first dissertation meeting

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

CONSIDERATION ONE

Things to discuss with your supervisor.

From your supervisor's point of view, this may only be the second time you have met to discuss your dissertation, and it could have been a few weeks or a couple of months since you first discussed your dissertation with them (i.e., STAGE FOUR: Assessment point may have been your first meeting). Therefore, start by briefly recapping what your dissertation is about, including the research questions/hypotheses that you are going to answer.

Next, if you developed a theoretical model for your dissertation (i.e., during STEP FOUR: Set the theoretical model for your dissertation in STAGE FIVE: Building the theoretical case ), it is worth showing this to your supervisor. After all, theoretical models are useful frameworks to describe what you are studying in a clear, succinct, and visual way. More specifically, your theoretical model should: (a) set the boundaries/scope of the research project in terms of the theories and constructs that will be studied and measured; and (b) illustrate the research hypotheses to be tested, and the predictions that are being made (if any) about the relationship between the constructs under study.

If you didn't develop a theoretical model, you should focus on explaining the main constructs you will be studying, and the potential relationships between those constructs. This will help your supervisor to understand the theoretical case for your dissertation upon which your research strategy is based. It will also allow you to spend the majority of the meeting discussing your research strategy, which is the main thing you need to discuss with your supervisor. When you discuss your research strategy, remember to focus on the major aspects of your research strategy rather than the detail and justifications behind all of your decisions. You just won't have time to do this unless your supervisor has given you a long meeting.

During this meeting, we would suggest that you: (a) determine whether your research design, research method and sampling strategy are sufficient; (b) get advice on whether your research strategy is likely to be achievable in the time you have available; (c) check that your research strategy meets your dissertation and university's ethical guidelines; (d) present your measurement procedure, if you have time; and (e) defend the choice that you have made. Each of these considerations is discussed in turn:

Determine whether your research design, research method and sampling strategy are sufficient

The research strategy that you set determines how you are going to carry out (i.e., operationalize) your dissertation. In this respect, your research design, research methods and sampling strategy need to fit with the research hypotheses you have set and the theoretical case you have built for your dissertation. This is important for achieve a good mark. However, these components of your research strategy also have a significant impact on the effort that is required to complete a dissertation. By effort , we mean the practical aspects of going out and collecting your data, which includes everything from setting up your research design, to building a representative sample of your population, gaining access to such data, collecting the data using the research methods you have set, before analysing that data. Whilst effort is not going to get you a good mark by itself, there is a minimum amount of effort that will be expected of you when it comes to carrying out your dissertation. For example, the use of secondary research is often criticised because there is a general expectation that you will go out and collect data in the field (i.e., primary research ), unless the secondary research, and the statistical analysis of that research is substantial. Similarly, the effort of putting together a probability sample can clearly be recognized over a non-probability sample due to the time and care that this takes. A third example would be your sample size , with the effort of collecting larger samples, for the most part, providing you with the ability to carry out more rigorous and extensive data analysis that is not possible with smaller samples.

By examining you research design, research methods and sampling strategy, your supervisor should be able to tell you, often from experience, whether the research you plan to carry out is sufficient for a good grade. There is nothing worse than meeting your supervisor too late when you are getting close to the end of the dissertation process, and finding out that you have not done enough. It is often too late to recover at this stage because you simply run out of time to analyse your data and write up your dissertation.

Get advice on whether your research strategy is likely to be achievable in the time you have available

Just as you don't want your research strategy to be insufficient, you also have to be careful that you don't take on too much, especially when it comes to the data collection phase. There are a number of factors that can affect the achievability of your dissertation, including issues of access (i.e., to people, organisations, data, facilities, and information), the size of the sample that you want, the length of the data collection process, whether you can receive help collecting your data, and what skills you may have to learn. If you are an undergraduate student, some of these factors can be difficult to judge because this will be your first dissertation, but even amongst master's students, this can be difficult. When you explain the research strategy you are using, it's a good idea to ask your supervisor whether they think it will be achievable in the time you have available.

Check that your research strategy meets your dissertation and university's ethical guidelines

Having worked through STEP SIX: Research ethics of STAGE SEVEN: Setting the research strategy , you should understand the ethical requirements arising from your choice of research strategy. However, if you do not know whether your choice of research strategy means that you need to write an Ethics Proposal , complete an Ethics Consent Form , or get permission from an Ethics Committee , we would suggest that you pass your ethical design by your supervisor. By ethical design , we simply mean those components of your research strategy that could undermine the five basic ethical principles you should abide by (i.e., minimising the risk of harm, obtaining informed consent, protecting anonymity and confidentiality, avoiding deceptive practices, and providing the right to withdraw). For example, if the research design involves exposing some participants to situations that may be psychological challenging or invasive, if the research methods involve some form of covert or deceptive aspect, or if the population that you are studying involves collecting data from minors or vulnerable groups, these are the kinds of things you should discuss with your supervisor. Since there is a danger that such ethical designs could undermine one or more of the five basic ethical principles, your dissertation may have to receive either informal or formal ethical approval . If your supervisor feels that you will not be able to get ethical approval, or that such ethical approval could severely delay your dissertation (i.e., since you cannot start collecting data until you have it), your supervisor may be able to advise you how to make small changes to your research strategy and ethical design to reduce the potential problems you could face.

Present your measurement procedure, if you have time

You'll not always have enough time to discuss your measurement procedure, but if there's one thing of detail that's worth asking your supervisor to look over, it's the measurement procedure you've used. This is important because the quality of your data is highly contingent on the quality of your measurement procedure (i.e., the reliability and construct validity of your measurement procedure).

If you've followed Route A: Duplication or Route B: Generalisation , this is not so much of an issue because (a) the measurement procedure you are drawing on in the main journal article should have been shown to be reliable and (b) you will not have made many (if any) changes. However, if you have followed Route C: Extension , especially a method or measurement-based extension , there may have been many changes to the measurement procedure used in the main journal article. Therefore, it is worth asking your supervisor to look over these changes. Unless your supervisor is a subject matter expert, they may only be able to help you with the face validity of the measurement procedure, but this can still be useful to avoid glaring mistakes. Your supervisor may be able to give you advice on things like the statement you read out to research participants to tell them what the research it about, what their ethical rights are, and so forth. They may also be able to offer advice on things like survey length or the number of data points you are trying to record in a structured observation, but for the most part, you should look to the main journal article and literature to determine such things.

Defend the choices that you have made

You don't want to defend your choices for the sake of it. If your supervisor strongly suggests that you change a major component of your research strategy, it would be advisable to seriously consider this. At the same time, unless your supervisor is an expert in your area of interest, you will know the contents of your dissertation far better than your supervisor: the research hypotheses you want to answer, the background literature to your dissertation, the research strategy that you plan to follow, and the justifications for all these choices. Making major changes to the theoretical case or research strategy you have set could require a lot of work, and you don't want to make these changes without being sure they are correct. it's worth remembering that you may have only spent 20 minutes with your supervisor, so some of the judgements your supervisor is making may be based solely of the main points you've put across in a short space of time, rather than a detailed assessment of the theoretical case or research strategy you have built. Therefore, if your supervisor does strongly suggest that you make any major changes, it is worth taking the time to defend the choices you have made in case these changes are unnecessary.

Getting the most out of thesis supervision meetings

What can you expect from a thesis supervisor?

A thesis supervisor supports and guides you through writing your thesis. However, ultimately you are responsible for your work.

Taking charge of thesis supervision meetings

Pre-meeting updates, a meeting agenda and strategy for note-taking, as well as post-meeting action points, help students to get the most out of thesis supervision meetings.

Pre-meeting progress updates before thesis supervision meetings

Agendas and note-taking strategies during thesis supervision meetings, post-meeting action points after thesis supervision meetings, master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, strong academic networks through shared activities, why and how to conduct a systematic literature review, related articles, left your dissertation too late ways to take action now, dealing with conflicting feedback from different supervisors, the importance of sleep for efficient thesis writing, 5 inspiring phd thesis acknowledgement examples.

Tips for new PhD supervisors: how to hold effective meetings

Supervisory meetings should be planned, regular and positive in tone. Here are key elements to include in thesis supervision meetings for academics new to the role

Alice Ling Jiang

• More on this topic

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} How AI and immersive technology will personalise learning

How to become an administrator – and why you should, school visits are a triple-win for academics, schools and society, why visible senior leadership in sustainability matters, why the search for research funding is like romance.

Planning is key to fostering effective communication between student and supervisor during the dissertation supervision process. Positive interactions will give doctoral students confidence and a strong sense of independence. Each PhD student’s needs differ significantly, and it is incumbent upon the supervisor to design appropriate strategies from the outset. A vast array of articles offering enlightening and inspiring approaches for communication and thesis guidance are available online.

In this context, a few well-focused points for new PhD supervisors would seem beneficial. Adequate preparation is one of the keys to a fruitful supervision meeting with PhD students.

• Co-creation: how to find the ‘super’ in supervision
• Fostering freedom in PhD students: how supervisors can shape accessible paths for doctoral research
• Research supervision: working with the individual in front of you

Key elements to an effective PhD supervisory meeting

What, however, should an effective PhD thesis meeting include? Three primary elements come to mind. First, the student needs to clearly report their research progress. Second, the supervisor provides feedback, guidance and in-depth insight into the student’s most critical areas of need. Last, the focus for the next stage of research needs to be identified in order to continue the dissertation preparation process.

These three objectives can be further supplemented by following these suggestions during supervisory meetings with your PhD students.

1. Prepare in advance for themes or topics requiring discussion

Well before the meeting, encourage the student to email a tentative agenda or proposal to you. Ahead of the meeting, you, as the supervisor, read the email and identify which focal points require discussion. The student’s email should include at least two elements: (1) a summary of main research work progress accomplished to date; and (2) the complexities or hurdles encountered during the research phase (such as refining the research topic, theoretical considerations, data compilation, analysis methodology or writing process) that require further discussion with their supervisor. Writing the pre-meeting email is the student’s opportunity to organise and structure their thoughts, a task that is highly conducive to effective communication during the meeting.

2. Encourage students to proactively articulate their thoughts

At initial stages of doctoral study, students may not have a full spectrum of ideas to present. During this period, it would be natural for the supervisor to speak more frequently than the student during supervisory meetings. However, as research work progresses, students are expected to contribute more actively. Indeed, presentation skills are considered an integral professional component of doctoral-level training. To prompt interactive conversation, ask the student to prepare five to 10 PowerPoint slides to facilitate the exchange of ideas. As students encounter difficulty during their research process, they should be encouraged to think, reason and reflect independently, and to implement potential solutions before discussion with their supervisors. Online resources are plentiful for assisting doctoral students in preparation of efficient meetings with the supervisor.

3. Student note-taking and audio recording can be used to highlight key points

Notes and recordings can enable students to encapsulate meeting content in short form and will promote students’ ability to reflect meaningfully on the supervisor’s comments, reinforcing pivotal thoughts and concepts. Audio recording, with the supervisor’s consent, can allow the meeting to proceed at a natural pace without interruptions while students catch up with their note-taking. Using the recording after the meeting, students can organise key points. Brief summaries of content are helpful in ensuring that students properly grasp and retain important ideas, themes, concepts or approaches before embarking on the next stage of developing the dissertation.

Students should also email their meeting summaries to the supervisor for retention of records. If there are errors, these summaries will assist both parties in rectifying any discrepancies or inaccuracies. These summations can be used at subsequent meetings to verify whether the issues discussed have been satisfactorily resolved or if there remain any items that require adjustment or modification.

Use positive language during supervisory meetings

All stages of doctoral research come with inherent challenges. During meetings, the supervisor should strive to use positive verbal expression and body language throughout discussions. Cognitive theorists and educational psychologists have found that positive emotions can enhance concentration, focus, memory and problem-solving skills, while also enriching critical and creative thinking . Students who are emotionally stable and confident will be more deeply committed to their research.

On the other hand, those who are stressed or lacking in confidence are less likely to engage in effective dyadic communication and may harbour more doubts as to the viability of their ideas.

In my experience, amicable greetings, smiles and sincere encouragement are central to building a good supervisory relationship. A friendly supervisor can motivate and inspire doctoral students to innovate and move forward boldly, while enthusiastically communicating with their departmental peers.

Set and define challenging goals

Although students often have an overarching plan for their progress, supervisors can set even higher standards to be achieved gradually. Indeed, calm seas never make skilled sailors . Expectations and deadlines for completion of each stage need to be specified. Students should be made aware of the nature of high-quality research and should become familiar with the proper strategies and approaches to doctoral study. The scope and number of reading lists, the structure and length of literature reviews, and staged achievement goals must be discussed early in the supervisory process. In mid-phases of research, goals should be discussed and determined by the supervisor in conjunction with the student, inclusive of number of samples to be collected, experimental equipment or modalities, funding considerations and which journals to target.   

Hold regular supervisory meetings to encourage students to think deeply and formulate solutions

Ideally, expectations should be made open and clear in regularly scheduled initial meetings, taking into account shifting realities, as necessary. Flexibility is permissible, although students should be encouraged to honour the deadlines set by the doctoral programme, ensuring their timely graduation. 

Alice Ling Jiang is a professor in marketing at the School of Business at the Macau University of Science and Technology.

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

How AI and immersive technology will personalise learning

A practical guide to navigating the language of diversity, can we really decolonise the university, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, a diy guide to starting your own journal, when it comes to digital upskilling, sharing is caring.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC)

The purpose of the dissertation advisory committee (DAC) is to help set research goals and directions, while assessing progress toward the completion of an original body of research appropriate for completion of a PhD dissertation.

OVERALL, THE MAJOR GOALS OF THE DAC ARE TO:

• critically assess the student’s progress in both a specific research project and development as a scientist;
• provide advice and assistance to the student to overcome hurdles to progress in both areas;
• assure that the student’s research project remains focused within a reasonable scope;
• guide the student toward completion of the project in a timely fashion, usually resulting in at least one first-author primary research publication.

DAC MEMBERSHIP

The DAC is a group of faculty selected by the student and mentor to provide guidance and direction on the student’s dissertation research and assess both the progress of the project and the development of the student scientist. In addition to providing practical and technical assistance to the student, the DAC also serves to moderate the mentor-student relationship and any non-scientific issues hindering progress. It is, therefore, important for the students to have committee members they trust and with whom they feel comfortable discussing such issues. Students select DAC members in consultation with their dissertation advisor, who must agree to the make-up of the committee.

The membership of the DAC must be approved by the BPH Program Office. Students should submit the DAC Membership Form to the BPH Office as soon as they have assembled a potential committee for approval. The requirements for the DAC composition are the following:

• The DAC is composed of three or more faculty members who have complementary and relevant expertise to fit the student’s dissertation project.
• Additionally, the dissertation advisor must attend each DAC meeting but is not an official member of the DAC.
• The Chair of the DAC is required to be a BPH faculty member, usually with the same departmental affiliation as the student’s advisor.
• At least one member should be from outside the BPH program, from another Harvard-affiliated institute, or an unaffiliated institute (e.g., MIT, Brown University, University of Massachusetts, etc.).
• The other DAC member(s) should have Harvard-affiliated faculty positions.
• Unless otherwise approved by the BPH Program Office, all members should be tenure track faculty or equivalent.
• All DAC members should be present at DAC meetings unless there are extenuating circumstances.

PREPARING FOR THE DAC MEETING: STUDENT TIMELINE AND PROGRAM PROCEDURES

• The first DAC meeting should be scheduled within six months of completing the PQE and prior to the beginning of the sixth semester. Subsequent DAC meetings should be scheduled about every six to nine months to assess student progress.
• DAC meetings will be more frequent for students G4 and above. All students must demonstrate to the DAC committee a plausible track towards degree completion by year five or they may not be allowed to continue in the program. The BPH Program Director may attend DAC meetings for students in the G6 year and above to assess whether appropriate progress towards degree completion is being made.
• Students bear primary responsibility for setting up the DAC meetings. Students must notify the BPH Office about all meeting dates and times as soon as these have been set. Additionally, students should include the BPH Office in any material distribution in advance of DAC meetings.
• Seven to ten days prior to each DAC meeting, the student assessment and advisor assessment portions of the DAC Report Form should be completed and sent to the DAC along with any relevant materials (e.g., progress report). NOTE: For the first DAC meeting, students will submit a dissertation proposal—please see the directions below for more details. Additionally, students should send the DAC guidelines/overview to the committee before the first DAC Meeting.
• The DAC Report Form contains three sections: 1.  student self-assessment of progress 2. an advisor/mentor assessment of the student’s progress 3. the DAC’s assessment of the project and student’s progress
• The first two parts of this form are completed by the student and advisor, respectively. The DAC assessment part of the form is filled out during or just after completion of the DAC meeting. As an additional component of the DAC report, the student is asked to provide two “elevator-pitch” statements of four sentences or less, one that is more technical for non-expert scientists and one that is in lay language for non-scientists. The purpose of these statements is to improve science communication skills to different audiences.
• The BPH program is required to give the Harvard Griffin GSAS an accounting of student progress via Satisfactory Progress Reports, a key component of which is regular DAC meetings for G3 students and above. Unsatisfactory progress will be reported for any student who fails to have DAC meetings at six-to-nine-month intervals. However, this may be changed to satisfactory progress at the submission of a DAC report to the BPH Program Office.

DAC CONTENT AND MATERIALS

The first dac meeting: dissertation proposal.

In addition to completing the specified portions of the DAC Report Form noted in the “preparing for the DAC” section, students submit a written dissertation proposal to the dissertation advisory committee within six months of successfully completing the preliminary qualifying exam. At this initial DAC meeting, it is not expected that extensive preliminary studies have been completed, but the scope and focus of the dissertation research should be defined. Students should present a clear plan for completing all of the work required for the PhD dissertation within approximately three years. While it is understood the plans will evolve over the course of thesis research, especially since highly creative projects engender some risks, and delays of an unexpected nature may arise, students are encouraged to strive for this goal. The full proposal should be about seven to eight pages in length (excluding references) and should include the following sections:

• specific Aims
• background and significance
• experimental design, including expected results and interpretations
• references (author, title, journal, inclusive pages, and year)

The DAC and student will meet to discuss the dissertation proposal, and committee members will provide the student with feedback, guidance, and suggestions to help define the dissertation project in terms of scope, direction, and general quality. Please see the “Organization of the DAC Meetings” section for more details.

SUBSEQUENT DAC MEETINGS:

In addition to completing the specified portions of the DAC Report Form noted in the “preparing for the DAC” section, students submit a written Research Progress Report of three to five pages in length (not including figures):

• Specific aims: If the aims have been modified from the original DAC meeting proposal, the revised aims should be presented and the reasons for the modifications.
• Studies and results: The studies directed toward specific aims and the positive and negative results obtained should be presented, as well as any technical problems encountered and how addressed. Figures of key pieces of data and working models should be included.
• Significance: A brief discussion on the significance of the findings to the current state of the scientific field.
• Plans: A summary of plans to address the remaining specific aims, including any important modifications to the original plans.

ORGANIZATION OF DAC MEETINGS

1. FACULTY AND STUDENT ALTERNATELY LEAVE THE ROOM. To provide an opportunity for both the student and the advisor to communicate with DAC members on a confidential basis, each meeting follows this format: 1) the DAC meets with the student while the PI steps out; 2) the DAC meets with the PI while the student steps out; 3) the student gives a presentation on their project to date, everyone discusses, and the DAC makes recommendations . In the absence of the student, the advisor will have a chance to expand on the written comments in the DAC Report form, present their assessment of the student’s progress, and whether the student is on course to graduate in a timely fashion. The student self-evaluation form should be discussed (this should have been reviewed by the student with their PI prior to the DAC meeting) along with any issues perceived as hindering the student’s progress. In the absence of the advisor, the student may likewise communicate their own assessment of their progress and whether the advisor and the laboratory environment provide the support that they need. Again, the student self-evaluation form can help frame this discussion. This is also an opportunity to share with the committee any other problems of a confidential nature with which the student needs help or that the DAC should be aware of in assessing progress. In this manner, the DAC serves to moderate the student-advisor relationship and recognize hurdles to progress that the student faces that may be arising from their interactions with the advisor, or lack thereof, or within the laboratory environment. If needed, the DAC chair will bring issues that arise to the attention of the Faculty Director, or encourage students and advisors to do so, for further mitigation. After these private meetings with the DAC, the DAC, the advisor, and the student will proceed to the student presentation portion as described below.

2. STUDENT PRESENTATION. The main part of the meeting will consist of a 30–40 minute presentation by the student of results and plans. Committee members will typically interrupt the presentation with questions, and the presentation is followed by a discussion of progress and future plans. The advisor should interject minimally so that the student has the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of their field and scientific maturity surrounding ongoing and future work.

3. COMMENTS/FEEDBACK GIVEN TO STUDENT BY DAC. The DAC meeting is not an exam but a scientific discussion geared toward critically assessing current data, discussing next steps, and discussing the overall direction of the student’s project. The student does not present an exhaustive set of data generated since the previous DAC but rather summarizes the core findings and conclusions, alternative interpretations, and impediments to progress. Typically, the committee will spend much of the time on technical hurdles or key decision/branch-point experiments in the project, along with a broader discussion of the novelty and impact of the findings. The collective expertise of the DAC, advisor, and student are employed to help set or reset the course of experiments, focusing on the student recognizing the highest priority experiments and developing a plan of action to complete those experiments. Rigor and reproducibility should be points of emphasis in the DAC meeting, accompanied by a critical discussion of quantitative approaches and proper use of statistical methods. In addition to providing constructive comments and point-by-point suggestions on the science, both during the meeting and in the written report, the DAC assesses and documents whether the student is on a good track toward graduation and the progress of the student’s development as a scientist. Moreover, the DAC should comment on the student’s progress on experimentation and whether it has the potential to lead to one or more first-author publications. The committee should evaluate the student’s ability to think independently, including development of hypotheses, practical approaches for testing hypotheses, critical interpretation of data, understanding relevance of results in light of current thinking in the field, and judging how to effectively pursue the line of investigation.

4. REPORTING STUDENT’S PROGRESS. The DAC chair will complete the committee’s section of the DAC Report form, which the BPH Program Director will review. Other concerns that arise during the DAC meeting may also be communicated to the BPH Office.

5. DURATION OF DAC MEETING. The overall DAC meeting usually lasts about two hours.

FINAL DAC AND PERMISSION TO WRITE THE DISSERTATION

It is ultimately the DAC’s decision, in consultation with the student and advisor, when the student may begin writing their dissertation. The core requirement for this milestone is that the student must have completed a body of primary research deemed to be of publishable quality. While a first-author research paper is not required to attain the degree, our hope is that graduating students will have at least one published first-author, peer-reviewed, primary research paper or at least one that is largely prepared or submitted prior to graduation. In addition, the DAC considers the scientific maturity, independence, and capacity for original thinking in considering the student’s readiness to graduate. Career aspirations and immediate future plans can also factor into the timing of this decision.

When the DAC concludes that the student has met the requirements for earning a PhD and is ready to begin writing their dissertation, the committee will “check the box” on the student’s DAC Report form at the completion of the final DAC meeting. The student’s dissertation defense must take place within six months of the date on which the box is checked.

News from the School

U.S. bird flu response builds on lessons learned from COVID

Experiencing gratitude associated with greater longevity among older adults

Insurance coverage disruptions, challenges accessing care common amid Medicaid unwinding

‘Linear urban forest’ project aims to mitigate heat, improve health in cities

All about Ph.D. committee meetings

The most common email I got during my Ph.D. was from the director of my graduate program. Over the years, it contained various ways of asking me if I’d scheduled my next committee meeting. It had varying levels of urgency, capital letters and exclamation points, depending on how late in the year it was. I would always respond politely but continue to procrastinate scheduling until the last possible minute. Committee meetings scared me, and I just didn’t want to face it. I was sure that my committee would discover that I was incompetent and stupid and didn’t deserve a Ph.D.

I realized eventually that committee meetings are incredibly helpful, and I regretted putting them off. I do not think I was the only one who felt that way, so I’m devoting this column to committee meetings: What they are, what they’re for, and how to get the most out of them. 

What is a committee? 

Throughout your Ph.D., you typically will be working in one lab under one principal investigator. Your committee is a group of PIs outside your lab who have complementary expertise. They meet with you to assess your progress, including deciding when you can graduate. They help you through your research, share their ideas and knowledge, and act as a reality check. The committee meeting is typically an annual or semi-annual presentation of your work and discussion about how to proceed. The format varies from school to school and committee to committee.

In addition to the presentation and discussion, there is usually a component where you step out of the room and they talk about you while you wait outside. Sometimes there is also a component where the PI steps out and you talk about any problems you may be having with them. 

Importantly, your committee typically has the final say about whether and when you proceed to your defense. Which means, while it might feel like you and your PI are in charge, your committee is actually what determines when you have done enough work to defend. Sometimes this is perfunctory, with the committee agreeing with the PI when a student is ready. Other times there can be conflict with a committee evaluating the situation differently. 

What is the point of a committee meeting? 

First off, it’s important to be clear: Committee meetings are for you . In the end, the purpose of a committee meeting during the years of your Ph.D., is to help guide you, keep you on track to graduate, and make sure the work you are doing is good and will lead to a thesis and paper. Your committee is made of people you can turn to for advice and outside opinions. They (usually) want the best for you and don’t want you to be wasting your time. 

It’s maybe your only opportunity to sit down with a bunch of experts who all are focused on you and your work. The meetings can be great opportunities for learning and growth. 

There are many things a committee can do for you: They can suggest experiments, come up with new ideas about how to interpret your data, make new connections about your work, and generally ask insightful questions to make sure you’re not barking up the wrong tree or leaving out something important.

Having a committee of experts outside your lab is a great reality check to make sure you and your PI are not so deep in your project with blinders on that you are missing something big.

They can help give you guidance if your PI is too distant or too involved, and they can be a voice of reason if your PI has expectations that are unrealistic for a Ph.D. project. In rougher times, your committee can be your lifeline. 

Your committee members are also people you can talk to outside of your official committee meetings, in good times and bad. 

Also, your committee members will know you scientifically and can probably write you letters of reference when you find yourself applying for a job or grant. 

Are committee meetings exams?

A committee meeting is not a continuation of your qualifying exam, but you will be expected to know your stuff. It’s a discussion, so there will definitely be questions. And if you don’t know how to answer them, sometimes it can feel a little humiliating. But, generally, if you keep two things in mind, it’s all good: First, you actually do know your project better than anyone else, because you are the one doing it. And, second, it’s much better to find the things you don’t know and need to know early on, so you can build your foundation early and well, and then build your research on top, instead of finding out later that you missed something obvious and wasted your time. 

Do they judge my progress?

Yes. Committees can decide whether you are making enough progress and set expectations for what they want to see done by the next meeting. Sometimes they will tell you that you are not doing enough. That can be stressful, but they want you to get things done so you can graduate, not because they want to torture you. 

If you’re not getting enough done, you can talk to them about why. Maybe a protocol is too complicated and you need more training, maybe troubleshooting is taking forever, or maybe you can’t get the mice or strains you need. Maybe you’ve been struggling with mental or physical health, or maybe you need help managing your schedule or setting priorities. Maybe you’ve actually been working well and efficiently but think the expectations are just too high for how long experiments take. You can have these conversations and work out how to make better progress. 

How do I choose who should be on my committee?

The short answer is: Choose people whose skills and expertise will be useful to you. Also, check if your program has rules for who must or must not be on your committee. 

Of course, it is impossible to find the perfect committee, but you can keep these things in mind:

Look for complementary qualities: It’s helpful to choose people who aren’t clones of your PI but complement your PI’s style and strengths. If you have a young PI, maybe look for a more established person for your committee. If you have a hands-off PI, maybe look for a committee member who will be more involved and help you work out the small things. If you have a detail-oriented PI, look for someone who likes to step back and look at the big picture. If you have a PI who loves to daydream about unrealistic experiments, look for someone who is very realistic and pragmatic. You get the point. 

Look for someone invested: It might be tempting to choose people who seem like they’ll be easy and not challenge you, but this is your chance to have your horizons expanded and be pushed, so someone who might not care much about your work is not a great choice though they might be easier to deal with in the moment. 

Ask around: If you are thinking about asking a certain person to be on your committee but are unsure what working with them will be like, find someone who has that person on their committee and talk to them about it. 

Think about who will help you if things go badly: If everything goes smoothly in grad school, your choice of committee might not matter so much, and anyone you choose will be fine. But if things go bad, your committee will be very important, and you might want to plan for that just in case. 

While researching for this article, I talked with a few grad students who stressed this point: PI–student relationships can get really fraught, and, with the power dynamic, they can become abusive, as described here , here and here . In cases where your relationship with your PI has really gone down the drain, it’s essential to have people on your committee who can be objective and help you navigate — or even help get you out. 

If you can help it, your committee shouldn’t be longtime friends of your PI. That might seem appealing at first: They’ve known your PI’s work for a long time and probably want their pal’s students to do well. If everything stays good, then it’s not a problem. But if things start to go badly in the PI–student relationship, it will be useful to have someone who isn’t guaranteed to see things only from your PI’s point of view. Having someone who is more of an outsider on your committee can help here. A neutral voice who doesn’t have a long friendship invested already with your PI might be able to look objectively at the dynamics and figure out how to move everyone forward. A committee of all old friends of your PI can leave you feeling trapped and helpless if things get rough.

Anything else?

Be gracious and respectful. These professors are taking time out of their day to focus on your work. 

It’s pretty tricky to find a time when a group of professors are all free for two hours. Start scheduling early. Maybe use Doodle or another scheduling aid. 

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Become a member to receive the print edition monthly and the digital edition weekly.

Elizabeth Stivison is a postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University studying inositol signaling and a careers columnist for ASBMB Today.

Related articles

Featured jobs.

from the ASBMB career center

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.

Latest in Careers

Careers highlights or most popular articles.

Should grad students live in campus housing?

Most schools offer housing options specifically for graduate students. Our careers columnist suggests you check them out before deciding where to live.

Illuminating the path to permanent residency

Two directors of postdoctoral affairs have developed a program to illuminate the hidden curriculum and explain how career and immigration are coupled.

Upcoming opportunities

Save the date for ASBMB conferences on topics such as transcriptional regulation, gene expression, ferroptosis and O-GlcNAcylation! Plus: "Molecular motifs" bio art contest entries due Aug. 1.

Science journalism internships for early career scientists

If you love science but are ready to leave the bench, consider a career in science storytelling.

The visa voyage

International scientists fight through red tape and regulations for a chance to train and work in the U.S.

The best of both worlds

Blake Warner is chief of the Salivary Disorders Unit and the Sjögren's disease clinic at the NIH.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor

Published on October 13, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on March 24, 2017.

Table of contents

Making an appointment, asking questions, confirming agreements.

Dear Dr. Janssen,

The college has informed me that you will be my supervisor. I would therefore like to make an initial appointment to discuss my dissertation idea with you.

I look forward to hearing from you as to when you would be available to meet with me.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Dear Prof. Smith,

I have encountered several difficulties while working on my dissertation. Could you please answer the following questions?

• I have found only limited literature on the concept of “social enforcement.” Are you familiar with any authors who have written on this topic?
• Measuring “social enforcement” in the literature has proven virtually impossible. At this point I would like to use “social control” as a starting point for the concept. What are your thoughts on this?

I would like to make an appointment to discuss these questions with you. When would be convenient for you?

I am writing in follow-up to our meeting on Monday. Could you please check the notes I have prepared concerning what we agreed and confirm that they are accurate?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2017, March 24). Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor. Scribbr. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/tips/sample-emails-to-your-dissertation-supervisor/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

First Meeting with Dissertation Supervisor

The preparation of the plan for the first meeting with the supervisor is very beneficial in terms of saving time. Students pursuing graduation often have questions related to the first meeting with the supervisor. In this article, our UK assignment writing experts are providing the proper guideline related to the first meeting with the supervisor.

The schedule of the first meeting with a supervisor can be structure by the synopsis. You need to first send synopsis in advance. As it is the technique which will help your dissertation supervisor in scrutinizing issue and finding that whether specific issues is feasible and relevant or not.

The graduate supervisor will also analyze whether there is a relationship present knowledge, problem statement, research objectives and research methodology.

Before having the first meeting with a supervisor you can expect that the supervisor which you have to choose will support you in gaining the knowledge about a particular subject. You can assume that you have made a selection of a good supervisor.

It means that you can expect that the supervisor whom you have selected will help you in writing a problem statement for the research paper. They would help you in making adjustments in research objectives and will suggest you with better research methodology for achieving desired research objectives.

It is very much essential for you to match your expectations with that of your supervisor at the time of the first meeting. As it is the tactics that will help you in developing a strong relationship with your supervisor.

Before preparing the agenda and synopsis for your first meeting with your supervisor you need to consider the following such as how many times will you meet, how many times will supervisor read your synopsis and what kind of comments you can expect? What does your supervisor expect of you and how ambitious are you?

What discussion to have with the supervisor at the first meeting?

The points you should discuss during the first meeting with the supervisor include:

a) Analyze the expectation of the researcher and Professor

At this step, you need to do Identification researcher requirements and working methods of professors. Do students generally have questions about what to ask from the supervisor during the first meeting? The answer to the question is that

At the initial phase of discussion with the supervisor during the first meeting, it is very much important for you to develop an understanding of the working pattern of your supervisor.

The first question which you can ask from your supervisor during the first meeting could be related to what techniques or methods they use for work. By getting and analyzing the answer to such a question you will be able to judge whether you have made the selection of the right supervisor.

Secondly, you should have a discussion about problems with your supervisor at the time of the first meeting. During your first meeting with your supervisor, you should clearly state the objectives which you intend to achieve by writing a dissertation  or thesis on a particular topic.

In the context of the professor or supervisor, it is very much important for them to develop an understanding that every type of researcher has unique expectations.

They also need to understand that ineffective communication can give rise to misunderstanding and might lead to confusion. Therefore, At the initial meeting, both supervisors and researchers should develop an understanding of each other needs, As these tactics will help both of them in developing a strong relationship with each other.

Get Special Discount Offers for Assignment Help

b) Frequency of direct meeting, E-mail communication, the timing for meeting

During the first meeting, you should discuss the Frequency of direct meetings, E-mail communication, the timing for a meeting, etc. As both supervisors or professors and researchers might have expectations and preferences related to meetings and communication.

You should organize at least one meeting in a month with your professor. The decision related to the Number of the meeting which should be organized is completely dependent on the stage of the dissertation or thesis.

It is very much essential for the researcher to develop an understanding that the supervisor could have other problems because of which they might face difficulty in providing a quick response. In such a situation, you can ask for an estimated time for receiving feedback.

c) Time and length of the meeting

During the first meeting with your supervisor, you should discuss the timing and length of the meeting. This type of discussion is very much important as it will help both professors and researchers in preparing the schedule.

While making the decision related to the timing of the meeting you should consider the type of problem you intend to discuss in a specific meeting.  It is very much important for you to decide the time of the next meeting at the end of the first meeting with the supervisor. You should spend approx.

Half an hour on the first meeting of you is with the supervisor. You should discuss a relevant point that you have highlight in your document.

d) Bilateral deadlines and Submission of Work

At the first meeting, you need to discuss the time intervals when you need to submit your written work. In simple words, you should discuss the deadline for submitting the draft of the work.

Researchers should prepare a list of problems that they should discuss during the meeting with the supervisor. In other words, you should prepare an outline of the meeting as it will help both of you in saving time.

e) Timing for feedback

You should discuss in a general meeting that how the feedback would be sent either it will be oral or written. After submission of written work, it is very much essential for the supervisor to provide a clear indication of the period when he or she will be able to provide feedback.

While giving the time for feedback professor needs to consider the scope and other commitments.

f) Research topic, research questions, and research methodology

During your first meeting with the supervisor, you can have discussions related to the research topic, questions, and methods. Researchers can take advice about the topic which they have selected for performing research.

The supervisor or dissertation advisor must respect the ideas and decisions taken by the researcher. You should also consider the advice or suggestions provided by your supervisor considering their experience.

g) Change of provisional supervisor, relationship with other professors and co-supervision

It is the first meeting that provides you with an opportunity for determining if the research project and interests of the supervisor and researcher are compatible.  At the time of the first meeting, you should discuss the problems which you are facing in researching a specific topic.

Claim Your 15% OFF Now Submit Assignment Details

What preparation should be done for the first meeting with a supervisor?

The preparation of the first formal meeting with the Dissertation supervisor can include several things that differ from one student to another and also on the thesis.

Before having a meeting with the thesis supervisor, it is very much essential for you to gather a large amount of information about the person whom you have select as a supervisor.

You can perform such activity when making a selection of a thesis supervisor. Researchers can also perform investigations for gathering the work of the supervisor. By gathering the information about the dissertation supervisor you will be able to determine whether they have knowledge or expertise in the field on which you are performing research.

It has been concluded from the above that during the first meeting you can have an important discussion about save many things.

Another fact which has been found from the above is that the first meeting allows both researcher and professor to develop an understanding with each other which is crucial for working together and accomplishing desired goals.

Frequently ask questions

Ques 1. What should I discuss at the first meeting with the Dissertation Supervisor?

Ans:  At the first meeting with your thesis supervisor you can discuss the research topic, objectives, questions, research methodology, findings, etc.

Ques 2.  What preparation I should do before having a meeting with Ph.D. Supervisor?

Ans: Before attending a meeting with the dissertation supervisor you should gather information about them.

You should prepare a proper plan and make notes of things about which you want to have a discussion. For instance, If you want to discuss the research topic in the first meeting then you should first select some of the topics which you think are relevant to your field. You should also prepare a list of questions that you want to ask a Ph.D. supervisor.

Ques 3. What questions should I ask the Dissertation supervisor at the first meeting?

Ans:  The questions you should ask from a Ph.D. supervisor are: You should ask a question about their educational background and experience in a particular field.

It is very much essential for you to ask your thesis supervisor about their working method. During the first meeting with your Dissertation supervisor, you should ask them about their expectation from researchers or scholars whom they are guiding.

Hire Dissertation Writer

Enter Discount Code If You Have, Else Leave Blank

Get 15% off your first order with Students Assignment Help UK

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

Recent Reviews

Outstanding economics assignment.

Your experts provided an outstanding economics assignment, ensuring not a single guideline of the University of Exeter was overlooked. I have complete trust in your website and appreciate the consistent quality of your work. Thank you immensely.

Consistently Impressive Results

I’ve entrusted Students Assignment Help with various assignments, and they never fail to impress. Their consistent quality and timely delivery showcase their commitment to excellence. With their assistance, I’ve been able to maintain high academic standards effortlessly. I commend their dedication and highly recommend their services.

Excellent Computer Networking Assignment

I am thoroughly pleased with the computer networking assignment you provided. Studentsassignmenthelp.co.uk far surpasses others claiming to offer quality content but failing to meet student expectations. Thank you for the exceptional assistance with my assignment.

Masterful Case Study Solution

Your assignment help service is truly top-notch. The expert team was attentive, and the case study solution provided was perfect. Thank you for delivering the best solution for my case study, complete with proper references and thorough analysis.

Thankful for Assignment Completion

The engineering assignment writing service I received from your experts was not only affordable but also 100% error-free. I am grateful for your expert help. Thank you for your outstanding work.

Reliable Online Exam Support

I am grateful to have found your website and availed the services of an online exam helper. Your insights into my weak areas and ability to perform under tight time constraints were invaluable. I will definitely recommend your service.

Perfect Assignment Execution

Your experts have consistently delivered flawless assignments, and I now understand why your service is so highly regarded. The plagiarism-free work and adherence to deadlines, along with strict adherence to the academic guidelines, mean a lot to me. Thank you for your exceptional service.

Top-notch Essay Writing Assistance

Your essay writing service is truly the best I’ve come across. I appreciate the attention to detail. Thank you for your excellent work; I will definitely be a returning customer.

Exceptional Case Study Writing Service

I was blown away by the exceptional quality of the case study solution provided by your experts. This was my first experience with your service, and it surpassed all my expectations. The case study was well-written, well-structured, and thoroughly researched. Thank you for your outstanding help.

Outstanding Economics Assignment Support

Your consistent excellence in providing assignment help has never failed to impress me. Your adherence to all the UK universities’ guidelines is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your invaluable assistance.

UPTO 15 % DISCOUNT

Get Your Assignment Completed At Lower Prices

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for discussing academic life, and for asking questions directed towards people involved in academia, (both science and humanities).

Dos and Don'ts of first meeting with undergraduate thesis advisor?

Hi r/AskAcademia ! I'm an undergraduate who recently reached out to a professor about starting my undergraduate thesis. I have a decent relationship with him through classes/office hours and am actually in a class with him this semester. He's agreed to supervise my work on a list of topics I sent him in my initial email.

We're meeting for a hour. What do we talk about? What are we supposed to talk about? What are some things we should talk about that I might not be aware of? So far, I was thinking of talking about the topic of the thesis, logistics (scheduling research credit hours and stuff through the general Arts and Sciences office, need his signature, etc.), and funding. Would it be impolite if I took notes during our meeting? Or if I asked to record our conversation? We're meeting at a local campus cafe. What should my expectations be? Thanks! I'm obviously a little nervous about tomorrow...

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Readout of the U.S.-PRC Bilateral Counternarcotics Working Group Senior Official   Meeting

On July 31, the United States and the People’s Republic of China held a senior official meeting as part of the Counternarcotics Working Group in Washington, DC.  Launched in January 2024 following President Biden and President Xi’s decision to resume bilateral cooperation on counternarcotics, the U.S.-PRC Counternarcotics Working Group is a key mechanism for coordinating bilateral efforts to counter the global manufacturing and trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. 

Senior officials from both countries reviewed progress in bilateral counternarcotics efforts, including recent arrests, and discussed next steps in furthering cooperation on this critical effort.  Discussions focused on ways to strengthen coordination on law enforcement actions; disrupt the illicit financing of transnational criminal organization networks; accelerate the scheduling of synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals; address the illicit diversion of precursor chemicals; exchange information on emerging threats; and advance progress in multilateral fora.  

Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Jennifer Daskal gave remarks at the senior official meeting, which was co-chaired by White House National Security Council Senior Director for China Sarah Beran and Senior Director for Counterterrorism and Transnational Crime Tiffany Eppelheimer.  The interagency PRC delegation was led by Director General of the Narcotics Control Bureau of the PRC Ministry of Public Security Wei Xiaojun and included representatives from the PRC Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Commerce, and General Administration of Customs.  Meetings also included representatives from the Department of Justice, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations; the Department of the Treasury; the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Department of State; and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

The Fed Suggested That Rate Cuts Could Come Soon

The Federal Reserve left its benchmark interest rate unchanged at a two-decade high but suggested that recent progress in lowering inflation could enable it to cut interest rates soon.

• Share full article

Rate Cut ‘Could Be on the Table’ at Next Fed Meeting, Powell Says

Jerome h. powell, the federal reserve chair, suggested an interest rate cut could be on the horizon after the central bank held rates steady at its most recent meeting..

The labor market has come into better balance and the unemployment rate remains low. Inflation has eased substantially from a peak of 7 percent to 2.5 percent. We are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal in support of a strong economy that benefits everyone. Today, the F.O.M.C. decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged and to continue to reduce our securities holdings. We have made no decisions about future meetings, and that includes the September meeting. The broad sense of the committee is that the economy is moving closer to the point at which it will be appropriate to reduce our policy rate.

Jeanna Smialek

Powell says a rate cut ‘could be on the table’ at the Fed’s next meeting.

Federal funds

target rate

Federal Reserve officials left interest rates unchanged at their July meeting, as economists had expected, and hinted that recent progress in lowering inflation could enable them to cut interest rates soon.

The Fed decided on Wednesday to hold interest rates steady at about 5.3 percent — a two-decade high where they have remained for a year now.

Notably, though, officials also tweaked their post-meeting policy statement to call price increases only “somewhat elevated” and to underscore that officials are attentive not just to the risk of lingering inflation but also to the threat of a job market slowdown.

Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, said at a news conference that a rate cut “could be on the table” at its next meeting on Sept. 18.

Investors widely expect them to cut borrowing costs at that gathering, and then to cut rates a second and even third time before the end of the year.

Mr. Powell explained why the Fed was not ready to cut rates at July’s meeting, saying “we’re getting closer to the point” at which a cut will be appropriate, but “we’re not quite at the point.”

The Fed’s statement on Wednesday is likely to reinforce expectations for a coming rate reduction, because officials used it to stress both that inflation is cooling and that they are increasingly focusing on the health of the labor market. “The economic outlook is uncertain, and the committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate,” the Fed said in its statement, replacing previous language that said the Fed was “highly attentive to inflation risks.”

As of their June economic projections, Fed forecasts implied that central bankers could cut roughly every other meeting once they got started. That would lower rates to 4.1 percent by the end of next year and 3.1 percent by the end of 2026.

Fed officials will release their next set of economic projections after their September meeting, which will give a hint at whether they still think that pace of rate cuts is appropriate.

Danielle Kaye

After the market’s rally accelerated during Powell’s news conference, stocks pared back those gains heading into the close. The S&P 500 was up 2 percent on Powell’s comments before fading back to a gain of 1.5 percent. And notably, the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies, which are poised to benefit from rate cuts, jumped 2.4 percent during the news conference before pulling back slightly.

That’s a wrap. Here are a few takeaways from the Federal Reserve’s July meeting and Chair Jerome Powell’s news conference.

* The Fed left interest rates unchanged at 5.3 percent, where they have been for a year

* Powell suggested a rate cut could come in September, the Fed's next meeting

* Powell also said he could see anything "from zero cuts to several cuts" later this year depending on the data, which is notable because it allows for the possibility of three rate cuts

* Powell made it clear that the Fed is very focused on the labor market. They think it's settling into a normal groove, but are watching and ready to react if it shows signs of cracking

Advertisement

“We follow the many economic commentators who bless us with their commentary,” Powell says, snarkily, as he winds up to a bigger point about what drives the Fed’s thinking.

Powell makes it clear that the Fed is focused on doing what is best for the economy, not what is best for a political party ahead of the election. “Anything we do before, during, or after the election will be based on the data” and outlook, Powell says.

Jim Tankersley

Jeanna, that was a funny little aside in a broader effort by Powell. He’s trying to explain the Fed’s process to make it appear totally divorced from politics.

Powell says he “absolutely” believes the Fed can stay out of politics with its rate decisions, even in the months before the presidential election.

Powell makes it clear that a “strong” majority of officials supported not moving rates lower today, but it was something that was discussed. “It’s a conversation that we had today, certainly.”

Investors appear to like what they’re hearing from Powell, who said the Fed is getting closer to a rate cut. The S&P 500 rose 2 percent on his comments, pushing it higher than this morning’s rise.

The market’s positive reaction “suggests traders and investors alike see the Fed easing at the September meeting because inflation continues its path lower, rather than an emergency cut because the labor market is deteriorating,” said Quincy Krosby, chief global strategist for LPL Financial.

Alan Rappeport

In a continuation of the split screen, Trump just said if elected he would “bring interest rates way down.”

Hard to oversimplify it more than this, from Powell: “We’re in a good place.” Inflation is coming down, he’s saying, and the economy is still good. So why move fast and risk either one?

“It’s just a question of seeing more good data,” Powell says. Basically: Fed officials are not fully convinced the current downward trend in inflation will stick, so they want more evidence.

Why not today? Powell’s answer: We just aren’t in a place where the committee feels comfortable cutting rates.

Jeanna asks Powell a fastball question: Are markets wrong to expect a September cut, and why not just cut now?

And Powell does not really answer the second part of it: He just says that “we’re getting closer to the point” at which a cut will be appropriate, but “we’re not quite at the point.”

“We have made no decisions about future meetings, and that includes the September meeting,” Powell says, saying that the question for that meeting is whether the totality of the data points to a case for a rate cut. A cut “could be on the table as soon as” the next meeting in September.

“The second quarter’s inflation readings have added to our confidence” that inflation is coming down sustainably, Powell says, a line that clearly keeps the door open to an upcoming rate cut without going so far as to specify a month for the move.

“High inflation imposes significant hardship as it erodes purchasing power,” Powell reiterates. He often reinforces that the Fed knows how much inflation hurts normal people, especially those with limited wiggle room in their budgets.

“Conditions in the labor market have returned to about where they stood on the eve of the pandemic, strong, but not overheated,” Powell says today. That’s the sweet spot for the Fed, which wants a solid but sustainable job situation.

Powell sounds pretty optimistic about the economy at the start of the news conference, stressing improvements in areas like investment.

Trump, speaking at an event hosted by Black journalists in Chicago, said that “inflation is absolutely destroying our country” and reiterated his complaints about housing affordability during the Biden administration years. It’s worth remembering that while Trump was very critical of Powell when he was president, he recently said that he would not try to remove him from the Fed before his term ends, though caveated that with "especially if I thought he was doing the right thing."

Jerome Powell is starting his news conference.

Harris was clear at her rally last night in Atlanta that she was in no way declaring victory on inflation and acknowledged that prices are still too high. She pledged to pressure big pharma and corporate landlords on prices, and to crack down on hidden fees, saying: “On Day One, I will take on price gouging and bring down costs.”

Powell will speak to reporters in about 20 minutes. His news conferences are always closely watched by markets, but this one feels particularly weighty. Many investors will be expecting a cut in September based on this Fed statement, and they’ll be looking for any signs from Powell to support or undercut those expectations.

Stocks are holding steady as the Fed’s announcement reinforces investors’ confidence that interest rates will start to come down in September. The S&P 500 is up 1.6 percent, in line with its rise in late-morning trading.

Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, writes that “this was a baby step on the way to a September rate cut.”

The stock market grew turbulent this month as investors began to position for a rate cut.

S&p 500.

July was an unusually bumpy month for Wall Street, as investors reconsidered their appetite for big technology stocks and piled into shares of smaller companies.

Small companies are particularly sensitive to borrowing costs and the outlook for the domestic economy, so falling borrowing costs bolster their prospects. Futures markets are now pricing in a rate cut of a quarter of a percentage point in September, according to CME FedWatch, and as Wall Street’s confidence in that cut has grown, shares of these businesses have rallied.

Also driving this shift is a rethink among investors about the potential for artificial intelligence to continue to drive gains at big companies like Microsoft, Nvidia and Alphabet, after shares of those businesses surged in the past year.

By early Wednesday, the Russell 2000 index of small capitalization stocks had rallied 9.7 percent for the month — on track for its best monthly performance of the year — while the technology heavy Nasdaq Composite was down more than 1 percent.

This broadening market rally is welcome news to those who had worried that big technology companies had become too dominant in the stock market. Whether it continues could depend on what signals the Fed sends later on Wednesday.

Here’s where markets stand before the statement.

The S&P 500 is up 1.6 percent as of noon.

Yields on 10-year government bonds were little changed, at 4.1 percent.

Yields on two-year government notes, which are particularly sensitive to changing expectations for short-term interest rates, also held steady at 4.3 percent.

Human Subjects Office

July 2024 irb connection newsletter, irb efficiency initiatives and results to date, irb efficiency initiative: current and upcoming, herky hint: help messages, aahrpp accreditation: preparing for site visit interviews, course-related student projects: is irb approval required, learning opportunity: irb overview lecture in icon, in the news, upcoming educational events, irb efficiency initiative s and results to date, by kelly o’berry and michele countryman.

Beginning in January 2024, the Human Subjects Office (HSO) rolled out six major initiatives to improve Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) review processes. This article provides an evaluation of previous programming changes that were presented at the May IRB Efficiency Initiative Information Session .   

Here’s a brief overview of the initiatives and results to date:  

60-Day Withdrawal Due to PI Inactivity (effective 1/29/24): 1,059 New Project and Modification Forms submitted since implementation. Of these, 106 forms were withdrawn (10%), 17 were recreated, and 9 were resubmitted.  

DSP Approval Timing (effective mid-February 2024): The new process for faster signoffs from the Division of Sponsored Programs allowed the release of HRPP approvals an average of 48 days earlier ( 36 days median).  

Required Actions After the IRB Meeting (effective 4/1/24): the average time to provide the PI with required actions from IRB meeting minutes has gone from 9 days to less than 24 hours since April 1.   

Assign a Meeting Date Goal (effective 4/1/24): Limited data is available, but 71% of studies met the date goal. More in-depth information will be available after the June rollout that separated IRB review from HRPP Committee Approvals.   

60-Day Withdrawal Due to PI Inactivity (effective 1/29/24)  

HawkIRB forms are automatically withdrawn if there is no response to workflow in 60 days . This change will allow for more accurate metrics for IRB review time.   

In addition to the two-week reminders, a new 55-day HawkIRB email notice states that the form will be withdrawn in five days. The form in the PI’s inbox shows the number of days in Workflow over the total days since submission. At 55 days , the form is highlighted in red in the PIs inbox.   

Evaluation data for New Project forms and Modification forms:  

The 106 withdrawn forms represent a considerable timesaving for HSO staff reviewers. Most withdrawn forms have not been recreated and very few recreated forms have been submitted to the IRB.  

NOTE: For a withdrawn form, the PI can only use the “recreate” link once. It is best to hold off on recreating the form until all issues that were holding up the response to the workflow questions in the original form have been resolved.  

DSP Approval Timing (effective mid-February 2024)  

Division of Sponsored Programs (DSP) approval is required in HawkIRB for industry-initiated, industry-funded clinical trials where a research contract is required to document institution and sponsor expectations. The research application can be approved by the IRB, but not released to the study team until DSP approval is documented. In February, DSP updated their “contract approval” process for these industry-sponsored clinical trials. DSP approval used to be documented when the contract was fully executed; contract negotiations were complete, all signatures in place (institution, PI, and sponsor), and budget approved. Now DSP issues approval in HawkIRB when contract negotiations are complete, even if signatures and/or budget remain pending. This removed a significant delay in the HRPP approval process. Note: The PI must continue to work with the sponsor to obtain signatures and finalize the budget prior to initiating the research.  

This change affected 38 studies from mid-February to early June. Faster DSP sign off allowed the release of HRPP approvals 48 days earlier than the previous average. For these studies, the median turnaround for IRB approval was 36 days , which is considerably below the goal of a 45-day median from submission to approval for full board review.  

Assign a Meeting Date Goal (effective 4/1/24)  

Application Analysts can now set an IRB meeting date goal, and a due date for meeting this goal, at the beginning of the IRB review process.   

NOTE: There were several limiting factors for evaluation of this change. IRB meeting agendas were full through April 22 when this change took effect on April 1. The first New Project form included in this evaluation was submitted on April 2 and scheduled to a meeting on May 9. This evaluation is based on data from early May through mid-June.  

Also, when this change took effect the hold for three Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) committees prevented scheduling forms to an IRB meeting. The IRB Efficiency Initiative rollout on June 14, 2024, lifted this hold by separating the IRB and HRPP Committee approvals. Future data will provide a more in-depth evaluation.  

Required Actions After the IRB Meeting (effective 4/1/24)  

HSO staff can now provide required actions to the PI shortly after the IRB meeting, which gives the PI/research team a head start to address required actions before receiving the full set of IRB meeting minutes.   

Before April 1, 2024, the average time to provide required actions to the PI in the full meeting minutes was 9 days. The goal is to provide required actions within 24 hours and the full set of meeting minutes within four business days.   

Of 167 sets of meeting minutes completed between April 1 and mid-June, HSO staff effectively decreased the average time to provide required actions to the PI to less than 24 hours. The research community has provided positive feedback about this change.    

Seventeen sets of minutes (10%) did not meet the goal due to the complexity of the issues the board discussed. Approximately half of these minutes were from a monthly IRB-01 Executive Committee meeting. The Executive Committee reviews more complex study design and compliance-related issues.  

IRB Efficiency Initiative Announcements and Updates  

See IRB Efficiency Initiative Announcements and Updates for information about o ther initiatives that are in progress or have been implemented since June 2024, including: launching the new HSO website , adding a chair designee to assist with IRB-02 post-approval forms, onboarding a new IRB-02 chair, Primary Reviewer process enhancements and more.  

By Kelly O’Berry and Michele Countryman  

The IRB Efficiency Initiative rollout in June 2024 separated IRB review and approval from the other Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) committee approvals. This article provides an overview of that change and a summary of other initiatives in progress, updated documents, policies and procedures and information session/demonstration recordings.  

Separate IRB and HRPP Committee Approvals - June 2024 Rollout  

HawkIRB programming changes rolled out June 14, 2024, separated IRB review and approval from other HRPP Committee approvals. Prior to this change, the IRB could not begin the convened board review process until the issuance of approval from three committees/entities: Conflict of Interest in Research (CIRC) , Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC, in Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center) , and Research Billing Compliance (RBC) . The HSO can now schedule a New Project or Modification form to a convened IRB meeting before the completion of these HRPP committee reviews/approvals.   

The second programming change allows the IRB to grant full IRB approval before the issuance of all HRPP approvals. Prior to this efficiency initiative, the IRB would hold approval pending approval from these additional HRPP committees: Pharmacy & Therapeutics (P&T) , Medical Radiation and Protection Committee (MRPC) , Institutional Biosafety Committee and Nursing Research Committee (NRC) . Additionally, the IRB can now grant approval before the Division of Sponsored Programs (DSP) signs off on the grant or contract.  

The Principal Investigator (PI) can now submit a Modification form in HawkIRB to address requests from HRPP Committees that complete their review after the IRB approves the New Project form. The New Project form is released when the Modification form is approved and released in HawkIRB.  

Several documents, policies and procedures were updated or added in June. See a detailed list at the end of this article .  

What’s Next for the IRB Efficiency Initiative?  

The following initiatives are in progress or have already been implemented since the June IRB Efficiency Initiative Information Session:  

New IRB review and approval structure for IRB-02 (social/behavioral research) – Effective at the start of Fiscal Year 2025, we added an IRB Chair Designee to assist with approval of post approval forms (e.g., Modification, Continuing Review, or Modification/Continuing Review) meeting an expedited or exempt criteria for approval. This enhancement is consistent with a long-standing IRB-01 review structure and is consistent with IRB practices across the nation. The new IRB-02 Chair Designee is an experienced IRB member who is already serving as an IRB-01 Chair Designee.  

New IRB-02 Chair – The new IRB-02 Chair, an experienced IRB member, will begin onboarding and training in August as part of succession planning for IRB-02 Chairs.  

Primary Reviewer process enhancements for full board review – HawkIRB programming is underway to update the Primary Reviewer Checklist used at convened board meetings and enhance the training process for Primary Reviewers.  

HawkIRB Application Redesign – This initiative to streamline the HawkIRB application began with the rollout of Section III updates on January 29, 2024. The goal is to make forms easier for researchers to complete and more efficient for the IRB review. This is a continuation of the 2022-2023 initiative to update the HawkIRB form for projects that qualify for Exempt Status. The next HawkIRB application redesign rollout will focus on updates to the single IRB review process. This is in preparation for the anticipated FDA adoption of the revised Common Rule regulations regarding the use of a single IRB for multi-site projects.  

New HSO website – The new HSO website is now live! HSO staff are still making final tweaks and corrections to URLs. It will take time for search engines to only identify pages of the new website. Use the gold buttons on the home page and the menu options to find what you need. We welcome your feedback. For assistance with finding anything on the new website or to provide feedback, please contact us at [email protected].   

AAHRPP Accreditation Site Visit – 2024-2025 is our HRPP reaccreditation period and will involve a significant amount of HSO time and resources. There are two steps in the reaccreditation process. The UI is currently at Step I; the initial application was submitted in March, and we are currently responding to AAHRPP review of submission materials. Step II is the site visit which will occur this fall. The site visit includes interviews with select PIs and research staff. See February through July IRB Connection Newsletter articles for additional information about accreditation and preparing for the site visit.  

Announcements and Updated Resources  

The following documents were updated or added during the June IRB Efficiency Initiative rollout:   

New Resources:  

Other HRPP Committee Tool – Includes an organizational chart, information about each committee and when their review is required, and regulatory references for these reviews. [Link at end of first paragraph]  

HRPP Committee Review Process Flow Chart – Illustrates the timing of steps in the IRB review process and HRPP committee approvals. [Link in first sentence of the second full paragraph]  

UI IRB Standard Operating Procedures and Researcher Guide    

Updated Policies and Procedures:  

External IRB Standard Operating Procedures    

VA Researcher Guide  

May 2024 IRB Efficiency Initiative Information Session (recording)  

Trainings and Demos:  

HawkIRB demo: Separating IRB and HRPP Committee Approvals (recording)  

WCG Training (recording, June 19, 2024)  

IRB ICON Course for Researchers – Slides, recordings, demo recordings and instruction documents  

Herky Hint: Help Messages  

By rachel kinker, mpa.

Are you working on your HawkIRB application and not sure how to answer a particular question? Within the application, there are little blue circles with “i” (for “information”) associated with most of the questions in the HawkIRB application.   

For example, the Help Message on the index page provides a lot of information:  

Overview of the HawkIRB system  

Template Consent Forms and Other Attachments  

Resources for assistance with preparing HawkIRB applications  

About the Help Messages  

Resources on the Human Subjects Office website  

Principal Investigator (PI) Responsibilities  

HawkIRB Delegates  

Guidance for Community-Based Research  

Throughout the application, other Help Messages provide guidance for what information to include in response to specific questions in the HawkIRB form. When you click on the Help Message, a new window will appear with additional text describing what to include in the response to each question.   

For example, in section VII.E., each Help Message describes what to submit and how to respond to the question.   

The Help Messages may also contain links to other departments that you may need to connect with or specific policies you should know. For example, the cash handling policy appears in the Help Message for question VII.E.9  

Utilizing the Help Messages throughout the application can answer researcher questions along the way and may expedite the application process by reducing workflow. If you have suggestions for how to improve the existing Help Messages, please contact [email protected].  

AAHRPP Accreditation: Preparing for Site Visit Interviews    

By emily shultz, cip  .

The Human Subjects Office (HSO) is preparing for the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP) site visit that will take place in late summer/early fall 2024. The University of Iowa Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) has maintained accreditation since 2003. The practice of becoming accredited and maintaining accreditation is one of receiving input on how well the UI is following policies and procedures, and how well these policies and procedures meet the accreditation standards.  

About six weeks prior to the site visit, AAHRPP staff will send an email that contains:  

the names of the site visit team members,  

a draft agenda for the site visit,   

a list of personnel who will be interviewed.   

During the virtual site visit, the site visitors will meet (via Zoom) with small groups of HSO staff, IRB Chairs, IRB members, UI researchers and UI research team members, as well as members of committees with research oversight responsibilities, such as:  

Medical Radiation Protection Committee  

Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee  

Institutional Biosafety Committee  

Nursing Research Committee  

Division of Sponsored Programs  

Conflicts of Interest in Research Committee  

The interviews are typically done with two site visitors and 2 or 3 interviewees. Most interview time is with the IRB chairs, IRB members, and staff.   

Utilizing the documents submitted with the application for reaccreditation and the information gathered during the site visit, AAHRPP site visitors will look for evidence that, “the entire HRPP meets accreditation standards—and that protecting research participants is a shared organizational priority.” A month or two after the site visit, the HSO will receive feedback on how well the UI HRPP is meeting the requirements and will receive recommendations on areas where improvements can be made.  

Site Visit Interviews  

Andy Bertolatus , emeritus associate professor of internal medicine and one of the UI IRB-01 chairs, has been an AAHRPP site visitor for more than 20 years. The following information is based on insights he provided, in addition to information available from AAHRPP.  

When site visitors meet with members of the research community, they do not expect anyone to be able to recite federal regulations on the required elements of consent or the criteria for approval. When interviewing researchers, the site visitors will likely ask questions about the researcher’s:  

Areas of expertise and type(s) of research conducted   

Approach to conducting the consent processes   

Feelings about working with the IRB  

How they find out about changes in IRB policies/procedures  

Where they go for information or whom they contact for questions  

Resources Available  

For the UI research community, many resources are available online. These include, but are not limited to the following:  

UI IRB Standard Operating Procedures and Researcher Guide  

Human Subjects Office (HSO) website  

Conflict of Interest in Research website  

HHS Electronic Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46   

OHRP Guidance  

FDA Regulations Part 50  

FDA Regulations Part 56  

FDA Guidance  

This is the final article in the AAHRPP Accreditation series. Previous articles are available on the HSO website IRB Connection page . Information for this article was adapted from the AAHRPP website .  

Course-Related Student Projects: Is IRB Approval Required?  

Students may conduct some research projects with human participants as a course assignment without approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). According to the UI and IRB policies, all human subjects research conducted by University of Iowa faculty, staff, or students must have approval from the IRB prior to initiation. IRB review is required if the project is intended to “develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” including thesis or dissertation projects. However, research methods course projects are generally more limited in scope and are intended to help students learn how to conduct research. These projects satisfy curriculum requirements and are not intended to further scientific knowledge in a particular field or discipline.  

IRB Approval Not Required  

Course-related research activities would not require IRB approval if:  

The purpose of the assignment is to teach research methodology.  

The results of the assignment will not “contribute to generalizable knowledge” because they are only used to satisfy a course requirement or because of limits on who will have access to the results of the project.  

The procedures will be limited to surveys, questionnaires, interview procedures, observation of public behavior, or standard educational exercises.  

The projects will not include people who are incarcerated or minors as participants or utilize data about these two populations.  

Data will be recorded without any identifying information (such as code numbers, birth dates, etc.) or identified data are not sensitive in nature (i.e., do not pose a risk of harm to the participants’ reputation, employment, financial standing, or do not put them at risk for criminal or civil liability).  

The project is not receiving monetary compensation or direct financial support from an external company, organization, or agency.  

The project will not be conducted at the Veteran’s Administration Health Care System (VAHCS) or use any VA resources.  

The project is not conducted or supported by a federal department or agency that follows the federal regulations for the protection of human subjects (the ‘Common Rule’).  

NOTE: Honors, master’s, and doctoral thesis and dissertation projects always require IRB approval if they involve research with human subjects. If any aspect of the class project is intended to be used for a thesis or dissertation, students must obtain IRB approval prior to any study activities (recruitment, data collection, etc.).  

Policy and Checklist  

The “Course-Related Student Project” policy specifies the parameters for class projects that can be conducted without IRB approval and contains a link to the Course-Related Student Projects Checklist .  

The checklist is a fillable pdf that helps students and instructors determine whether a project qualifies as a course-related student project. If any aspect of the project design indicates that IRB approval might be required, a pop-up message directs the student to submit a Human Subjects Research Determination (HSRD) form in the HawkIRB system to ask if the project needs IRB approval. If that occurs, there will be a red STOP on the completed checklist.  

Students should complete the Course-Related Student Project Checklist based on their project design and submit it to the instructor. Based on the completed Checklist, the instructor is authorized to determine that a project complies with the policy and can be conducted without IRB approval. If there is a red STOP in the Checklist, the instructor should advise the student to submit an HSRD form and receive a determination before conducting any research activities.  

The policy and the checklist can be found in the UI Standard Operating Procedures and Researcher Guide ( Section I, Part 12.D). See also the Course Instructor Responsibilities for using the Course-Related Student Project policy and checklist.  

Information for Participants  

Even when a course-related student project can be conducted without IRB approval, it is a recommended best-practice that the student share the following information with potential subjects:  

Student name and name of the course  

Course instructor name and their contact information  

Who will have access to individual and summarized results (e.g., instructor, group/team members, the whole class, an outside company/agency/organization)  

That participation is voluntary, and they may stop participating at any time.  

Resources  

For more information, students and instructors may review the Course-Related Student Research Projects web page  and the Course-Related Student Research Projects Policy and Procedures educational tool the Human Subjects Office website.  

(link sends e-mail)

Learning Opportunity: IRB Overview lecture in ICON  

By rachel kinker, mpa  .

Do you work with or teach individuals who are new to the University of Iowa and learning to conduct human subjects research? The recorded IRB Overview presentation posted in the IRB ICON Course for Researchers provides a general orientation to the UI IRB and the IRB approval requirements for human subjects research.   

This is an excellent supplemental lecture for any research methods or responsible conduct of research course. It is also ideal for students doing research as a course requirement. Learners must access the IRB ICON course through the portal on the HSO website . After the first login, the course will appear in your ICON Dashboard.  

This presentation covers:  

Regulatory definition of human subjects research  

Guidelines for human subjects research: why and when IRB approval is required  

Basic ethical principles for the conduct of human subjects research  

Student Principal Investigator (PI) training requirements (HawkIRB Part 1 and 2 trainings)  

Criteria for IRB approval  

Information about the UI IRB  

What to expect from the IRB review process  

Research off campus or outside the United States  

Course-related student projects   

Additional resources exist for courses where students complete a research project as a course requirement. The IRB policy on Course Related Student Projects outlines conditions under which IRB approval is not required for these projects. Instructors should use the Course Related Student Project Checklist to determine whether IRB approval may be required.  

If your class needs further guidance on specific research-related topics, please reach out to [email protected] to discuss additional options.   

NIH researchers discover a new face-detecting brain circuit – NIH  

• This is What Drives the Migraine Headache': Scientists uncover 'missing link' in why some migraines happen – Live Science  
• Implantable Microphone could lead to fully internal cochlear implants – Science Daily  
• Scientists Discover New T cells and genes related to immune disorders – Science Daily  
• Keeping us young? Grandchild caregiving and older adults' cognitive functioning - Newswise  

IRB Efficiency Initiative Information Session

The Human Subjects Office invites the UI research community to attend monthly information sessions about the IRB Efficiency Initiative on the fourth Wednesday of the month from 12-1 pm, via Zoom. We will discuss the changes and demonstrate HawkIRB enhancements being implemented to streamline the IRB review process. The monthly sessions will cover upcoming enhancements and expected roll out dates. Pre-register to receive the Zoom link.  

Wednesday, August 28, 2024  

12:00 PM-1:00 PM  

Pre-register to recieve the Zoom link  

Office Hours  

Human Subjects Office staff host IRB Office Hours via Zoom to provide assistance with electronic IRB applications (in HawkIRB) and to discuss study proposals prior to submission.  All researchers are welcome to attend. No appointment is necessary.  

Summer office hours run June 5th through August 28th.  

Wednesdays (2:00 PM-4:00 PM) via Zoom  

Visit the Human Subjects Office website for complete information about IRB Office Hours and the Zoom link.  

Recorded Training  

The IRB ICON Course for Researchers HawkIRB training sessions provide an orientation to the electronic IRB application and review system. These sessions are for anyone preparing to submit a HawkIRB application for the first time and for those who would like guidance about the proper completion of HawkIRB forms. Five recorded trainings are available 24/7.   

The recorded trainings are available on ICON at IRB ICON Course for Researchers .   

Note: HawkIRB training Parts 1 and 2 satisfy the Student PI Training Requirement.  

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

Slow the Roll-up: Help Shine a Light on Serial Acquisitions

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

No, hashing still doesn't make your data anonymous.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, ftc and justice department host first strike force on unfair and illegal pricing meeting.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Closed commission meeting.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

• Consumer Protection
• Competition
• Bureau of Competition
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice (DOJ) virtually cohosted the first public meeting of the Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing (Strike Force) to discuss Strike Force enforcement actions taken to lower prices for Americans.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan, DOJ Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, along with other agencies on the Strike Force convened to highlight the following Strike Force enforcement actions:

• FTC Chair Lina M. Khan highlighted the FTC’s recent work to stop corporate lawbreaking that raises prices for Americans, including uncovering evidence of corporate conduct that may raise the price of gas, working to lower the cost of many asthma inhalers to just $35 out-of-pocket, and making it easier for Americans to cancel online subscriptions they don’t want. Chair Khan announced that she will ask the Commission to launch an inquiry into grocery prices in order to probe the tactics that big grocery chains use to hike prices and extract profits from everyday Americans at the checkout counter.
• DOJ Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer  described DOJ’s efforts to tackle unlawful behavior that affects the prices Americans pay for their groceries, transportation, and health care. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter  highlighted the historic and concrete actions Antitrust Division staff are undertaking to enforce the law and lower prices in higher education, housing, transportation, food, agriculture, live music, healthcare and other vital industries. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton  highlighted the Civil Division’s work to combat fraudulent pricing schemes involving government agencies and financial institutions, as well as schemes designed to defraud consumers through unfair and deceptive marketing or billing practices.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Secretary Torres Small highlighted the all-of-USDA approach to tackling food and agricultural pricing challenges for farmers and consumers alike, including an ongoing investigative study on retail concentration and market practices as well as landmark efforts to modernize the Packers & Stockyards Act rulebook and build a competition partnership with state attorneys general.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Deputy Secretary Andrea Palm spoke on HHS’s work to make health care affordable, transparent, and fair for everyone. Increasing competition and transparency, lowering prescription drug prices, and expanding access to health care are key ways to make sure our health care system is working for all Americans.
• Acting U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) General Counsel Subash Iyer spoke about DOT’s work to protect airline passengers from unfair practices that can make it more expensive to fly, including by proposing a ban on family seating junk fees and investigating Delta’s refund, reimbursement, and customer service problems during the recent IT meltdown.
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler spoke about the SEC’s work to address unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive business practices. The SEC is the cop on the beat for the securities markets. The agency’s rulemaking projects promote transparency, access, and fair dealing in the markets. And through market oversight, including examining registrants and reviewing tens of thousands of filings each year, the SEC guards against fraud and deceptive practices and promotes competition.
• U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel spoke about the FCC’s work to tackle unfair and deceptive pricing tactics in the communications sector, including by implementing new rules that will slash the exorbitant rates that incarcerated people and their families pay to stay connected.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra spoke about the CFPB’s work on junk fees, highlighting a report on school lunch fees, and a recently launched inquiry into junk fees in mortgage closing costs. The CFPB continues its work on all aspects of the credit card market, including looking into bait-and-switch rewards tactics, curbing excessive fees, and ensuring competition, all against the backdrop of interest rate margins hitting an all-time high. Additionally, the agency announced further scrutiny on the role of private equity investors in price gouging.

In March 2024, at the sixth meeting of the White House Competition Council, President Biden  announced the launch of the Strike Force to strengthen interagency efforts to root out and stop illegal corporate behavior that hikes prices on American families through anti-competitive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices. 

The Federal Trade Commission works to  promote competition , and protect and educate consumers.  The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. You can learn more about  how competition benefits consumers  or  file an antitrust complaint .  For the latest news and resources,  follow the FTC on social media ,  subscribe to press releases  and  read our blog .

Contact Information

Media contact.

Victoria Graham Office of Public Affairs 415-848-5121

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Archived Press Releases

Archived News

Para Notícias en Español

Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission Host First Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing Meeting

The Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) virtually cohosted the first public meeting of the Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing (Strike Force) to discuss Strike Force enforcement actions taken to lower prices for Americans.

DOJ Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Antitrust Division, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Civil Division, and FTC Chair Lina M. Khan, along with other agencies on the Strike Force, assembled to highlight the following Strike Force enforcement actions:

• FTC Chair Khan highlighted the FTC’s recent work to stop corporate lawbreaking that raises prices for Americans, including uncovering evidence of corporate conduct that may raise the price of gas, working to lower the cost of many asthma inhalers to just $35 out-of-pocket, and making it easier for Americans to cancel online subscriptions they don’t want. Chair Khan announced that she will ask the Commission to launch an inquiry into grocery prices in order to probe the tactics that big grocery chains use to hike prices and extract profits from everyday Americans at the checkout counter.
• DOJ Acting Associate Attorney General Mizer described DOJ’s efforts to tackle unlawful behavior that affects the prices Americans pay for their groceries, transportation, and health care. Assistant Attorney General Kanter highlighted the historic and concrete actions Antitrust Division staff are undertaking to enforce the law and lower prices in higher education, housing, transportation, food, agriculture, live music, healthcare, and other vital industries. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Boynton highlighted the Civil Division’s work to combat fraudulent pricing schemes involving government agencies and financial institutions, as well as schemes designed to defraud consumers through unfair and deceptive marketing or billing practices.
• Deputy Secretary Xochitl Torres Small of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) highlighted the all-of-USDA approach to tackling food and agricultural pricing challenges for farmers and consumers alike, including an ongoing investigative study on retail concentration and market practices as well as landmark efforts to modernize the Packers & Stockyards Act rulebook and build a competition partnership with state attorneys general.
• Deputy Secretary Andrea Palm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spoke on HHS’ work to make health care affordable, transparent, and fair for everyone. Increasing competition and transparency, lowering prescription drug prices, and expanding access to health care are key ways to make sure our health care system is working for all Americans.
• Acting General Counsel Subash Iyer of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) spoke about DOT’s work to protect airline passengers from unfair practices that can make it more expensive to fly, including by proposing a ban on family seating junk fees and investigating Delta’s refund, reimbursement, and customer service problems during the recent IT meltdown.
• Chair Gary Gensler of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) spoke about the SEC’s work to address unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive business practices. The SEC is the cop on the beat for the securities markets. The agency’s rulemaking projects promote transparency, access, and fair dealing in the markets. And through market oversight, including examining registrants and reviewing tens of thousands of filings each year, the SEC guards against fraud and deceptive practices and promotes competition.
• Chair Jessica Rosenworcel of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spoke about the FCC’s work to tackle unfair and deceptive pricing tactics in the communications sector, including by implementing new rules that will slash the exorbitant rates that incarcerated people and their families pay to stay connected.
• Director Rohit Chopra of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) spoke about the CFPB’s work on junk fees, highlighting a report on school lunch fees, and a recently launched inquiry into junk fees in mortgage closing costs. The CFPB continues its work on all aspects of the credit card market, including looking into bait-and-switch rewards tactics, curbing excessive fees, and ensuring competition, all against the backdrop of interest rate margins hitting an all-time high. Additionally, the agency announced further scrutiny on the role of private equity investors in price gouging.

In March, at the sixth meeting of the White House Competition Council, President Biden announced the launch of the Strike Force to strengthen interagency efforts to root out and stop illegal corporate behavior that hikes prices on American families through anti-competitive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices. 

Related Content

The Civil Division is pleased to be a part of this important task force and shares the goal of preventing unfair and deceptive pricing practices that harm consumers. Many of...

Thank you, Chair Khan. As the Chair mentioned, I am the Acting Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice. As part of that role, I oversee the Antitrust Division...

It is a privilege to join you today and talk about the work of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

• Security Council

Press Conference by Security Council President on Programme of Work for August

The Security Council’s programme for August features a first-ever discussion on enhancing Africa’s effective representation in the body, as well as an open debate on the New Agenda for Peace, its President for the month told a Headquarters press conference today.

Michael Imran Kanu (Sierra Leone), who holds the 15-member organ’s rotating presidency for this month, said the signature event on Council reform will focus on the historic injustice posed by the lack of representation for his continent in the Council.  It will be a high-level meeting to be held on 12 August, and will be presided by the President of his country, Julius Maada Bio.

The second signature event, the open debate on the New Agenda for Peace — to be held on 21 August — will address the global, regional and national aspects of conflict prevention, he said.  It will feature briefers and experts from the United Nations and African Union, among others.  The Council will also hold a thematic briefing on 7 August, on sustaining women and peace and security commitments in the context of accelerated drawdown of peace operations.

Also noting briefings on Sudan and the International Criminal Court, African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), he pointed to country-specific meetings on Yemen and Syria, as well as the monthly briefing concerning the Palestine question on 22 August.

Recalling that his country last held the presidency of the Council in December 1971 and that it is returning to the post after 53 years, he said that, in the intervening years, it went through years of civil conflict, as well as decades of post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding, in partnership with the United Nations.  This unique experience has given Sierra Leone a deep belief in the role of multilateralism in maintaining peace and security.  On 26 March 2014, he added, the Council held a meeting on the situation in Sierra Leone; just 10 years later the country is assuming the presidency of that body.  Highlighting this remarkable transformation, he said that Sierra Leone is committed to being a “voice of reason” and “a bridge-builder” during its tenure in the Council.

He also responded to several questions posed by media correspondents.  Regarding how Sierra Leone’s historic experience will inform the Council’s consideration of Sudan, he observed that his country’s partnership with the Council represents a “success story”. Noting many similarities between Sierra Leone and Sudan, he said dialogue is crucial.  It takes dedicated leadership to commit to talks and engage with opposing factions.  At the same time, it is crucial to deal with the humanitarian situation urgently, he stressed, adding that questions of accountability are also important.

Addressing several questions on Council reform, he reiterated that the forthcoming debate concerning Africa’s representation is unprecedented and is intended to elevate the current discussion.  There are significant negotiations ongoing and the African Group has made important demands which, he hoped, will be reflected in the final declaration of the Summit of the Future.

When pressed on whether a “big announcement” about a permanent seat for Africa was expected in September when the General Assembly meets, he outlined the step-by-step approach that is currently in progress.  There is sufficient momentum “to really move this issue”, he observed.  Next year will be the eightieth anniversary of the UN and “I think questions could be asked” if the Organization reaches that milestone without a permanent seat for Africa, he said.

Several correspondents posed questions concerning Gaza and the current escalation of tensions in the Middle East.  Responding, Mr. Kanu noted the meeting held Wednesday and added that Council members are deeply concerned and committed to call additional meetings, if necessary.  When asked why there are no sanctions upon Israel despite its persistent atrocities — “every violation you can imagine is being committed in Gaza” — he pointed to Council resolution 2735 (2024).  Sanctions are part of the toolkit of the United Nations and the process could be activated by a Council member, he said.

He also took questions regarding the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion and whether the Palestinian people have the right to resist occupation the way many African countries fought colonialism.  If there’s a request for Council engagement concerning the advisory opinion, the body can do so, he said in his capacity as Council President.  As to the Council’s role in implementing the advisory opinion, he noted that it has called on the parties to comply with their obligations under international law — which includes the orders of the International Court of Justice.

In his national capacity, he added that the Court was very authoritative regarding Palestine’s right to self-determination.  Further, the Court has clearly asked both the Assembly and the Council to move forward with modalities.

To a question concerning accountability for the deaths of 165 journalists killed in Gaza, he responded that his country has drawn attention to the high fatalities among journalists.  There are resolutions underscoring this point, he said, adding that there should be follow-throughs.  Council members must continue to amplify the need to protect those who should be protected in conflict situations, including journalists and human rights defenders.

He also pointed to Council resolution 2728 (2024), which was sponsored by the 10 elected members of the Council, describing it as a demonstration of unity.  Reiterating that his country sees its role in the Council as that of a bridge-builder, he said:  “We understand that the United Nations is not an organization of like-minded States […] but you have to bring everyone together.”

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn