Research Policies Committee Retreat Notes
Friday, October 9, 1998
10:00-12:00 noon, 4006 Fleming

RPC Members Present: Andrew Aguirre, Jack East, Richard Ford, John Fornaess, Roberto Kampfner, Jill Macoska, Roberto Merlin, David Musch, Anil Subramani, Ben van der Pluijm (chair), Teshome Wagaw, Brad Weltman
OVPR Staff Present: Tim Killeen, Fred Neidhardt, Judy Nowack, Marvin Parnes, Jackie Hoats-Shields (staff)
Guest: Elaine Brock

Updates from the Chair: Ben van der Pluijm
Ben van der Pluijm reported on the progress of the search process for the vice president for research. Members of RPC will have an opportunity to meet as a group with the candidates when they come to visit campus. Information on the schedule for these meetings will be made available to RPC by the search advisory committee. In addition to meeting with RPC the candidates will meet with OVPR senior staff, the Executive Officers, and the Academic Planning Group. RPC has been asked to give feedback to the Provost directly and to do so as soon as possible after meeting the candidates. It was decided that RPC feedback would be coordinated into one document instead of sending individual remarks to the Provost.

Fred Neidhardt said the search advisory committee has received guidance from a professional search firm. The consultant has already interviewed many candidates prior to these individuals being selected to come to campus.

RPC members talked over what they would like to discuss during the meetings with the candidates. Topics for the discussion may be the candidate's accomplishments; what attracts the candidates to UM; what possibilities do they see in the research environment here; and what do they see as important to the current national research environment.

Updates from OVPR: Fred Neidhardt
Fred Neidhardt reported that the Research Subcommittee of the Academic Planning Group (APG) has been formed. It was launched earlier this week and is chaired by Dean Noreen Clark of Public Health. The subcommittee includes the deans of the Medical School, Nursing, Social Work, Engineering, LSA, and Natural Resources & Environment. The charge to the Research Subcommittee includes an examination of the organization for interdisciplinary research at the University. Neidhardt will be an ex officio member of the Research Subcommittee. The APG Research Subcommittee will work occasionally with a subcommittee of the OVPR unit directors. The Research Subcommittee will also work with the Interdisciplinary Program Development Group of which Marvin Parnes is a member.

Neidhardt responded to the memo that was sent to him from RPC regarding receipt of the memo and said it is useful in that it indicates the seriousness of the concern. He proposed an alternative, however, to having OVPR staff go around and investigate what policies are in place all across campus. Neidhardt said he instead planned to present RPC's concern to the Provost and discuss with the staff there what is needed to address the problem. Neidhardt said he will report back to RPC on the outcome.

Regental Research Policy Implementation: Judy Nowack
Guest: Elaine Brock, Assistant Director, Division of Research Development and Administration
Judy Nowack said RPC has been involved with the Regental Research Policy for a long time. The vice president for research must report to the Regents annually after a consultation with RPC on the implementation of the policy over the previous year. Comment on the policy implementation is RPC's sole mandated task.

Nowack told the history of the current policy, and she said Elaine Brock is a guest today to give the perspective of the DRDA contract and grant negotiators on the process. During the time right after World War II there was no formal policy at the University on how to accept different types of grants. In the 1960's there were many concerns at public universities about defense-related research. Here at UM the concerns focused on work done at ERIM, then called Willow Run Laboratories. In 1960's at UM a faculty-driven policy covering classified research only was proposed and approved. The policy said the UM would accept no classified award in which we could not disclose the existence of the award and the scope and purpose of the research. One controversial aspect of this policy was the "kill and maim clause" that refers to an evaluation of the foreseeable uses of the research. Nowack explained that classified research is any grant or contract that requires the person performing the research to have a DoD security clearance, and it details certain restrictions on the research.

In the 1980's there were renewed concerns about defense-related research, and SACUA asked for a survey of the campus on the matter. The result was a faculty resolution for a prohibition on all research that would result in the incapacitation of a human being. The Regents said no, stating they did not wish to place constraints on research when it was impossible to predict how the results would be used. In 1985, a presidential committee was appointed which recommended a new policy; a full year of debate ensued. In 1987, the Regents accepted some parts of the policy recommended by the presidential committee, but then drafted their own which is what we now know as the Regental Research Policy.

Judy Nowack said the Regental Research Policy is in the evolution chain from the classified research policy, but it applies to all sponsored research. It contains one absolute: UM cannot accept any research grant, contract, or agreement in secret. We must be able to reveal the sponsor, scope, and purpose of any research conducted at UM. The implementation policy outlines three major categories of restrictions which can potentially be accepted by the University. These are "standard," "non-standard," and "classified." Some restrictions commonly requested by sponsors are deemed to be standard, and the negotiators at DRDA are authorized to accept these if they are reasonable. Requests for approval of non-standard or classified restrictions are made directly to the vice president for research. The philosophy behind the vice president's decisions is a balancing between academic freedom and that of openness in research. Nowack said we have learned from other institutions that they see our balancing feature and the flexibility of the structure as valuable. RPC has been very helpful over the years in refining the list of standard restrictions. RPC also helped to define the categories of routine testing and student practicums so these can be considered as special types of agreements.

The implementation document, which is for RPC's review, shows information about the 10 non-standard restrictions accepted in FY98. Nowack said the amount of classified research in the last decade has been small and there has been none in last year. We do, however, maintain the institutional capacity to do classified research. In many instances restrictions are simply boilerplate for the sponsor who ultimately has no intent to impose the restriction. Publication restrictions are the most frequently encountered restrictions.

Elaine Brock said that in comparison to the total number of awards that require negotiation, the numbers shown on the implementation document are small. She noted that publication approval clauses often apply to a very small aspect of a project which would not have been included in a journal publication anyway. The negotiators try hard to get restrictions out of contracts and they are successful at doing so in most cases. Brock said that, for example, all pharmaceutical contracts come with restrictions but the negotiators are successful at getting rid of practically all of them. She said all universities are conducting the same types of negotiations so sponsors are not surprised to meet resistance. Nowack said we have regularly relied on the Regental Research Policy throughout the negotiation process to assist in educating sponsors about what is acceptable to us. Brock said classified research which we do accept generally has to do with access to rather than generation of classified information.

Nowack stated that in reviewing whether to accept a publication restriction, there is special sensitivity to students who may be doing their theses on a project with a publication restriction. In these instances attempts are made to manage the situation so at least the student knows the limitations or has options around them. She said that over the years we have received fewer and fewer proposals that would place a student publication at risk. Jill Macoska said that disclosure clauses affect post-docs as well as graduate students.

Fred Neidhardt emphasized that the implementation document does not reflect the full reality, since there is so much work done by DRDA to get rid of the restrictions that initially come in from sponsors. He said when a non-standard restriction comes through on a PAF-R (Proposal Approval Form-Restriction) for approval by the vice president for research, it is apparent that a great deal of work has already been done by DRDA to clean up the restriction and make it more acceptable. Anil Subramani asked about tacit understandings between researcher and sponsor. Brock said a private understanding is not enforceable against the institution. She noted that University policy protects the right to publish at the time the faculty member sees fit.

Richard Ford said the policy can be very useful for faculty themselves in talking with sponsors about planned work. He said having the definitions of non-standard restrictions gives faculty a framework to use right up front when potential sponsors bring up the topic of restrictions.

RPC members voted to approve OVPR's implementation of the Regental Research Policy during FY98, saying they find the policy has been working and they do not have any complaints about it at this time.

Life Sciences Commission/Initiative:
Ben van der Pluijm said the life sciences initiative has really changed how we view ourselves as a research institution. He said some now call it the "health sciences initiative," but he pointed out that the term "life sciences" includes so much more. Further, with biology as an example, he said environmental science areas bear directly on the life sciences and this needs to be relayed to the Life Sciences Commission. Van der Pluijm asked RPC members to think about it and let the Life Sciences Commission know their concerns individually. Jill Macoska questioned whether the concerns should be brought together from RPC. She said in such a response it would be good to address the unique strengths of UM, and she would be willing to work on what should be included in that equation. Marvin Parnes said the Life Sciences Commission has already reached out around campus, so it may be most beneficial to find out what they already know before undertaking this big task. Macoska said another approach would be to ask a member of committee to come meet with RPC. Parnes said Gary Krenz is staff to the Commission, and he would likely be able to inform RPC of the steps taken so far. It was decided that Ben Van der Pluijm would talk with Gary Krenz informally about it.

Post-doctoral Researchers
This item is postponed for a later meeting.

Return to Faculty Governance Home Page

Return to Research Policies Committee Minutes Index