Awards Committee
Committee Roster
Chair
Ivan Maillard
 ('25)
Vice Chair
Olatoyosi Odenike, MD
 ('24)
Appointed Members
Emery
 H. Bresnick, PhD
 ('26)
Courtney
 D. DiNardo, MD, MSc
 ('27)
Hartmut Dohner, MD
 ('25)
James Gavin, MD, PhD
 ('27)
David Ginsburg, MD
 ('27)
Julie Kanter, MD
 ('26)
Steven
 R. Lentz, MD, PhD
 ('26)
Pavan Reddy, MD
 ('28)
Akiko Shimamura, MD, PhD
 ('24)
Susan
 B. Shurin, MD
 ('24)
Liaisons
Theresa
 L. Coetzer, PhD
 ('26)
 -Â
Torsten Haferlach, MD, PhD
 ('25)
 -Â
Sin Tiong Ong, MD
 ('25)
 -Â
Kerice
 A. Pinkney, MD
 ('24)
 -Â
Rayne
 H. Rouce, MD
 ('26)
 -Â
David
 B Sykes, MD, PhD
 ('25)
 -Â
Staff Liaison
±Ê²¹³Ù°ù¾±³¦¾±²¹Ìý¹ó°ù³Ü²õ³Ù²¹³¦±ð
Committee Mandate
The Awards Committee is responsible for reviewing existing awards programs, monitoring the creation of new programs, assessing criteria and eligibility, and ensuring consistency throughout the programs regarding evaluation.
The Awards Committee oversees the work of the respective study sections for the ASH Bridge Grant, Mentor Award, and Scholar Award; evaluates the scientific merit of applications for each program; and makes funding recommendations to the ASH Executive Committee, which serves as the ultimate arbiter when it comes to questions (such as applicant eligibility) that the study sections may have.
Each year, the Awards Committee also recommends a slate of nominees for all major awards and prizes (i.e., honorific awards) for consideration by the ASH Executive Committee. Members of the Awards Committee and voting members of the ASH Executive Committee are ineligible to receive an award during their term on either committee.
The Awards Committee structure includes liaison positions from the committees that have administrative oversight of the existing ASH awards programs, which currently are the International Members Committee; Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and Training Awards Subcommittee. The chair of the Awards Review Subcommittee and the co-chairs of the Global Research Award Subcommittee also serve as liaison members.
Members of the Awards Committee should have a broad knowledge of historical and recent contributions across the field of hematology to adequately contribute to deliberations regarding honorific awards. Members of the Awards Committee are required to attend two meetings per year: one in the spring or summer and one prior to the ASH annual meeting.
The voting members of the Awards Committee (i.e., appointed members and liaisons but not ex-officio members or representatives) serve as the honorific awards study section. The study section reviews nominations and makes recommendations for recipients of the honorific awards. The Awards Committee makes funding recommendations to the ASH Executive Committee which serves as the ultimate arbiter for questions from the study section related to eligibility.
ASH study section members should have a broad knowledge of the field of hematology to adequately contribute to deliberations regarding nominees. Composition is determined by the study section chair based on the following considerations:
· the relevant pool of nominees
· the self-declared subject matter expertise of the volunteers
· volunteer seniority and eligibility
· study section diversity (i.e., gender, institution, geography, race, and ethnicity)
As needed, ad hoc reviewers (individuals from the approved list of ASH members eligible to serve on an ASH study section) serve on the study section.
Study section members are required to adhere to deadlines, follow review instructions, and handle tasks via the ASH online award system. The study section review culminates in a discussion that may be in-person at ASH Headquarters or via conference call. Study section members are required to participate in the discussion, adhering to the ASH Conflict of Interest Policy and relevant procedures. Commitments for the honorific awards study section generally occur September to December.
...