National Institutes of Health
National Eye Institute
Minutes of the National Advisory Eye Council
One Hundred Seventy Third Meeting
February 13, 2026
The National Advisory Eye Council (NAEC) convened its 173rd meeting virtually at 9:00
a.m. on Friday, February 13, 2026. The meeting was publicly broadcast by the NIH
videocast system. Dr. Michael F. Chiang, Director of the National Eye Institute (NEI),
presided as Council Chair. Dr. Hyo-Jung (Anna) Han served as Executive Secretary. The
meeting was open to the public from 9:00 a.m. and adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
Council Members Present:
Dr. Michael F. Chiang, Chair
Dr. Anna Han, Executive Secretary
Dr. Maria Grant
Dr. Donald Mutti
Dr. Pradeep Ramulu
Dr. Victor Perez Quinones
NIH Staff Members Present:
Shawn Adolphus
Neeraj Agarwal
Houmam Araj
Kapil Bharti
Sangeeta Bhargava
Rylee Brauer
Nathan Brown
Alysia Champagne
Karen Colbert
Roland Colbert
Jeffrey Cozart
Tiffany Cook
Aurea De Sousa
Kathryn Demott
Martha Flanders
Ashley Fortress
Shaojian Gao
Alexandra Gavrilovic
Tony Gover
David Higgins
Steven Henle
Stephanie Kennedy
Jimmy Le
Paekgyu Lee
Richard Lee
Renee Livshin
George Mckie
Melanie Reagan
Carissa Reilly-Weedon
Maryann Redford
Azadeh Shoaibi
Merideth Shifflett
Hongman Song
Afia Sultana
Joanna Szczepanik
Santa Tumminia
Leslie West-Bushby
Keturah Williams
Bronte Williams Washington
Cheryl Wiggs
Charles Wright
Michael O’Hagan
Nataliya Gordiyenko
Kiyoharu Miyagishima
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
— Dr. Michael Chiang, Chair, NAEC, and Director, NEI
Dr. Michael Chiang opened the 173rd meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council, welcoming attendees and expressing appreciation for conducting the session virtually to ensure efficiency, particularly given the smaller-than-usual Council slate. He thanked Council members for their participation and acknowledged the efforts of Dr. Hyo-Jung (Anna) Han—Acting Director of the Division of Extramural Activities—and Nathan Brown, along with the broader DEA team, for organizing the meeting.
COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND RELATED MATTERS
—Dr. Anna Han, Executive Secretary,
NAEC, and Acting Director, Division of Extramural Activities (DEA)
Dr. Hyo-Jung (Anna) Han welcomed Council members, NEI staff, members of the advocacy community, colleagues from the Center for Scientific Review, and members of the public viewing via videocast. She reintroduced herself as the Acting Director of Extramural Activities, Executive Secretary, and Designated Federal Official for the National Advisory Eye Council. Dr. Han noted that this gathering marked the 173rd meeting of the Council and extended appreciation to the broader NEI team, including grants management specialists and program officers, for their continued dedication. She also thanked Nathan Brown for his exceptional coordination and support in organizing the meeting.
Dr. Han explained that the current session constituted the open portion of the Council meeting. A separate closed session would take place in March after completion of peer reviews and staff evaluations. She expressed gratitude for the Council’s ongoing flexibility throughout the planning process.
Before proceeding to the agenda, Dr. Han reviewed virtual meeting etiquette. Participants were asked to:
- Identify themselves by full name when speaking, particularly to support attendees who are visually impaired.
- Ensure their full name appears correctly in Microsoft Teams for accurate
documentation. - Keep video off unless they are Council members or actively speaking.
- Mute themselves unless presenting and use the “Raise Hand” function to ask
questions. - Refrain from using the Teams chat, as videocast viewers cannot access it and all comments in a public meeting must remain accessible.
She reminded Council members that, as Special Government Employees, they may not engage in lobbying activities while receiving federal compensation.
Dr. Han noted that upcoming Council meeting dates are listed in the open session agenda and on the NEI website, with the next meeting scheduled for Friday, June 5. She added that meeting minutes are available in the Electronic Council Book for review and comments. She then turned the floor back to Dr. Chiang for his Director’s Report.
NEI DIRECTOR’S REPORT
—Dr. Michael F. Chiang
Dr. Chiang began by emphasizing a collaborative tone and encouraging input from Council members throughout the discussion. He first reviewed leadership transitions across NIH that intersect with NEI priorities. At NHLBI, Dr. Gary Gibbons retired after a distinguished tenure beginning in 2012 that included leading seminal work in prevention and treatment of heart, lung, and blood diseases, with particular progress on sickle cell disease through the Cure Sickle Cell initiative—culminating in the FDA’s first approvals of gene therapies within five years of launch. Dr. David Goff is serving as Acting Director. At NINDS, Dr. Walter Koroshetz stepped down after notable leadership across high-risk/high-reward programs including the BRAIN Initiative and HEAL; NEI collaborations have spanned CVI, Common Fund efforts, PRIMED AI, and the REPeats project. Amy Adams is now Acting Director. Dr. Chiang also noted that Dr. Rick Woychik (formerly NIEHS Director) transitioned to the Office of the Director as Senior Advisor for the NIH “Make America Healthy Again” strategy, which includes significant attention to real-world data. In the Office of the Director’s DPCPSI, Nicole Kleinstore was named Deputy Director; she previously led NICEATM at NIEHS and has been an important partner on NEI’s growing NAMs footprint.
DPCPSI Reorganization and “Science of Science”
Dr. Chiang summarized a proposed DPCPSI reorganization designed to strengthen NIH’s “science of science” capabilities. A new Office of Research Innovation, Validation and Application is slated to focus on NAMs, housing divisions that accelerate innovation in biomedical research and expand NICEATM’s interagency work on alternative test methods. In parallel, an Office of Research Economics, Planning and Analysis would consolidate planning, performance and reporting, portfolio analytics, and a new Office of Replication and Reproducibility. Taken together, these moves aim to modernize how NIH validates methods, analyzes portfolios, and scales credible findings—areas where NEI already has considerable momentum (e.g., data science, AI, and robust preclinical models).
Awards and Recognition
The Director spotlighted achievements relevant to the vision community. The NIH Sayer Vision Research Lecture & Award was recently presented to Mike Zepaya of Université de Montréal, whose lecture on targeting cellular senescence in retinovascular disease integrated multiple NEI-priority themes. He also noted the National Academy of Sciences Pradel Research Award (2026) to Sebastian Seung of Princeton University for foundational contributions in learning algorithms, neural networks, convolutional methods, and connectomics—work long supported by NEI and influential across modern computational neuroscience.
NEI Strategic Plan and Community Engagement
Dr. Chiang revisited NEI’s current five-year Strategic Plan (2021–2026), which organizes portfolio priorities across seven cross-cutting areas—genetics, neuroscience, immunology, regenerative medicine, data science, quality of life, and population health— while recognizing that clinical portfolios remain organized by anatomy and disease. He stressed that the plan is community-built, drawn from RFIs and expert groups rather than top-down edict, and reiterated that alignment with the plan will increasingly inform funding decisions for investigator-initiated applications. Looking ahead to the 2026–2031 plan, NEI will issue a new RFI and is actively seeking advice on deeper outreach beyond established channels. During the discussion, Dr. Maria Grant proposed using the ARVO platform and a director’s overview to amplify the RFI to a large audience that can propagate the message across labs and institutions. Dr. Donald Mutti encouraged a deliberate strategy to engage “diagonal” experts—researchers who work across methods and diseases—so the next plan better captures cross-cutting innovation.
Mission Focus
The Director reaffirmed NEI’s mission: to eliminate vision loss and improve quality of life through vision research. He framed recent efforts around four pillars, driving innovative research, fostering collaboration, strengthening the workforce through recruitment and training, and educating stakeholders about impact. He highlighted specific areas that align especially well with NIH priorities and NEI’s strengths: training future scientists, replication and reproducibility, real-world data, AI, NAMs, and outcomes that are clinically measurable and meaningful.
Funding Mechanics, NOFO Streamlining, and Highlighted Topics
Dr. Chiang described NIH’s effort to streamline the number of NOFOs across Institutes and Centers—reducing administrative burden and making it easier for investigators to pursue innovative, investigator-initiated work. NEI historically maintains a lean set of NOFOs, but will align with broader NIH consolidation, including new parent announcements. To signal interest in emerging areas without proliferating NOFOs or NOSIs, NIH is introducing Highlighted Topics—time-limited signals (typically one year) that encourage investigator-initiated applications addressing priority directions. The Director noted that multi-year funding policies remain in evolution and reminded investigators to read the NEI Strategic Plan and speak with program staff early to optimize fit and impact. He referenced the Unified NIH Funding Strategy articulated by Jay Bhattacharya, which pivots emphasis away from rigid pay lines toward portfolio stewardship aligned with mission, peer-reviewed scientific merit, investigator context (career stage, geography, cumulative NIH support), and opportunity cost.
Workforce Development
NEI’s R38 “STAR” Program continues to support extended research training within residency—building clinician-scientist capacity via 5–6-year tracks that include 1–2 dedicated research years. Initial cohorts at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and UCSF show promise, and the next competition is planned for October 2026. NEI’s “Eye on the Future” high-school video contest remains a cornerstone of early-pipeline inspiration, with the current year’s deadline on April 19, 2026.
Replication and Reproducibility (Common Fund)
The Council turned to replication and reproducibility—central to credibility, translation, and efficient resource use. Dr. Chiang outlined a Common Fund concept (recently presented; vote postponed pending refinements) to establish Replication Centers focused on worthy preclinical/basic studies, paired with a meta-science testbed to define metrics and incentives across academia, industry, and publishing, and supported by education/outreach and coordination hubs. He distinguished this approach from replicating full clinical trials, which would consume budgets and timelines disproportionately; instead, NEI aims to raise front-end rigor and generalizability so large trials can be more trustworthy and applicable. In discussion, Dr. Maria Grant underscored that journals often do not encourage detailed, reproducible protocols; she advocated that NIH/NEI engage editors to normalize rich method sections (and not bury rigor/reproducibility in little-read appendices), which would save substantial time for labs attempting to reuse validated techniques and likely increase citations of the original work. Dr. Donald Mutti supported the focus on preclinical replication and emphasized that for clinical trials, NEI’s strongest lever is rigorous design and generalizability upfront. He also flagged accountability challenges in data sharing, where differing models can produce different conclusions from the same dataset; clarifying analysis plans, adjustment choices, and reporting standards will be important as NEI advances open science.
New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)
Dr. Chiang provided a concise update on NAMs, noting the growing emphasis across NIH and FDA on human-based models, organoids, AI, digital twins, and cell-based systems that complement or reduce animal use. He referenced an NIH Common Fund challenge conducted with NASA Tournament Labs, organized in three phases to deliver integrated human-based solutions in three years, with Phase 1 idea proposals due soon and subsequent phases described via the posted materials. The Director highlighted RPE Digital Twins as a landmark: the first subcellular-resolution digital twin of a differentiated primary human cell, built from iPSCs with AI trained to segment nuclei and subcellular structures, quantify shape, volume, and polarity, and assemble a reference atlas to catalyze new discoveries. He recognized David Aldolan and Kapil Bharti for leading this work.
Vision-Related Quality of Life (ePRO Platform)
NEI is developing a dynamic, patient-centered electronic PRO for vision-related quality of life that is content-valid, psychometrically sound, clinically interpretable, and intended for FDA qualification. Led by Negin Atri and a cross-functional NEI team, the platform aims to be broadly applicable across the spectrum of visual function—akin to the universality of visual acuity—so clinical trials and practice can capture meaningful patient outcomes.
Contracts were awarded to Digital Infusion (platform), Delphi (psychometrics), and Roe Federal (clinical evaluation). NEI will engage clinicians, researchers, and patients across diverse settings and populations to ensure relevance, usability, and adoption.
Budget Context
Dr. Chiang closed the report by noting that NIH is funded at $47B for FY 2026 through October 1, 2026. He indicated that NEI continues to manage programs in alignment with mission priorities and evolving NIH funding strategy, and that updates will be provided as necessary.
Council Discussion and Closing
The Council discussion reinforced several operational priorities: amplify outreach for the 2026–2031 Strategic Plan RFI at ARVO and through targeted engagement of cross-disciplinary experts; pursue journal partnerships to normalize detailed protocols and visible rigor/reproducibility sections; clarify data-sharing accountability through transparent analysis plans and reporting; continue to build the clinician-scientist pipeline via R38 STAR; and scale NAMs and quality-of-life measurement so preclinical models and patient-reported outcomes evolve alongside advances in AI and human-cell systems. Dr. Chiang thanked members for their thoughtful perspectives and reiterated NEI’s commitment to open dialogue with the vision community as initiatives move forward.
BRAIN Initiative Update —Dr. Pradeep Ramulu
Dr. Pradeep Ramulu provided an in-depth overview of the ongoing work supported through the BRAIN Initiative, emphasizing its multi-component structure and broad methodological ambitions. He explained that the initiative begins by mapping and characterizing neuronal circuits at multiple levels—from individual cells and cell types to their molecular features and anatomical connectivity. Building from this structural foundation, investigators then examine patterns of neuronal activity across time and space and develop increasingly sophisticated ways to manipulate neural circuits, including through optogenetic techniques. These manipulations allow researchers to test the functional significance of specific circuits and activity patterns, ultimately linking neural dynamics to behavioral outcomes in both controlled laboratory contexts and real-world environments. Dr. Ramulu emphasized that the data generated in these efforts are extraordinarily extensive and complex, requiring deep integration of theoretical modeling and advanced statistical frameworks to meaningfully interpret them. A parallel priority of the initiative is to translate these approaches into human neuroscience, supported by advances in fMRI, EEG, PET imaging, and deep-brain stimulation technologies. Because the success of these tools depends on widespread adoption, the initiative also includes a strong training and dissemination component to equip the scientific community with the expertise needed to use the new technologies effectively.
He noted that the initiative has been highly productive, involving nearly 2,000 principal investigators across more than 300 departments and institutions, with a similarly high number of awards and a publication record that grew steadily before plateauing around 2021. The program’s budget has fluctuated as well, including contributions from the Cures Act; while there is a slight projected increase for 2026, it remains below the peak funding levels observed from 2020 to 2023.
Dr. Ramulu shared representative scientific accomplishments, including the Nature Methods “Method of the Year” recognition for the electron-microscopy-based connectome of the entire Drosophila brain and the “microns” project, which reconstructed one cubic millimeter of mouse cortex—revealing a level of structural intricacy reminiscent of the density of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field image. Additional advances highlighted at recent BRAIN meetings include work from Northwestern University demonstrating fully wireless optogenetic stimulation in freely moving mice, enabling manipulation of brain activity to guide reward-related behavior with roughly 80% accuracy, and proving that spatial and temporal precision in light-driven stimulation meaningfully affects behavioral discrimination.
He concluded by outlining active and upcoming BRAIN Initiative funding opportunities, many of which focus on methods development—such as tools for recording and modulating the nervous system, archiving data, probing cell-specific processes, and designing next-generation neural devices. Although NIH is overall reducing the number of NOFOs, he noted that the BRAIN portfolio remains robust, and investigators can easily track new announcements and program updates through the initiative’s website and associated blog. Dr. Chiang thanked Dr. Ramulu for the presentation, noting its methodological relevance to both neuroscience and vision science.
NAMS —Dr. Kapil Bharti
Dr. Hyo-Jung (Anna) Han opened the segment and invited Dr. Kapil Bharti to brief the Council on the NIH Common Fund’s initiative in New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). Dr. Bharti began by clarifying a widespread misconception: NAMs were conceived to complement traditional animal research, not replace it. While the portfolio focuses primarily on human-based models to improve efficiency and translational relevance, NAM elements can (and, in some cases, should) be integrated into animal studies to extend insight into disease biology and pathogenesis. He emphasized that the program originated in June 2023 through Advisory Council recommendations to the NIH Director and has since progressed through landscape analyses, listening sessions, and interagency workshops, culminating in Council of Councils action in January 2024, independent of any subsequent administrative debates about animal research.
Framing NAMs as a broad methodological transformation spanning basic, translational, and clinical science, Dr. Bharti outlined the initiative’s goals: to improve human-relevant modeling across diverse populations; to develop platforms that offer clear mechanistic insight; to validate mature NAMs for potential regulatory use (in partnership with FDA); and to strengthen biomedical research by integrating these approaches alongside established models. He described four major scientific domains within NAMs: (1) digital twins; (2) in silico models; (3) in-chemical screening; and (4) complex in vitro systems (organoids, microphysiological “organ-on-chip” models, assembled multi-tissue constructs, and 3D bioprinting).
In digital twins, Dr. Bharti traced the concept’s roots in engineering and manufacturing before its adaptation to biology and health care. He highlighted the Allen Institute’s early “digital cell” and then described recent NEI work generating the first subcellular-resolution digital twin of human RPE cells, comparing polarized and non-polarized states across multiple organelles to build an atlas spanning healthy through disease phenotypes. He noted that laboratories have already begun using the atlas to position their data along a spectrum of phenotypic severity, enabling more precise classification and targeted drug screening. He contrasted this cellular twin with a clinical digital-twin effort at the University of Pittsburgh, where advanced imaging, clinical analytics, social determinants of health, quality-of-life measures, and AI-based image analysis are integrated to construct personalized patient twins—a decision-support framework for multi-disciplinary consultation and individualized treatment planning.
Addressing in silico models, Dr. Bharti described studies that combine multi-omics and artificial intelligence to improve early disease detection, as well as a recent approach using large language models to pre-validate patient-reported outcome questionnaires for cataract surgery and intraocular lenses. He noted that such simulations can identify points of failure, strengthen psychometric robustness, and reduce logistical and ethical burdens prior to real-world deployment. He also referenced large integrated datasets (e.g., Bridge2AI) that collect multi-domain physiologic and environmental signals across thousands of participants, offering opportunities to understand systemic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and their ocular implications.
In the in-chemical domain, he described high-throughput platforms that evaluate reactivity and toxicity at molecular levels without live tissues, and in complex in vitro systems, he provided several ophthalmology-relevant examples. A Cornell/Duke “outflow-on-a-chip” model recreates Schlemm’s canal and trabecular meshwork to study steroid-induced glaucoma-like changes in aqueous humor dynamics. An assembled organoid system from Indiana demonstrates survival and connectivity of retinal ganglion cells through retinofugal pathways into thalamic and cortical targets—achieving, in a dish, neural circuit phenomena that previously required large-animal models. NEI investigators have also 3D-bioprinted an RPE– horiocapillaris construct that replicates dry AMD-like pathology, including APOE-positive drusen-like deposits, RPE degeneration, and choriocapillaris atrophy, enabling earlier-stage intervention studies. He further described body-on-a-chip configurations capable of perfusing a compound through serial organ modules to test systemic toxicity entirely in vitro.
Dr. Bharti was candid about limitations. Digital/in silico systems can lack biological fidelity; 2D cultures, while rapid for screening, lack 3D architecture; organoids and bioprinted constructs, though more physiological, are complex and not trivial to reproduce; and microphysiological chips demand specialized expertise. Conversely, animal models retain advantages for systemic physiology and certain anatomical complexities, yet often diverge from human genetics and clinical reality. NAMs therefore require validation, standardization, and comparative benchmarking against animal and human data to determine when a given approach is reliable enough to support drug development and regulatory decisions. He outlined the complementary program’s long-horizon architecture—Technology Development Centers (TDCs), a NAM Data and Resource Coordination Center, Validation and Qualification Networks, community training and engagement, and FDA collaborations—designed to build common data elements, harmonized validation frameworks, and pathways to regulatory acceptance over a decade-scale investment. In the discussion, Dr. Pradeep Ramulu asked about industry adoption and hesitations. Dr. Bharti reported that pharmaceutical companies are fully engaged, evidenced by rapid hiring and extensive collaborations with academic NAM developers; however, he underscored the need for co-development and education to overcome reproducibility barriers and to standardize protocols and target validation in ways that satisfy industrial and regulatory requirements. Dr. Victor Perez pressed for greater visibility of the eye within broader NAM ecosystems, noting the centrality of ocular toxicity for systemic drugs. Dr.
Bharti agreed, acknowledging the eye’s complexity—which makes fully integrated, vascularized 3D ocular constructs especially challenging—but affirmed that the ophthalmic community is deeply embedded in NAM initiatives and that the FDA recognizes ocular endpoints as essential within toxicity testing paradigms. Dr. Michael Chiang thanked Dr. Bharti and emphasized the need to move from feasibility papers to real-world impact, specifically validated outcome measures, clear thresholds for “good enough” model performance, and demonstrated use of NAMs in drug development. Dr. Maria Grant advocated for workshops and systematic integration of NAMs with mature systems-biology approaches at the animal and human levels; Dr. Bharti concurred, stressing side-by-side comparative analyses, protocol standardization, and staged adoption—leveraging simpler models where appropriate and scaling complexity in tandem with validation and reproducibility. Dr. Han closed by thanking Dr. Bharti and transitioning the group into open discussion.
Open Discussion
Following the NAMs presentation, Dr. Michael Chiang reopened the floor for general discussion, emphasizing that Council members should feel free to raise any topic addressed during the meeting or any broader issues relevant to NEI’s mission. He also reassured members that the agenda did not require filling the remaining time if no additional discussion was needed.
Dr. Victor Perez began the dialogue by returning to the topic of vision-related quality of life, expressing enthusiasm for the development of a modernized patient-reported outcome measure to replace the aging NEI VFQ-25. He asked how NEI envisioned the eventual validation process among clinicians and end-users, and whether the new instrument would incorporate pediatric populations—an area he noted is historically challenging but important.
Dr. Chiang welcomed the question and elaborated on NEI’s motivations for updating quality-of-life assessment tools. He reflected on long-standing gaps in how clinicians interpret patients’ subjective experiences, noting the mismatch that can arise when objective measures (such as visual acuity) fail to reflect a patient’s functional challenges— or, conversely, when patients report functioning well despite clinician-observed deficits. He explained that the new electronic PRO initiative, led by Negin Atri and collaborators, is still in an early phase. To ensure scientific rigor and feasibility, the initial development will focus on adult populations, excluding pediatrics for now due to the complexity of developmental differences and the difficulty of distinguishing between a child’s self-report and parental interpretation. Dr. Chiang emphasized that this exclusion is temporary and pragmatic rather than philosophical, and he acknowledged the importance of returning to pediatric adaptation once the adult framework is well established.
Dr. Perez agreed with the reasoning, urging NEI not to lose sight of pediatric needs over time.
The discussion then shifted as Dr. Donald Mutti raised a question regarding recent changes in CSR’s criteria for discussing applications, noting that the threshold had moved from roughly 50% to about 30–35%. He shared concerns expressed by colleagues that this shift might limit substantive feedback for applicants. Dr. Chiang explained that NIH is actively re-examining peer-review and reporting processes, including the role of NOFO simplification and alignment with strategic plans. He emphasized that percentile scores, while necessary for triage, risk conveying “false precision,” especially when very small numerical differences guide assumptions about merit. He reiterated that NEI views application review holistically and prioritizes scientific impact, mission alignment, and balanced portfolio stewardship—not rigid payline cutoffs. Dr. Mutti supported this perspective, noting that real-world judgment by thoughtful reviewers remains the backbone of the system.
Dr. Maria Grant continued the conversation by raising concerns about the depth and quality of peer review, noting that time pressures may lead to more superficial critiques compared with earlier years. She also suggested broadening the reviewer pool to include qualified scientists outside the United States and recently retired investigators who possess deep expertise and more flexibility. Dr. Chiang acknowledged the validity of these points and shared that CSR leadership is actively exploring ways to expand reviewer participation, diversify expertise, and increase engagement from clinicians and industry scientists who can provide real-world translational context. He also noted a broader cultural shift toward a more transactional view of academic service and expressed interest in developing incentives and expectations for community contributions such as peer review.
Dr. Pradeep Ramulu affirmed this perspective, reflecting on generational changes in workload, expectations for compensation, and value placed on personal time. While acknowledging the cultural shift, he emphasized the need to find constructive ways to adapt academic incentive structures. Dr. Chiang agreed, noting ongoing discussions with journal editors-in-chief and efforts such as the Council of Vision Editors Fellowship to cultivate early-career engagement in peer review and scientific communication. As the discussion wound down, Dr. Chiang invited any final comments. Hearing none, he offered closing remarks thanking Council members for their insight, flexibility, and ongoing partnership. He noted continuing work with NIH and HHS on Council composition and expressed eagerness to reconvene in person in Bethesda as circumstances allow. He then
turned the meeting back to Dr. Han for formal adjournment.
Dr. Han thanked all participants for their contributions, noted the date of the next closed session (March 20), and formally adjourned the 173rd meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council, expressing hope to see members again soon.
ADJOURNMENT
The 173rd meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. on February 13, 2026
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the foregoing minutes and attachment(s) are accurate and complete.
______________________________________
Michael F. Chiang, MD
Chair
National Advisory Eye Council
______________________________________
Hyo-Jung Han, PhD
Executive Secretary
National Advisory Eye Council