KU: University Governance

FINAL REPORT OF THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE FOR FY-08

Committee Members (2007-2008)
Chair: Douglas Huffman, Curriculum & Teaching (2008)
Hume Feldman, Physics (2008)
Omofolabo Ajayi, Theatre (2008)
Frank Brown, EECS – reappoint (2008)
Bob Harrington, PRE (2008)
Steven Maynard-Moody, Political Science (2009)
Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Aerospace Eng. (2009)
Jonathan Clark, History (2009)
Jennifer Church-Duran, Libraries (2009)
Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Math (2009)
Mohamed El-Hodiri, Economics, (2010)
Raj Srivastava, Business, (2010)
Steve Warren, Interim Vice Provost for Research & Graduate Studies
Ex-officio: Joshua Rosenbloom, Associate Vice Provost, KUCR
Bill Sharp, Director, Research Integrity, KUCR

STANDING CHARGES

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

a. Ensure that a list of the GRF recipients for the previous spring is posted to the Research Website (https://webapp.research.ku.edu/GRF/). 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.

b. 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, and 5) clarify the amount and percentage of total GRF funds that are distributed as faculty awards.

c. Identify issues with general GRF policies, forward suggested modification of policies to FacEx, and seek Faculty Senate endorsement for proposed changes to these policies.

d. Identify issues with the GRF policies of specific entities and units and communicate the need for changes in the policies to those units.

Report to FacEx concerning actions taken in respect of this charge by April 1, 2008.

ISSUES AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED:

a. The committee recommends that all GRF recipients update information on the website this coming fall (2008) in preparation for the upcoming comprehensive year-three review of the GRF. Rather than contact and request an update this spring and then again in the fall, the research committee believes it would be more efficient to have units update only once. Next fall the research committee should make this update request of all units, and all units should be alerted to update accomplishments on the website in preparation for the third-year review of the GRF that will occur in the spring of 2009.

b., c. d. A subcommittee of the research committee was chaired by Prof. Bob Harrington. The sub-committee reviewed policies related to the GRF. No modifications of policies were recommended at this time.

2. Monitor the implementation of the University’s policy on Restricted Research (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article IX), including policies and procedures for handling requests for exceptions.

a. Serve as the body to hear faculty appeals of research rejected by the restricted research committee or by the Vice Provost for Research, as specified in the Restricted Research Policy.

b. Maintain 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. Include in the final report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee a listing of each restrictive grant or contract considered during the year, to include (1) the title of the project; (2) the name of principal investigator or project director; (3) the source or sources of funds for support; (4) approval or disapproval by the Restricted Research Committee; and (5) a brief statement of the reasons for the approval or disapproval.

ISSUES AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED:

In the past year there were six applications for exemption from the restricted research policies. All six applications were approved by the restricted research committee. Below is a complete listing of each application, the project director, the source of funds, and the basis for approval. There are no recommendations at this time regarding restricted research policies.

Date: 3/10/2008
Title of project: Structure and Dispersion Determination of Supported Transition Metals by X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy
Project Director: Javier Guzman
Source or sources of funds for support of project: Chevron Phillips
ChemicalBasis for approval: Has very substantial scholarly or educational benefits.

Date: 2/29/2008
Title of Project:GC44 Bacterial Controls and Metal Ion Mobility: Mineralisation to Surface Anomaly Formation
Project Director: David Fowle
Source of funds: Anglo American PLC
Basis for approval: Constitutes a very substantial public service

Date: 2/21/08
Title of Project: Corrosion Performance of Nickel-Coated Reinforcing BarsProject
Director: David Darwin
Source of funds: Nucor Corporation
Basis for approval: Constitutes a very substantial public service

Date: 12/10/2007Title of project: Geotechnical solutions for soil improvement, rapid embankment construction, and stabilization of the pavement working platform
Project Director: Jie Han
Source or sources of funds for support of project: Subcontract from Iowa State University; NAS-NRC
Basis for approval: Constitutes a very substantial public service.

Date: 9/11/2007
Title of Project: The ASHRAE Duct Design Manual
Project Director: Brian A. Rock
Source of funds: The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)
Basis for approval: Constitutes a very substantial public service

Date: 8/8/2007Title of Project: Acquisition of Continuous Core and Geophysical Logs to Evaluate Coalbed Methane, Cass County, Missouri
Project Director: K. D. Newell
Source of funds: Petron Resources (Frisco, TX)
Basis for approval: Constitutes a very substantial public service

3. Monitor the implementation of policies and procedures for determining which proposals will go forward in cases where the number of grant applications that may be submitted from the University is limited. Identify problems or concerns, and report issues and recommendations to FacEx (ongoing).

ISSUES AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED:Dr. Joshua Rosenbloom serves as an ex-offico member of the research committee. Below is Dr. Rosenbloom’s report on the status of limited submission proposals. Overall, KUCR has improved the process by providing more transparency and by providing more written and verbal feedback to investigators.

Limited Submissions 2007 Summary

81 total announcements.

Of these, 3 announcements were later suspended. All were NIH initiatives. 1 was amended by NIH so that it was no longer limited. The other 2 were determined to be more appropriate for KUMC to submit.

Internal deadline is set for early 2008 for 5 announcements.

We received no interest for 41 announcements.

We received interest, but not over the required number of proposers for 28 announcements. Of these, 7 did not go forward with a proposal submission to the agency.

5 announcements required a committee to select a proposer:

(1.) NSF IGERT – 4 preliminary proposals allowed. 6 sent to committee (M.Crawford, Munson, Nagel, Richter, Subramaniam, Vakser). Munson, Nagel, Richter and Subramaniam sent prelims. Nagel and Subramaniam selected to submit full proposals in October.

(2.) Beckman Young Investigators Program. Allowed to submit 2 per institution. 6 sent to committee (Im,Zhang, Weis, M.Johnson, Jackson, Forrest). Forrest and Johnson selected. Forrest informed us that he would participate with KUMC proposal, so Zhang selected in his place. Submitted proposals in September.

(3.) NIH Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). 1 per institution. Fawcett and Hall submitted to committee, but Hall withdrew, so Fawcett was selected to go forward with August submission.

(4.) Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical Sciences. 1 per institution, KU-L and KUMC as 1 institution. 5 sent to committee (Zhang, Im, Kieweg from KU-L, Choi and Zhang from KUMC). Zhang (KU-L) selected to submit for November deadline.

(5.) NSF MRI. 2 acquisition and 1 development proposal per institution. 4 acquisition (Bowman-James, Brown, Clark, Subramaniam) and 1 development (Gogineni) to committee. Brown, Clark and Gogineni selected to submit proposals in January 2008. 4. Work with ACTC and the Task Force on Research Computing to consider needs for and issues with research computing and telecommunications, to include recommendations for sustainable policies and procedures. Report recommendations to FacEx by April 1, 200.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Dr. Hume Fledman serves on both the Research Committee and the Task Force on Research Computing. The research committee invited Associate Vice Provosts Donna Liss and Denise Stephens to a meeting of the research committee to report on the status of ACTC and Research Computing improvements. See minutes from meeting on Feb 13^th, 2008. The Associate Vice Provost supports the recommendations of the task Force on Research Computing and they are in the process of attempting to implement suggested improvements and search for a new director of Research and IT.

SPECIFIC CHARGES

1. In relation to standing charge 1c, above, review the current policies for allocation of GRF funds among units and how units allocate funds among applicants. Consider specifically whether these policies unfairly disadvantage particular kinds of scholarship or particular units and whether particular unit allocation mechanisms are consistent with the university policies for allocating GRF funds. Report recommendations to FacEx by January 25, 2008.

RECOMMENDATIONS The GRF sub-committee led by Prof. Bob Harrington reviewed GRF polices. At this time there are no recommended changes in the GRF policies.

2. Continue to investigate mechanisms by which the total pool of money for the GRF and the percentage distributed to faculty can be increased in order to encourage even more research and scholarship. The total pool of money available for the GRF has not increased in the last six years. Report recommendations to FacEx by January 25, 2008.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Members of the research committee met with Provost Lariviere to discuss mechanisms for increasing the total pool of money in the GRF. We prepared a report outlining the accomplishments of all awards funded in the past three years. The provost indicated he would like more information regarding the impact of GRF funding. We would recommend that the results of the upcoming GRF three-year review be shared with the Provost next year and that at that time the Research Committee make a formal request for increasing the GRF total pool of money.

3. Continue consulting with KUCR on the modification and adaptation of the online database for reporting (and compiling) the outcomes of GRF awards, to include assessing the effectiveness of the percentage reporting. Report issues and recommendations to FacEx by April 1, 2008.

ISSUES AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED:

In preparation for the comprehensive three-year review of the GRF to be conducted in 2008-2009 we would recommend that the percentage time reporting be deleted from the GRF website because it was not clear to investigators. Modifications of the GRF website should be made in the fall of 2008 in preparation for the upcoming three-year review of the GRF.

4. Consult with the Task Force on Scientific/Scholarly Misconduct in its evaluation and revision of the university’s policy on scientific/scholarly misconduct. Nominate a member to serve as representative of the committee on the task force. Report any issues or concerns to FacEx (ongoing).

ISSUES AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED:Prof. Jonathan Clark served as the liaison between the Research Committee and the Task Force on Scientific/Scholarly Misconduct. The task force has brought forth recommendations to be considered by FacEx and the Faculty Senate.