RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL
January 25, 2001
Members Present: Barbara Adamcik, Sean Anderson, Jonathan Blotter, Deb Easterly, Nancy Griffin, Kay Flowers, Will Hamlin, Dianne Horrocks, Edwin House (presiding), Dave Kleist, Subbaram Naidu, Pamela Park, Barbara Cunningham for Beth Stamm, Jane Strickland, Kandy Turley-Ames, Doug Wells, Dan Wolfley
Members Absent/Excused: John Beck, Phil Blick, Steve Byers, Karl DeJesus, Frank Harmon, Richard Inouye, Skip Lohse, Keith Weber, Paul Zelus
Dr. House declared a quorum was present.
I. It was MSC (8y,0n) to approve Memorandum #131 with the following corrections: add Areported@ after Dr. House in II. B, under III. B., change AOn page 13 readd the following@ to AOn page 13 add the following@ and add that III. D. references Promotion Guidelines for Research Faculty.
A. Will Hamlin reported that the Faculty Research Committee received twelve proposals and funded ten, for a total of $34,529. The Call for Proposals for this semester has been distributed. The Distinguished Researcher process is underway.
B. The Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee representative was not present to give a report.
C. Both the Call for Research Proposals and the Call for Symposium Presentations for the Undergraduate Research Committee are being distributed this week.
D. Dr. House reported that the Humanities/Social Sciences Research Committee has completed its activity for this year. Four proposals were awarded for a total of $90,000. This committee will not meet again this academic year but a call for proposals will go out late spring so that people can work on proposals over the summer and a reminder call will go out in September with a November deadline for these proposals.
E. The University Research Committee will meet this semester to make awards. The Call for Proposals will go out next month.
F. Dr. House reported that information on the federal initiatives had changed since the last RCC meeting. The bill for Labor Education and Health and Human Services was challenged. We had a line item appropriation in the Health and Human Services part of that bill for $2.4 million, which was reduced to $1.77 million. Therefore, ISU=s total for all of the federal initiatives will be $3.47 million the 2000-2001 federal fiscal year. In December, the lobbyist team who ISU hired came to visit and considered about ten requests from various parts of the campus. After a two-day visit, the team evaluated these, and ISU will have about eight initiatives this year. Dr. House is not sure what the total request for these initiatives will be. Last year we started out with a request for $13.8 million and ended up with $3.47 million. ISU will probably have $25 - $35 million in requests, and hopefully will get at least double the amount received last year. This is the way many colleges and universities are enhancing their budgets. Also, the Inland Northwest Research Alliance (INRA), of which we are a member, has requests in for three federal initiatives. INRA=s initiatives will be submitted separately from ISU=s initiatives. Dr. House should have a detailed list of the initiatives from both ISU and INRA for the next RCC meeting. It was asked what amount we are paying the lobbyists. Dr. House reported $225,000/year, so this is a very good return on our investment. The indirect cost funds received from these appropriations are used to cover this expense.
G. Dr. House reported that ten nominations for Distinguished Researcher were received. Two of the nominees have withdrawn, so eight candidates will be considered.
a. The President has approved the changes in the Released Time to Seek External Funding (RTSEF), and it is now official policy.
b. There will be a new draft of recommendations for allocation and use of overhead funds in the library for the next RCC meeting. Hopefully, this will be approved by the Council so that it can be forwarded to Faculty Senate for approval.
III. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. The Public Health Service (PHS) has been making recommendations at the Congressional level as to what nonprofit agencies, such as colleges and universities, should do to demonstrate a commitment to education in the responsible conduct of research and remain eligible to receive federal funds from such agencies as NIH. Dianne Horrocks and Deb Easterly prepared a memo for the Council outlining the goals of the PHS policy and their recommendations for addressing this requirement. ISU must have a training program for responsible conduct of research in place by October 1, 2001.
Ms. Easterly reported that training is required for continued eligibility for funds from agencies under the Public Health Service. The plan is to find a program that another university already has in place and Aspice it up@ with our program. There will also be a recommendation as to who should attend this training and how to certify them. Ms. Horrocks and Ms. Easterly plan to have a proposed training and certification process ready to present at the next RCC meeting. It was clarified that this requirement is currently only for PHS grants; however, it is anticipated that other agencies may follow this lead.
Most of the nine requirements that PHS will require for training have already been approved as policy and are in the research manual.
B. Dr. House received information over the Internet and in the mail regarding Strengthening the University/Federal Government Partnership and wanted to share it. This is one of President Clinton=s last acts, so it is unknown whether this will actually become policy or go by the wayside.
C. Dr. House reported on the significance of a change in III. B. of the Copyright Policy. This came about because an incident arose where there were different interpretations of this policy. Dr. House met with Dianne Horrocks, Director of Sponsored Programs, and Brad Hall, University Counsel, to discuss how to deal with different interpretations of the document.
Section III. A. is a preamble which states that, AAll employees and students of Idaho State University retain all rights to copyright materials they create except in the case of University-commissioned materials, materials covered by the terms of the grant or contract, material covered by a valid written agreement between the author and university.@ The different interpretation occurred between the phrase AUniversity-commissioned materials@ and the phrase Amaterials covered by the terms of the grant or contract.@ One interpretation is that when the University signs off on a proposal and commits its facilities and personnel to doing the work in the proposal if it is funded, then it should be considered University-commissioned material.
Section III. B. reads, AIdaho State University reserves the right to copyright University-commissioned materials which are copyrightable in the name of the State of Idaho or to publish such work without copyright. University-commissioned materials are considered as Awork made for hire@ when the author: a) was specifically directed in writing by Idaho State University or one of its distinct units to develop the materials as part of his or her regular duties; or b) received extra pay or release time from Idaho State University to produce the University-commissioned materials.@ The difficulty arose because the principal investigator of the grant argued she owned the copyrightable material. If section c is added, Aor when the author produced the materials funded by an external grant or contract,@ Dr. House believes this would clarify the interpretation.
The other change was to change title in IV. A. 1. a. to AChief Research Officer.@
Discussion then centered on the intent of the copyright policy. The Aspirit@ of the policy is to preserve the Atraditional@ right of ownership of the author. Dr. House explained that this would be a work that a faculty member chose to create that would not be in his/her regular teaching, research, or public service duties nor part of a grant or contract.
Items for consideration that were raised were as follows: (1) the addition of Ainternal or external grant or contract,@ (2) when a faculty member writes an article resulting from work on a grant, some journals require release of copyright so that the journal owns the article, and (3) a distinction needed to be made between contributing to new knowledge and tasks. A problem related to item (2) is that, if the material is University-owned, the faculty member does not own the copyright and so cannot release it.
This item was tabled. Council members will continue to discuss this with their constituents and provide written suggestions for the next meeting. This material will need to be in the Office of Research a week prior to the next meeting to be included in the packets.
Dr. House informed the Council that he is currently part of a statewide Intellectual Property Committee that is discussing the rewrite of the State Board of Education Patent and Copyright Policy. However, the primary emphasis seems to be on copyrights rather than patents. Hopefully, he will have some additional information from this committee for the next meeting.
D. Regardng the ranking of research doctoral programs, the Carnegie group is reviewing this and is making recommendations for changing the status of universities from Research I, Research II, Doctoral I, Doctoral II, etc. to Research Extensive/Research Intensive. We are a member of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education, and this organization does not agree with the Carnegie recommendations. The National Research Council sends out a survey every five to ten years to rate doctoral programs, but it is an opinion survey. In the past, the rating was based on the number of doctoral students produced each year and the opinions of colleagues. ISU will try to push for certain criteria to try to assess quality of doctoral programs. Almost all of the doctoral programs in the state of Idaho are listed at the bottom, and the Doctor of Arts program is not well understood.
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.