IPRCC Meeting - 7/6/2021

National Institutes of Health

Conference Call

1:30pm - 4:00pm ET

Federal Register Notice - 6/03/2021

Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee

July 6, 2021

Virtual Meeting



On July 6, 2021, at 1:30 p.m, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) convened for a virtual meeting. In accordance with Public Law 92-463, the meeting was open to the public. Walter Koroshetz, MD, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), presided as chair.

The following IPRCC members were in attendance:

  • Federal Members: David Clark, MD, PhD; Charles G. Helmick, II, MD; Elisabeth Kato, MD; Walter Koroshetz, MD; Helene Langevin, MD; Rigoberto Roca, MD
  • Scientific Members: Daniel B. Carr, MD; Beth Darnall, PhD; Christine Goertz, DC, PhD; Robert D. Kerns, PhD; Christine Nai-Mei Sang, MD, MPH; David A. Williams, PhD
  • Public Members: James Broatch; Katherine Hammitt; Gwenn Herman
  • Ex-Officio Members: Will M. Aklin, PhD (NIDA)
  • Designated Federal Official: Linda L. Porter, PhD

Dr. Koroshetz noted the attendance and thanked members who had extended their terms (David Clark, Daniel Carr, Robert Kerns, Gwenn Herman and Katherine Hammitt) as the committee awaits approval of the 2020 slate of new members. He noted that the November 2021 IPRCC meeting will be a full-day meeting. He also noted that Michael Moskowitz, a former IPRCC member, was among those awarded the prestigious 2021 Brain Prize from the Lundbeck Foundation, for research on causes and treatment of migraine.

Approval of Previous Minutes and General Updates

Linda Porter, PhD, Director, Office of Pain Policy and Planning, NINDS

Approval of Previous Minutes

Dr. Porter noted two small changes to the draft minutes from the November 2020 IPRCC meeting. In a discussion about enhancing patient engagement in pain studies, a bullet point on page 10 was clarified to read that input from persons with lived experience should be sought to help inform NIH program directors about patient-centered priorities in pain research. In a discussion about increasing the diversity of the pain research workforce, the type of a particular funding mechanism noted on page 14 was corrected to read “K05”. On page 4, Dr. Carr requested that the use of the word “overturned” to describe plans to establish a data repository for certain HEAL Initiative’s pain management studies be replaced with the word “altered.”

IPRCC members voted to approve the minutes from the IPRCC’s previous meeting.

Science Advances

Dr. Porter informed members that Pain Research Advances selected by the committee and published in 2019 had been summarized and posted on the IPRCC web page. She reminded members that these are mandated by Congress and that there would soon be a call to submit science advances from 2020 through the current date, with more details about the submission process forthcoming.

Federal Updates

FDA update on Guidelines for Appropriate Opioid Analgesic Prescribing for Acute Pain

Dr. Rigoberto Roca, Acting Division Director, Division of Anesthesiology, Addiction Medicine, and Pain Medicine

Dr. Roca outlined how the FDA has been asked by Congress to develop evidence-based analgesic prescribing guidelines for acute pain for indications where there are no existing guidelines. The FDA has a three-year grant with the University of Pittsburgh and the American Dental Association to look at the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical) and develop plans to increase uptake of practice guidelines and evaluate the reach and impact of guideline dissemination. Dr. Roca said that the project is on track and several meetings have been held.


Dr. Carr noted a series of studies that examine distinct pain trajectories within aggregate populations of patients treated for acute post-surgical pain, which have raised the point that patient characteristics are often more influential on pain trajectories than factors such as surgical site – yet guidelines are typically organized by site-specific pain control. He suggested that guidelines may benefit from taking into consideration these patient characteristics. Dr. Roca replied that it would be important to take that research into account but that it is too early to say how that might be utilized.

Ms. Hammitt asked about patient representation in the process, and Dr. Roca confirmed that that patients are well represented. 

Dr. Kato noted how the NIH HEAL Initiative’s back-pain research consortium (BACPAC) is engaged in a process of patient phenotyping, or trying to match patient characteristics to treatments. Dr. Roca replied that he was familiar with the effort. Dr. Kerns mentioned a similar effort within the VA to promote research on the heterogeneity of treatment effects on pain.

Dr. Darnall noted how guidelines often focus on minimizing opioid use post-operatively, but pain immediately following surgery is a predictor of longer-term, persistent pain, and said that a strategy for prevention of chronic pain could involve better treatment of the pain at the time of the surgery.

CDC Update on the Process for Updating the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids

Jan Losby, Branch Chief for Health Systems and Research Branch, Division of Overdose Prevention

Dr. Losby provided background about the prescribing guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in March, 2016. The recommendations were for prescribing opioids for patients 18 and older in primary care settings suffering from chronic pain, but were not meant for cancer treatment, palliative care or end-of life care. The recommendations covered the appropriate time for prescribing; selection, duration and discontinuation of opioids; and assessing potential harms. The CDC said at the time of the 2016 guidelines that they would be subject to review as new evidence became available. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, on behalf of CDC, conducted five systematic reviews on treatments for acute and chronic pain to help inform the process of updating the guidelines. There were two reviews covering acute pain and three covering chronic pain, including opioid treatments, non-opioid pharmacologic treatments, and non-pharmacological treatments. Dr. Losby noted that these reviews are “living” documents and would be updated as new evidence is generated.

Dr. Losby said that the CDC is utilizing the lessons it learned from the 2016 guidelines and is incorporating new elements into the update process, including by developing a better understanding of lived experience of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Toward those ends, two notices in the Federal Register were published to request public comments on patient experiences with acute and chronic pain, and some patients were asked to participate in follow-up conversations about their pain and pain management. The CDC also convened a working group to review updated draft guidelines and develop a report with findings and observations about the draft. The group received the draft guidelines in March 2021, and has held 7 meetings to review the draft and develop its report, which is being published on July 16. Representatives from across Health and Human Services Department sub-agencies, including individual NIH institutes and centers, will have an opportunity to review the draft guidelines as part of departmental clearance. The CDC will then revise the draft and obtain HHS clearance to release it for public comments. The revised draft is planned for release in late 2021 and will be subject to a 60-day public comment period. Publication of the final updated guidelines would occur in late 2022.

Registration details and information about public comment opportunities are available on the website of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC).

Discussion of acute and chronic pain management guidelines

Dr. Clark noted that the guidelines may need to have different strategies for complex patients that would need more comprehensive treatment with more support and structure than a typical primary-care doctor would provide. Dr. Losby responded that the working group reviewing the draft has discussed that issue.

Dr. Carr suggested that it would be helpful to include a summary of parts of the process that were highlighted for needing improvement and how the CDC responded to issues that were identified. For example, the current comprehensive public comment solicitation process could be highlighted as part of the improvements for this guideline update.

Dr. Darnall asked if there was a plan for the IPRCC to meet to review the draft guidelines or issue a joint statement, or whether individual members should plan on submitting their own comments. Dr. Porter replied that members are entitled to make comments during the public comment period, but will confirm whether it is allowable for the IPRCC to comment as a group. Dr. Koroshetz noted that federal members of the IPRCC would likely not be able to participate in the public comment process.

Dr. Kerns asked what the CDC is planning for surveillance of the guidelines after publication. Dr. Losby replied that the CDC will engage in a concerted effort to translate and disseminate the guidelines appropriately for patients and clinicians, and will conduct an evaluation of how the guidelines are being built into practice and otherwise implemented, as well as surveillance on patient outcomes and public health impact of the guidelines.

Mr. Broatch expressed his dismay that it has taken nearly six years for the CDC to update the prescribing guidelines, which he said some providers have been following strictly, resulting in pain patients who are being forcibly tapered from opioid medications and given no alternatives.

Ms. Herman, who viewed the recording of the session, wrote to take issue with that Dr. Losby’s comment that some patients may have experienced challenges due to the 2016 prescribing guidelines, saying, “People who have chronic pain have had their lives pulled out from under them,” then adding: “CDC, the HHS Pain Management Task Force and advocacy groups including the US Pain Foundation have heard from thousands of pain patients harmed by the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids. This shows the lack of knowledge and clinical experience of the people making decisions for the 50 million [people who suffer from chronic pain].  Indeed, the authors of the Guideline are injury prevention and addiction specialists, not pain management healthcare professionals, pain advocates or pain patients. There is also the important issue of the unscientific nature of the arbitrary MME thresholds that CDC has again proposed. People with pain are apparently invisible to the authors and the Guideline does much to stigmatize them as drug seekers and malingerers.  The IPRCC should be destigmatizing chronic pain by speaking out about the serious deficiencies in this Updated Guideline.” She supported any effort for non-federal IPRCC members to meet and compose a response to the updated guidelines.

NIH Update on HEAL supplements on Patient Engagement and Diversity Inclusion in Clinical Studies Diversity in the Workforce, Training

Linda Porter

Dr. Porter provided an overview of funding opportunities that have been released in response to the IPRCC discussions held in November 2020.

  • A notice of special interest (NOSI) for NIH HEAL Initiative Investigators to help increase participant inclusion and diversity, and patient engagement activities, in ongoing clinical studies. This was based on the committee’s discussion highlighting the need to involve patients in key roles throughout the research lifecycle and improve recruitment of underrepresented populations. This NOSI was published and is now closed, and a robust group of applications were sent in. Funding decisions will be made by the end of fiscal year 2021.
  • HEAL NOSI for supplements to promote diversity among researchers. This would provide additional funding to support researchers from underrepresented or underserved populations, including those with disabilities, in their clinical studies. The IPRCC conversation had highlighted a need to build pathways for a more diverse research workforce, through pathways such as research assistant positions for early career individuals.
  • Modified K24 award to support mentoring opportunities. This would help HEAL’s established clinical pain researchers, regardless of their career stage, have protected time to mentor younger researchers. The committee had previously discussed how the clinical pain research community is stretched thin and mentoring a younger generation of researchers could help bolster the research pipeline. Applications have been turned in and funding decisions will be made by the end of 2021.

Dr. Koroshetz inquired whether the K24 award was specific to clinical pain or would support broader pain research. Dr. Porter replied that the K24 is specific to clinical pain research, as the IPRCC has recognized that researchers are leaving clinical research in favor of other areas.


The Changing Landscape of Pain Research at NIH

Walter Koroshetz, MD, Director of NINDS

Dr. Koroshetz asked IPRCC members to think about new ways the NIH might approach pain research and provided an overview of opportunities and potential challenges facing the field. President Biden’s proposed fiscal year 2022 budget called for new funding for pain research across NIH institutes, and Dr. Koroshetz said it is important to be prepared in case that funding materializes.

Some recent changes in the pain landscape include COVID-19, of which pain (headache, abdominal pain, chest pain, muscle pain) is a major component. It is important to understand this increased burden of pain and how to be responsive to it. In terms of pain research funding, the NIH HEAL Initiative has helped increase funding for pain research, and it is important to think about how these funds can be used for long-term research goals. Compared to typical NINDS pain research funding, HEAL funding more frequently goes to translational and clinical research, rather than basic/pre-clinical research.

Dr. Koroshetz outlined some ways that pain science advancements could enhance the NIH research endeavor.

  • Basic science
    • More ability to map, monitor and manipulate pain circuits; this could help better understand how neurons respond to painful perceptions.   
    • Advances in looking at individual cells and classifying cell types; this could enable research of cell states and how they change during disease progress or chronic pain
    • Using pluripotent stem cells to look at pain mechanisms on the cellular level
  • Clinical science
    • HEAL’s efforts to build up a new generation of clinical researchers and create communities across pain conditions, and break down silos between research areas
    • Circuit modulation and mapping of the human brain
    • Improving workforce diversity, including those who suffer from pain conditions
    • More utilization of virtual patient visits

Next, he described barriers to pain research.

  • Pharmaceutical industry reluctance to invest in pain therapeutics. New pain treatments are considered too high risk. There is low confidence in existing animal models of pain, and the industry is waiting for progress in NIH basic science that could reduce their research risk.
  • Lack of effective biomarkers to measure pain and pain mechanisms. The HEAL Partnership Committee has low confidence that the state of science is ready for pain biomarker validation.
  • Suboptimal healthcare systems for pain patients. Primary care providers often don’t have the time for treating complicated pain conditions. Provider education in pain management is minimal. There is a lack of algorithms to help make effective pain management decisions. There tends to be overprescribing of pain medications and an overuse of diagnostic testing and imaging. There is also a lack of support for multidisciplinary pain management treatment systems, and too few pain specialists owing to insufficient reimbursement.


Dr. Kerns suggested continued investment in research that will help inform clinical practice, including personalized approaches, comparative effectiveness research, models of care, and better understanding co-occurring conditions. As part of research on implementation, there should also be a focus on health disparities among subpopulations that are often left behind by pain care. He also suggested that there is an opportunity to learn from what the Veterans’ Affairs Department has done in to encourage reimbursement of services that can improve the practice of pain treatment.

Regarding the importance of biomarkers, Ms. Hammitt said that may be like a stab in the dark until it is taken down to the molecular level. She said maybe clear biomarkers won’t be found, linking them may be part of a fuller understanding.

Dr. Kerns replied that he would argue that more of the current science points to social determinants and psychological and social differences as being more reliable predictors of acute to chronic pain transition and response to treatment than any "biological" marker. This is not to say that the focus on biological mechanisms is unimportant. Rather, in the context of new funding, he wants to encourage putting more money into research that will build from the evidence that we have now.

Dr. Kato commented that AHRQ is working on a systematic review on integrated pain management and a draft should be ready for comment this summer.

Dr. Goertz commented that we desperately need more research on how to best implement nonpharmacological treatments with an existing evidence base, what populations are most likely to benefit, what combinations of treatments work best for whom.

Dr. Darnall said she would like to see a focus on research targeting priority areas identified in the Federal Pain Research Strategy. She noted that a lot of pain research occurs in just a few conditions, such as low back pain or fibromyalgia. The field tends to use those results and apply them to guidelines for treating broader pain conditions. The NIH could support broader research to more appropriately help those who suffer from less common pain conditions, and better characterize what works for specific types of pain patients. She also discouraged discrimination against opioids in the conversation about research priorities, noting that while it is important to study addiction, quality studies on opioid effectiveness for analgesia are critical.

Dr. Carr suggested that an important way to change thinking about research is to resist reductionism and focus more on research that could provide more granular evidence about what treatments work best for particular patients. Later, Dr. Carr suggested surveying principal investigators to ask what the NIH should be doing differently in terms of pain research priorities.

Dr. Williams noted that it is challenging for pain researchers who study overlapping pain conditions that don’t fit neatly into a particular NIH institute or center research agenda. He suggested that studying mechanisms of pain that cut across different institutes or centers could help address this barrier.

Ms. Pinkham suggested that medical school education needs to do more to address pain conditions that people live with, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS). She said that many primary care physicians do not understand how a condition like that affects the entire body, and while a patient might need to see different types of specialists, there is no single doctor overseeing the entire spectrum of needed treatment. She also suggested more research into complex regional pain and more complex medial conditions like EDS.

Dr. Sang added that EDS is also associated with significant autonomic dysfunction that impacts function and the ability to prescribe certain medications. She also said that in the SCI/MS space, the engagement of those directly impacted (who know first-hand the functional challenges) can be potentially critical in moving innovation forward in a meaningful way.

Ms. Herman wrote to comment after the meeting, calling the presentation an “excellent approach,” and adding, “Let us start by implementing the many excellent recommendations in the [Pain Management Task Force] Report, which has already evaluated the CDC Opioid Guidelines based on science and authored by pain management experts and other relevant professionals, in our next meeting as the topic.”

NIH HEAL Initiative, Highlighted Accomplishments

Dr. Rebecca Baker, Director NIH HEAL Initiative

Dr. Baker described how the opioid public health crisis continues to evolve and despite research and policy efforts, the number of people dying from drug overdoses in the United States continues to grow. Part of the challenge of providing durable solutions is to address the needs of the millions of Americans experiencing acute and chronic pain.

Dr. Baker provided an overview of the HEAL Initiative, which has so far spent more than $1.5 billion to support research to address pain and opioid use. The HEAL Initiative’s research focus areas include preclinical/translational research in pain management, such as accelerating pain therapeutics, and clinical research to help understand what works best for individuals and different pain conditions.

Preclinical and translational pain management accomplishments include:

  • Two patents for small molecule modulators of pain receptors, for chronic pain and migraine
  • Portable thermoelectric device to inhibit pain signals in two different peripheral nerves
  • An FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) designation for first in class non-addictive drug candidate for treatment of chronic pain

Clinical research accomplishments include:

  • Data harmonization through core Common Data Elements that will allow investigators to research across different studies, double check our work, provide material for new lines of inquiry
  • Iterative model for precision medicine for chronic low-back pain
  • An IND for buprenorphine for treating pain for people with kidney disease on dialysis

Studies have also had to adapting research interventions to ensure participant and staff safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. As many studies have migrated to virtual settings, some have adopted new techniques to help foster social connections, such as hosting virtual cooking sessions for participants. Other studies have adapted their recruitment techniques to reach potential participants.

The HEAL Initiative Annual Report, published in May, has more details about the accomplishments achieved in HEAL studies by the end of 2020.

Dr. Baker also described the newly-formed HEAL Community Partner Committee, which is comprised of those who have lived experience with pain or opioid-use disorder, and will help HEAL seek more input from patients and communities and ensure that the entire research process -- from developing funding announcements through study design and dissemination of study findings – prioritizes factors that patients and communities find important.

Dr. Baker concluded by mentioning open funding opportunities offered by the HEAL Initiative, including  opportunities for training, promoting workforce diversity, and development of new medications.

Clinical Pain Research Workforce

Recap of November IPRCC Discussion on Clinical Pain Research Workforce

Linda Porter

Dr. Porter provided an overview of the November 2020 IPRCC meeting discussion that prompted the Office of Pain Policy and Planning (OPPP) to develop a survey on factors that influence the clinical pain research workforce. The committee had discussed what NIH can do to provide incentives, resources, education and training to bring new people at different stages of their careers into clinical pain research. There was a suggestion to ask the community what they need, prompting OPPP to develop the survey and ask people who are clinical care providers to better understand why they went into clinical research, or why they may have left, and get an understanding of what their challenges were, what the incentives were that pushed them there, and what would be helpful to bring people in. After OPPP pulled together some initial questions, it consulted with a group of researchers who had done mentoring in the clinical pain research field and had them weigh in on the initial set of questions that we developed, before presenting the survey to members of pain research organizations.

Survey on Clinical Pain Research Workforce

Dr. Laura Wandner, Program Director OPPP and Andrew Siddons, Scientific Writer OPPP

Dr. Wandner noted that this is the first time the clinical pain research community has been surveyed on this topic, and said that hopefully the survey will inform the community more broadly about workforce development needs and encourage stakeholders to provide needed resources.

There were three versions of the survey that went through several rounds of editing based on expert feedback and responses from initial survey rounds that helped OPPP better capture the goals as laid out by the IPRCC> The survey included questions about participant backgrounds (degrees, research focus, place of work, level of experience) and questions about what has influenced their career choices. While most questions were multiple choice, there were several opportunities for participants to elaborate on their answers in an open-ended fashion. The responses provided a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data, and analysis is underway.

Mr. Siddons provided a summary of the results. Mostly were MDs or PhDs focused on pain, and most were from a university or teaching institution. Most of our respondents had some sort of experience in clinical pain research, with only around 1/3 who had never been involved. Among those with research experience, around half are established or transitional, with the other half in early stages – but around 14 percent did not have a mentor. A large portion of respondents receive or have received federal funding, while private funding is less common. Most respondents received formal research training or mentoring, and for most of them, that training and mentoring was specific to pain. However, receipt of a training or mentoring award from NIH was fairly uncommon. A quarter of respondents had no formal mentoring, half had not received an award. The most common type of awards were mentored research awards and pre- or post-doctoral training awards. Transitional awards, early career awards, awards for mentoring and independent research awards were relatively rare for pain researchers.

Dr. Wander discussed some of the common themes that emerged regarding career choices. The factors that helped people embark on clinical pain research career included funding from institution, protected time, support from family, and working after hours. Factors that held people back from research careers included a lack of time to apply for funding, limited funding opportunities, limited financial incentives compared to clinical care, complexity of clinical trials, and uncertainty about NIH institutes are the best fit for pain research. Things that could help those hoping to pursue a research career include more protected time, more support from stakeholders, and more support for multidisciplinary fields.

The OPPP will continue to analyze the responses and hope that the findings will result in a publication. Input from IPRCC members on directions for analysis are welcomed.


Dr. Kerns emphasized the importance of support from one’s family, and how the research field  can pose challenges to people with children or other dependent care responsibilities, and that this creates a particular barrier for female scientists. He noted that even at supportive institutions, the clinical care workload has increased, meaning less time for research. He also mentioned how frequently researchers are often doing things without pay in order to support their research interests.

Dr. Darnall noted the challenge of finding protected time to support research, and how there are higher opportunity costs for less established researchers to spend time applying for grants, whereas more established researchers can afford to take time to spend on grant applications.

Dr. Williams mentioned fostering relationships with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutes, which provide training in developing and writing grants, so that there might be more of a focus on pain research specifically.

Dr. Sang asked whether the survey distinguished between those who received NIH pre-doctoral and post-doctoral training awards. Dr. Wandner responded that the survey question did capture this distinction.

Public Comments

Linda Porter

Dr. Porter summarized a comment submitted by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, noting the contribution that certified registered nurse anesthetists make to pain management through a number of different avenues – multimodal pain management, providing quality anesthesia, counseling, and other areas. Dr. Porter said she we will respond to a question that AANA sent to HEAL about participating in some of the governance structure and will look carefully at comments they made about patient engagement in the clinical research endeavor in the U.S. Members are encouraged to read the comments and respond.

Dr. Kerns noted that it was a nurse anesthetist at the VA that helped prompt the development of the agency’s National Pain Management Strategy, and that the role of nursing and nurse anesthetists have been central to that initiative and exemplary at improving pain care in America. He hopes that nurses and nurse anesthetists could play a greater role in this group and other HHS initiatives.


Walter Koroshetz

Dr. Koroshetz asked for input about what topics to put on the agenda for the November 2021 IPRCC meeting (specific date to be determined). He noted that the NIH works hard to take the IPRCC’s advice seriously and convert members’ suggestions into action.

Dr. Porter suggested that an update on the progress of the Federal Pain Research Strategy recommendations may be appropriate, and asked members to think about whether they would like to hear more about that at the November meeting. Members can reach out to Dr. Porter with their thoughts.

The meeting was adjourned.

We certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.


Linda Porter, PhD
Designated Federal Official
Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee
Director, Office of Pain Policy, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Walter Koroshetz, PhD
Chair Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee
Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
These minutes have been formally approved by the committee.


This meeting summary was prepared by Andrew Siddons, Office of Pain Policy and Planning, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). The views expressed in this document reflect both individual and collective opinions of the meeting participants and not necessarily those of NINDS.

July 6, 2021 from 1:30 – 4:00PM ET


Roll Call and Opening Remarks
Overview of the Meeting

Dr. Walter Koroshetz, Chair IPRCC


Approval of the minutes November 23, 2020 IPRCC Meeting
Status of Science Advances and call for new nominations

Dr. Linda Porter, Designated Federal Official, IPRCC


Federal Updates

FDA Update on Guidelines for Appropriate Opioid Analgesic Prescribing for Acute Pain

Dr. Rigoberto Roca, Acting Division Director
Division of Anesthesiology, Addiction Medicine, and Pain Medicine


CDC Update on the Process for Updating the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids

Kathleen Ragan, Health Scientist; Guideline Coordinator, Division of Overdose Prevention

Discussion of acute and chronic pain management guidelines


NIH Update on HEAL supplements on Patient Engagement and Diversity Inclusion in Clinical Studies Diversity in the Workforce, Training 

Dr. Linda Porter 


The Changing Landscape of Pain Research at NIH

Dr. Walter Koroshetz


NIH HEAL Initiative, Highlighted Accomplishments

Dr. Rebecca Baker, Director NIH HEAL Initiative


Recap of November IPRCC Discussion on Clinical Pain Research Workforce 

Dr. Linda Porter


Survey on Clinical Pain Research Workforce 

Dr. Laura Wandner, Program Director OPPP and Andrew Siddons, Scientific Writer OPPP


Public Comments

Dr. Linda Porter


Call for agenda topics for November IPRCC meeting

Closing remarks and adjourn

Dr. Walter Koroshetz




Did you find the content you were looking for?
Please rate how easy it was to navigate the NINDS website

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policyand Terms of Serviceapply.