On Research Podcast – 2025 PRIM&R Annual Conference Roundup

To easily navigate through our podcast, simply click on the ☰ icon on the player. This will take you straight to the chapter timestamps, allowing you to jump to specific segments and enjoy the parts you’re most interested in.

1. Opening Reflections on Community (00:00:03) The importance of coming together as a research community, both in-person and virtually, despite ongoing challenges.
2. Podcast Introduction & Episode Overview (00:00:52) Host Alexa McClellan introduces the episode, guests, and outlines the focus on the PRIM&R Annual Conference.
3. Panel Introductions (00:01:30) Panelists introduce themselves and their roles, setting the stage for the discussion.
4. Major Takeaways: AI and Community (00:02:20) Panelists share initial impressions, highlighting AI as a dominant theme and the value of researcher-participant partnerships.
5. Exhibit Hall Perspectives (00:04:00) Insights from the exhibition area, emphasizing positive attitudes and reliance on training resources.
6. Interactions with Attendees (00:05:10) Reflections on engaging with learners and subscribers, and the fulfillment from direct feedback.
7. Common Challenges Across Communities (00:06:01) Discussion of resource constraints, regulatory burdens, and the need to balance innovation with ethical principles.
8. Emerging Themes: Discontinuation & Dedication (00:07:38) Sessions on research discontinuation, researcher dedication, and the emotional impact of the work.
9. Balancing Hope and Anxiety (00:09:04) The energizing effect of shared purpose versus concerns about future budget cuts.
10. On Tech Ethics Promo (00:09:50)
11. Future Directions: AI and Frameworks (00:10:14) Exploring how AI is reshaping research ethics, compliance, and the need to evolve existing frameworks.
12. AI in Auditing and Funding Shifts (00:11:26) AI’s role in monitoring, and the increasing importance of alternative funding sources as government support wanes.
13. Practical Adjustments for Funding (00:12:31) Strategies for adapting to reduced federal funding, including shifting to direct costs in research budgets.
14. AI as Tool and Challenge (00:13:07) AI’s dual role in research administration and as a research tool, with both promise and uncertainty.
15. Expanding Training on AI (00:13:57) Growing demand for AI-related training and the opportunity to expand educational offerings.
16. Practical Takeaways for Programs (00:14:26) Emphasis on collaboration, community partnerships, and internal education to address evolving challenges.
17. Data Integrity and Survey Fraud (00:15:46) Rising concerns about fraudulent survey responses and strategies to ensure data quality.
18. Compliance and Process Improvements (00:17:20) The need for proper committee approvals and ongoing adaptation to regulatory changes.
19. Attendee Reactions: Collaboration & Support (00:18:23) Live attendee feedback highlighting interdepartmental collaboration and the need for regulatory support at smaller institutions.
20. Attendee Reactions: Community & Innovation (00:19:34) Attendees value networking, shared problem-solving, and the focus on human dignity in technological innovation.
21. Attendee Reactions: Data Integrity (00:21:52) Interest in addressing online survey fraud and data integrity from both research and technology perspectives.
22. Attendee Reactions: The Power of Gathering (00:22:41) The emotional and motivational impact of being together as a research community.
23. Keynote Reflections: Shared Purpose (00:24:16) Keynote highlights the collective nature of ethics and the importance of shared purpose in research.
24. Exhibitor Presence and Consistency (00:25:28) The role of exhibitors in providing stability and support for research compliance organizations.
25. In-Person Connection Value (00:26:12) The unique benefits of face-to-face interactions at annual conferences.
26. Poster Presentations and Compliance (00:27:08) Experiences presenting compliance-focused posters and the value of informal knowledge exchange.
27. Affirming Training Needs (00:28:15) Ongoing need for foundational ethics training and new content areas like AI, data ethics, and research security.
28. Keeping Up with Regulatory Changes (00:29:43) Appreciation for training providers who stay current with regulatory updates, easing institutional burdens.
29. Closing Remarks and Credits (00:30:23) Wrap-up, acknowledgments, and information about available training resources and podcast production credits.

Josh Fessel: So the thing that makes me most hopeful actually, having been here, is the fact that everyone is here. That people are together in a space, in-person or virtually, but with all of the challenges that everybody is dealing with on a daily basis with whatever part of the enterprise we’re engaged with, it was important enough to make the time to come together and be together. And that is, I think, critical, because as I so often say these days, “We get through this together or not at all, I think.”

Alexa McClellan: Welcome to On Research, the podcast where we explore the ideas and innovations shaping the future of research and oversight. I’m your host, Alexa McClellan. In this episode, we’re reflecting on the 2025 PRIMR Annual Conference. One of the most influential gatherings for research ethics and compliance professionals. I’m joined with members of the CITI Program team to discuss key takeaways, emerging themes, and what this year’s conversations reveal about where our field is headed next. We’ll also hear some reactions from attendees captured live during the conference from the exhibit hall floor.

All right, well good morning. I’m joined today by a panel of colleagues who attended the PRIMR Conference, including Jaime Arango, Vice President of Content and Education; Daniel Smith, Director of Content and Education; Andra Popa, Assistant Director at Healthcare Compliance; and Gina Sullivan, Director of Sales. Thank you so much for joining me today.

Jaime Arango: Thanks, Alexa.

Gina Sullivan: Glad to be here.

Alexa McClellan: I am excited to chat with you all a bit about your different experiences at the PRIMR Conference. I know that, Gina, you and Andra spent most of your time in the exhibition hall, and Janie and Daniel and I attended sessions primarily. So let’s just start with the big takeaways. We can just go around the circle, and if you could just say your name and then talk a bit about what stood out most to you about this year’s PRIMR Conference. Whether it was a session theme, a conversation, or just the overall tone of the community. Jamie, why don’t we start with you?

Jaime Arango: Sure. I am Jaime Arango and I’m the Vice President of Content and Education, as Alexa mentioned. And I think this is my 20th PRIMR or somewhere in that ballpark. And certainly similar to last year, but I want to say it was more prevalent. I think this year AI still remained the preeminent theme, although I would say that I think many of the sessions that I attended that discussed AI seemed to focus or kept in focus the concerns that AI may bring, or that it does bring, with it to different areas of research and research ethics. But I would say AI seem to be the leader in the discussion points.

Alexa McClellan: Daniel?

Daniel Smith: Yep. I’m Daniel Smith, I’m the Director of Content and Education. And I agree with Jamie, definitely a lot of emphasis on AI. But something that also stood out to me is the focus and importance of the researcher and participant partnerships and also community-building, particularly as people navigate the challenges that different communities are facing in this current climate, and how researchers need to figure out how to navigate that in creative ways, but also in empathetic ways where they’re building relationships and community with the participants that they’re needing for their studies, and how they can do that in a way that protects the participants, maintains trust and transparency, but also allows them to conduct the necessary research that they’re doing.

Alexa McClellan: For sure. Gina, any thoughts?

Gina Sullivan: Sure. Hey, so my perspective is from the exhibiting area where there were four of us manning the exhibit booth. So we have the privilege of directly interacting with the attendees and chit-chatting and learning and sharing information. So my perspective would be overall that despite the challenges this year in particular in the industry, in such that I see that the attitudes continue to be positive. People know they need to get work done, they like to learn how other organizations are similarly addressing other training, newer challenges. So just learning from each other and relying on us as well. I think I heard that over and over again that people came up to us and were saying, “We are glad we have CITI Program, we rely on your company for those training purposes so we don’t have to recreate the wheel.” That sort of thing. Very positive in that regard.

Alexa McClellan: Hi, Andra, do you have any thoughts?

Andra Popa: Yes, thanks for asking, Alexa. What stood out most for me at this conference was the interaction with the learners and our subscribers to CITI Program courses. It was my first PRIMR attending as a content creator at CITI Program. And it’s probably the most established relationship we have with attendees at PRIMR. So I was really moved by really everyone that came by, almost everybody had a nice word to say, and they were so appreciative of the products. And we work extremely hard on everything from podcasts, to webinars, to courses, and really want to make sure that they’re accurate. So it was energizing and fulfilling for me personally as well as professionally.

Alexa McClellan: Yeah, I love that. So PRIMR brought together people from human subjects, animal care and use, and broader institutional oversight committees. What common challenges or shared priorities did you see across those communities?

Jaime Arango: I guess I’ll take that one. I think resources continues to be a problem. And I think that’s historically been a problem in these areas, but certainly now with the government cutbacks in areas of grants and contracts, I think they’re definitely feeling it with much more intensity.

Andra Popa: Yes, I saw, particularly because I presented a poster, it was incorporating all of these communities together. So a lot of people spoke with me, and one of the biggest challenges I saw was just the doing so much regulatory work, all are highly regulated, with not a lot of time, not a lot of people, limited resources. As well as to know when things are being updated, when things are shifting very quickly, and to sort of incorporate that into their daily operations. So all of these things are changing rapidly, but there are limited resources.

Daniel Smith: And another common challenge across the areas that was evident to me is just balancing innovation and upholding the existing ethical principles that we have. So I think what we saw at PRIMR this year is a lot of people have matured in the sense that they’re now adopting and using AI in a lot of different ways, but they’re also still grappling with how to uphold the ethical principles that underpin these different areas of research while doing so.

Alexa McClellan: Yeah. What are some of the major themes or ideas that seem to come up again and again in sessions or in hallway discussions? I know we’ve already talked about AI. Jamie, was there anything else that people were talking about?

Jaime Arango: Well, Daniel, you and I went to the session with discontinuation of research, and I think that was certainly a theme that we’ve seen. I think it’s probably the first time that I’ve seen actual sessions devoted to how to manage the discontinuation of research. So I think that’s maybe emblematic of what the field is experiencing, both when there is no money to do the research, but also technology seems to be outpacing sometimes the human’s conducting the research and they discovered that the experimental design is no longer necessary, et cetera.

Gina Sullivan: One thing that was evident to me is that the level of dedication of the researchers to their roles and responsibilities, despite the challenges of what may be occurring in their workplace, they care. I’m thinking about a perfect example where the person, they really care about the animals. And they’re going in to work, whether that serves their pocketbook or not, they’re going in to care for these animals in research and it’s out of a level of responsibility. So that was evident to me and that warmed my heart.

Alexa McClellan: I felt that throughout the conference as well. I think were so glad to get together, and they were looking for hope. They were looking for a connection with other people to remind themselves that they weren’t alone in the struggle.

Daniel Smith: Yeah. And I think that PRIMR, this is true with all of the PRIMRs that I’ve been to, but it’s a really great way to bring everybody together and kind of level-set or come back to on that shared purpose of the work that we all do. But another theme that I noticed the tension with that is that there still is anxiety about the impending further budget cuts and things like that, and what that might mean for this field moving forward. So I think there was a balance between that shared purpose and being energized to get out there and do the important work that we all do while also still trying to navigate some of those challenges that are coming at us all.

I hope you are enjoying this episode of On Research. If you’re interested in conversations about technology ethics, join me, Daniel Smith, for CITI Programs podcast On Tech Ethics. You can subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Now, back to your episode.

Alexa McClellan: Daniel, you just mentioned the future. And I think it’d be interesting to get your perspective on where research ethics and compliance is heading, especially with these emerging technologies with AI and with the uncertainty in the field. What are your takeaways on that? Did you hear anything else in the sessions that maybe gave you an idea of where we are going?

Daniel Smith: I think definitely with AI, people are, and they have been for years now, but I think there’s more of a focus now going back to what I was saying given the adoption of AI and how so many people are using it in different ways, whether it be part of research or part of more administrative functions. But now reassessing the existing frameworks that we have in place and seeing where those might need to evolve to better address some of the new challenges that emerge from the use of AI and the use of big data and things like that. So I think that what we’ll see possibly in the coming years is just more conversation around how we’re re-imagining the existing frameworks that we’ve had, how they work with these new technologies where they might need to be refined or expanded and so on.

Andra Popa: Yes, I agree that AI will be important, but I think it’ll be most important for auditing and monitoring. For example, if you’re concerned about vulnerable populations, you can ask the AI to really find those files, find those cases, and do deep data analysis. And then a human would review it, so it can identify risk areas that you identify first.

And then another area might be more movement toward a reduction in government-funded research. However, there is still private research, so it’s possible that foundations or pharmaceutical companies will pick up the monetary aspect of funding research.

Alexa McClellan: I’m so glad you brought that up because I heard that repeated multiple times, the search for alternate funding sources and how that collaboration with industry or commercial entities might become more and more important as another way for research to continue even if federal funding decreases.

Andra Popa: Right. People don’t have to despair, but there are other funding sources. And we met them at PRIMR. A lot of people were in research entities that were not government-funded.

Alexa McClellan: Yeah. And similarly, talking about being creative with how we address the current situation. A lot of people are concerned about the F&A rate being reduced significantly and how that might affect research operations at institutions. But I attended one session where the recommendation was, so you may not be able to build an F&A rate at the same amount, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t build direct costs, and so let’s change our model to start building in more direct costs for those services. So it’s a way to not despair, like you were saying, but otherwise envision how we can do business differently.

Jaime Arango: I think it’s interesting with the AI piece, not to spend so much time on it, but I think what’s interesting to me is that we’re seeing AI both as, as Daniel mentioned, a modality to help in the administration of research compliance, but also as a tool of research. So it’s sort of playing multiple roles in our environments that our colleagues work in. And I think that it is both, as Daniel I think touched on, a promise and a pain. Because you don’t know what this technology is going to do, and using it in the compliance or the administrative space also takes nuance and learning because we don’t know what it’s going to do. We’re still learning how it operates. And I think as many of our colleagues have shared, it can be too aggressive sometimes and not aggressive enough in others. So it’s trying to figure it out.

Gina Sullivan: I’d like to add, from that perspective, really what that means for us at CITI Program, it’s an opportunity because people, having come from those sessions, will come to the exhibit table and they’ll ask, “Do you have any courses in AI?” Naturally, right? And we do, but it’s an opportunity for us to expand those courses as well because there’s a need.

Alexa McClellan: Yeah, and Gina, I’m so glad that you brought that back to the practical nature of what do we do with these things that we talked about. I’d like to look at how the lessons that we learned from the conference might shape our policies or training or collaboration moving forward. And so for everyone, for listeners who couldn’t attend, what’s one practical idea or approach from the conference that they might consider implementing in their own programs?

Daniel Smith: Something that really stood out to me, even though it’s not directly the work that I do, is just the importance of collaboration and, like I mentioned, community-building. So a practical thing that came away from many of the sessions is just how people partner with different community organizations and other stakeholders like that in order to build better relationships with potential participants in order to be able to conduct the meaningful and rigorous research that they’re looking to.

And then another thing that I would add too is, with people looking to the future and trying to learn new skills, and be a bit more nimble in terms of their operations, I think it really highlighted the importance of investing in education and providing it internally to people so that they can address some of those challenges coming, and also learning new skills in this evolving world.

Alexa McClellan: One very practical thing that I wanted to just mention was I was in a session with Julie Simpson and Jesse Hemmons that was talking about how it’s harder and harder to collect good data from online research surveys. And that was something that really surprised me. I’ve heard of bots that used to be the big concern, but now we’re seeing organized human fraud rings taking these surveys for the incentive and not giving good data. And so how do you separate good data from bad data? And I think that’s something that certainly institutions might look into further to make sure that their online data is accurate.

Jaime Arango: I think you and I were in that same session. And what I was surprised is that, I think it’s Julie’s own institution, has eliminated advertising the compensation, which for many, many, many years there has been an IRB focus on compensation and being transparent and being clear under the umbrella that it was to be fair to human subjects as part of their decision-making. And now, that sort of pendulum has swung the other way and institutions have to be worried about essentially fraudulent behavior in order to collect that money.

Alexa McClellan: Exactly. And it also influences dissemination of the survey. They’re saying, “Really reduce that.” That’s one way to curb this behavior, is make sure that you’re not disseminating this survey because people may share it to further propagate fraud in these situations. It’s just a different way of thinking about it now.

Andra Popa: I was very impressed by the compliance focus, and I discussed it with a few peers that I saw also presenting posters. A lot of institutions still don’t obtain, for example, approval from radiation safety or other committees that have expertise before the IRB committee. So even simple things like that just to make sure that A, that any approvals by specialized committees need to be prior to the IRB even looking at the research because it might not be qualified under other standards.

And then the second thing I noticed that is a practical approach is that, to remember that it’s always a process. There was one person who was discussing that under the VA, the definition of surveys can also include questionnaires. So it’s constantly changing. So another practical approach is just to always be looking at things like CITI Program and just doing your research.

Alexa McClellan: Okay, so I’m here at the PRIMR Conference exhibition hall on Friday evening, and I’m going to try to talk to some attendees and ask them to share their immediate reactions to the conference. Let’s see who we can grab.

Baley Whary: Hello, my name is Baley Whary and I am from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. I’m the IRB and the IACUC administrator. And one of the key takeaways that I want to bring back to my institution is just the importance of collaboration between departments such as the IACUC talking to the Environmental Health and Safety Office, talking to the IBC department and collaborating between departments.

Jaime Hernandez: Hi, this is Jaime Hernandez. I am the Chief Consulting Officer at a new consulting firm called Practical Ethics-Research Solution, and one takeaway I think is how much regulatory consulting support smaller institutions need that can afford the large provider of regulatory support. And I fear that with the cost-cutting that’s coming our way, that these institutions are going to need a lot more help than they’re getting.

Bruce Gordon: My name is Bruce Gordon, I’m Assistant Vice Chancellor for Regulatory Affairs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Means I run the Office of Regulatory Affairs, it supports the IRB and SROC and some other acronyms. I’m also Executive Chair of our six IRBs. And in the past life, I used to be a pediatric oncologist, so I’m a reformed clinical researcher.

So what I enjoy most about the PRIMR Conference is the [inaudible 00:20:00]. I mean, these, first of all, are friends I see seldom. So it gives me a great chance to catch up on social things, but it also gives me a great opportunity to talk about the day-to-day stuff. These are people who share my interests and share the things that I think are important, especially in the times we’re in night now, it’s good to have allies. So what I get out of this is walking around seeing people I haven’t seen in a while telling them I have a problem. Do you have a solution? Or, now at least, we share the same problem, let’s commiserate with each other.

Challace Pahlevan-Ibrekic: My name is Challace Pahlevan-Ibrekic, I am at Northwell Health. I work at the Institute of Health System Science. I am their Director of Clinical Research, mostly working with regulatory affairs, ethical consultations. And I think, well, first of all, I’m just privileged to be here because not many people were able to come. So I think that’s amazing, and something that you can tell, you can feel the energy of individuals who are really thankful to be here sharing ideas.

So I think really one of the things that stuck with me the most is I appreciate the direction that the field is going when we’re talking about innovation and when we’re talking about technology. And while there’s a promise of leaps and bounds of advancement, we are now interjecting a discourse about human flourishing. And so it’s not so much a regulatory framework, it’s, how can this innovation still invoke, express, keep at the forefront, human dignity, but in a way that remains participatory?

Cynthia Bellis: Hi, I’m Cynthia Bellis, and I’m the Vice President of Strategic Partnerships for Tech Software, a division of BRANY. And one of the great takeaways from this PRIMR session in 2025 in Baltimore was a session that I heard about, it was called Bot or Not; Fraud, Data, Integrity in the Role of the IRB in the Online Survey Sphere. And it was Julie Simpson and Jesse Hemmons. And it was really interesting to learn about the problems of data integrity these days because there are these teams of people, groups of people, that are filling out surveys just for the financial reimbursement. They have no interest in furthering the science. And then all of the work that goes into that now, trying to weed out what’s real and what’s not. So being a technology company, this is of course very interesting to us and I’m going to talk to our founders about it and see if there’s anything we can do to help.

Josh Fessel: So I’m Josh Fessel, pulmonary critical care physician, scientist, former NIH person. So the thing that makes me most hopeful actually, having been here, is the fact that everyone is here. That people are together in a space, in-person or virtually, but with all of the challenges that everybody is dealing with on a daily basis with whatever part of the enterprise we’re engaged with, it was important enough to make the time to come together and be together. And that is, I think, critical, because as I so often say these days, “We get through this together or not at all, I think.” And nobody can do this by themselves. It’s too hard, there’s too much.

And being here, I have seen real healing. I’ve seen people connect. I’ve seen people hug and cry and then smile, and I’ve watched people’s faces change and I’ve watched people’s hearts change as they’re reconnecting or maybe connecting for the first time. And we need to keep finding and creating opportunities to do that because the energy from something like this lasts for a while, but not indefinitely. And we have to renew and we have to refuel. And so I feel fueled all the way having been here and my cup is full and I’m ready to get about it, because if we stop when we all go home, we didn’t actually do anything.

Alexa McClellan: So I’d like to pivot a little bit now to talk about some moments from the conference that might have reminded you about the strength or importance of the research oversight community. How do events like the PRIMR Conference help reinforce that connection?

Daniel Smith: I think a moment that reinforced it for me was one of the keynotes was by Josh Fessel, who had recently, earlier this year, left a position with the federal government. But I thought that his talk just really beautifully grounded the shared purpose within three main things, which were, where do we stand? Who do we stand with? And what do we stand for? And I think his reflections really helped a lot of people feel reminded that ethics is more of a collective practice and that we all have this shared purpose of what we’re doing even in the face of adversity.

Alexa McClellan: I love that. I loved his keynote address. And there was this moment after when an audience member got up and told him, thank you, and then everyone broke out in applause. And that was a meaningful moment for me. Again, I mentioned before that people are looking for hope. People are looking for shared connection in an uncertain time.

Jaime Arango: Well, and I think that the presence of CITI and many of the other exhibitors at PRIMR also reinforces, for folks, consistency. It’s a group of varying-sized organizations and areas of responsibility that exhibit, but all really under the overarching umbrella of research protections and research compliance, and to help these organizations that come to PRIMR achieve that part of their mission. And I think we do that. So I think seeing us there is a reinforcement that even when the environment is changing, there are still some organizations like CITI Program, HRP, BRANY that these organizations can come back to and rely on.

Gina Sullivan: I’d like to add, similarly, is that many of us, whether we work remote or we go into the office two days or three days or whatever the case may be, at each organization, it’s just that opportunity to connect in-person. It sounds like an obvious thing, but when it’s only once a year, maybe twice a year if you’re lucky, there’s a lot of power to that. And just seeing each other face-to-face talking, giving somebody a hug you haven’t seen in a year, and obviously talking about what’s important in your work and such, but that human connection and the opportunity to connect in-person is really strong at these types of events.

Alexa McClellan: Absolutely. I love meeting colleagues that I’ve been working with throughout the year, face-to-face. It reinforces that connection, and it hits different when you’re talking to someone in-person. Kind of on that note, Andra, I know that you were presenting a poster this year. What was that like? Can you talk a little bit about that experience?

Andra Popa: I did. It was incredibly special for me personally, because I was invited to present a poster at the very beginning of my career based on my consulting work. It was wonderful. There were set times that I was presenting, it wasn’t like a lecture, but it was if people just wanted to stop by. So I was just standing next to the poster and people had the opportunity to review it and to talk about it with me. And that’s where I learned a lot of these issues were happening because the poster was compliance-focused, and it was about having an enterprise-wide compliance program that included these committees that review human subjects research as well as other types of research, but that they’re all speaking together and that they’re analyzing the research in the proper order.

Alexa McClellan: Did you have a lot of people come by?

Andra Popa: I did. Not specifically to me, but the posters did in general. Whenever we did have the sessions, the people would go from poster to poster. So it was a bit like a pub crawl, but a poster crawl.

Alexa McClellan: Yeah, great.

Jaime Arango: And I think to that end, I think PRIMR has already started asking for next year’s session and poster ideas, if I’m not mistaken. I want to say there’s a February deadline.

Alexa McClellan: So in closing, since we are CITI Program, and training is what we do, I want to talk a little bit about how this year’s conference might have affirmed or challenged the kinds of education and training resources that institutions need most right now, whether that be the modality of the training or the topic of the training.

Daniel Smith: Well, I would say in terms of the topic, it definitely, to me, it reinforced that there’s always going to be a need for that foundational ethics training. Whether that be human subjects research or in animal care and use, or responsible conduct of research. As that really kind of forms the backbone for people’s education in those areas. But also, as we’ve been talking about throughout this conversation, it also reinforced the growing need for content beyond that. So whether that be AI and data ethics or more training materials about participant recruitment and retention, community building, community engaged research, things like that.

Jaime Arango: I think certainly the research security remains a topic of concern for the group, and weaving that content into their experiences for their investigators at their organizations, I think is a challenge. Trying to strike the right balance of who gets what content and how much I think also plays a big part of it.

Alexa McClellan: Something that I found to be affirmed was I heard from a lot of people how grateful they were that CITI Program was so good at keeping up with the regulatory changes. Specifically with the ICH E6(R3) updates that came through with the research security changes that came through. It’s something that we can focus on and make sure stays up to date. And that’s one more thing to take off the plates of institutions who are struggling with the day-to-day. They don’t have to also update their own training. That’s something that we can stay on top of and make sure that they’re getting accurate training materials today.

And that wraps up our discussion of PRIMR 2025. A big thank you to Jamie Arango, Gina Sullivan, Andra Popa, and Daniel Smith for talking with me in the studio, and Baley Whary, Jaime Hernandez, Bruce Gordon, Challace Pahlevan-Ibrekic, Cynthia Bellis and Josh Fessel for sharing their real-time reactions at the conference.

CITI Program offers self-paced courses in research compliance, including on animal and human subjects research, responsible conduct of research and research security. Enhance your skills, deepen your expertise, and lead with integrity across research settings. If you’re not currently affiliated with the subscribing organization, you can sign up as an independent learner and access CITI Program’s full course catalog. Check out the link in this episode’s description to learn more.

As a reminder, I want to quickly note that this podcast is for educational purposes only. It is not designed to provide legal advice or legal guidance. You should consult with your organization’s attorneys if you have questions or concerns about the relevant laws and regulations that may be discussed in this podcast. In addition, the views expressed in this podcast are solely those of our guests. Cynthia Bellis is our guest experience producer, and Evelyn Fornell is our line producer. Production and distribution support provided by Raymond Longaray and Megan Stuart. Thanks for listening.