Stakeholder Forums Sample Clauses

Stakeholder Forums. The primary communication tool among the Stakeholders will be through forums. At a minimum, the Stakeholders will convene periodic meetings (quarterly) to review progress on goals, discuss action items put before them, and provide a forum for public input. Ideally, these meetings should be well-publicized and open to the public to allow for additional input. The agenda for the first Stakeholder meeting should address the following issues: T Background on the Project T Goals of the Involvement Process as seen by Clermont Staff (Stakeholder input to agree on goals and provide additional goals) T Representation of the Stakeholders (are there any gaps?) T Roles and responsibilities of Stakeholders T Road map of the process and areas for input, action (when to meet again, best ways to communicate) T Set action items to accomplish by next meeting T Forum for comments and questions The agenda for subsequent meetings will be driven in large part by the goals and action items set by the Stakeholders at the first meeting. Specific tasks (such as the development and dissemination of a brochure on the water quality monitoring stations in the county) will be reviewed at these forums.

Stakeholder Forums sequentially developed activities under the three main themes of the HBP: future medicine, future neuroscience and future ICT/robotics. The activities related to each of the three main issues moved from activities outlining the issues toward more specific and solution-oriented stakeholder involvement activities. All activities were followed up with a newsletter outlining recommendations made during the activities (see Tables 4, 5 and 6 for the complete overview). Among the main outcomes of the stakeholder forums are the interactions and discussions initiated among external research and the HBP experts. Recommendations from the seminars have also made it into SP8 responses to Ethics Reviews of the Project (concretely the recommendation to perform an ‘Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)’. Below we present the recommendations coming out from the two seminars we held so far, and a few experts from commentary we received from HBP researchers following our events. All results are publicly available. • Clarify responsibilities: Who is responsible for data protection and security? • Perform privacy impact assessment • Follow ‘good anonymisation practices’ as laid out in EU Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymisation Techniques • Make sure subcontractors follow good anonymisation techniques. Even better: avoid subcontracting • Stamp data with the type of consent given • Develop a Partnering Project on the privacy concerns in the Core Project • Seek informed consent where at all possible • Improve transparency and trust by: − Engaging in collaboration and dialogue with patient associations and external experts − Manage expectations by being realistic about outcomes and the research process to patients, medical professionals and the public − Listen to concerns and adapt accordingly • Communicate more about the research being done in the Subprojects • The Project should still have several objectives, e.g.: − Assist in understanding how brains fail − Take a particular disease or drug design as a starting point − Network building between internal and external researchers could be a success in itself • Develop plans for how the horizontal integration should take place. It will not ‘just happen’. • Find a point of connection between bottom-up and top-down approaches and create a bridge between the molecular and the cognitive level (multi-level integration) • Prioritize building in plasticity and neuromodulation in the ICT brain models • Set up a ‘brainstorming structure mechanism’ where...