FINAL REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE

FOR FY-06

Submitted by Richard D. Hale, Aerospace Engineering

As Chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee (FSRC), I have summarized below the committee’s action regarding charges for the year 2005-2006. Members of the committee this year included:

Richard D. Hale, Aerospace Engineering, Chair

Omofolabo Ajayi-Soyinka, Women’s Studies

Nancy Brady, Life Span Institute

Frank Brown, EECS

Hume Feldman, Physics

Robert Gregory, HSES

Robert Harrington, Psychology Research in Education

Yaozhong Hu, Mathematics

Doug Huffman, Teaching and Leadership

Susan Kemper, Psychology

Brian Laird, Chemistry

Asma Zaidi, Pharmacy

Ex-officio: Mary Lee Hummert, Associate Vice Provost for Research

Graduate Student Representative: Joseph Keehn, CLAS

Committee members have discussed leadership for next year, and recommend that Doug Huffman be nominated as FSRC chair for 2006/2007.

Progress to specific charges are addressed within three categories assigned to subcommittees within the FSRC.

1) Standing Charge 1 Monitor the administration of the General Research Fund and make recommendations, as needed, to insure its effectiveness and appropriate utilization. Specifically, the committee should:

Submit to FacEx a list of the GRF recipients for the previous Spring. For each GRF award, this list should include the name and affiliation of the project director and the title of the project, the award amount, and the date of the most recent previous award.
Review and clarify 1) general policies related to GRF, 2) GRF reporting requirements, 3) the composition of committees that evaluate GRF proposals, and, where necessary, 4) the policies of specific entities and units related to the GRF fund.
Identify issues with general GRF policies, forward suggested modification of policies to FacEx, and seek Faculty Council endorsement for proposed changes to these policies.
Identify issues with the GRF policies of specific entities and units and communicate the need for changes in the policies to those units.

Additional Charge 2 Consult with KUCR on the creation and implementation of an online database for reporting (and compiling) the outcomes of GRF awards. Ensure that this database addresses procedures for evaluating the composition of committees that evaluate GRF proposals.

A subcommittee comprising Doug Huffman, Bob Gregory, Asma Zaidi, Bob Harrington, Brian Laird and Yao Zhong Hu were responsible for addressing these charges. The Chair introduced an item of new business relating to the observation that the last three year review for allocation of funds was in Spring, 2003, implying that a missing FSRC charge is to perform a three year review of effective use of GRF funds by unit, and make recommendations for reallocation as necessary. The need for this charge, and the required reporting procedures, drove the activities of this subcommitte for the year. Committee members present recommended authorizing current unit allocations to enable units to initiate competitions for current year funds, continuing development of the on-line reporting database (add. Charge 2) and completing a thorough third year review to include recommendations for allocations by April, to be enacted in fall for the 2006/2007 GRF competition. The on-line database was developed in concert with KUCR (Derek van Schmus, Mark Reynolds, Mary Lee Hummert), and was activated in early Spring for unit reporting. The direct link to the website is: https://webapp.research.ku.edu/GRF/. We believe this database satisfies the intent of standing charge 1a, as this lists all PIS for the last three years with GRF awards, as well as specific outcomes for these awards. Units were contacted on 15 December advising them of impending changes to reporting procedures, specifically identifying the following inputs:

1) The GRF results for FY 03, FY 04, and FY 05. Please note that the year in which a faculty member received a GRF award for a particular project is irrelevant to recording the completion of a part or all of the GRF project. (For example, a faculty member’s journal article in 2005, resulting from a GRF award received in 2002, will be counted under “Articles Published” for FY 05). We realize that units do not share identical goals, nor are they influenced by the same circumstances and histories. The on-line reporting system is designed to provide a wide variety of outcomes for units, some of which may or may not be relevant to your entity. Possible outcomes include Peer Reviewed Articles, Non-Peer Reviewed Articles, Books, Book Chapters, Graduate Student Support, Presentations or Performances, Conference Attendance, Patents/Licenses, Newsletters or Other Media Writings, Artwork, Exhibition Curated, Receiving Additional Grant Funding, Submitting Grant Proposals, or other significant outcomes not on this list.

2) We will also request that you submit a statement of your unit’s criteria and goals for GRF funding procedures. This statement must include your unit’s procedures for evaluating the composition of committees that evaluate GRF proposals. Additionally, you will be asked to address how your GRF goals and criteria were met.

A follow-up letter with specific instructions for using the website was sent to all units on 30 January, with a requested completion date of 17 March. Several units requested an extension to this deadline, which was granted to 30 March. Although this left sufficient time to evaluate unit performance and recommend funding levels, it did not leave sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate unit goals. Appropriate data has been collected to satisfy Standing Charge 1b. Additional review of the merit criteria and goals of each unit is warranted, and is recommended as a charge for next year. Several positive comments were received by persons responsible for reporting within the unit, commending the GRF reporting database as an improvement over prior reporting methods.

The summary report summarizing the three year review of unit effectiveness and recommended funding levels is as amended and approved by the committee of the whole is attached as Appendix A. Fourteen entities submitted outcomes. One entity, the School of Social Welfare, is no longer participating in the GRF program. Members of the GRF sub-committee examined the goals and outcomes of each unit, and rated the extent to which each entity achieved each of the above criteria (A., B, C). Each sub-committee member independently rated the extent to which each entity achieved each of the three above criteria. The sub-committee then met as a group to discuss ratings and come to consensus on recommended funding levels for each entity. The following table summarizes the recommended annual funding levels for each entity.

	Current Funding Level	Recommendation	Recommended New Funding Level
Architecture	$6,577	Cut $658	$5,919
Business	$41,023	No Change	$41,023
Behavioral Sciences	$20,430	Add $4,527	$24,957
Humanities	$125,549	No Change	$125,549
Life Sciences	$106,588	No Change	$106,588
Physical Science	$97,364	No Change	$97,364
Social Sciences	$63,629	No Change	$63,629
Education	$24,905	No Change	$24,905
Engineering	$35,359	Add $3,054	$38,413
Fine Arts	$57,878	Cut $2,893	$54,985
Journalism	$3,843	Cut $192	$3,651
Law	$24,305	Cut $3,167	$21,138
Libraries	$6,715	Cut $671	$6,044
Pharmacy	$17,935	No Change	$17,935
TOTAL =	$632,100		$632,100

The majority of units made excellent use of the GRF. Overall, the GRF has produced a large list of scholarly accomplishments including the seeding of external grants. All of the units that were recommended for “no change” actually did an impressive job meeting goals and criteria. The recommendation of “no change” should not be taken as an indication of poor performance – on the contrary, if money were available the committee would recommend that all of the units who received a recommendation of “no change” actually receive additional funds. An increase in funds could stimulate even more scholarly production. Unfortunately, the total pool of money available for the GRF has not increased in the last six years. It is recommended that the total pool of money for the GRF be increased in order to encourage these units to engage in even more research and scholarship.

Recommendations to cut the funding of specific units were made on a basis of the ratings from the GRF sub-committee members. Overall, most of the units appeared to meet criterion A and criterion B; several units failed to adequately meet criterion C. Criterion C is related to seeking external support for scholarship. Those entities that did not adequately meet criterion C and which were not uniformly viewed as meeting criteria A and B were recommended for slight cuts from 5% to 10% and were encouraged to work towards meeting this criterion in the future. The committee recognizes that certain disciplines have more access to external funds than others; however, the committee does not believe this excuses an entity from attempting to seek external funds or support. A major purpose of the GRF fund is to leverage internal support into additional external support. In the future, it is recommended that all entities show at least some effort to seek external support for scholarship, and that unit goals consider how this is best accomplished. If not, this committee would recommend that their GRF funds be cut accordingly. A recommendation for future consideration in response to standing charge 1b. 1c and 1d is to ensure that units have goals for leveraging GRF funds into something larger.

The two entities that were recommended for an increase in annual funds were those that were cut in the previous three-year review, but took the advice from the last review and acted upon the suggestions. Both of these units (Behavioral Science and Engineering) did an excellent job responding to feedback and adjusting outcomes and reporting for the current three-year cycle. The committee attempted to bring their funding levels back as close as possible to the levels at which they were before the last three-year review.

2) Standing Charge 2 Advise and assist the Vice Provost for Research in formulating and articulating policy related to research at the University of Kansas. Among its tasks under this charge, the committee should specifically:

a. Consult with the Vice Provost for Research regarding the University's implementation of its policy on Classified Research (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article IX) and make recommendations to the Vice Provost for Research regarding this policy,

i. Coordinate returning the Classified Research Subcommittee as a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Research Committee. This will ensure that activities, needs and concerns of this body are reported through normal faculty governance channels, and will encourage term rotations as suggested by the procedures. Such transfer should be phased to enable the desired rotation of three faculty members serving staggered three year rotations, with one member transition per year.

and

b. Monitor the implementation of recommendations that KUCR broadly disseminate the University's scientific/scholarly misconduct policy by:

i. Establishing clear, labeled links on Research Compliance website to the policy

ii. Listing the policy on the Provost’s webpage along with other major policies such as the Grievance policy, policies on Intellectual Policy, Workplace Violence, etc.

iii. Linking the policy from websites hosted by departments and research centers, especially those listing grievance procedures

The committee should collaborate with the Vice Provost and the dean of the Graduate school to ensure that faculty, staff, and students engaged in research are fully informed of this policy and understand the practical implications of it.

Additional Charge 1 Work closely with a FacEx appointed task force which will be charged with an investigation of the pros and cons of proposed amendments to the Classified Research Policy. Identify and list the classified research policies at peer institutions, to include all top 25 public research institutions. Work closely with the Vice Provost for Research to identify potential implications with revisions in limited dissemination research and University and Kansas Intellectual Property policies. Actively engage in all open forum discussions related to the Classified Research Policy.

A subcommittee comprising Rick Hale, Susan Kemper, Brian Laird, Bob Harrington, Frank Brown and Joseph Keehn were responsible for addressing these charges, although all members of FSRC were given the opportunity to evaluate the final recommendations of the Classified Research Task Force. Subcommittee members followed progress of the Task Force, and became concerned that policy discussions were not occurring in a timely fashion to enable recommendations within the academic year. The committee expressed significant concern to learn that the Classified Research Task Force was leaning to drafting a completely new policy, as opposed to focusing on specific issues related to campus cultural values in research. Priorities surfacing for campus discussions related to subject matter exclusions, merit review of limited dissemination materials, and review of policies at peer institutions. On 5 December the subcommittee passed a unanimous resolution to the Restricted Research Task Force requesting that they focus their discussions on directed issues as a framework of discussion for campus forums, and recommending appropriate modifications to the draft policies approved last year addressing those substantive issues, rather than a completely new draft. This recommendation helped focus discussions within the task force, energized the four campus forums, and enabled draft recommendations to come before FSRC, FACEX and Faculty Council for the final approval votes within the academic year. Subcommittee members also facilitated discussions of draft policy recommendations with the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, and the Office of the Provost, to ensure that any recommendation would be manageable by all parties involved prior to the final vote within Faculty Governance. Members attended open forums, reviewed the initial draft document from the Task Force, made substantive recommendations for revision, and reviewed the final recommended Restricted Research Policy. Two FSRC members elected to not review the final document, and thus abstained in voting for or against the recommendations. All voting members unanimously supported the recommended policy, and commend the members of the Restricted Research Task Force for their policy recommendations.

A review of restricted research policies at peer institutions, as requested in Additional Charge 2, is included in several forms. We include in Appendix B and Appendix C two documents, generated by KUCR and/or the Restricted Research Task Force, which respond to this requested charge. In general, institutions may be categorized in five groupings:

• Prohibition of classified research under university auspices. (Universities listed in order of rank in research expenditures.)

--UCLA --Iowa

--UC-San Diego --Northwestern

--Pennsylvania --Maryland-Baltimore

--Cornell --Rochester

--UC-Davis --Illinois-Chicago

--Duke --SUNY-Buffalo

--Columbia --Kentucky

--Harvard --Rutgers

--Pittsburgh --Cincinnati

--Yale --IUPUI

• Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by university administration

--Michigan

--UC-San Francisco

--Stanford

--Washington U.-St. Louis

--Florida

--North Carolina-Chapel Hill

--Maryland (exceptions only in “highly unusual circumstances”)

--Michigan State (exceptions only specifically authorized by Board of Trustees)

--Colorado-Boulder

--SUNY-Stony Brook

• Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by faculty governance

--Washington-Seattle

--Minnesota

--Southern California

--Texas-Austin

--North Carolina State (but specifically prohibits weapons research)

--Virginia

• Permission for classified research on campus, with exceptions

--Arizona (but prohibits its use in theses or faculty personnel decisions)

--Georgia Tech

--Purdue

--Emory (but requires administrative approval)

--Tennessee-Knoxville

--Missouri-Columbia

• Prohibition on classified research on campus, but permission for it at a secure off-campus laboratory

--Johns Hopkins

--Wisconsin

--UC-Berkeley

--MIT

--Penn State

--Illinois-Urbana/Champaign

--UC-Irvine

--Chicago

The University of Kansas is and proposes to remain an institution with prohibition on classified research but with exceptions if reviewed by faculty governance and authorized by university administration.

In summary:

1) The Faculty Senate Research Committee recommends adoption of the final revisions to the Statement on Restricted Research.

2) In light of changes recommended in the Restricted Research Policy, the Faculty Senate Research Committee recommends that the University develop a Compliance Plan for accepting limited dissemination research with total or indefinite classifications. This plan will include but not be limited to establishing an educational program for Export Controls and Embargoes, and widely disseminating this information among key academic administrators (including Deans, Center Directors and Chairs) and research faculty and staff. The Faculty Senate Research Committee recommends it be charged with coordinating with the Office of the Vice Provost for Research to develop this Compliance Plan.

3) The Faculty Senate Research Committee recommends that new procedures defined in the Restricted Research Policy be followed, and in particular that the Restricted Research Committee be established as a standing committee of the Faculty Senate, and that it be charged with making recommendations concerning the appropriateness of entering into research grants or contracts before final decisions are made concerning their acceptance by the University. If willing, we see value in populating that initial committee with key members of the Restricted Research Task Force, to include Susan Kemper, Joseph Evans, Charles Epp and Rick Hale.

4) The Faculty Senate Research Committee, which is broadly representative of all major research areas in the University, makes recommendations concerning University research policies. We request that FSRC be given a standing charge for formulating and monitoring research policy decisions, to include exceptions policies, and with recommending changes in research policies for approval by the Faculty Senate. Specific sub-charges include:

a. Monitoring the implementation of the recommended Restricted Research Policy, and continuously assessing policies and procedures for handling requests for exception.

b. Maintaining a current record, open for review, of the review actions taken by the Restricted Research Committee and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research.

c. Make an annual report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee listing each restrictive grant or contract considered during the year, to include

i. Title of project;

ii. Name of principal investigator or project director;

iii. Source or sources of funds for support of project;

iv. Action by the Restricted Research Committee as to approval or disapproval;

v. If approved, a short statement of justification for the proposed research in terms of the purposes of the University and if disapproved, a short statement of the reasons for rejection.

This will ensure that activities, needs and concerns of this body are reported through normal faculty governance channels, and will encourage term rotations as suggested by the procedures.

5) The FSRC also recommends that it be charged with serving as the body to hear faculty appeals of research rejected by the restricted research committee or of the Vice Provost for Research, as specified in the Restricted Research Policy.

6) There is insufficient progress to report on Standing Charge 2b. We also recommend that this be assigned to the committee for next year.

3) Standing Charge 3 Work with ACTC to consider needs for and issues with research computing and telecommunications, to include recommendations for sustainable policies and procedures.

A subcommittee comprising Hume Feldman, Rick Hale, Brian Laird and Frank Brown were responsible for addressing these charges. The Faculty Senate Research Committee recommends the creation of a special task force to work with the Office of the Provost, the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, the Office of the Vice Provost for Information Services and faculty governance to create and implement a sustainable plan for supporting research computing needs on campus. This committee will receive all pertinent information from KUCR, Information Technology and all other sources connected with research computing at KU to assess current needs, the effectiveness of current policies, and recommended approaches for sustained monitoring, evaluations and continuous improvement. They will be responsible for disseminating information regarding expenditure of funds, addressing the needs of the research computing faculty and providing the provost specific recommendations of how to distribute funds to provide the faculty with an optimal research computing environment.

Background:

The Chancellor declared his vision to bring KU into the top 25 research universities in the nation. Improvement of research computing is an important part of this goal.

Last year, Faculty Governance undertook a much-needed review of the policy on research computing under the ACTC committee. The ACTC formed a subcommittee for research computing that recommended the creation of some sort of faculty entity that will oversee research computing at KU. This year there were two governance committees (FSRC and ACTC) that looked at this issue. Each current governance committee is ill-suited to solving research computing needs. FSRC comprises research faculty who may or may not have extensive computing needs, and ACTC focuses on a breadth of issues related to academic needs. KU cannot afford to allow research computing needs to continue to fall between the cracks.

It has become clear that at present, many faculty involved in research computing do not feel that they get adequate support from the university regarding this issue. Worse, the relevant offices and responsible individuals for research computing needs are many and varied, such that there is no obvious reporting structure for faculty to air concerns or requests for assistance. It has become bad enough that most researchers do not even try to get help from the university for their research needs and do what they need and can themselves. Such ad hoc approaches to research computing will not enable growth in research productivity and increased national prominence. For the faculty to believe that their interests and concerns are addressed, a dedicated faculty committee staffed with people who are involved in research computing and who have good relations with the research computing community at KU is needed. The committee will solicit faculty suggestions and advice for priorities in research computing, and will become the conduit between the practitioners and those in the various administrative units that decide and carry out policies and investments in this field. We anticipate that recommendations of this task force may well include creation of a standing body of faculty with reporting responsibilities to Office of the Provost, the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, the Office of the Vice Provost for Information Services and faculty governance.

Specific charges for the task force or a future standing faculty body of faculty include:

Receiving, as a matter of course, budgetary and planning reports from the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and the Office of the Vice Provost for Information Services with regards to research computing, and issuing priority recommendations with advice from the computing research faculty.
Monitoring the implementation of any recommended Research Computing Policy, and continuously assessing policies and procedures for handling requests for action, maintenance and upgrading.
Continuously evaluating the effectiveness of current policies, practices and expenditures with regards to enabling research productivity

Maintaining a record, open to the research computing faculty, of the review actions taken by the KUCR and the Offices of the Vice Provost for Research and the Vice Provost for Information Services
Making an annual report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee listing the work done during the year.
Discussing needs and problems with faculty involved in research computing and assess needs for improvements, upgrades and new technologies.
Acting as a conduit between the relevant offices at KU and the entire research computing faculty.

This will ensure that activities, needs and concerns of the faculty are addressed by this body and are reported directly to the people in charge of making decisions regarding expenditure in infrastructure and general computing needs of the faculty.

4) Submit to FacEx:

a. The approved minutes of each meeting,

b. Recommendations for action as they are approved by the committee, and

c. A final report by April 1, 2006. The final report should make clear what was done (or not done) about each of the charges to the committee and make recommendations to FacEx for action.

Minutes of the meetings (October 19, 2005; November 16, 2005; December 5, 2005; February 15, 2006; and 4 April, 2006) are attached. This report serves as minutes for the meeting of 11 May, 2006. Recommendations to FacEx for action are included herein.
Appendix A. GRF Subcommittee Final Report

This year the Faculty Senate Research Committee was charged with conducting a review of the General Research Fund (GRF) and its accomplishments over the past three years. Every three years the Faculty Senate Research Committee reviews the GRF accomplishments of each unit/entity on campus. The sub-committee of the FSRC conducting the three-year evaluation of GRF followed the guidelines developed under the GRF restructuring program implemented in FY 1995. The committee also followed the changes to these guidelines as recommended and formally adopted by the University Senate Committee on Research in FY 2000. The guidelines for this process specify that the committee can recommend a change in allocation accordingly:

I. Based on performance evaluation, an entity’s allocation may be increased or decreased by up to 20% or $10,000, whichever is greater.

II. Failure on the part of an entity to submit a report may result in the entity losing its entire allocation.

The committee also used the following University Senate Committee on Research approved criteria for the evaluation. All entities were informed of these criteria during the last three-year GRF review, and have had ample time to attempt to meet these review criteria. The criteria are:

Has the entity made sufficient progress toward achieving the goals specified in its application for funds?

B. Has the entity continued to demonstrate a commitment to enhancing the research, scholarly, and creative activities of its faculty through the use of the GRF?

C. Have the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship?

During the fall of 2005 the GRF sub-committee made the transition to an on-line reporting system for GRF outcomes. KUCR developed a secure website that allows each entity to report GRF outcomes. This website allows the committee to view accomplishments by award and by unit/entity. In addition, the new website will allow the committee to track accomplishments of all GRF awards into the future. In early February, all entities were asked to use the new website to submit GRF outcomes for awards that were made in the last three years (i.e. FY 03, 04, and 05). In addition, entities were asked to provide a statement of the goals and criteria they used to grant GRF awards, and to provide evidence for how they met their goals and criteria.

Fourteen entities submitted outcomes. One entity, the School of Social Welfare, is no longer participating in the GRF program. Members of the GRF sub-committee examined the goals and outcomes of each unit, and rated the extent to which each entity achieved each of the above criteria (A., B, C). Each sub-committee member independently rated the extent to which each entity achieved each of the three above criteria. The sub-committee then met as a group to discuss ratings and come to consensus on recommended funding levels for each entity. The following table summarizes the recommended annual funding levels for each entity.

	Current Funding Level	Recommendation	Recommended New Funding Level
Architecture	$6,577	Cut $658	$5,919
Business	$41,023	No Change	$41,023
Behavioral Sciences	$20,430	Add $4,527	$24,957
Humanities	$125,549	No Change	$125,549
Life Sciences	$106,588	No Change	$106,588
Physical Science	$97,364	No Change	$97,364
Social Sciences	$63,629	No Change	$63,629
Education	$24,905	No Change	$24,905
Engineering	$35,359	Add $3,054	$38,413
Fine Arts	$57,878	Cut $2,893	$54,985
Journalism	$3,843	Cut $192	$3,651
Law	$24,305	Cut $3,167	$21,138
Libraries	$6,715	Cut $671	$6,044
Pharmacy	$17,935	No Change	$17,935
TOTAL =	$632,100		$632,100

GRF SUMMARY STATEMENTS

The following summary statements are intended to outline the accomplishments of each entity and explain the recommendations of the committee on future funding levels.

School of Architecture & Urban Design

The School of Architecture and Urban Design made very good progress in enhancing the research and scholarship of its faculty. The unit had a small number of awards given the limited funding, but the awards which were made produced several scholarly outcomes including journal articles and presentations. Overall, the GRF produced 3 published and 2 submitted peer-reviewed articles, 5 peer-reviewed presentations, and 3 other outcomes. However, the GRF awards did not lead to any grant proposals. One of the key review criteria of the GRF is whether or not the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship. The School of Architecture and Urban Design did not appear to meet this criterion. The committee understands that this discipline has fewer grant opportunities than other disciplines; however, one would still expect the faculty who receive GRF awards to attempt to seek external support. In addition, several committee members noted that the stated goals and criteria for this entity were vague. It is suggested that the School of Architecture & Urban Design clarify their GRF goals and criteria. The committee recommends funds be decreased $658 to a total of $5,919.

School of Business

The School of Business produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 6 published peer reviewed articles, 18 submitted peer reviewed articles, 16 scholarly presentations, 5 funded grants, and 5 grant proposals submitted. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. The School of Business also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for the School of Business remain unchanged at $41,023. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

CLAS - Behavioral Sciences

Behavioral Sciences produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 2 published peer reviewed articles, 3 submitted peer reviewed articles, 7 scholarly presentations, 15 funded grants, and 4 grant proposals submitted. Behavioral Sciences also supported 2 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. Behavioral Sciences also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for Behavioral Sciences increase $4,527 to a total of $24,957. This would return Behavioral Sciences near its former funding level.

CLAS – Humanities

The Humanities produced an impressive list of GRF accomplishments including 23 published peer reviewed articles, 11 submitted peer reviewed articles, 10 published books, 13 submitted book proposals, 8 book chapters (6 published, 2 submitted), 45 scholarly presentations, 11 funded grants, and 5 grant proposals submitted. The committee believes Humanities has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. Humanities also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for Humanities remain unchanged at $125,549. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

CLAS – Life Sciences

Life Sciences produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 19 published peer reviewed articles, 6 submitted peer reviewed articles, 23 scholarly presentations, 44 funded grants, and 12 grant proposals submitted. Life Sciences also supported 10 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. Life Sciences also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for Life Sciences remain unchanged at $106,588. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

CLAS – Physical Sciences

Physical Sciences produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 32 published peer reviewed articles, 9 submitted peer reviewed articles, 1 published book, 18 scholarly presentations, 13 funded grants, and 16 grant proposals submitted. Physical Sciences also supported 21 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. Physical Sciences also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for the Physical Sciences remain unchanged at $97,364. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

CLAS – Social Sciences

Social Sciences produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 15 published peer reviewed articles, 10 submitted peer reviewed articles, 2 published books, 2 submitted book proposals, 7 book chapters (2 published, 5 submitted), 32 scholarly presentations, 10 funded grants, and 14 grant proposals submitted. In addition, Social Sciences supported 6 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. Social Sciences also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. However, the committee raised concerns about Social Sciences use of GRF funds for travel to professional meetings. The committee recommends that the funding level for the Social Sciences remain unchanged at $63,629. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

School of Education

The School of Education produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 7 published peer reviewed articles, 7 submitted peer reviewed articles, 2 published books, 2 published book chapters, 12 scholarly presentations, 2 funded grants, and 2 grant proposals submitted. The School of Education also supported 4 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. The School of Education also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for the School of Education remain unchanged at $24,905. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

School of Engineering

The School of Engineering produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 16 published peer reviewed articles, 7 submitted peer reviewed articles, 1 published book chapter, 26 scholarly presentations, 9 funded grants, 5 grant proposals submitted, and 1 patent. In addition, the School of Engineering supported 14 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. The School of Engineering also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for the School of Engineering increase $3,054 to a total of $38,413. This would return The School of Engineering near its former funding level.

School of Fine Arts

The School of Fine Arts made very good progress in enhancing the research and scholarship of its faculty. Overall, the GRF produced 8 published and 3 submitted peer-reviewed articles, 1 published book, 1 submitted book proposal, 62 presentations/performances, and 2 completed art works. However, the GRF awards did not lead to any grant proposals. One of the key review criteria of the GRF is whether or not the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship. The School of Fine Arts did not appear to meet this criterion. The committee understands that this discipline has fewer grant opportunities than other disciplines; however, one would still expect the faculty who receive GRF awards to attempt to seek external support. In addition, committee members noted that the stated goals and criteria for this entity were vague. The committee recommends funds be decreased $2,893 to a total of $54,985.

School of Journalism & Mass Communications

The School of Journalism & Mass Communications made good progress in enhancing the research and scholarship of its faculty. Overall, the GRF produced 1 published peer reviewed article, 1 published book chapter, 1 other outcome. The GRF awards did not lead to any grant proposals. One of the key review criteria of the GRF is whether or not the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship. The School of Journalism & Mass Communications did not appear to meet this criterion. The committee understands that this discipline has fewer grant opportunities than other disciplines; however, one would still expect the faculty who receive GRF awards to attempt to seek external support. The committee recommends funds be decreased $192 to a total of $3,651.

School of Law

The School of Law made good progress in enhancing the research and scholarship of its faculty. Overall, the GRF produced 1 published peer reviewed article, 4 non-peer reviewed articles, 3 published books, and 1 published book chapter. The GRF awards did not lead to any grant proposals. One of the key review criteria of the GRF is whether or not the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship. The School of Law did not appear to meet this criterion. The committee understands that this discipline has fewer grant opportunities than other disciplines; however, one would still expect the faculty who receive GRF awards to attempt to seek external support. The committee recommends funds be decreased $3,167 to a total of $21,138.

University Libraries

The University Libraries made good progress in enhancing the research and scholarship of its faculty. Overall, the GRF produced 1 published peer reviewed article, 1 non-peer reviewed article submitted, 1 book proposal submitted, and 1 scholarly presentation. In addition, the University Libraries supported 3 graduate students with the GRF. The GRF awards did not lead to any grant proposals. One of the key review criteria of the GRF is whether or not the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship. The Libraries did not appear to meet this criterion. The committee understands that this discipline has fewer grant opportunities than other disciplines; however, one would still expect the faculty who receive GRF awards to attempt to seek external support. In addition, committee members noted that the stated goals and criteria for this entity were vague. The committee recommends funds be decreased $671 to a total of $6,044.

School of Pharmacy

The School of Pharmacy produced a very good list of GRF accomplishments including 3 published peer reviewed articles, 1 submitted peer reviewed article, 5 scholarly presentations, 2 funded grants, and 2 grant proposals submitted. In addition, the School of Pharmacy supported 2 graduate students with the GRF. The committee believes the entity has made very good progress towards achieving its goals and criteria and towards enhancing the research and scholarly activity of its faculty. The School of Pharmacy also made appropriate efforts to secure external support for scholarship. The committee recommends that the funding level for the School of Pharmacy remain unchanged at $17,935. If additional funds were available the committee would recommend an increase in funds.

Appendix B. Survey of University Policies on Restricted Research

K.U. Task Force on Classified Research

Nov. 30, 2005

Chuck Epp

Associate Professor

Department of Public Administration

I have surveyed the policies on classified research at the top 50 American universities in terms of research funding, plus a number of other public universities that are not in the top 50. Among these universities, policies on restricted research fall roughly into five types, ranging from total prohibitions on classified research under university auspices to full acceptance of such research. The report below A) summarizes the types of policies and lists the universities falling within each type; and B) provides copies of typical policy language for each type.

Because the examples of policy language are in some cases quite extensive, page numbers for each type may be helpful:

A) prohibition on classified research p. 3

B) prohibition, with exceptions by administrative decision p. 5

C) prohibition, with exceptions by faculty committee p. 6

D) general acceptance of classified research, with exceptions p. 10

E) prohibition of classified research on campus, but an

off-campus classified facility p. 11

A. The 5 types of university policies

(NB: The policy on classified research is vague or unknown at the following top-50 universities: Texas A&M, Ohio State, Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Utah.)

Prohibition of classified research under university auspices. (Universities listed in order of rank in research expenditures.)

--UCLA --Iowa

--UC-San Diego --Northwestern

--Pennsylvania --Maryland-Baltimore

--Cornell --Rochester

--UC-Davis --Illinois-Chicago

--Duke --SUNY-Buffalo

--Columbia --Kentucky

--Harvard --Rutgers

--Pittsburgh --Cincinnati

--Yale --IUPUI

Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by university administration

--Michigan

--UC-San Francisco

--Stanford

--Washington U.-St. Louis

--Florida

--North Carolina-Chapel Hill

--Maryland (exceptions only in “highly unusual circumstances”)

--Michigan State (exceptions only specifically authorized by Board of Trustees)

--Colorado-Boulder

--SUNY-Stony Brook

Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by faculty governance

--Washington-Seattle

--Minnesota

--Southern California

--Texas-Austin

--North Carolina State (but specifically prohibits weapons research)

--Virginia

Permission for classified research on campus, with exceptions

--Arizona (but prohibits its use in theses or faculty personnel decisions)

--Georgia Tech

--Purdue

--Emory (but requires administrative approval)

--Tennessee-Knoxville

--Missouri-Columbia

Prohibition on classified research on campus, but permission for it at a secure off-campus laboratory

--Johns Hopkins

--Wisconsin

--UC-Berkeley

--MIT

--Penn State

--Illinois-Urbana/Champaign

--UC-Irvine

--Chicago

B. Examples of policy language

Prohibition of classified research under university auspices.

Columbia University:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opg/policies/openness.pdf

Columbia University is a nonprofit institution of higher education that conducts fundamental research in basic and applied science and engineering that is widely and openly published and made available to the scientific and academic community. Columbia University does not, pursuant to its statutes, undertake classified work or research requiring national security controls.

Fundamental Research involves the conduct of basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is freely disseminated within the scientific community.

These Guidelines prohibit discrimination in the conduct of fundamental research based on nationality, country of origin, ethnicity, gender, race or religion. Therefore, Columbia University will not accept any conditions of an award that would restrict any member of a research group, including faculty, students, and staff, from the ability to participate fully in all of the intellectually significant portions of a sponsored project.

Duke University:

http://www.provost.duke.edu/pdfs/fhb/FHB_Chap_5.pdf

5.2.7 Classified Research

No research can be undertaken at the University that involves information, research, or results of research that are, or would be, classified by the sponsor or any third party. For example, research for the federal government under a subcontract which is classified as secret is not permitted. The University-Industry Guidelines (see above) ensure researchers' rights to publish research results without unduly long delays, and to engage in scholarly discussion with their colleagues.

Faculty members may arrange on an individual basis to participate in projects involving such research through other institutions. Duke University does not have any level of institutional clearance, nor can it arrange clearance on behalf of its faculty. Clearance is secured on a need-to-know basis by the organization for whom the work is to be done.

2. Prohibition of classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by university administration

University of Michigan:

http://www.research.umich.edu/policies/um/classified.html

The Regents' Policy concerning research grants, contracts, and agreements, approved by the Board of Regents on April 17, 1987, states:

The mission of the University is to generate and disseminate knowledge in the public interest. Essential to this mission are two fundamental principles: open scholarly exchange and academic freedom.

To ensure that these two fundamental principles will be maintained, the Regents' Policy explicitly states that:

1. The University will not enter into or renew any grant, contract, or agreement that would restrain its freedom to disclose the existence of the document, the identity of any sponsor of the proposed research, or the purpose and scope of the proposed research.

2. The University normally does not accept grants, contracts, or agreements for research which unreasonably restrict its faculty, staff, or students from publishing or otherwise disseminating the results of the research.

However, the policy does allow the University to accept, with the approval of the Vice President for Research, a classified contract if it can be accommodated without compromising the University's pursuit of its educational mission and if its purpose is clearly in the public interest.

University of Colorado-Boulder:

http://www.cusys.edu/regents/Policies/Policy4F.htm

4-F. CLASSIFIED RESEARCH

The University of Colorado is honored to have been selected for research of every conceivable kind over many generations. The products of this inquiry by distinguished faculty and students have advanced the reputation of our University and serve society.

In the case of classified research, potential impacts on the University need special consideration. Therefore, the University of Colorado will undertake, conduct, or manage those classified research projects which receive the specific approval of the president. For the purpose of this policy, classified research is defined as (1) research that has a security classification established by a federal agency and (2) sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication in excess of six months. A faculty advisory committee will advise the president on individual cases. Actions taken by the president shall be public information. Classified research projects approved by the president will be conducted at off-campus locations whenever possible. The work produced on classified research projects cannot be used either in faculty personnel decisions or in student theses/dissertations until the work can be published in the open literature. All classified research projects will fully finance any security costs required by the projects out of the sponsor-funded direct or indirect costs.

Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by faculty governance

University of Washington-Seattle:

http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/04-02-01.html

PART II: University Research

Chapter 1

CLASSIFIED, PROPRIETARY, AND RESTRICTED RESEARCH

Section 1. Basic Principles

The most fundamental commitment of the University is to the maintenance of an open academic environment that fosters intellectual creativity, freedom, and the open dissemination of research results. In order to maintain such an environment, faculty, staff, and students must be free to carry out research in an open and unrestricted manner. They must have freedom to select research topics, to participate in research, and to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of their research. This freedom is undermined by restrictions on participation that are based on factors other than interest or competence, by restrictions on access to research facilities that disrupt the overall climate of openness on campus, and by restrictions on publication or dissemination of research findings. These restrictions may be imposed by security classification, export controls, proprietary rights in privately sponsored research, or other sources.

Section 2. Obligation

The policy stated below, except as noted, is intended to eliminate such restrictions. It does not, however, prohibit self-imposed restrictions based on the professional ethics of a particular discipline. It also does not prohibit the existence of classified or restricted information on campus such as sometimes arises, for instance, in connection with consulting work. Thus, parts of the policy are directed towards maintaining a separation between classified or restricted information and the teaching and research functions of the University.

1.Unless exception is made using the review process described in Section 3, the University will not enter into any contract or accept any grant which:

a. Prohibits the open publication or dissemination of research results within a reasonable period of time.

b. Restricts participation on grounds other than interest or competence.

c. Restricts access to campus facilities in ways that are judged to disrupt the overall research activity of the University.

Under unusual circumstances relating to special scholarly expertise of a faculty member or his or her research activities, or to the national security, exceptions may be necessary. In these cases a review of the proposed grant or contract shall be made by the Faculty Council on Research to ensure that the academic benefits to the University, and the communities it serves, will justify the exception. The criteria for exceptions and the recommendation and decision procedures shall be formulated by the Faculty Council on Research.*

2.No University courses that are given for credit shall be classified or restricted in any part.

3.No theses or dissertations will be accepted in fulfillment of degree requirements that cannot be freely published or disseminated.

4.The University will continue to facilitate the participation by faculty members in classified or otherwise restricted work of their choice, if their knowledge of their fields and pursuit of their research is advanced by access to classified material or by participation in government research and policy activities. Normal university provisions and procedures for consulting activities, public services and leaves of absence without pay will apply.

5.A record open to the faculty and students will be kept of University agreements that involve access to classified information.

6.Every reasonable effort will be made by the University to keep projects that involve classified or otherwise restricted information physically separated from the rest of the University.

* Conferences or meetings related to research and requiring security clearances should be governed by the spirit and provisions of these principles, and should be reviewed in the same way and according to the same criteria as herein specified. For the purposes of this provision the term "conference" means any meeting involving the participation of non-university persons and requiring formal approval of the University. Consultations needed in connection with already approved classified research projects and not requiring additional financial support will not be considered to be "conferences" within the context of this provision.

Section 3. The Review Process

A. Preamble

1.As the governing body of the University of Washington, the Board of Regents has the legal responsibility for entering into research grant and contract agreements on behalf of the University. The Board, however, seeks recommendations from the faculty concerning policy matters relating to the conduct of research within the University.

2.The policy on classified, proprietary and otherwise restricted research approved by the Faculty Senate and by the faculty calls for the Faculty Council on Research to make recommendations concerning the appropriateness of entering into research grants or contracts before final decisions are made concerning their acceptance by the University.

B. Mandate

The Faculty Council on Research, in accordance with the policy statements in Section 2 above, shall:

1.Review every proposal for a research grant or contract that carries a provision expressed or implied that seeks to limit participation, access to facilities, or the freedom of the investigators to publish or not to publish the results of such research in full. Proposals will be referred to the Faculty Council on Research by the Vice Provost for Research, deans, or department chairs whenever in their judgment a review is necessitated. Notification to the faculty of each recommendation by the Faculty Council on Research shall be promptly published in a University official notice.

2.Maintain a current record, open for review, of the review actions taken by the Faculty Council on Research.

3.Make an annual report to the Senate listing each restrictive grant or contract considered during the year. The report shall include:

a. Title of project;

b. Name of principal investigator or administrator;

c. Source or sources of funds for support of project;

d. Action by Faculty Council on Research as to approval or disapproval;

e. If approved, a short statement of justification for the proposed research in terms of the purposes of the University and in the light of the criteria for approval as listed in Section 3.C. below; if disapproved, a short statement of the reasons for rejection.

C. Criteria for Approval

1.A proposed research grant or contract that involves restrictions on participation, access, publication or non-publication will be recommended for approval only when in the judgment of the Faculty Council on Research the merits of the proposed research and the potential benefits to be realized clearly outweigh the disadvantages of the restrictions. The following criteria shall be used as a basis for judgment; however, a proposal need not qualify under all criteria.

a. Involves unique University capabilities.

b. Has very substantial scholarly, scientific or educational benefits.

c. Constitutes a very substantial public service.

2.All documents setting forth the terms of the proposed research grant or contract must be unclassified and the general nature of the research must be freely disclosed.

D. Recommendations and Advice

Any recommendation by the Faculty Council on Research shall be made by a majority vote of the quorum present. If the vote results in a tie, the matter shall be brought to the Senate Executive Committee for recommendation.

The Faculty Council on Research shall transmit to the Vice Provost for Research, through the Secretary of the Faculty, its recommendation on the approval or disapproval of each proposal together with the explanatory statements required by Section 3.B.3.e. The Vice Provost for Research may transmit to the funding agency in the normal manner each proposal that the Faculty Council on Research has approved. Disapproved proposals will be returned by the Vice Provost for Research through the dean and department chair to the initiator of the proposal, along with the Council's statement of why the proposal was disapproved and any advice or suggestions for resolution of the difficulties leading to rejection by the Faculty Council on Research. Such rejection may be appealed (Section 3.E). The Faculty Council on Research shall assist the initiator of the proposal and other University personnel to achieve the greatest degree of publishability compatible with the proposed research.

E. Appeals

When a recommendation has been made by the Faculty Council on Research (or, in the case of a tie, by the Senate Executive Committee), the investigator or a group of 10% or more of the voting faculty or 25% of the Faculty Senate, and/or the Dean of the Graduate School and the Vice Provost for Research may appeal the recommendation by requesting the Senate Executive Committee to bring it before the Senate. An appeal must be made within two weeks after official publication of the recommendation of the Faculty Council on Research. Those who are appealing may be invited to express their views at the next meeting of the Executive Committee and, if they desire, of the Senate during a reexamination of the recommendation of the Faculty Council on Research. The Senate members shall then vote to sustain (or override) the recommendation of the Faculty Council on Research (or Senate Executive Committee). The Senate action terminates the appeal process for the investigators of the proposed research or for the group of faculty who have appealed the recommendation of the Faculty Council on Research to the Senate. The Dean of the Graduate School and the Vice Provost for Research may at their discretion refer the matter, with a concise statement of the Faculty Council on Research recommendation and the Senate discussions and vote tally, to the Board of Regents for final decision.

F. Timing

The review committee's consideration of and recommendation regarding a specific proposal should be completed within four weeks from the time of referral. The resolution of an appeal through action by the Senate should be so coordinated that normally the time required would be less than sixty days after the time of appeal.

In the case of a proposal for a continuing research grant or contract, where a lack of funding during the time required for resolution of the appeals may cause undue hardship in the research operation, the Dean of the Graduate School may negotiate an extension for up to a period of one year.

S-B 108, with Presidential approval November 1969; Faculty Referendum, February 1970; S-C 191, May 1970; S-C 200, January 1972; modification in administrative responsibilities, June 1976; S-C 351, November 1995; Executive Order No. 8 of the President, June 8, 2005

4. Permission for classified research on campus, with exceptions

University of Arizona:

http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/chap2.html

2.13.05 Secret (Classified) Research

Recognizing that the values of openness in research and of academic freedom sometimes conflict, the Faculty Senate has established the following policy on secret or classified research.

1. All accepted projects will conform to Arizona and federal statutes.

2.No secret thesis or dissertation shall be accepted as the basis for any degree, and no academic credit shall be awarded for secret research.

3.No secret research or materials shall be considered in connection with appointments, reappointments, tenure, promotions, or merit pay raises.

4.Information will be made publicly available about all research awards, including the amount of funding, the time period, the title, the nature of the project, and the sponsor.

5.In rare instances, the goals and objectives of the University may best be served by waiving parts of this policy. In such instances, and with due consideration to the fact that they must be exceptional, parts of provision 4 may be waived by the Vice President for Research, after consultation with the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee.

For purposes of this policy, secret material is defined as any material (a) which is restricted from public access, or (b) which cannot be submitted for publication in the open literature.

5.Prohibition on classified research on campus, but permission for it at a secure off-campus laboratory

Johns Hopkins:

http://jhuresearch.jhu.edu/compliance-research.htm

Johns Hopkins University endorses faculty participation in research in the national interest. At the same time, however, the University’s commitment to openness in documentation and dissemination of research results prohibits conducting classified research activities or using classified information on its academic campuses. Consequently, the Applied Physics Laboratory, which is not an academic division, is a suitable location for conducting classified research projects.

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign:

(No policy found; but the following appears in a faculty committee report)

http://www.senate.uiuc.edu/af0401.html

Because UIUC has no campus policy precluding participation in research with security restrictions, potential contracts are examined on a case-by-case basis. The campus maintains laboratories and classrooms which are “open” learning environments. No classified research is performed on the campus.

University of Chicago:

http://researchadmin.uchicago.edu/guidelines/200/224.shtml

Guidelines for Grant and Contract Management

224. Classified Research

University of Chicago Policy on Performing Classified Research

POLICY: No classified work may be undertaken in the name of the University of Chicago or using University facilities or resources.

BACKGROUND: The University’s policy on performing classified work. [“Classified” work being defined as that work conducted under the specific designation as Classified by the Federal funding sponsor or other governmental agency] derives from two sources:

1. Board of Trustees Statute, 18.1, which says “The basic policies of The University of Chicago include complete freedom of research and unrestricted dissemination of information.” This is obviously incompatible with classified research.

2. The report of the “Committee on Federal Grants and Contracts at The University of Chicago” dated June 1969. A summary of the report was printed in the University of Chicago Record, and included recommendations, one of which was:

“The Committee recommends that The University of Chicago:…6. Accept no grants or contracts which impose conditions of secrecy or of prohibition of publication of results or which are classified as “secret: or “Confidential” or otherwise restricted as to openness, or which provide for consultative services involving restricted or classified information, issues, or operations, or which are otherwise inconsistent with free inquiry.”

INDIVIDUAL SECURITY CLEARANCES: It should be noted that as individuals University researchers may hold classified security clearances and may act as independent consultants to the government in areas involving classified information.

CLASSIFIED WORK AT ANL:
A limited amount of classified activity is carried out at Argonne National Laboratory under the security policies and practices defined by the U.S. Department of Energy for classified work. With the appropriate clearances from DOE, faculty of the University of Chicago may participate in classified activity on site at ANL.

Appendix C. Survey on How Exceptions to Classified/Restricted

Research Policies are Handled at Other Institutions

Prepared for the KU Task Force on Classified Research

March 7, 2006

Bill Sharp

Director of Research Integrity

The following information follows the organization of the Nov. 30, 2005 Survey of University Policies on Restricted Research prepared by Chuck Epp. It concerns the three categories of university policies identified in that report which allow classified research to take place on an exceptional basis (categories 2, 3, and 4). Information for the following report was obtained from institutional websites and through telephone conversations with institutional officials.

2. Prohibitions on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by university administration:

University of Michigan

Exceptions are approved by the Vice Provost for Research. Regents’ policy states: “The University will accept a classified research grant, contract or agreement if it can be accommodated without compromising the University's pursuit of its educational mission and if its purpose is clearly in the public interest.”

University of California – San Francisco

Chancellors, laboratory directors, and vice presidents may make exceptions to the policy. See Appendix A for the text of the policy and the list of criteria for exceptions.

Stanford

Exceptions are apparently approved by the Vice Provost and Dean of Research and Graduate Policy. Policy allows peripheral segments of research to be classified and other modest exceptions, but only if the overall research results can be published.

Washington University – St. Louis

Classified research is allowed on an exceptional basis: “Exceptions to this policy are allowed but must be approved by the Vice Chancellor for Research after consultation with the department Chair and the Dean of the appropriate school.”

Florida

Exceptions are made by President of the University upon the recommendation of the Vice President for Research: “Before submitting a proposal to a sponsor to conduct classified research, the researcher must submit the proposal for review to the Vice President for Research. The Vice President will review the proposed research activity to determine if it is acceptable as appropriate academic research. Consideration will be given to the restrictions on publications, use of graduate students, the humanitarian nature of the research and the appropriateness of the scientific inquiry within a university environment. The Vice President will make a recommendation to the President of the University, and the final decision of acceptance or rejection of the proposed research will be made at that level.”

North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Exceptions are approved by “the chancellor or his designee”: “In general, the University should not accept or participate in any research grant or contract that will prevent or restrict investigators from publishing fully and freely the results of their investigations. Rare exceptions to this general policy with respect to classified research (i.e., research that falls under the provisions of Executive Order 12958) may be made only with the prior approval of the Chancellor or his designee. In such cases, the following additional considerations apply:

* All such exceptions must be reported in writing to the UNC President prior to execution of a contract or acceptance of a grant [pursuant to UNC Policy Manual, Section 500.1].

* Whenever possible, the University shall retain the right to disclose the existence of the proposed research and the identity of the sponsor.

* Students may participate in approved classified research, so long as this participation does not significantly impede their progress toward a degree. No thesis or dissertation submitted in fulfillment of degree requirements may be classified, in whole or in part.

* Consulting and other external activities involving classified research are not prohibited, so long as they are consistent with the University's Policy on External Professional Activities for Pay.

* In times of national emergency, rapid access to campus expertise or facilities may be required by government agencies for purposes other than long-term research. Permission for such short-term access may be granted by the Chancellor or his designee.

Maryland

Allows off-campus classified research “if appropriate.” Otherwise, “Under highly unusual circumstances, exceptions … may be granted by the Chancellor of the University of Maryland System on the recommendation of the appropriate President or Director. The Chancellor will make an annual report to the Board of Regents specifying exceptions granted under this provision.”

Colorado

Exceptions must be approved by the university president, but with a detailed procedure outlined for this process established by policy: “The University has a policy and procedure that must be followed for any proposal or project that involves either a federal government classified material or classified contract issue or an industrial entity's requirement for restriction or prohibition of publishing the results of the project (i.e., proprietary research). This policy is also interpreted to apply to any delay of publication by a sponsor that exceeds six months. The University policy provides that only the CU President is authorized to approve "secret research" which means either classified or proprietary research. At issue is the University's ability to publish or disclose the results of the project or, sometimes, even the existence of the project. In order to be endorsed by the Campus, such projects must clearly not involve any aspect that is detrimental to the Campus' ability to meet its mission as a public university and as a State of Colorado institution. Also, it must be clear that academic freedom, the right to publish, and students' theses are not adversely affected.

Exceptions:

Personnel in the Office of Contracts and Grants ( OCG ) shall note any terms of a proposed contract or grant award that may be in conflict with the APS. OCG personnel will make all reasonable efforts to negotiate appropriate changes to the award. If such negotiations are not successful, and loss of the award is deemed to be at risk, OCG personnel shall determine, in consultation with others (e.g. the Principal Investigator, unit head, dean, Director of OCG, legal counsel, Risk Management, Vice Chancellor for Research, etc.) whether the restrictions in the objectionable language and the circumstances or nature of the proposed project work are in accordance with the APS. If it is determined that the proposed contract or grant award is in conflict with the APS, but it is deemed desirable to seek the contract or grant award, OCG will assist the Principal Investigator in a petition for approval to carry out the project.

2. Requests for campus approval of this petition and for forwarding the petition to the President for approval must be in the format required by APS, and include all information requested by that Policy.

3. The Vice Chancellor for Research or designee shall review this petition and forward it with indications of approval to the Chancellor, via the Provost. If the Vice Chancellor for Research finds questions requiring a legal opinion, this shall be sought and obtained before transmittal.

4. If the Provost and the Chancellor concur, the petition for approval to carry out classified research shall be forwarded to the Office of the President via the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research. “

(Note that the above language comes from the University of Colorado-Boulder’s policy. Chuck Epp’s survey cites the Colorado regents’ policy. The Boulder language is much more detailed in how the policy is to be implemented.)

SUNY-Stony Brook

Exceptions are granted by the Board of Trustees.

3. Prohibition on classified research, but with exceptions if authorized by faculty governance

University of Washington-Seattle

Requests for exceptions are reviewed by the Faculty Council on Research and a recommendation for approval or disapproval is made to the Vice Provost for Research. The Faculty Council members and chairs are nominated by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and approved by the Faculty Senate. See Chuck Epp’s report for a the complete policy, including the criteria for making exceptions.

University of Minnesota

Exception requests are evaluated by the Director of Sponsored Projects Administration and the General Counsel and then submitted to the Faculty Senate Open Research Subcommittee. The subcommittee submits its recommendation to the full Faculty Senate Research Committee, which in turn makes its recommendation to the Vice President for Research, who renders the final decision: “The University shall not accept support for any research under a contract or grant, if the contract or grant limits the full and prompt public dissemination of results or specifically permits the retroactive classification of results as nonpublic, except for reasons found compelling through a review process specified in administrative procedures.”

See Appendix B for the draft administrative procedures and the request for exception form.

University of Southern California

Allows classified research off campus. Otherwise, “exceptions must be reviewed and approved by a standing committee of faculty from a broad range of disciplines appointed by the Provost.”

University of Texas – Austin

Approval for exceptions is evidently given by the president based on the recommendations of an advisory committee on classified research: “Where necessary, and with specific justification, restrictions on publication may be permitted in the interest of national security or proprietary concerns of the sponsor. The University will accept only those agreements under which there is a reasonable expectation that the investigation will yield significant new literature at an early date. Classified research projects must be reviewed periodically by the [Advisory] Committee on Classified Research.”

“The Advisory Committee on Classified Research shall have the responsibility (1) to conduct a continuing review of the University policies on classified research in the light of the public interest and to seek revision of these policies when appropriate, and (2) to review periodically the ongoing classified research program for conformance with the established policies and to report its findings annually to the President.“

The Advisory Committee on Classified Research is appointed by the Vice President for Research. It has evidently not convened since the 2000-01 academic year.

North Carolina State

Exceptions are approved by the chancellor upon recommendation by the administrative council (deans and other senior administrators):

“7.1 The University does not, under normal circumstances, encourage acceptance of any research project which is secret or classified and/or in which its rights to publish the results of the investigations are withheld. Exceptions to this principle must be approved by the Chancellor after consultation with the Administrative Council.

7.2 The University will not knowingly undertake research on weapons development, or directly on problems of chemical and biological warfare, except in times of declared national emergency and upon request of governmental authority. The University will not attempt to determine whether or not a study, the results of which may have broader applications in the civilian economy, may conceivably also be used in some way for military purposes. The University will continue to accept support for research contracts and grants through the Department of Defense as well as through other defense-related government agencies as long as they meet the general University criteria for research.”

(Note: This institution’s policy should probably be considered a Type 2 in Chuck Epp’s classifications rather than a Type 3.)

University of Virginia

Applications to conduct classified research are submitted by the researcher to the appropriate dean, who in turn submits it along with a recommendation to the Vice Provost for Research, who then submits it to the Classified Research Committee, a standing committee of the Faculty Senate: “Classified research must be approved by the Committee on Classified Research and the Provost. The faculty member must submit a written description and justification of the project, its academic merit, and the restrictions on the dissemination of its results. Each proposal will be considered on its own merits but the University will not approve contracts if the identity of the sponsor and the general nature of the research cannot be revealed to the public.”

The complete policy is included as Attachment C.

4. Permission for classified research on campus, with exceptions

University of Arizona

Exceptions may be approved by the Vice President for Research after consultation with the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee:

“2.13.05 Secret (Classified) Research
Recognizing that the values of openness in research and of academic freedom sometimes conflict, the Faculty Senate has established the following policy on secret or classified research.

All accepted projects will conform to Arizona and federal statutes.
No secret thesis or dissertation shall be accepted as the basis for any degree, and no academic credit shall be awarded for secret research.
No secret research or materials shall be considered in connection with appointments, reappointments, tenure, promotions, or merit pay raises.
Information will be made publicly available about all research awards, including the amount of funding, the time period, the title, the nature of the project, and the sponsor.
In rare instances, the goals and objectives of the University may best be served by waiving parts of this policy. In such instances, and with due consideration to the fact that they must be exceptional, parts of provision 4 may be waived by the Vice President for Research, after consultation with the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee.

For purposes of this policy, secret material is defined as any material (a) which is restricted from public access, or (b) which cannot be submitted for publication in the open literature.”

Georgia Tech

A classified/restricted research policy does not seem to be posted anywhere evident, but clearly Georgia Tech does much classified and restricted research. An associate director in research administration related the following: Most of the classified/restricted research is run through the Georgia Tech Research Institute, but some is conducted on campus. There is evidently little centralized control over the on-campus classified work so long as the researchers have appropriate government clearance and facilities secure enough to satisfy the federal sponsors. ITAR/EAR issues, etc., are worked out with their research administration office and management plans established as necessary.

Purdue

An exceptions policy/process is evidently not needed since Purdue permits classified/restricted research so long as applicable laws and agency requirements are followed:

“Purdue University does not restrict or limit the topic of inquiry of scope of research or scholarship by University faculty as long as that research conforms with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the University, State of Indiana, and United States of America; is consistent with all contractual obligations to the project's sponsor; and satisfies the highest ethical standards for designing, proposing, conducting, and reporting of research and scholarship.”

Emory

Decisions whether to accept “controversial funding” offers are made by the appropriate dean or director. The policy describes the following factors as potentially controversial or inappropriate:

“1. Any consideration of academic freedom;

2. The connection between the purpose of the funding and the nature of the source;

3. The balance between any potential societal benefit of the purpose of the funding and any societal harm which

4. The benefit to the University community of the purpose of the funding versus the effect of receipt on the reputation of the University, the School or the faculty;

5. The appearance of an organization's promoting a commercial purpose on the Emory campus;

6. The effect on future fundraising or recruitment;

7. Whether criminal conduct or fraud has been committed by the sponsor;

8. Accepted national and community practices with respect to applying for and accepting funding from the source for the same or similar purposes; and

9. Any issues of safety, order and discipline within the University community. “

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Policy/practices do not appear to be posted. A sponsored programs administrator indicated that they accept a limited amount of classified projects on campus with the decisions made on ad hoc basis by the Vice Chancellor for Research.

University of Missouri – Columbia

Policy/practices do not appear to be posted. An Associate Vice Provost, Office of Research, knew of no applicable written policy. He indicated that decisions are made to allow classified projects on an ad hoc basis by the Vice Provost for Research as the projects make their way through their sponsored projects office.

Reviewing Requests for Exemptions to the Policy on Openness in Research

1. Review relevant document (e.g., Request for Proposal or Request for Application, draft research agreement, draft Material Transfer Agreement).

Upon receipt of these documents, grant administrators in Sponsored Projects Administration review the document for clauses that:

A. Restrain the University from disclosing:

(1) the existence of the contract or grant;

(2) the identity of the sponsor or the grantor and, if a subcontract is involved, the identity of the prime contractor if the results of the research must be reported to the sponsor, grantor, or prime contractor; and

(3) the purpose and the scope of the proposed research in sufficient detail:

(i) to permit informal discussion concerning the wisdom of such research within the University; and (ii) to inform colleagues in immediate and related disciplines of the nature and importance of the potential contribution to the disciplines involved.

B. Limit the ability to disseminate fully and promptly the results of the research or specifically permit retroactive classification (other than standard clauses found in federal contract templates that are not germane to the research).

C. Restrict who can participate in the research project.

2. Determine whether research is “proprietary” or “restricted.”

If grant administrators find restrictive clauses, they will determine whether the clauses fit into the “proprietary” or “restricted” categories:

Proprietary research: Industrially-sponsored research that uses the sponsor’s proprietary information or results in intellectual property for which the sponsor has an option to an exclusive license. These sponsors often request restrictions on who can discuss the research and under what circumstances. They also may prohibit publication of confidential company information or ask the researcher to delay publication of research results so that they can review the material for proprietary information or take steps to secure intellectual property rights to possible inventions.

The University accepts “proprietary” research agreements that do not restrict who can work on the project and do not request unreasonable publication delays. Agreements containing other restrictions fall under the definition of “restricted” research.

Restricted research: Research that is restricted in who can work on the project or how and when the researchers can discuss the results of the project. This type of research includes projects that are labeled as “sensitive but unclassified” by the sponsor.

Principal investigators seeking to conduct restricted research must request an exemption from the Openness in Research policy.

3. If the research falls within the definition of restricted research, the grant administrator alerts the principal investigator.

Grant administrators are responsible for informing the principal investigator about the open research policy and procedures for requesting an exemption if it becomes necessary.

4. Negotiate to remove or amend restrictive clauses.

Grant administrators, working with the Office of the General Counsel, will attempt to negotiate an agreement that is satisfactory to the potential sponsor and principal investigator, and in compliance with the University’s policies and the principles of academic freedom.

5. Refuse the contract or request an exemption

If the sponsor does not agree to remove the restrictions, the principal investigator, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel and Sponsored Projects Administration, may choose to refuse the contract or may request an exemption from the Openness in Research Policy. To request an exemption, complete the steps below.

6. Initiate exemption Request.

The principal investigator must initiate the Exemption Request (Appendix A). This report facilitates the flow of information among the groups that will discuss and approve or disapprove the exemption request.

7. Complete the Request.

Within three business days for receiving the request, the Director of Sponsored Projects Administration and the Office of the General Counsel will complete their sections of the request.

8. Forward exemption request to the Senate Open Research Subcommittee.

The Director of Sponsored Projects Administration submits the exemption request to the Chair of the Senate Research Committee. The Chair then forwards the request to the Open Research Subcommittee and convenes a meeting to evaluate it.

9. Consider exemption request and forward recommendation to full Senate Research Committee and other Senate committees as appropriate.

The subcommittee considers the request using the guidance outlined in Appendix B. At the discretion of the Chair, the PI may be asked to participate in these discussions. The subcommittee will then recommend whether to accept or reject the request.

The Chair of the Subcommittee completes the appropriate sections on the request report and forwards the recommendation to the full Senate Research Committee. The Chair may also send the report to other Senate committees as appropriate. Representatives from these committees can join the full Senate Research Committee meetings to discuss the request.

If requested, review by the two committees will be completed within ten business days of the date the exemption request is received by the Chair. This timeframe is flexible if scheduling is difficult because of a need to accommodate the principal investigator.

10. Consider exemption request and forward recommendation to Vice President for Research.

The Senate Research Committee will then recommend acceptance or rejection to the Vice President for Research. The Chair of the Committee facilitates by completing the appropriate section of the report and sending copies to the principal investigator and Vice President for Research.

The principal investigator may send a separate statement to the Vice President for Research to support or rebut the Committee’s recommendation.

11. Make a decision to grant or deny the exemption request.

The Vice President for Research makes the final decision to grant or deny the exemption request.

The Vice President for Research sends the final decision to the principal investigator, Chair of the Senate Research Committee, Office of the General Counsel, and Sponsored Projects Administration.

12. Reporting

The Vice President for Research tracks requests for exemptions and provides an annual report to the Chair of the Senate Research Committee. On an annual basis, the Chair provides an executive summary of exemption request decisions to the full Faculty Senate.

REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION TO OPENNESS

IN RESEARCH POLICY

PI and Co-I Names:
Phone number where the PI can be reached:		EGMS Proposal No.
Project Title:		Project period:
Sponsor:		Proposed award amount:
Location where research will be conducted:
Will compliance committees need to approve the project (if so, which ones)?



To be completed by the principal investigator:

Date submitted:
1)	Please provide a summary of the proposed research in non-technical terms and suitable for public discussion:


2)	Please provide a summary of the significance of the proposed research, i.e., how it will contribute significant new knowledge to science, benefit the state or national public good, provide educational opportunities that could not be found elsewhere, or significantly advance your program of research.


3)	Please provide a summary of any history you have of work with this sponsor:


4)	Will any special security arrangements be needed? yes no
	If yes, describe them, how long they will be needed, the cost, and who will pay for them:


5)	How will this project affect the educational progress of students working in your group?


6)	How will this project affect the career progress of faculty, staff, or post-docs working in your group? How will they be accommodated?


7)	To what extent will faculty, staff, post-docs, and students involved in the project be able to publish and discuss the progress and results of their work with individuals not involved in the project?
	No restrictions Some restrictions
	If there will be restrictions, describe them and how the career or educational needs of the individuals can be met:


8)	Are there any other reasons why this exemption should be granted?



To be completed by the attorney in the Office of General Counsel:

Date completed:
1)	Does this agreement raise any issues that need to be considered in making a decision?



To be completed by the Director of Sponsored Projects Administration:

Date completed:
1)	Please provide a short narrative of the negotiation process:


2)	Please describe the problematic contractual restrictions that led to this request:


3)	Is this a restriction that is becoming more commonplace as a result of the funding environment? How are other institutions responding to these types of requests?


4)	Does the sponsor request this restriction on all agreements, regardless of need or is the sponsor asking for this restriction because of the nature of this particular project? Is the sponsor or prime contractor a government agency?



To be completed by the Chair of the Senate Open Research Subcommittee:

Date completed:

The subcommittee recommends that this exemption request be:
	Granted
	Granted with conditions (see “notes” below)
	Denied

Votes: Number for an exemption: Number against: Abstain:
Notes:


To be completed by the Chair of the Senate Research Committee:

Date completed:

The committee recommends that this exemption request be:
	Granted
	Granted with conditions (see “notes” below)
	Denied

Votes: Number for an exemption: Number against: Abstain:
Notes:


To be completed by the Vice President for Research:

Date completed:

The Vice President recommends that this exemption request be:
	Granted
	Granted with conditions (see “notes” below)
	Denied


Notes:

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator & employer.

ã 2006 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.

Guidelines for Reviewing Requests to Accept Restricted Research Agreements

The “to consider” section is for the Open Research Subcommittee to use when considering requests.

Specific issues for the section to be completed by the principal investigator:

Question #2: Please provide a summary of the intellectual significance of the proposed research.

To consider: Is the significance of the project enough to outweigh the principle of academic freedom? Does the project help the University achieve its strategic goals?

Question #3: Please provide a summary of any history you have of work with this sponsor.

To consider: A researcher who has worked with the sponsor before may be better able to

predict how the proposed restriction will be handled.

Question #4: Will any special security arrangements be needed?

To consider: There might be financial impacts to the University, including the renovation of buildings before and after the project. If the space will not be accessible to other faculty and students, will different space need to be renovated to accommodate them? Will an additional server be needed to secure data?

Question #5: How will this project affect the educational progress of students working in your group?

To consider: Are students depending on the publication in order to complete their degree?

Has the student been informed of the potential restriction and if so, what does the student

think? Can they use the data for their thesis? Is there access for other students working with the equipment or data? Would lab meetings be open to all group members or would some information be classified?

Question #6: How will this project affect the career progress of faculty, staff, or post-docs working in your group? How will they be accommodated?

To consider: Are any faculty or staff working on the project depending on the publication for their evaluation? Are there restrictions on equipment once the project is over?

Question #7: To what extent will faculty, staff, post-docs and students involved in the project be able to publish and discuss the progress and results of their work with

individuals not involved in the project?

To consider: What is the scope of proposed sponsor review? Is it drawn as narrowly as

possible? What is the likelihood any review will lead to restrictions in dissemination and for how long? Can the researcher still work with the data while the analysis of the data is being reviewed?

Specific issues for the section to be completed by the Director of Sponsored Projects

Administration:

Question #4: Does the sponsor request this restriction on all agreements, regardless of need or is the sponsor asking for this restriction because of the nature of this particular project? Is the sponsor or prime contractor a government agency?

To consider: If the restriction relates to who can work on the project, the restriction may have no practical effect on the project because no individuals fitting the restricted criteria will be employed on the project. If it will have an effect on the project, the University could seek a permit to allow an individual to work on the project. However it may take several months to get the permit. How will this delay affect the individual’s academic progress and general progress for the project? Can another individual do the work?

Policy: XV.E.3	Issued: July 22, 1994
Owner: Vice Provost for Research	Latest Revision: