University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

January 13, 1993


                            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


      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


      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



      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.




      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.





Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

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, 24062-9001

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:26 EDT