Friday, April 9, 2004

4006 Fleming Building

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Lajos Balogh, Katarina Borer (chair), Steve Ceccio, Mary Haan, Rex Holland, Jane Ritter (staff), J. Hunter Waite

MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Bookstein, Chris Jensen, Pinaki Mazumder, Roscoe Warner, Jillian Yant, John Younger, Jens Zorn

GUESTS:  Lee Katterman, Assistant to Vice President Ulaby

Judy Nowack, Associate Vice President for Research

AGENDA

·              Preliminary draft of the March 12, 2004 RPC meeting minutes will be distributed for review. Final version of the minutes will be distributed electronically for approval at the May meeting.

·              Discussion of the issues of the Science, Technology and Public Policy (STPP) --– Lee Katterman serves as the resource person

·              Regental Research Report –presented by Judy Nowack

·              Next meeting:  May 7, 2004, 9-11,  4006 Fleming

ACTIONS

1.            Preliminary draft of the March 12, 2004 RPC meeting minutes were distributed for review. Final version of the minutes will be distributed electronically for approval at the May meeting.

2.            Discussion of the issues of the Science, Technology and Public Policy (STPP)  with Lee Katterman serves as the resource person

Overall comments of RPC members were that a public policy training program is worthwhile endeavor and a substantive area of knowledge and research in and of itself.  People trained in technical areas have to gain knowledge and skills related to policy development.  People trained in policy also need to gain technical knowledge (Haan). 

It would be important for the Michigan program to develop a theme. What market niche would this program occupy?  What will motivate the formation of the program? (Ceccio).

Having a visible  theme such as energy policy at Berkeley, or prominent faculty leadership such as former Presidential Science Advisor Neal Lane, now at Rice University, would attract students to the program (Borer).

The more specific RPC suggestions were that the STPP program needs:

(1) a visible theme that may emerge once a prominent faculty leader is recruited. Program theme would depend on recruited faculty. Based on faculty already on campus, the theme could be health policy (faculty in the School of Public Health) or environmental policy (faculty in the School of Natural Resources).  While there are not a lot of candidates available at senior level; if someone like Neal Lane or Chuck Vest were available, they would  shape the program and give it a specific theme.

(2) faculty to run the program. Ideally, there should be a senior faculty member in the area of policy politics and/or science policy. Such a person could perhaps come from previous government or university administrations. Jim Duderstadt, prior University of Michigan president, and Charles Vest, president of MIT were mentioned as possible candidates for this position..  Furthermore, the program needs a junior faculty member whose strength would be in a particular content or issue area. Senior person wouldn’t have to be policy guru. He/she could be a technical policy person with academic strengths; and a policy expert could be recruited at associate professor level.   As the program transitions into full operation, it will depend on the on-campus faculty who already teach policy courses. For instance Jim Duderstadt and Homer Neal teach policy courses and could form the core faculty. Other faculty on campus with policy expertise are Henry Pollock in Geology (global warming), Ted Parsons in SNRE, Carl Simon in the Ford School of Public Policy.

(3) appropriate curriculum. Curriculum is conceptualized as containing two core courses (Policy process and politics, Statistics), one to three content seminars that could be team taught, and practicums or internships with policymakers in state or federal government. Students would receive a Rackham certificate in science or social science upon completion. Both a regular semester teaching schedule and a compressed 10-week summer concept were discussed. This is in contrast to the three core course requirement and other requirements for students in Ford SPP who receive a MS degree upon completion of that program. While the RPC members viewed the option of developing a MS in science policy through the Ford SPP as a more desirable training outcome for STPP than a certificate, it was agreed that the smaller scale approach is preferred as the program is gradually phased in;

(4) student recruitment.  It is anticipated that initially students interested in policy issues will be recruited from those who are already enrolled in other graduate programs on campus. Their integration of STPP training into their other training would be facilitated if funding for STPP training were provided. To recruit students from outside of the University of Michigan, a degree of greater stature than a Rackham certificate would need to be offered.  This program could also attract postdoctoral scholars as well as mid-career professionals. The ultimate goal is to try and attract students who are training in sciences to also obtain policy expertise so we start to produce more science faculty who are also aware of policy dimensions and process and can become involved in science policy realm. 

(5) student and faculty financial support. A recurrent theme in the RPC discussions was a concern that participation in STPP will constitute a diversion from students’ other graduate training. To be viable, STPP needs to offer students some financial support in the form of fellowships. The Provost and OVPR were viewed as the likely sources of such funding. An alternative concept was to encourage development of internships with external sponsors or the National Academies and  professional societies who could support some students. Additionally, funding could be sought from federal agencies, such as IGERT funding mechanism from NSF.  Faculty on campus may be freed up to teach in the STPP through release time arranged with home departments.

Lee Katterman stated that  the STPP committee chaired by Jim Duderstadt met and provided the framework for the STPP. RPC memebers received the STPP Task Team Report. Dr. Duderstadt and the team are ready to go before the Provost and Vice-President for Research to gain approval for the program and put together a teaching team of on campus faculty. Jim Duderstadt would serve as the program director. If Provost will approve it, Jim Duderstadt will shepherd STPP program during the initial period. He would offer a  team-taught core course in policy and politics in the fall. Subsequently, the plan is to ask the Provost for permission to hire one to two faculty who would then be added to the Ford SPP faculty in due time. The anticipated enrollment may be 12-15 students, so that that some students will remain to enroll the next year. A potential TA has already been identified, who took Homer Neal’s policy course the last time and who is working with Homer and Toby Smith on atextbook on science policy. Lee Katterman  requested that RPC provide some recommendations on the above issues.

3.  Discussion of Regental Research Report

Associate Vice-President for Research Judy Nowack stated that the Regental Research Policy 303.1 (see Standard Practice Guide) requires  RPC to receive report on annual experience with research that has restrictions attached to it. Two documents were distributed, Regents Policy 3003.1 and the statistics about grant proposals with restrictions. VP Nowack related some history behind secret research at the UM. Classified research was done in early 50’s at UM. Before 60’s, there was no UM policy.  There were recurrent campus protests against defense research at Willow Run, the Thailand Project. So in 1968, the University developed a policy that UM will not accept clandestine research funds, allow research on campus that will destroy, maim, or incapacitate humans, or accept unreasonable restrictions on publication. In early years, end-use criterion on classified research was based on protection of human life. If research outside this principle was proposed, it would be reviewed by RPC.  In mid 1980’s, it was determined that the policy needed to be rethought with regard to classified research and application of end-use criterion.  It was time to look forward because of increasing ties with industry and expectation there would be more industry sponsored research.  President Shapiro appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission, which came up with policy that is still in place.  It is based on balancing of academic freedom and openness.   VPR put together guidelines, with RPC help, for implementation

The current rules are that UM is committed to humanitarian goals and openness in research and its dissemination. UM by policy may accept some classified research. Research with Standard restrictions gives DRDA right to make approvals.  Research with non-standard restrictions (PAF-R) requires additional review. 

At the time when the regental research policy was approved, some faculty were concerned that policy would lead to an explosion of classified and restricted research.  As the Information on Experience document shows, number of proposals has been fairly constant over time and restrictions have remained stable. In FY 2004, closing at the end of June 2004, only 11 PAF-Rs were approved, a tribute to DRDA. 

RPC was pleased with OVPR’s implementation of Research Restrictions Policy. The motion was seconded

·                                Next meeting:  May 7, 2004

6.         Potential topics for discussion:

• IRB MED, IRB Health, with a focus on how and why HIPPA regulations are interpreted.
•   Accreditation of human research participation protection process.