|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveJanuary 13, 1993
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH January 13, 1993 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Brandon, J. Eaton, P. Edwards, P. Eyre, J. Johnson, H. Kriz, R. Olin, P. Rasnick, R. Reneau, P. Scanlon, D. Stoker, E. Stout MEMBERS ABSENT: H. Doswald, C. Flora, J. Lee, R. Lytton, A. McNabb, E. McNeil, J. Tank, J. Wightman, T. Wildman INVITED GUESTS: S. Trulove 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Dr. Stout stated that Dr. McNabb is away in Hawaii and that she had asked him to chair the Commission. Dr. Stout referred to a letter he had mailed to the membership from Walter Massey, Director of NSF which summarized the REPORT ON THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. He mentioned that at the bottom of the letter there is an address whereby copies can be obtained. There are two other recent reports from the Federal government both in December of 1992. RENEWING THE PROMISE: RESEARCH-INTENSIVE UNIVERSITIES IN THE NATION, the result of a PCAST (President's Council of Advisors for Sci- ence and Technology) report. The other one is IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST - THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND RESEARCH INTENSIVE UNIVERSITIES. It is a report of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. Dr. Stout informed the Commission how to obtain copies. Dr. Stout reported on the second annual Training the Future Professorate Workshop. Dr. Johnson organized it this year and it was very successful. Dr. Scanlon suggested that for next year perhaps they could tell the major professors prior to the workshop. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9. Dr. Scanlon motioned approval; Dr. Olin seconded. Minutes were approved. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Dr. Scanlon motioned approval; Dr. Eyre seconded. Agenda was approved. 4. MISCONDUCT IN SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES. Dr. Johnson said that she had in- corporated the suggestions from everyone and the suggestions from Legal Counsel. The changes are highlighted in italics. Throughout the docu- ment there is now more involvement by the Committee on Faculty Ethics as an overseer of procedure and as a neutral group available for con- sultation by the accused or the accuser. There is now more specificity as to exactly how the data will be sequestered. Anything sequestered by the dean would be on an inventory list that the dean and the accused would initial so that later there could not be a dispute over what was taken and what was returned. Language has been added to make clear that decisions will be made by a majority vote and that a minority re- port may be attached as specified in the NSF proceedings. NSF and NIH proceedings are slightly different. Where there were differences both were included in the draft so that it could apply to either agency. Since these are administrative proceedings, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, and cross-examination is not appropriate. This is a two-step process. The inquiry phase is kept as confidential as possible involving as few people as absolutely necessary. The in- vestigation phase involves more people. Dr. Johnson said that we wanted to be specific about the faculty that would be involved, and it seemed appropriate to specify tenured faculty. Dr. Johnson motioned approval of the Misconduct in Scholarly Activ- ities. Dr. Scanlon seconded. Dr. Stout called for discussion. Dr. Scanlon expressed concern that because many faculty and graduate students work at home, the university may have limited access to some relevant research records. We may need to include a statement about who really owns the research results. Dr. Scanlon raised the issue of a faculty member retaining a lawyer. The faculty member is up against the state (the Attorney General). The faculty member would have diffi- culty defending himself/herself without legal counsel. There needs to be a mechanism to compensate the faculty if the faculty member is proven innocent of the charges. That could be an extreme financial burden on a faculty member. Dr. Johnson will explore this issue with University Legal Counsel. Dr. Scanlon mentioned that we try to keep as few people involved as possible but then we introduce the possibility of informing journal ed- itors, etc. He is very wary of that. Dr. Stout stated that this is for cases where the allegations have been proven. If there are manu- scripts pending at a journal, or proposals pending at an agency that are now in question because of the proven allegation of misconduct, we are required to inform them. Dr. Scanlon stated that an agency is one thing, but a journal is quite different. Dr. Johnson stated that this is not a negotiable issue if we want to continue to receive funding from NSF. We have to follow their guidelines on misconduct. Dr. Olin stated that suppose you write an article and at the end it states that it is funded by an NSF grant and you have misconduct. If something is wrong in that article, then the journal should have the right to know that, and they should also have the right to withdraw that article. Dr. Edwards suggested a word change to "other relevant" rather than "appropriate"; people who are associated with the misconduct not every- one. Dr. Eyre suggested that the wording be changed to tighten it up a little bit. It could be misinterpreted. Dr. Edwards suggested that a paragraph be inserted on ownership of data. Dr. Eyre suggested that on page 6, paragraph 3, last sentence it should be a separate paragraph. Dr. Johnson agreed and will make the change. Dr. Olin motioned to table the approval motion until next meeting. Dr. Reneau seconded. The motion to table was approved. Dr. Scanlon commended Dr. Johnson on the work she has done on miscon- duct. Dr. Stout wholeheartedly agreed. 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE REPORT. Dr. Johnson said that the Intellectual Properties Committee is the only university committee that reports directly to the Commission. We are spending a lot of our time this year reorganizing. She provided a handout which shows how the committee is organized and the last two short sentences give an idea of what their activities have been. Basically, the IPC reviews the dis- closures to determine ownership, and then they go to VTIP with a recom- mendation. Eighteen disclosures were reviewed and twelve referred to the CIT during the summer. Fall semester 18 disclosures were reviewed and 14 were referred to CIT. 6. REVIEW OF CENTERS. Dr. Scanlon referred to the document that was dis- tributed at the last meeting and asked if there was any more input, to pass it along to him. He said that they have the review teams for the three centers that are to be reviewed this year. They are trying to arrange schedules at this time. He said that they do intend to finish this semester. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 4:10PM. 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/1993/January+13++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:26 EDT