/ EMCDDA – SA – 3rd floor meeting room
/ List of participants (Annex 1)
7
1. Welcome by the Chair
Michael Farrell welcomed all members of the EMCDDA Scientific Committee. Henk Garretsen, Henri Bergeron and John Strang had excused themselves.
2. Adoption of the agenda[1]
The agenda was unanimously adopted.
3. Adoption of the minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes were unanimously adopted.
4. New developments at the EMCDDA
Wolfgang Götz welcomed the Scientific Committee members, especially those attending for the first time. He congratulated the Scientific Committee on the work already achieved.
The Director explained the EMCDDA’s contribution to the 2005-2008 EU Action Plan evaluation and the drafting of the new 2009-2012 EU Action Plan. The new plan would be an important reference for the Centre as it would ensure the maintenance of key areas but also open up for new areas of work. Polydrug use, the development of guidelines and quality standards for interventions and services (action 16), and the development of key-indicators for supply and supply reduction (action 56) were important new issues. The EMCDDA also had a role in the UNGASS 10 year review process and had been active in promoting the EU’s balanced, evidence-based approach to drugs and drug use.
The Director referred to the EMCDDA’s Annual Report launch and respective national launches. He particularly thanked the Scientific Committee for its contributions to this year’s Selected Issues. The need for a coordinated approach to members’ contributions to EMCDDA publications was acknowledged. He welcomed the active involvement of the Scientific Committee in the Centre’s 2009 Conference.
The Director outlined how Scientific Committee members would be involved in the process of preparing the next three-year work programme, starting at this meeting with presentations of their visions for 2010-2012. In June 2009, the formal opinion of the Scientific Committee would be requested.
Several members suggested that the Scientific Committee should have a more pro-active approach regarding publications. The Annual Report attracts high media interest although mainly negative headlines are deemed of interest by most media. The logic of the different publications was unclear and the input of scientific opinion and expertise would need discussion.
5. Feedback from EMCDDA’s Management Board
Both the Director and the Chair of the Scientific Committee gave feedback from the July Management Board meeting. Written comments on the Scientific Committee’s Strategy and work plan and its Rules of procedure had been requested from Management Board members. Some communication problems had emerged due to translation errors in the Strategy and work plan but were clarified. A revised version of the Rules of procedure would be approved by written procedure. Michael Farrell thanked the EMCDDA staff for the support in handling these intricacies. An item on the cooperation with the Scientific Committee would be included in the agenda of the next Management Board on request of the UK.
The Management Board approved a panel of EU experts to convene to an extended Scientific Committee in the case of risk assessment procedures under the Council Decision on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (2005/387/JHA).
6. Feedback on Scientific Committee work in 2008
The Chair thanked all members who had actively participated in tasks requested by the EMCDDA since the previous meeting. He recommended that particular attention should be given to the next agenda topics and presentations as they would provide a clearer picture of future tasks and possibilities for Scientific Committee involvement.
7. 2009-2012 EU Action Plan
Danilo Ballotta presented the new 2009-2012 EU Action Plan and its impact on the work of the EMCDDA. He outlined the structure and contents of the document which was in its final stage of approval and highlighted the most relevant aspects for the Centre.
Several interventions related to the manner and timing of the Scientific Committee’s involvement. The Chair suggested that the Committee first listen to the presentation of the EMCDDA work programme for 2009 and the visions for the three-year work programme 2010-2012 to better understand how all these levels came together.
8. Presentation of the EMCDDA 2009 work programme
Paul Griffiths and Roland Simon presented the EMCDDA 2009 work programme. The Scientific Committee noted that the work programme was comprehensive and in line with the Centre’s leading principle of scientific excellence. However, several members addressed the need to refer more explicitly to the challenges of the new EU Action Plan. The need to invest more in scientific publishing and to coordinate with partners in related areas (Pompidou Group, groups working on incidence modelling, etc.) were also mentioned. Other areas not mentioned in the work programme but of relevance included medicinal products and other licit drugs, co-morbidity, gambling, the impact of drug use on other people, and civil society.
Several members expressed the need for the Scientific Committee to be more involved in the drafting phase of the work programme to help steer strategic balance between the EU Action Plan and EMCDDA’s priorities. Fernando Rodriguez de Fonseca asked about the flexibility of the foreseen budget allocations.
Paul Griffiths and Roland Simon explained the limitations of the remit of the EMCDDA to address issues such as licit drugs and civil society. They argued that the work programme was flexible enough to adapt to needs arising from the EU Action Plan but that details were still lacking for including specific tasks. They welcomed the interest of the Scientific Committee in its work plans and pointed out that this was the idea behind the presentations on visions for the three-year work programme. The EMCDDA clarified the criteria for allocation of budget, namely to Reitox and to publications. The Centre was aware that more needs to be spent on scientific activities and was trying to find ways to respond to this.
9. Adoption of the Scientific Committee’s formal opinion on the EMCDDA 2009 work programme
The Scientific Committee drafted a formal opinion on the EMCDDA 2009 work programme which was unanimously approved. The opinion will be forwarded to the Management Board.
10. Visions for EMCDDA 2010-2012 three-year work programme
Roland Simon provided an overview of the next three-year work programme, its principles and its priorities. Dirk Korf asked for clarification on the criteria for selecting priorities for the work programme and Roland Simon replied that these choices were made on the basis of existing needs.
Problem drug use – conceptual and methodological considerations
After a short introduction by Danica Klempova, Jürgen Rehm presented his view on the way forward for the PDU indicator. He stressed policy’s need for a summary, index-type indicator which brought together information from several areas and estimated the burden of drug use/abuse in a standardised way.
Dirk Korf emphasised the need to better understand the composition of quantitative indicators and to look into the influences of social constructs of drug use. Irmgard Eisenbach-Stangl saw dangers in different indicators competing for inclusion in a summary indicator and wondered about social and criminal aspects. Gerhard Bühringer found one overall indicator interesting but the EMCDDA should continue to develop more indicators. Both approaches were needed for different levels of decision making. Jean-Pol Tassin argued that an indicator that reflects harm would be too late for prevention. Jürgen Rehm conceded that such an indicator might not be relevant for prevention but would constitute a disability measure, including social and health aspects.
Timeliness of data collection and interpretation of emerging trends
Deborah Olszewski introduced the topic and Dirk Korf presented his visions on emerging trends data. He emphasised that alternative data and information sources should be considered by the EMCDDA (for example, ESSD, the European Criminology Association, qualitative journals, young visiting researchers at the EMCDDA) and the issue of multilingualism.
Gerard Bühringer commented that it was difficult to be sensitive to new signs and trends when all data were standardised. Although informal data collection must also be systematic and have continuity, it was important not to over-systematise. EMCDDA could learn from the 20 years of experience of NIDA’s community epidemiology work group, which worked with informants. Forensic, emergency room and outpatient treatment data from selected, trend-setting cities were collected and analysed.
Irmgard Eisenbach-Stangl warned that much quantitative research might uncover trends but not necessarily understand their context. Paul Griffiths and Richard Velleman pointed out the need for improving the systematic collection of forensic data at EU level. Dirk Korf agreed that forensic science data was difficult to collect and harmonise. He suggested that regions/cities, and not countries, should be selected for systematic monitoring.
Supply and supply reduction in EMCDDA’s work
Chloé Carpentier gave a short introduction and Brice de Ruyver presented his ideas on supply and supply reduction data. An agreement on the essential elements that should be collected and analysed was important. Consultation with international partners was essential and available data at UNODC and Europol should be identified. Monitoring of supply at the micro level and the use of contextualisation data were important.
Jürgen Rehm considered that not many arguments spoke for the EMCDDA to enter into supply and supply reduction monitoring and Michael Farrell wondered if there was a need for the Scientific Committee’s guidance on such a strategic decision. Dirk Korf suggested that the EMCDDA should focus on the retail level since this was relevant both for an understanding of the market and for demand/health and social aspects. A view on the integral supply chain was important for policy: nuisance, drug-related crime, social harm.
EMCDDA work and scientific publishing in peer-review journals
Following an introduction by Margareta Nilson, Gerhard Bühringer presented suggestions on how to improve the scientific standing of the EMCDDA through scientific publication. Although several staff members did publish in scientific journals, others did not and potential authors were not approached in a systematic way. Not only addiction journals but also public health, health economics and journals from other related areas would be relevant. The publication of scientific manuscripts should be considered from the onset of a project.
Several members of the Scientific Committee supported the need for the Centre’s scientific staff to publish more in peer-reviewed journals. Promoting this was a matter of in-house prioritisation. Richard Velleman suggested that staff should consider lower impact journals, except for those staff members who already published regularly. Jean-Pol Tassin proposed that the EMCDDA could launch calls for research for external experts. Gerard Bühringer and Marina Davoli recommended that all standards developed by the EMCDDA should be published in scientific journals. Several members considered that the Annual Report could be a starting point for selecting topics to be explored in-depth. Material from the Annual Report itself could be
published, in part and simultaneously, in a scientific journal. Making EMCDDA publications in scientific journals freely available could be negotiated with journals. Anne Line Bretteville-Jensen suggested developing a strategy to implement some of the suggestions made. Paul Griffiths and Roland Simon agreed with this suggestion which could contribute to give visibility and priority to the issue and believed that staff needed to be further motivated. They drew attention to the fact that raw data came from other sources, e.g. Focal Points, which needed to be acknowledged. Anna Gyarmathy suggested that the EMCDDA could support National Focal Points publish unpublished data.
11. EuroScience open forum
Roland Simon presented the concept of EuroScience Open Forum, a multi-disciplinary bi-annual conference, and suggested that the Scientific Committee propose a session on drug-related aspects for the next conference in Torino in 2010. The forum had high visibility with the Commission, media, MEPs and decision makers. The Scientific Committee agreed to further explore the possibility, with Marina Davoli taking the lead.
12. Scientific Committee work plan – update 2009
Margareta Nilson presented the framework and the tasks where input of the Scientific Committee will be requested in 2009. Regarding the three-year work programme, Paul Griffiths explained that the deadlines were very strict and Scientific Committee members would need to be prepared to comment on very short notice. Work would start in January 2009 and a draft document would be sent to the Scientific Committee together with a timetable as soon as possible. The Scientific Committee considered this a matter of particular strategic importance and that it needed to contribute significantly to the work programme. Michael Farrell would take a specific liaising role and asked all members of the Scientific Committee to contribute.
13. Risk assessment guidelines
Roumen Sedefov introduced the revised version of the risk assessment guidelines to be adopted by the Scientific Committee. He pointed out that ten members of both the previous and the current Scientific Committee had been involved in the development. Leon van Aerts presented the guidelines in detail.
Several members of the Scientific Committee congratulated the EMCDDA on the work done. Marina Davoli asked for clarification on the risk assessment procedure and the specific role of the guidelines. Leon van Aerts and Roumen Sedefov explained that the guidelines would help to collect the requested information. A two pages summary would be made available as a quick reference document. Brice de Ruyver suggested that an EU definition of organised crime would be more appropriate than the chosen UN definition. Jürgen Rehm drew the authors’ attention to the fact that the methodology referred to as Delphi was actually a sub-form of Delphi called the nominal group technique. Roumen Sedefov would revise the document according to the suggestions. With these comments, the guidelines were adopted unanimously.
14. EMCDDA 2009 Conference
Maria Moreira presented the state of the art concerning the 2009 EMCDDA Conference and asked for the input of the Scientific Committee on how to better disseminate and use Conference results. The Scientific Committee recommended the publication of a special issue of a scientific journal. Mike Farrell and Jürgen Rehm would take the lead in this process together with the Conference’s Programme Committee. The journal Addictions
should be approached with the preliminary programme of the conference and the speakers should be contacted to assess their interest in preparing an article for a scientific journal.