Memorandum No. 113
September 17, 1998

Members Present: Tebbs Adams, Barbara Adamcik, Brian Attebery, Dean Longmore for Ron Balsley, Richard Brey, Raymond Clark, Steve Daley, Chris Daniels, Leonard Hitchcock for Kay Flowers, Dianne Horrocks, Edwin House (presiding), Dave Kleist, Rudy Kovacs, Skip Lohse, Mark McBeth, Sarah Leeds for Sarah Patrick, Anna Ratka

Members Absent/Excused: Jonathan Blotter, Frank Harmon, Richard Inouye, Subbaram Naidu, Paul Zelus

Dr. House introduced the new Council members and substitutes - Brian Attebery, Graduate Council representative, Raymond Clark, Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee representative, Sarah Leeds for Sarah Patrick (IRHS), Dean Longmore for Ron Balsley from the College of Business, Barbara Adamcik, Faculty Senate representative, and Anna Ratka, Faculty Research Committee Chair.

Dr. House requested that members contact the Office of Research if they do not have a copy of the bylaws and a copy will be sent to them. Dr. House informed the members that recommendations by this Council are taken to Faculty Senate for approval, and Dr. House usually takes them to Deans Council also. All Directors of Research Centers and Institutes are ex-officio members of this Council. The representative from the Financial Services office is Tebbs Adams. The representative from Grants and Contracts Accounting is Dan Wolfley. Dr. House informecd the Council that 8 voting members are required for a quorum.

Dr. House declared a quorum was present.

I. It was MSC (13y, 0n) to approve Memorandum No. 112.


A. Dr. House informed the Council that Memoranda 104 and 105 as well as the Research Associate Policy had been approved by Faculty Senate.   B. Faculty Research Committee - The Call for Proposals will be sent out. Dr. House reminded members that any past due reports must be received before a faculty member may reapply for these funds. The call for nominations for the Distinguished Researcher award will be sent out in early October. Dr. Lawson is currently negotiating both a change of date and a change of place for the presentation of this award.

C. Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee - Raymond Clark said the committee would be meeting tomorrow for the election of officers.

D. University Research Committee - Dr. House will bring a list of the awards made last spring to the next Council meeting. There will be at least $80,000 in the budget for the next round of proposals, possibly more. This committee puts out one call for proposals each spring. This committee will be convened at least once this semester, possibly more, because it was discovered that the guidelines for proposals were not sufficiently detailed when the proposals were being rated.

E. Humanities/Social Sciences Bylaws and Guidelines - Dr. House reported that the committee was under the impression that President Bowen wanted these proposals peer reviewed like the SBOE Specific Research Project Grants. However, Dr. House discovered in late spring that President Bowen definitely did not want these proposals peer reviewed. Dr. House will work with the committee to revise the bylaws and guidelines. Faculty Senate is waiting for the bylaws and guidelines from this committee to review and approve.

F. Humanities/Social Sciences Call for Proposals.- Dr. House hopes to put out the call mid- semester and have the awards made earlier than last year.

G. RTSEF Awards - Dr. William Woodhouse, Dr. Joe Kruger, and Dr. Jeff Hill were each awarded released time. Dr. House will provide the committee with the specifics at the next meeting.

H. Research Center Proposals Submitted to SBOE - Research Centers can receive up to $350,000 per year for three years if awarded in the competition. ISU submitted two proposals, one from Dr. Frank Harmon, Director of the Idaho Accelerator Center, and the second from Dr. Richard Inouye, Director of the Center for Ecology and Research Education. The University of Idaho submitted 9 proposals--one joint proposal with the three Idaho universities participating. The SBOE staff is currently in the process of identifying peer reviewers. If any of the ISU proposals are selected for award, the members of SBOE will come for a site visit. This process should be completed by Christmas.

I. Specific Research Project Grants - SBOE moved the $500,000 for this competition to physical plant funds. SBOE has now recommended restoration of these funds in their budget request. No call for proposals will be sent out until SBOE knows whether the legislature will restore these funds (February or March). If the funds are restored, the RFP could come out as late as April or May. Dean Longmore, who attended the JFAC meeting, said restoration of this funding from legislators seemed unlikely and the consensus was that restoration of these funds will be considered only if the money is there to restore them.

J. Associated Western University (AWU) Sponsorship of Faculty/Students (PNNL, INEEL) - Lockheed decided not to contract with AWU to sponsor faculty and students at the INEEL. Another organization will be used, probably one in Oakridge, Tennessee.

K HSSRC Travel Fund - $10,000 has been set aside by this committee for travel funds. Those faculty in the Humanities or Social Sciences who wish to request travel funds should write a letter to Dr. House with details of the meeting they will be attending, whether or not they will be presenting a paper, and details of the transportation costs. Dr. House will be developing a form soon for these requests.

L. Infrastructure Awards - The list of FY99 Infrastructure Awards was distributed to the Council. Some of these awards are used as match requirements for federal grants. The $10,000 awarded to Sponsored Programs is part of the EPSCoR match and is used for faculty travel to enhance capability for obtaining external grants.

M. Other - None. II. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Undergraduate Research Program Proposal - Karl DeJesus and John Knox distributed a handout. They informed the Council that Undergraduate Research Day at ISU was very successful. There is already a significant undergraduate research effort at ISU. However, there is little recognition for this effort at local or national levels. The amount and quality of undergraduate research at ISU is at least equivalent to that at Union College. Dr. DeJesus and Dr. Knox would like to send a delegation to increase the visibility of undergraduate research at ISU (especially to the Council for Undergraduate Research, which ISU is a member of) and hopefully increase external funding in this area. Dr. Lawson has indicated support for this effort. Dr. DeJesus will increase undergraduate research exposure campus wide with a symposium. He stated greater coordinated efforts must be made in this area.

Dr. DeJesus recommended that there be a line item in the Research budget sufficient to enhance undergraduate research and dissemination and to provide administrative support for the symposium to include the whole campus. Dr. House informed the Council that there is $10,000/yr. in the EPSCoR line for the next two years for undergraduate research.

Raymond Clark talked to ASISU about a $5 student fee increase to go to graduate students to supplement research. ASISU normally funds organizations and scholarships. Mr. Clarke is lobbying the Student Senate for this fee increase. He raised the possibility of a full-time coordinator funded by ASISU who would not necessarily be a faculty member.

Dr. House said what is really needed is a committee with formal structure and a budget. He said enhancing the research budget is an ongoing task, and he is supportive of both undergraduate and graduate research efforts. Dr. House was concerned that this might appear to others to be science initiative and wants to make sure it encompasses all disciplines. He said this involves work beyond the classroom and has a synergistic effect when students have a forum to display their work. He asked the Council members to take the following issues back to their constituents and bring recommendations and comments to the next meeting.

1. Endorsement of an Undergraduate Research Committee and suggestions as to what type of representation the committee should be composed of, possibly a mix of faculty and students. Dr. House asked Dr. DeJesus to brainstorm this.

2. Endorse two budgetary approaches: (1) ASISU support for research out of the fee structure and (2) endorse Dr. House as Dean of Research making this part of his budget request next year.

The $10,000 from NSF EPSCoR grant must be used for science, engineering or social sciences. It could be used for the infrastructure of the committee.

B. NIH wants individuals to be notified of the Conflict of Interest Policy when they are hired. NIH is especially concerned about clinical research where there is the potential for the researcher to get funds personally and wants the researcher to file a disclosure form when the the proposal is prepared for submission. Dianne Horrocks said this was implemented a couple of years ago by NSF. Dr. House asked Council members to take the following back to their constituency and get their concerns:
  1. Change Conflict of Interest Policy (see suggested changes in handout which was distributed to Council members).

2. This can be added to transmittal form.

3. Suggestions for Intellectual Property Policy

It was brought out that a statement regarding this on a contract could be offensive and needs to be made palatable. Dr. House said NIH was very adamant about this issue at the workshop he attended in July. For the next meeting, he requested that Council members be ready to discuss:
  1. Suggested changes in ISUís Conflict of Interest Policy

2. Who would be the designated official to oversee this.

3. What is already in place.

4. What needs to be implemented.

C. Good/Bad Practices in Research - Most universities differentiate between research conduct that is not a good practice from research misconduct that is so grave that it would result in dismissal from the institution. Dr. House explained the reason for recommending this policy came about because last yearís faculty brought forward accusations at a time that would affect tenure of the individuals in question. It became apparent that individual departments had not articulated good practices to faculty.

There was discussion concerning the words "sufficiently long" in relation to how long data should be held. Dr. House said he intentionally wrote the policy that way to allow the flexibility needed in the different fields. Regarding human subjects, people are protected, data are not. With proprietary research, data are owned by the company and the decisions are made by the company. Regarding health-related research, the whole point is to disseminate the information but keep the confidentiality of the people. It was MSC (13y, 0n) to table this item.

D. HSSRC Guidelines - The area of concern beyond the ambiguities discovered is the external peer review.

E. Changes in Release time Support for External Funding Guidelines - It was MSC (13y, 0n) to delete the word "grant" throughout the guidelines.

F. Statement Regarding Duplication of Funding for the Same Research Project - Deferred to next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.