University of Michigan

Office of the Vice President for Research

Research Policies Committee

Friday, January 16, 2004

4006 Fleming Building

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Lajos Balogh, Katarina Borer (chair), Steve Ceccio, Mary Haan, Rex Holland, Chris Jensen, Pinaki Mazumder, Marvin Parnes, Jane Ritter (staff), Susan Shore, Fawwaz Ulaby

MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Bookstein, J. Hunter Waite, Roscoe Warner, Jillian Yant, John Younger, and Jens Zorn

GUEST:  James Woolliscroft, Executive Associate Dean, Medical School

Agenda :

1.                  Approval of minutes from December 12, 2003

a.      Moved to accept by Rex Holland, seconded by Mary Haan.

2.                  Update on research at UM – Fawwaz Ulaby

a.      Presentation by VP Ulaby on status of research at UM.

3.                  Presentation on Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment -     James Woolliscroft.

a.                  Followed by question and answer session.

2. Update on research at UM – Fawwaz Ulaby

Vice President Ulaby summarized information about the growth of research expenditures at the UM and the ways that OVPR facilitates new research. Total research expenditures were 749 million dollars in 2003, a two-fold increase since 1993. The 94 million dollar increase in research expenditures during the last year exceeds the total research expenditures of most Michigan institutions, and has created  701 UM and 1053 non-UM jobs. Of the research expenditures in 2003,  70.4 %  was supported by federal agencies.

            The OVPR facilitates new research by supporting faculty-driven and industry-driven initiatives, identifying and supporting emerging critical research frontiers, helping translation of research to formation of public policy, and in general planning for the future. Some examples of recent initiatives that were facilitated by OVPR included Spatial Analysis/GIS Initiative, nanoscience and nanotechnology research, and hydrogen fuel research. Science, technology & Public Policy Program serves to connect research with policy. And National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) is an example of OVPR planning for future.

Presentation on Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment -      James Woolliscroft

Dr. James Wooliscroft, Executive Associate Dean for the Medical School, presented the proposal of a Policy management of Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment (COI/COM) that was drafted by a committee of eleven members (5 deans, a chairperson, Assistant General Counsel, Associate Provost for IT, two members of OVPR, and an Engineering Professor). The committee reviewed COI/COM policies in peer institutions and found them heterogeneous. They started with the mission statement of the UM :

(“..to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future”),

and developed definitions of COI (whenever involvement in professional or commercial activities outside of UM has the potential to compromise a faculty or staff member’s objectivity; bias the nature and direction of scholarly research; or influence faculty or staff member’s decision or behavior with respect to teaching and student affairs, appointments and promotions, or other matters of interest to UM. Typically, COIs arise when faculty/staff enter into relationships that lead or have the potential to result in personal or family member’s financial gain )

and COC (when a faculty/staff member’s external activities (potentially) interfere or compete with the UM’s educational, research, or service missions, or with that individual’s ability or willingness to participate fully as a member of UM community. Attempts of faculty/staff to balance UM responsibilities with external activities-such as consulting, public service or pro bono work-can result in conflicts regarding allocation of time and energy. Typically, COC arises when faculty/staff enter into relationships that involve significant commitments of time and/or personal effort).

They next formulated six principles for the management of COI/COC:

Principle 1: Actual or potential COIs by faculty/staff must be disclosed and, if significant, managed.

Principle 2: The primary commitments of time and intellectual energies of faculty/staff (with 50% or more appointment) should support and enhance the mission of UM

Principle 3: Faculty/staff may not use UM resources for any purposes unrelated to the education, research, scholarship, and public service missions of the UM (unless authorized )

Principle 4: Faculty/staff may not use their official position or influence to further personal gain or that of family members or personal associates at the expense of UM.

Principle 5: Faculty/staff may not enter into agreements that limit publication, dissemination, or access to information unless approved by UM.

Principle 6: Implementation of COI and COC policies and practices is a shared obligation among the faculty/staff, department chairs/deans and central administration.

Finally, they formulated a COI/COC policy:

UM employees are to act with honesty, integrity, and in the best interest of UM when performing their professional duties. When potential COIs or COMs exist, they must be disclosed and managed in accordance with UM and unit-specific policies and procedures. Conflicts that can not be managed satisfactorily with appropriate administrative oversight are prohibited. Schools/colleges/units are responsible for specifying the expectations and responsibilities associated with professional appointments and job classifications and for articulating disclosure and management procedures that reflect UM policy and unit-specific needs. Faculty/staff are responsible for knowing and following those procedures.

Discussion of the COI/COC policy draft

Members of RPC raised some questions and outlined some issues that would merit further discussion:

·        Why was the policy developed? (Haan). Ulaby: During the past five to seven years faculty have been involved in projects with financial interests, which also takes of their time.  This is not just happening here, but all over the country.  We had a CIC meeting in Chicago to see how all the schools do this.  We came from that meeting to develop our own. 

·        Where does one draw a line between a business enterprise and educational mission for some centers on UM campus? (Borer)

·        Can one have a summer business when a faculty member is on a 7-month appointment do not have official responsibilities? Ulaby: It is necessary to disclose this to the chair/dean.

·        Some faculty do not share results if the data may have commercial potential or may steer students in the direction of commercialization. It could be good for the student, but conflict for the university (Wooliscroft).

·        How can COI and COC be enforced in situations when deans may recruit star faculty with commercial ventures? (Ceccio). Ulaby: In the absence of the policy, we are all over the place.  At least with a policy, the dean will have to think twice before allowing a “star” faculty to operate this business venture.  Woolliscroft: It will be the responsibility of the Dean. Is there another level of review, past the deans ? (Haan). Could UM institute an office on Inspector general?(Ceccio).

·        How can one define COC with respect to faculty role? Ulaby: If you are a faculty and if you are doing something that reduces your time and energy , this is a COC.  If you are primarily a faculty at the university, we invest in the academic process.  You can go work for a company so long as it is not in conflict with UM interests. Each school and college is going to translate the principles to their situation. 

·        What is the time frame for RPC examination of the COI/COC policy? (Borer). Woolliscroft: We will take your information after the next meeting.  Ulaby: It will need to be approved by the regents, hopefully by June.

RPC expressed interest to first  discuss the possible mechanism of COI/COC enforcement at the next RPC meeting .

Next meeting:  February 13, 2004, 10:00 – 12:00 a.m., 4006 Fleming Building

Handouts:       Agenda (Borer)

Draft minutes from 12/12/03 (Borer)
Memo from Chair Borer (Borer)

COI/COC PowerPoint handout (Woolliscroft)

Ulaby PowerPoint presentation (Ulaby):  Will be distributed via e-mail.

Minutes: K. Borer with the help of J. Ritter and C. Jensen.