|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 11, 1991
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH December 11, 1991 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: V. Bonomo, T. Brandon, C. Burger, J. Cowles, M. Denbow, G. Hooper, P. Knox, R. Olin, E. Stout MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Henneke, M. Lambur, J. Lee, R. Lytton, R. Rich, P. Scanlon, A. Swiger, V. Wall, J. Wightman, T. Wildman INVITED GUESTS: T. Hurd, D. Shelton, J. Tank, S. Trulove, J. Viers 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Interdisciplinary Centers policy and procedures document has been approved by University Council. It has been sent to Deans, Directors and Department Heads and as Presidential Policy Memo- randum Number 118. b. The Intellectual Property Policy has passed University Council. It will be distributed soon. c. The Conflict of Interest procedures have had first reading at Uni- versity Council. d. Special Faculty Appointments. Dr. Stout stated that the Commission on Faculty Affairs has the document. It should arrive at University Council early in the new year. 2. AGENDA. Dr. Olin requested an addition to the agenda - research sup- port to principal investigators. Dr. Knox motioned approval of the agenda. Dr. Cowles seconded. Agenda was approved. 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1991. Dr. Burger motioned approval and Dr. Cowles seconded. Motion carried. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DATA. Dr. Stout provided an overview of the ad hoc com- mittee. Dr. Knox is chair and Dr. Olin serves as well. The Commission for Graduate Studies representative is Dr. S. Boyle. Dr. Knox provided a draft to the Commission members. Dr. Knox stated that we want to have something in the Faculty Handbook and the Policies and Procedures for the Graduate School that addresses this issue. He stated that the committee wanted to keep it as brief and to the point as possible. Dr. Stout stated that the operative policy is basically the first sentence in the draft which states that the university asserts its right to own- ership of data, materials, etc. developed by faculty, staff and stu- dents. Item numbers 1-8 are an elaboration on procedures for dealing with that principle. Dr. Denbow asked if a principal investigator who has been working on a project leaves the university what happens to that data. Dr. Stout re- sponded that they will need to seek permission from the university to take the research results. Dr. Burger asked if there were ever con- tracts where the grantor owns. Dr. Stout responded that they were rare. It is not generally a problem for Sponsored Programs. Dr. Stout stated that if we have a written policy and the departing faculty mem- ber takes the material with them we have a reason to take action. Dr. Knox stated that there should be some kind of a record and that perhaps the responsibility should be referred to departments. Dr. Cowles asked if he were talking about laboratory notebooks. Dr. Knox responded yes, including those. Dr. Stout stated that in the life sciences part of that original data might include specimens. The storage problem could become a significant issue. Dr. Hooper asked if this would be a com- panion piece to the intellectual property policy - an extension but not synonymous. Dr. Knox responded affirmatively. Dr. Burger asked for elaboration of #6 which is embargoing theses and dissertations up to one year in order to protect patent applications or for other legitimate reasons. Dr. Stout responded that such a policy is in place in the Graduate School now. The word they use is secure instead of embargo. It is primarily for the student's protection. It is done for a specified period of time, with the agreement of the stu- dent, and then they are free to publish. Dr. Denbow stated he could not imagine a principal investigator leaving and not taking his data with him. Dr. Stout stated that by agreement with the department head a decision can best be made about whether that person should be allowed to take the data and in what form. Dr. Cowles stated that perhaps a form could be generated at the department level documenting what has been taken as part of their departure from the university. The original data should be preserved in some form until all issues about publications are settled. Dr. Cowles asked if someone who is working on a Ph.D. has a falling out with their major professor and they plan to leave and take what they did with them. Is it addressed somewhere who owns that? Dr. Stout responded that the university owns it. Dr. Burger stated the Ph.D. candidate would go to another person in the same department. Dr. Stout stated that he thought ownership is vested in the faculty member under whom the work was done. Dr. Knox stated it is not well spelled out. He stated that that was his allusion to ethics and the grievance procedure. He stated that the means of resolution of various scenarios are covered but he did not feel that they covered each of those situ- ations diplomatically in such a way to deflect them from happening. Dr. Denbow asked what happens if you are collaborating with someone, the other person is the principal investigator and they leave the uni- versity and take all the data. Dr. Stout responded that if we have a written policy we would have a reason to demand it be returned. Dr. Hooper stated we have done it before. Dr. Bonomo asked if he does research, leaves the university and doesn't own the data, is he precluded from publishing those results? He said unless the university can preclude him from using the results of that data once he has left the university what does it mean that the univer- sity owns the data. Dr. Stout stated he thought there were two issues. One being the interpersonal issues talked about previously and the other one is the validity of the published work. If there is a ques- tion about the validity of the published work and the university has not maintained those records, the university would be in the ethical position of having either destroyed primary data or allowed it to be destroyed. Dr. Knox stated that the situation Dr. Bonomo was describ- ing is quite normal. Dr. Knox said the normal practice is reasonable access. He stated that the first case Dr. Bonomo asked about when Co- Principal Investigators was not addressed. Where contracts are drawn up with 2 or more principal investigators of equal stature with over- head going to both institutions. Dr. Hooper stated that was the reason for bringing up the idea of this companion piece. For example, under the intellectual property guidelines that now exist, this fundamental data and notebooks, etc. relate to intellectual properties. But that policy says you can write a book, publish a scholarly paper under the policy. But when the data is translated into the form of some commer- cial entity, then the data becomes sensitive in another way and the university needs to have the original notebooks somewhere. Dr. Stout said that in a situation of truly joint work the university could as- sert its ownership only to that part of the study that was actually conducted with university resources. Dr. Brandon asked if 20 feet of computer output is primary research data or secondary. Dr. Knox said he could not find concise enough lan- guage to describe all of the different things. Dr. Knox stated there is not particular significance in the use of "primary". He asked Dr. Brandon for a suggestion. Dr. Brandon responded by saying maybe data worth taking is what should be preserved. Dr. Stout stated that with this input the committee would bring back something for the Commission to act on sometime soon. 5. BUDGET. Dr. Stout informed the membership that state agencies were re- quired to submit contingency plans on December 2 for a potential 3% re- duction in general funds for this fiscal year and educational agencies were required to present plans for a 5% contingency plan for next year and other agencies between 6% and 9%. For the Research Division 3% of this year's budget would be about $800,000 and 5% next year would be about $1.3M. Dr. Stout stated he hopes to find that $800,000 required for the 3% reversion in cash. Salary savings across the Division in- cluding early retirements are projected at something in excess of $1M. This includes buy-outs, people on leave, all of the ways you generate salary savings. Subtract out the early retirements and we have half in salary savings. The only other source of cash is the excess 30% ac- count. We think we can do 3% this year without major problems. The Provost said very early on in the discussions that for this year there won't be any layoffs and there won't be any furloughs. Dr. Burger and Dr. Denbow both asked what about next year. Dr. Stout responded we don't know about next year. The contingency plans that we sent forward were as general and non-specific with as much room to maneuver as we could possibly be allowed. 6. RESEARCH SUPPORT TO PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS. Dr. Olin relayed that Dr. A. Snoke in Geology was not happy with the Office of Sponsored Pro- grams. He stated that because of a change of policy with NSF, he missed or was not informed about an opportunity. Dr. Olin stated he felt that every principal investigator in the Math Department has said something not nice about OSP. He stated he felt it was all a matter of perception that the principal investigator views Sponsored Programs as an obstacle to deal with rather than someone to help them. He said he would like to see that perception changed. Dr. Olin said he would like to see someone in Sponsored Programs send him a memo stating what needed to be done on his grant. He stated that everyone in the Math Department complain about not being able to read the output from Spon- sored Programs. They go to the department secretary to read the out- put. Dr. Stout responded that he recognized three different problems. In the case of Dr. Snoke, someone at Memphis State that the geologists know called up and said that he saw the Virginia Tech Seismology Net- work referenced in the Federal Register. Dr. Snoke thought that some- one in the Research Division everyday meticulously reads the Federal Register and the Commerce Business Daily and informs everyone of the opportunities. We never have and probably never will do that. The second one about notifying PI's as to when reports are due, we are now and have been for some time in the award letter from Jean VanKrey to the principal investigator pointing out due dates for all reports. We have talked at various times about trying to get those dates put on the FRS printout somewhere. We are still exploring that. In terms of reading the FRS printouts, it is the Controller's Office program. Mr. Hurd stated that he would like to respond in defense of Sponsored Pro- grams. The first thing we do when we get a new award in is sit down, go through the award and write a letter to the principal investigator telling the principal investigator the types of things they should look for. It is not a Sponsored Programs requirement - it is a requirement of the granting agency. We have to abide by certain guidelines in re- sponse to the granting agencies. We try to tell you these things up front. We do not have the manpower to call up the principal investi- gators and tell them they have so many days to get a report in. He stated that he had talked with Dwight Shelton about the possibility of entering into the FRS system the dates that technical reports are due. There are other things with the accounting system that we feel are more important right now. In terms of reading the report, anyone in Spon- sored Programs would be happy to sit down with the principal investi- gator and walk them through the report. Mr. Shelton asked if Dr. Olin just wanted to be able to access the information or if he wanted a phone call. Dr. Olin agreed it would be a step forward in the right direction to have an ability to access the dates. Mr. Shelton said that might be a possibility. Dr. Knox stated that Sponsored Programs can't be expected to do it all. Professors need to be made aware of their responsibility. If there is a need for that type of support, he suggested that perhaps it should come from associate deans in the colleges. He said that he would pre- fer to see Sponsored Programs carry on what they do and do it better in terms of how people get money. He stated that he agreed with the idea of the difficulty of reading the reports. Mr. Shelton asked if there was too much data, not enough data, not being able to understand what a specific number means, confusing, etc. Dr. Burger stated it was set up for accountants and not for users. Mr. Shelton said that is right. At some point in time we are supposed to have a report out to translate that out into something others can interpret. Dr. Burger stated that she agreed with Dr. Knox 100%. She stated Sponsored Programs has tons of other things to do, and she did not feel they had the resources to tell each individual principal investigator when something is due. She felt that that was part of the principal investigators grant. Dr. Olin said that there are some Biology professors who have the same opinion that in terms of the amount of overhead that they see being taken from their grant that they really don't see a lot of return for it other than it helps the university. Dr. Stout said we are looking for ideas here, but in terms of the value they are getting in terms of the over- head generated they are getting total financial services. Dr. Hooper stated that he finds it reassuring and helpful that the fac- ulty continue to come to us. The overhead question and the perception is perpetual, but it is good for us to have it repeated and reminded to look at every single thing we do. So we find it helpful to be reminded that these things are being perceived in certain ways. Dr. Olin stated that you would make a lot of principal investigators happy to provide more service. Mr. Shelton stated that he may bring something back in January for the membership to look at. He said he was afraid that there may be some principal investigators who may be upset if he takes something away from the system. Dr. Hooper said to Mr. Shelton that he might reach out to a select group of principal investigators to get them together to help him with it. Mr. Shelton stated that he wanted a representative group of people. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 5:00PM. ERS/php
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cor/1991/December+11++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT