Research Policies Committee Notes
February 13, 1998
10:00-12:00 noon
4006 Fleming

RPC members present: Richard Altschuler, Edith Gomberg, Jim House (chair), David Musch, Anil Subramani
OVPR staff present: Julie Ellison, Lee Katterman, Tim Killeen, Fred Neidhardt, Judy Nowack, Marvin Parnes, Jackie Hoats (staff)
Guests from DRDA: Jill Fogg, Lynn Hill, Sharon Sivyer, Tom Zdeba

Updates from OVPR:
Fred Neidhardt told of recent and upcoming events, including the successful UM/ORI conference earlier this week. Charles Karelis, Director of FIPSE, Department of Education, will give a lecture on February 17 entitled, "How Research on Innovative Projects can Stimulate Educational Change." Former poet laureate Robert Hass will also be on campus next week and will give a talk on "Democracy and Literacy" on February 19. And on March 11 Sherwin Newlyn will speak on physician-assisted suicide through the ages. The Research Responsibility Program is hosting a special session on February 26. It will be delivered by Peter Lurie, Institute of Social Research. The topic will be Protections for Human Subjects in Developing Countries.

Regarding the recent numerical Report to the Regents, Fred Neidhardt said OVPR is thinking of changes to the manner of presentation next year. The goal would be to portray more clearly how inter-unit collaboration contributes to research at UM.

Neidhardt said he met recently with individuals in DC who said we are entering the golden age of support for science. He said though there have been no appropriations yet, the 6-7% increases coming in the next year are more than we would have hoped for 18-24 months ago.

Updates from the Chair - Discovery Process Outcomes:
Jim House said faculty and administrators have received a letter from Lee Bollinger, and RPC has received copies of the letter from Fred Neidhardt and Nancy Cantor describing changes. Also, in this week's Record there is a full report. Jim House said the February 6 meeting of RPC members with Nancy Cantor went well. She said she appreciated the help from RPC during the discovery process. She stressed that the key goal is improved coordination around research planning between OVPR, the provost's office, and deans' offices. She stated how important she believes it is that the executive officer status of the vice president for research be maintained. House said RPC's concern is whether support for OVPR activities will continue, and Cantor said yes, as much as possible.

Jim House said Cantor expressed her appreciation of Fred Neidhardt's agreement to stay on until the new vice president for research is selected. A search committee will be established and will conduct a national search. RPC members discussed which discipline the new VPR might come from. It was mentioned that there would be an advantage to having someone in the natural sciences, yet the most important factor is the ability to perform in leadership roles and functions. RPC members agreed the vice president for research should be able to have an impact at the national and international levels. The newly proposed executive director position would make this more possible and allow the vice president to focus on broader strategic planning. It was noted that Homer Neal transformed the position to that of a strategic spokesperson.

May RPC Meeting
The May RPC meeting will need to be rescheduled. May 22 is a strong possibility.

Regental Research Policy
Guests (DRDA industrial sponsor negotiation group): Jill Fogg, Lynn Hill, Sharon Sivyer, Tom Zdeba Judy Nowack stated that the review of the implementation of the Regental Research Policy is the sole mandated task for RPC. RPC members looked at tables showing the number of requests to the vice president and acceptances of contractual restrictions on research from June 30, 1996 through June 30, 1997. Nowack explained that the history of this policy goes back to 1968 when there were many concerns about classified research. In 1968 the first UM classified research policy was drafted. It stated that no classified contract would be accepted if its existence, scope, and purpose could not be made public. Each contract had an additional review with regard to whether its purpose was to "kill and maim" humans. In the 1980s President Shapiro established a presidential commission which formulated the current policy in 1987 and based it on the core value of openness, rather than the kill and maim clause. It was built into the role of RPC to review the implementation of the policy annually, after which a report on the policy's implementation goes to the Regents.

Nowack said over the years RPC has been quite satisfied with the policy implementation. The emphasis of RPC over the years has been upon assuring adequate justification for the acceptance of restrictions, especially where students may be concerned. Nowack said many times the first versions of contracts contain questionable clauses and the industrial sponsorship negotiation group works to make them acceptable. Compared to overall annual proposal and award activity, requests to the vice president for classified and non-standard restrictions are very few. The most frequently requested restriction is "no publication without approval of sponsor." Tom Zdeba said usually publication restrictions and confidentiality clauses can be successfully negotiated out of a contract. Educating sponsors is a big part of the job. When it is evident that the sponsor is reluctant to change, the contract negotiator lets the project director know of the stumbling block. Sometimes the project director can help in facilitating a reconsideration on the part of a sponsor.

If the above avenues fail, then OVPR may be included in the process in order to find out if there might be acceptable justifications for the restriction. This is the PAF-R mechanism. The faculty member must fill out the PAF-R form and make a case for why the restriction is justified. DRDA supplements this with a memo to OVPR where the case is reviewed. Sometimes at this point negotiators go back to the sponsor again to see if they will relent. Zdeba said if the PAF-R process is initiated the negotiators make sure the sponsor knows that this does not create precedent for future contracts. Nowack said in the review of such cases there is always a weighing and balancing of concerns. The absolute which is never given up in any case is our right to release information about the existence, scope, and purpose of a contract.

Marvin Parnes said the DRDA staff spends a lot of time negotiating. The standard UM contract is seldom accepted without some negotiation. He stressed that each company is different from every other, in addition to being a completely different culture from a university. The DRDA negotiators are helping to educate each company they work with. Tom Zdeba said most companies are primarily geared toward making contracts with other commercial ventures, and they are not accustomed to the concerns of a university. Judy Nowack stated that we are one of the few institutions that have a clear policy and procedure that allows for flexibility.

It was noted that the numbers in the tables reflect only those contracts which reach the PAF-R stage, a small portion of the total contracts that involve negotiation. One third of all sponsored research is from industry, and 98% of all industry-sponsored contracts require negotiation. Jill Fogg said the remaining 2% have simply been previously negotiated into a standard format. It was recommended to change the word "requests" in the title of Table 8 to "cases reviewed by OVPR."

Jim House pointed out that some restrictions may be acceptable to faculty members and yet still would pose a problem to a student launching a career. DRDA negotiators and OVPR are especially alert to clauses that may put students at risk. Each PAF-R case is presented to the vice president for research from square one by Judy Nowack and the DRDA representative, and occasionally the investigator as well. There are also instances where a clause, such as a publication delay of a certain period of time, is just boilerplate from a sponsor with a proven track record of openness. The group briefly discussed the circumstances of the one non-standard restriction that was not approved.

Regarding the FY97 implementation of the Regental Research Policy, the committee voted all in favor of approval.

Industrial Initiatives
Marvin Parnes said an item will be presented to the Regents next week on technology transfer. Parnes said this will provide an opportunity to educate the new University leadership team about technology transfer. The Regents will be asked to approve creation of a technology transfer fund, that is, an endowment fund to be a repository for university equity in spin-off companies, pending the distribution of the equity according to the Intellectual Properties Policy adopted in 1996. Parnes said in the Medical School there is now a technology transfer committee which will develop a mechanism to look at how decisions are made regarding investments in medical research. It is hoped that something similar will come about in Engineering.

Parnes said the State of Michigan has developed a new outlook for economic development. Various state institutions have been pulled together into a not-for-profit entity and the board includes the presidents of state schools, Ford, venture capitalists, and representatives from the state legislature. Parnes will attend their meetings on a regular basis. They want to have an innovation summit with universities to determine what is the appropriate role of univerisities, and whether there is a more strategic way for a university to achieve its goals.

Review of the implementation of the Intellectual Properties Policy will be on an upcoming RPC agenda.

HR>