Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$15.00



View/Hide Left Panel

Research Priorities for Assessing Health Effects from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

A Letter Report

Committee to Review the Federal Response to the Health Effects Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Research Priorities for Assessing Health Effects from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill A Letter Report Committee to Review the Federal Response to the Health Effects Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N01-OD-4-2139 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. International Standard Book Number-13 978-0-309-16312-5 International Standard Book Number-10 0-309-16312-9 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at www.iom.edu. Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin. Suggested citation: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Research Priorities for Assessing Health Effects from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL LYNN GOLDMAN, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair), Dean, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services DAVID E. COHEN, M.D., M.P.H., Vice Chair and Associate Professor of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine FRANCESCA DOMINICI, Ph.D., Professor, Harvard University School of Public Health BERNARD GOLDSTEIN, M.D., Professor, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health NANCY KASS, Sc.D., Phoebe R. Berman Professor of Bioethics and Public Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University MAI-NHUNG LE, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., Associate Professor, San Francisco State University GAIL A. MATTOX, M.D., F.A.A.C.A.P., Professor of Clinical Psychiatry and Chair, Morehouse School of Medicine LINDA A. MCCAULEY, Ph.D., F.A.A.N., R.N., Dean, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University ROBERTA B. NESS, M.D., M.P.H., Dean and M. David Low Chair in Public Health, University of Texas LAWRENCE A. PALINKAS, Ph.D., Albert G. and Frances Lomas Feldman Professor of Social Policy and Health, University of Southern California RUTH PARKER, M.D., Professor, Emory University School of Medicine SUSAN L. SANTOS, Ph.D., M.S., Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey NALINI SATHIAKUMAR, M.D., Dr.P.H., Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham Study Staff ABIGAIL MITCHELL, Study Director MORGAN FORD, Program Officer CHINA DICKERSON, Senior Program Assistant ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Director, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice HOPE HARE, Administrative Assistant Consultant Writer MARGIE PATLAK, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
REVIEWERS This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ignatius Bau, Health Policy Consultant Ann Bostrom, University of Washington Gregory V. Button, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Craig E. Colten, Louisiana State University Linda Cowan, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center Susan S. Ellenberg, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Dwight Evans, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine James G. Hodge, Jr., Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University David G. Hoel, Medical University of South Carolina Kenneth W. Kizer, Medsphere Systems Corporation Janet Wittes, Statistics Collaborative, Inc. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University, and Jonathan Samet, University of Southern California. Appointed by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, respectively, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1 Charge to the Committee ............................................................................................................2 Background .................................................................................................................................2 Rationale for Studying Health Effects from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill .................................3 Populations to Study ...................................................................................................................4 Study Design Considerations ......................................................................................................5 Coordination of Information Sharing .......................................................................................5 Coordination Among Institutional Review Boards ..................................................................6 Community Engagement and Communication.........................................................................6 Building the Capacity to Quickly Respond to Disasters ..........................................................8 Research Priorities ......................................................................................................................8 Behavioral Health .....................................................................................................................9 Exposure Assessment .............................................................................................................10 Seafood Safety ........................................................................................................................11 Communication.......................................................................................................................12 Developing a Research Response Framework .......................................................................13 Summary of Research Priorities................................................................................................14 References .................................................................................................................................14 ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee to Review the Federal Response to the Health Effects Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill October 25, 2010 The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20201 Dear Secretary Sebelius: In August 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide periodic independent review of the federal response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as it relates to the surveillance and monitoring of acute and long-term physical and behavioral health effects of workers and the affected public. The committee’s first report, Review of the Proposal for the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up Study, was released to the public on October 8, 2010. That report summarized feedback obtained during the IOM’s September 22, 2010, workshop to review the National Institutes of Health’s draft protocol to study long-term health effects of oil spill clean-up workers (the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up Study). The attached report, the committee’s second, provides consensus advice to HHS on research priorities for assessing health effects associated with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, beyond the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up Study. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank HHS for the opportunity to assist with the Agency’s continuing efforts to respond to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Sincerely, Lynn Goldman, M.D., M.P.H. Chair, Committee to Review the Federal Response to the Health Effects Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill xi

OCR for page R1