give poster presentations at the meeting. The science was excellent, many of the presenters were young investigators, and NEI grantees were well represented and appeared to be taking the biggest share of Brain Initiative funds. Dr. Francis Collins was there and gave a brief talk about the budget and strategies moving forward. Plans included raising money every year as part of a direct Act of Congress. The NIH had hoped for funding at the level of $100 M total, but that was reduced to about $65 M, which was still an increase over the previous year ($46 M). DARPA has the biggest financial commitment and actually created a new division. They will be a major player in the initiative and in biomedical sciences. NSF also planned to increase their budget, but their investment is much smaller. President Obama wants the Brain Initiative anchored in federal agencies. One agency already involved is IARPA, a consortium of intelligence agencies. The Department of Energy was considering becoming involved to find new life for their National Labs, whose projects have fallen off since the end of the cold war. Foundations and universities committed to the BRAIN Initiative include the Kavli Foundation, HHMI, and UCSD, which now has a Center for Brain Activity Mapping. Stanford is also creating a center for Brain Initiative-type work. The pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline, is involved in peripheral nervous system research. They will release $1 M to a team that builds a small, wireless, nanodevice for recording and stimulating peripheral nerves; such a device could be applied in principle to optic nerve. Data companies are also getting involved. Google will be doing something in the area of connectomics. The state of California is creating their own brain initiative called Cog Brain. They received 140 applications and plan to fund about one third over the next few months. On the international scene, the EU has their own brain project, which is currently under review. There are smaller brain projects in Israel, Japan (focused on marmoset as a model), and the UK. Australia has decided to fund the US Brain Initiative by supporting Australian researchers who apply and make the cut. China will embark on their own brain initiative in April with 3 groups vying to be in control including the Chinese military.
One member raised the possibility of NIH institutes making an award for basic research that had “unintended” consequences, based on unforeseen clinical application. This would go a long way in explaining the mission of the institute and its research to the public. The award would not have to be financial but would involve national recognition. The time interval between the actual work and the consequence would be left to the institute.
Another member raised the possibility that the NEI might consider including the U01 mechanism eligible for Core grant consideration, in addition to R01s. This would allow AGI grants to qualify towards the minimum of 8 funded NEI grants and allow investigators the freedom to apply for either mechanism without jeopardizing the institution’s eligibility. The NEI will consider this issue.
A Council member mentioned that the NHGRI has recently released an RFA for Centers for Mendelian Genomics, and several members of the vision community have applied. This provides an exciting opportunity to emphasize non-exomic causes of disease. He also mentioned that investigators are becoming increasingly concerned about the growing administrative demands and constantly changing requirements at the NIH, such as the new biosketch. The request came through Dr. Richard Stone, who took the lead on this issue at a recent conference. He relayed comments of Dr. Stone from a recent conference. Dr. Stone asked if the NAEC and the NEI could initiate efforts within NIH to ease these administrative burdens of time and cost associated with compliance. During discussion, several Council members agreed to frame the issue and suggest resolutions on this matter that the NAEC could address to NIH centrally.
This concluded the Open Session of the meeting. The Open Session adjourned at 12 noon.
These minutes were submitted for the approval of the Council; all corrections or notations were incorporated. We hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the foregoing minutes and attachment(s) are accurate and complete.
Anne E Schaffner, Ph.D.
Interim Executive Secretary
National Advisory Eye Council
National Eye Institute
Paul A. Sieving, M.D., Ph.D.
Chairman, National Advisory Eye Council
Director, National Eye Institute
ATTACHMENT A: NATIONAL ADVISORY EYE COUNCIL MEMBERS
Hollis T. Cline, Ph.D.
Departments of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience and Chemical Physiology
The Scripps Research Institute
La Jolla, CA
Laura J. Frishman, Ph.D.
College of Optometry
University of Houston
Jonathan L. Haines, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
Case Western Reserve University
Stephen Dr. McLeod, M.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Ophthalmology
Casey Eye Institute
Oregon Health and Science University
Kathleen M. Petrillo, J.D.
Senniger Powers, LLP
St. Louis, MO
Eric A. Pierce, Ph.D., M.D.
Ocular Genomics Institute
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary
Harvard Medical School
Monica L. Vetter, Ph.D.
Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy
University of Utah
Medical Research and Education Building
Salt Lake City, UT
Jayne S. Weiss, M.D.
Professor and Chairman
Department of Ophthalmology
Louisiana State University
School of Medicine
New Orleans, LA
Rafael Yuste, M.D., Ph.D.
Departments of Biological Sciences and Neuroscience
New York, NY
Marco A. Zarbin, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science
UNDNJ-New Jersey Medical School