RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL

Memorandum 118

February 18, 1999

Members Present: Barbara Adamcik, Brian Attebery, Ron Balsley, Jonathan Blotter, Richard Brey, Steve Daley, Chris Daniels, Sandra Shropshire for Kay Flowers, Dianne Horrocks, Edwin House (presiding), Dave Kleist, Rudy Kovacs, Mark McBeth, Subbaram Naidu, Sarah Patrick, Jerry Priddy, Anna Ratka

Members Absent/Excused: Tebbs Adams, Frank Harmon, Richard Inouye, Skip Lohse, Dan Wolfley, Paul Zelus

Dr. House declared a quorum was present.

Dr. House welcomed Jerry Priddy (Raymond Clark’s replacement) to the Council.

I. It was MSC (14y, 0n) to approve Memorandum #117.

II. REPORTS
 

A.    Dr. House announced that the Humanities/Social Sciences deadline for proposals was extended to February 17, 1999.

B.    The internal deadline of February 26, 1999 for Technology Incentive Grant proposals is for the internal peer review committee to give the authors feedback in order to prepare better proposals. Our success rate as a lead institution is the best in the state for being funded. Dr. House informed the Council that this may be the last time this competition is run. He encouraged everyone who is interested to submit a proposal. Ralph Norton, the grantwriter in the Office of Research, is available for assistance with writing a grant.

C.    Dr. Anna Ratka reported that there are nine nominations for Distinguished Researcher At the February 26 meeting, the finalists will be selected and will be acknowledge at the banquet on March 26. The winner will be selected at the March 29 meeting. The call for proposals is out with a deadline of April 5. Dr. Ratka encouraged faculty to submit proposals. Dr. House added an additional $21,000 to this committee’s budget this year and there will be about $50,000 to award.

D.    Jerry Priddy, a graduate student in mathematics, is filling in for Raymond Clark for the balance of the year. The call for proposals is out. The committee will be meeting to review proposals on March 26. Dr. House reminded Mr. Priddy that the committee needs to prepare the ASISU Scholarship recommendations as well.

E.    Dr. House reported that the call for proposals for the University Research Committee is out with a March 31 deadline. Dr. House reported that there is an improvement in the budget from $65,000 to $80,000. This allocation is in anticipation of next year’s budget; therefore, the funds are not available until July 1. This committee changed the Guidelines for Proposals to be more explicit and consistent with the rating sheet. The Guidelines are available from the Office of Research. Dr. House said he was perplexed because the funding for research proposals is increasing but the number of proposals are not. He reminded members that over a 3-5 year period, there is at least an 80% chance of getting some of the funding requested and this enhances research capabilities on campus.

F.    Dr. House reported that a review panel from the State Board of Education was at ISU for on-site visits for the research center competition--February 3 for the Idaho Accelerator Center and February 4 for the Center for Ecological Research and Education. The panel traveled to Boise for an on-site review of the Policy Research Center on February 5. Paul Zelus is ISU’s lead person for this center. The panel made their recommendation to HERC; HERC will then make a recommendation to the State Board of Education via a conference call or a meeting. The State Board of Education approves the center of choice at an official meeting. Dr. House commended everyone involved with the ISU site visits for doing a very professional job.

G.     Karl DeJesus is forging ahead and working with Student Affairs to make the Undergraduate Research Day a significant day on campus. All disciplines who have undergraduates doing research are welcome. Dr. House asked Council members to let Dr. DeJesus know about any students that would be eligible to participate so they can be included.

H.     Dr. House informed the Council that a proposal for Internet 2 was submitted. The agreement reached with Drs. Bowen, Lawson, and Pearce was that $300,000 would be put up as match to the National Science Foundation but if Dr. House can save money via a reduction in industrial parts, line charges, or equipment donations, that savings will be added to the general university research budget. After a time, usage will be reviewed and the amount used for instruction will be transferred to the instruction budget and that savings will also revert to the research budget.   There are five buildings designated for this connection: Graveley Hall because of the GIS Center, the Physical Science building (hopefully the Engineering building will be able to link onto this because of the close proximity for about $10,000), the Pharmacy building, the new Idaho Accelerator building, and Life Science building A. There are plans to add the library to this. The deadline for this proposal was January 31 and Dr. House hopes to know by July whether or not it will be awarded.   I.     Dr. House informed the Council that the signing date for the ISU/INEEL Research Alliances has been set for February 25, 1999. There will be $750,000 for two major partnerships this year and $5 million over the next five years. Dr. House hopes the College of Business will be a participant in the environmental management area.   J.     Dr. Patrick announced that her center and the College of Health Professions have been working on expanding infrastructure to support research. This funding would be used to expand service, develop training sites, hire new faculty, etc. There are currently two grants pending--one for the Family Practice Residency and one for a new Family Dental Residency. She emphasized that the data shows a great need for dental providers in this state There is a $300,000 match required by the University for these grants and Dr. Patrick asked Council members to request that the University Administration support these grants.   III. COUNCIL BUSINESS A.     Dr. House stated issues regarding ownership of data generated the necessity for the Research Practices document that was developed. Dr. House is the University official to whom accusations of research misconduct are to be directed. These are very serious accusations and can destroy a person’s career. However, the accusations received over the last three years have not fit the definition of "research misconduct", but have involved ethical issues that were "bad practice." This is an issue for the Department and/or College to deal with, not the Dean of Research.   Dr. House said authorship was becoming more of an issue. The protocol for this is addressed in item 4.e. Dr. House informed the Council that the ethical principle to follow in research is "To each according to his/her contribution." The only exception to this is research work that is classified or proprietary. If a student uses university facilities to perform any part of the research, the student cannot claim sole authorship of the data. Dr. Patrick suggested a training component for faculty to share with students doing research. Dr. House distributed the document he prepared titled "Research Practices, Ownership of Data."   It was MSC (14y, 0n) that, in the absence of an academic unit policy, the ownership of data as stated by the Dean of Research on 2/18/99 applies.   Dr. House will send this document to the Faculty Senate to be added as item "g" to the Policy for Research Practices.. Dr. House stated a concern that disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences may not use the same type of data. For example, Dr. Attebery said his students sometimes use interviews or unpublished manuscripts. Dr. Balsley stated that MBA students often develop software with the intent of marketing it and the MBA program’s view is that the student owns this. B.     Dr. House informed the Council that the proposed revision of the Intellectual Property/Conflict of Interest Policy was not intended for those who write text books. This is to address issues of people submitting proposals. It is also not intended to replace the current Patent/Copyright policy. That policy will be updated to correlate with this. The current University policy is the State Board of Education’s approved University Conflict of Interest Policy that addresses issues in the general sense. The revision would fit in that policy under a section titled "Submission of Proposals." Ms. Horrocks stated the revised policy was drafted to cover several issues, not just sponsored research. She also stated that Brad Hall (University Counsel) has not had a chance to review the document yet. Dr. Attebery requested that the appeal process be clarified and recommended that the appeal be reviewed by someone other than the Dean of Research because he is the one to make the initial decision. Dr. House said appeals will be reviewed by the Academic Vice President. Ms. Horrocks will make the recommended changes to the revised draft. She and Dr. House will have to work with Brad Hall to see how this fits with the University policy. It was MSC (14y, 0n) to table this item.   C.     Dr. House asked the Council for recommendations on the evaluation and promotion of research center directors and research faculty. He said their workload distribution varies from traditional teaching faculty. Typically, research center directors spend about 80% of their time on administration and grant writing, 10% on teaching, and 10% on service. Research faculty usually have much lighter teaching loads. and those who are designated as "research faculty" are non-tenure track positions primarily supported by external funds. Dr. House asked the Council members to review the recommendations for promotions of research faculty from Biological Sciences, share these with their constituency, and see if some commonalities for all departments can be found that can be presented to the Faculty Senate and the Deans Council. Dr. House indicated he would provide a first draft of suggested criteria by which research center directors could be considered for promotion for the next meeting.   The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.