research council fall semester 2015 faculty senate report · the 2015‐2016 research council...

RESEARCH COUNCIL ‐ FALL SEMESTER 2015 1

RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT TO FACULTY SENATE

FALL SEMESTER 2015 The membership of the Council consists of the Dean or dean’s designee and one (1) faculty member from each college or school. The Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School serves as the chair of the Research Council. Faculty serving on the Research Council are selected by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for two‐year staggered terms. The 2015‐2016 Research Council members are: College Dean Designee Faculty Representative BSOM Dr. Margaret Dunn Dr. Timothy Broderick Dr. Nicholas V. Reo (14‐16) CECS Dr. Nathan Klingbeil Dr. Jennie J. Gallimore Dr. Michael L. Raymer (15‐17) CEHS Dr. Charlotte Harris Dr. Joseph Keferl Dr. Sharon Heilmann (14‐16) COLA Dr. Kristin D. Sobolik Dr. Linda Caron Dr. Lafleur Small (14‐16) CONH Dr. Rosalie Mainous Dr. John Cutcliffe Dr. Rosemary William Eustace (15‐17) COSM Dr. Kathy Engisch Dr. Mark Mamrack Dr. Abinash Agrawal (15‐17) LAKE Dr. Jay Albayyari Dr. Mark Cubberley Dr. Stephen Jacquemin (14‐16) RSCB Dr. Joanne Li Dr. Arijit Sengupta Dr. Carol Wang (14‐16) SOPP Dr. LePearl Logan Winfrey Dr. Jeffery Allen Dr. Jeffrey Cigrang (15‐17) GS Dr. Robert Fyffe Dr. William Ayres VPRG Dr. Robert Fyffe, Research Council Chair

Research Council met on October 1 and November 5 (council does not meet in December), with the following members in attendance:

October 1, 2015 November 5, 2015

BSOM: Dr. Timothy Broderick Dr. Nicholas V. Reo CECS: Dr. Michael Raymer CEHS: Dr. Joseph Keferl Dr. Sharon Heilmann COLA: Dr. Kristin D. Sobolik Dr. Lafleur Small CONH: Dr. John Cutcliffe Dr. Rosemary William Eustace COSM: Dr. Mark Mamrack Dr. Abinash Agrawal GS: DR. William Ayres LAKE: Dr. Jay Albayyari RSCB: Dr. Arijit Sengupta SOPP: Dr. Jeffery Allen Dr. Jeffrey Cigrang VPRG: Dr. Robert Fyffe

BSOM: Dr. Timothy Broderick Dr. Nicholas V. Reo CECS: Dr. Jennie J. Gallimore Dr. Michael Raymer CEHS: Dr. Sharon Heilmann CONH: Dr. Rosemary William Eustace COSM: Dr. Mark Mamrack Dr. Abinash Agrawal GS: Dr. William Ayres LAKE: Dr. Jay Albayyari RSCB: Dr. Arijit Sengupta SOPP: Dr. Jeffery Allen Dr. Jeffrey Cigrang VPRG: Dr. Robert Fyffe


Significant effort took place to align and strengthen the Wright State Research Institute (WSRI) and the Wright State Applied Research Corporation (WSARC) with the University. As a result, Mr. Dennis Andersh now serves in a dual role: Executive Director of the Wright State Research Institute and CEO of the Wright State Applied Research Corporation. Other realigned positions include Mr. Hugh Bolton (now reporting to the Vice President for Research and the Dean of the Graduate School – VPRGA), who now works on commercialization efforts jointly with Mr. Andersh and Ms. Elana Wang, WSU’s Director of the Office of Technology Transfer. Dr. Jason Parker is the Director of Research Development and is working with faculty and teams across campus and at WSRI reporting to Dr. Robert Fyffe, VPRGA. Mr. Matt Grushon is the Director of Research Compliance. Mr. Grushon, with the assistance of campus‐wide search committees, will be hiring an Export Compliance Officer and a HIPAA/Privacy Officer. Dr. Parker and Mr. Grushon will provide updates to Council on research activity and compliance aspects of research. The streamlining of service processes in WSRI/WSARC were described. An affiliation agreement between the University and WSARC will be finalized in the near future. The new alignment enables WSRI and WSARC to work closely with WSU faculty to strengthen the research enterprise. Ret. Brig. Gen. Rufus Smith is the Director of Operational Support and Shared Services, and Dr. Tim Broderick, is the Chief Science Officer, and has responsibility for the technical staff. The Clinical Trials Research Alliance is housed in the WSRI facility and is led by Dr. Arthur Pickoff and Mr. Mark Wysong. As previously mentioned, Mr. Hugh Bolton leads commercialization and Dr. Cassie Barlow heads up the Advanced Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC). Research and Sponsored Programs The following reports were presented to Research Council.

October 1, 2015 Reports


Research and Instruction award $’s are up with all other Activity $’s down. Total number of awards is down.

Academic/Institutional Support – figures in In FY12 and FY13, reflect WSU’s role as the fiscal agent for OhioLink.

Number of Awards and Number of Proposals have decreased over this time period.


Stimulus funding was received in FY11.


WSU’s current negotiated F&A rate for on‐campus research is 48%.


November 5, 2015 Reports:


FY15 award $’s are up compared to FY14. Total number of awards is lower than this time last year.

National Science Foundation (NSF) The National Science Foundation (NSF) is currently conducting a survey on the merit review process. NSF partnered with Insight Policy Research to develop and deploy the 2015 survey. Survey participants are individuals who have submitted proposals to and/or reviewed for NSF in the past few years. Research Council members are asked to encourage participation in the survey.

Additional information regarding the survey was emailed to council members on November 6.


Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Report Wright State joined the FDP Phase VI in 2014, as one of more than 115 other member institutions of higher education and ten federal agencies; e.g., NSF, NIH, ONR, Air Force, etc. The purpose of the FDP is to work in partnership to streamline the administrative burden and processes involved in managing federal funds that support research at institutions of higher education. Ms. Jackie Frederick and Ms. Reinsch Friese are the WSU representatives from RSP, and Dr. Josephine Wilson is the WSU faculty representative. Meetings are held three times per year in Washington, D.C. At the September 2015 meeting, Ms. Jean Feldman of NSF provided an overview of the impending changes to the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide that will be implemented in January 2016. Of special note is the strict auto enforcement of the 5:00 p.m. local time deadline for proposal submissions in FastLane. It was noted that other funding agencies will also adhere to auto compliances for submitting proposals and Council members were reminded of RSP’s internal deadlines:

“5 business days prior to submission deadline RSP must receive:

‐The final budget (both requested and cost share), budget justification, and abstract 2 business days prior to the submission deadline:

‐The complete proposal ready for submission is due at RSP”

NIH is looking at its process to reduce the size of its application package. The Army Medical Research office gave a presentation at the FDP meeting. They have several funding opportunities related to very interesting categories of medical research.

[The official NSF notification on the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide with a link to the new Guide was emailed to Research Council members on Friday, October 16, 2015, for dissemination throughout their college. The Guide is also posted on the Research Council WINGS Group.]

At the September 2015 FDP faculty representative meeting, the topic focused on lab safety and the culture of lab safety on campuses due to the serious accidents and deaths that have occurred in institutions of higher education and laboratories over the last few years. A representative from Texas Tech University, the site of one of the accidents, was in attendance at the FDP meeting and gave an insider’s look at the events and the subsequent recommendations that were implemented as a result of the case. Research Council members were advised that they have an important role of communicating information to their college, students, staff and colleagues in order for everyone to understand the seriousness of these types of issues. Council members have an opportunity to contribute to the University’s policies and procedures to make them effective without adding extra burden. A compliance retreat was attended by one of WSU’s representatives immediately prior to the September 2015 FDP meeting. The retreat focused on human subject compliance, export control, conflict of interest, and other areas of compliance. One topic of discussion was the faculty workload survey that the FDP completed in 2012. Results indicated that a typical federally funded researcher spends 58% of his/her time on actual research with the remainder spent on administrative tasks.


National Academy of Sciences Part I Report on the Federal Research Regulations and Reporting Requirements The National Academy of Sciences published Part I of the Report on Federal Research Regulations and Reporting Requirements. Among the overarching recommendations, the report suggests that the “regulatory regime” governing federally funded academic research should be critically reexamined and recalibrated. Over the past 25+ years there have been over 100 new or altered regulations that directly impact research. The expedited report provides recommendations to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House, some aimed at Congress and various agencies who are subject to the same laws, but all have different rules and regulations which are subject to interpretation. Specific to congressional action, the report recommends addressing a lack of uniformity in regulations, policies, forms and requirements; a risk stratified system of human subject protections; single IRB for multisite studies (with a standard set of policies and procedures and “a nationally uniform work‐flow‐based informatics infrastructure”); a unified approach to the care and use of research animals; several recommendations related to inspector generals; e.g., audit cost versus recovered costs, reexamining the methodology for identifying institutions for audit and reporting only audit resolution findings; and that OMB affirm that institutions may take advantage of the flexibility provided in the Uniform Guidance in documenting personnel expenses. The report includes favorable recommendations specific to OMB related to subrecipient monitoring, the DS‐2 Disclosure Statement and procurement and to federal agencies; e.g., greater use of Just‐in‐Time; a central repository for assurances and streamlining reporting. Recommendations specific to research institutions include reviewing for excessive or unnecessary institutional policy created in response to federal regulations, and that universities foster a culture of integrity among academic leaders, faculty, post‐docs, students, staff and administrators and “mete out appropriate sanctions” when behavior deviates from ethical and professional norms. The committee also recommends the creation of “a new mechanism, to include an active public‐private forum and a designated official within government, to foster a more effective conception, development and harmonization of research policies.” The committee recommends that Congress create a self‐funded, government‐linked Research Policy Board (RPB) composed of 9‐12 members from academic research institutions and 6‐8 liaisons from federal agencies to serve as the “primary policy forum for discussions relating to the regulation of federally funded research programs in academic research institutions” and an Associate Director, Academic Research Enterprise, within the OSTP to serve as a principal contact point for the RPB; oversee the government‐academic research partnership; work in partnership with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to manage regulatory burden; and issue an annual report to Congress related to the research partnership. It was recommended researchers review the report.

[The National Academy of Sciences Part I Report on the Federal Research Regulations and Reporting Requirements was posted on the Research Council WINGS Group and notice was emailed to Research Council members on Monday, October 5, 2015.]


Security Briefing Wright State University is a cleared facility. During our recent facility assessment, we were reminded that we are a prime target of what is called “academic solicitation.” The purpose of the security briefing is to leave Research Council members with a couple of take‐home messages to increase the awareness of this potential threat to our security. Possessing a facility clearance gives us the opportunity to bid on and accept classified contracts, although all classified work must be done “elsewhere,” such as the Base or another off‐site cleared facility. Our cleared employees have specific obligations to protect classified information, and they receive regular required training. There is always the chance that any Wright State employee could be a target of an individual attempting to obtain unauthorized access to sensitive information or a technology. Academic solicitation is the use of students, faculty and other researchers as collectors to improperly attempt to obtain sensitive or classified information or technology. This is the fastest rising area of collection efforts, and we need to be diligent about reporting what we would consider to be “suspicious contacts.” This applies to both cleared and uncleared employees. This could come in the form of requests from students from foreign countries seeking research positions at the University, asking for copies of publications or requesting that faculty members serve on review boards or attend an international conference, request to access software, or anything else that seems too good to be true. The Defense Security Service relies on its cleared contractors to report suspicious contacts. Nothing may come of it, but it is important that we keep this in mind as members of the academic community. Faculty and staff who receive a communication from someone that would appear to fall into this category, are asked to contact Ellen Reinsch Friese. If you receive the communication by e‐mail, please forward the e‐mail to Ellen, and it will be reported to the Defense Security Service. The DSS has a lot of resources to check out the message and it may turn out to be totally innocent, but it is better to be safe than sorry. Research Compliance Update The Office of Research Compliance has two open positions posted – HIPAA & Privacy Compliance Officer and Export Compliance Officer – through HR. The HIPAA search resulted in 38 applicants, of which the committee identified 3 semi‐finalists and is in the process of interviewing two (1 withdrew). The Export Compliance position remains posted with 23 applicants and the committee is evaluating the applications. There are changes in Significant Financial Interest (SFI) Disclosures. The Office of Research Compliance will begin using the definition of “investigator” that is more consistent with the operations of the Outside Interest Committee and its review of potential conflicts of interest. Examples of who should be considered “investigators” are:

All regular faculty engaged in any research activities;

All part‐time, clinical, research, auxiliary or emeritus faculty who have a role in the design, conduct, or reporting of research – including research with animals and human subjects;


Clinical and research staff members and students who have a role in the design, conduct, or reporting of research with animals or human subjects. Examples of such roles include the following:

o Staff or students who are formally listed on, or their salary or effort is associated with, a specific sponsored project or award;

o Staff and students who are included as a co‐investigator or key personnel on an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) application;

o Clinical or research staff or students who collect or analyze data, or consent research subjects; and

o Staff or students who plan to participate as authors on publications or presentations resulting from research.

Principal administrative officials designated by the Vice President for Research as having a significant role in the supervision of research.

In practice this will broaden the definition and require more people to file SFI disclosures. The disclosure process is fairly simple and straightforward for the investigators and this change is not expected to be burdensome on PIs or the proposal submission process. Research Development Update A cloud server was ordered and will be open to everyone for use. The cloud server (DICOM Grid) will be accessible from anywhere and provides de‐identification and long‐term storage of medical data. Council was advised on initial discussions regarding a GE research collaboration agreement that focuses on functional neuroimaging R&D with potential future funding opportunities for mutual areas of interest. The pursued contractual agreement will create access to operating system code and structure, and non‐public sequences such as quantitative in‐vivo measurements of GABA and ATP. Ideas of community efforts to assist with proposal pre‐review/submission were presented. One idea would be to create a simple process where faculty and researchers receive peer review prior to submission. The thought would be to build a repository of “willing” reviewers who would look at the scope, compliance with proposal objectives, innovation and significance. (Noting that the reviewers would not focus on the technical detail.) Initially only NSF and NIH proposals would be reviewed as their scoring processes are standardized. WSRI Update WSRI recently received State funding to establish and administer a Federal Research Network across Ohio. Meetings will be held at the various colleges over the next several months in order to build collaborations and enhance relationships with faculty and provide an overview of the new organizational structure and opportunities. The RFP process for the Ohio Federal Research Network (FRN) is being handled by the WSARC. An RFP was sent to the seven (7) Centers of Excellence (COEs) across the State of Ohio. WSU is


the lead on two COEs. Dr. Broderick heads up the Human Performance and Human Sciences COE. The C4ISR and Data Analytics COE is co‐led by Dr. Brian Rigling of WSU and a PI at OSU. The other COEs are established as follows:

Materials and Advanced Manufacturing—University of Dayton

Energy Storage and Integration—Case Western Research University

Advanced Communications—Ohio University

Power and Propulsion—Ohio State University

Commercialization and Workforce Development Support‐‐Cleveland State University and Lorain County Community College.

The COEs have been set up across the state with the intent for these universities to better support the priorities of the Air Force Research Laboratory, NASA Glenn Research Center, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) and the Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU). The Round 1 RFP was sent out to the Centers and requires that each university proposal must include one other university, one industry participant and one government participant. The ultimate goal is to increase the State share of federally sponsored research. Outside review panels will review the proposals; awards will be announced in early 2016. The Ohio Federal and Military Jobs Commission Support and the process for submitting proposals for the Federal Research Network was described. Round 1 of the FRN proposals are due on November 30 and white papers for Round 2 are due on January 30, 2016. Handouts were provided at the meeting.

Copies are available on the Research Council WINGS Group (Outlook Sites coming soon!)

Council members were asked to let their colleges know that WSRI leadership will be reaching out to their deans and welcomes the opportunity to meet with them and their faculty to facilitate collaborations, enhance basic sciences with our government partners and promote faculty engagement. The affiliation with ATIC was confirmed that it is a separate 501.c3 entity. Wright State University and other community leaders felt ATIC’s unique facility capabilities should remain within the community. ATIC employees are now employed by WSU as part of a management agreement between WSARC and ATIC. The WSRI/WSARC has classified facilities to support all classification levels. WSRI had a $42.5M win from AFRL for “Human‐Machine Teaming” in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance analysis. In addition, WSU has just been awarded more than $7M from the DoD, Office of Economic Adjustment. This project is for community commercialization that will help the university build a local ecosystem for commercialization and entrepreneurship. Partners include WSU’s Center for Urban and Public Affairs, ATIC, the Center for Manufacturing Sciences, WSRI, the University of Dayton, Sinclair Community College, and other businesses. Changes have been made to charge full F&A rates on all WSRI contracts.


Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) The Director of Environmental Health & Safety announced that Ms. Kim Morris, Radiation Safety Officer, would be leaving the University before the end of November. Update on Faculty Incentive Program The trial program was designed to increase proposal submissions and provide faculty an incentive ranging from $500 to $1,000. This year (January through the middle of September) 75 proposals submitted through RSP were eligible for, and awarded, a faculty incentive award. Approximately $41,250 has been awarded so far. The feedback from awardees continues to be very positive. Research Council members were asked to remind their respective faculty of the Faculty Incentive Program and the incentives available for qualifying submissions. If the overall rate of submissions increases, the likelihood of awards will also increase. The Program document is below.


It was noted that COLA, CEHS and LAKE Campus customized criteria for qualifying for the incentive program. It was noted that faculty are not required to be in the SPIN database and stated that some faculty have their own networks, but it Research Council members were asked to encourage their faculty to be in the system. This year’s Research Council internal funding program will require faculty to be in the SPIN database and have a search with key words.


Tuition Waiver Policy The Tuition Waiver Policy has been discussed at Research Council meetings several times over the years. The policy is in place and investigators should be working within the guidelines of the policy. An overview of the policy was provided. The policy states that if a stipend is paid to a graduate student from a sponsored research award and the award brings in full research F&A to the university, the University will cost share the tuition for the student who is being supported. A search of proposals entered in the RSP FileMaker database in FY15 that were coded as “basic research” with a 15% F&A rate resulted in 30 entries. Of those 30 proposals, 26 limited the F&A to 15% based on the WSU exception policy. Eleven of the 26 proposals included cost‐shared tuition for GRAs at a value of $135,231. If all 30 proposals had been funded, the cost‐shared F&A would total $310,320; the F&A recovered would have been $141,082. While the University needs to increase proposal submissions, we must also be savvy about the types of proposals submitted and the use of the tuition waiver policy.


Wright Way Policy 5305 – Facilities and Administrative (Indirect) Costs for Sponsored Programs

The policy was discussed and it was mentioned that the University should not be in a position where it cost shares more in F&A and tuition than it receives from the sponsor. It does not make good business sense. Research Council members had been sent data related to FY15 proposals that fell into the 15% F&A exception category and were asked to seek input from their colleagues as changes to the Wright Way Policy are considered. The only exception to be


included in the revised policy would be for sponsors who have a published rate that is less than the University’s federally negotiated F&A rate. It was suggested that even though the return on F&A is low for Student Support Services, that additional guidance on seeking grant funding for those areas would provide additional support for the various initiatives and save University dollars. This topic was opened up for discussion with the following comments noted:

Is there a connection between the 15% F&A and ultimately awards from the NIH and NSF.

Many in the University have the impression that tuition is “funny money.”

The problem with many proposals is not that the budgets include full F&A, but that the investigators are overreaching the scope.

How much has been lost on awards, related F&A to the % of tuition offered?

How would eliminating the exception policy affect the ability to work with industry?

Is there a difference in the use of the exception policy between assistant professors and full professors and would there be flexibility for young faculty?

Faculty members need to understand the cost of research; e.g., what can they do for “X” amount of dollars. How do we change this culture?

What is the loss, or break‐even point?

There is a sense of “entitlement.”

Communication is important. A town hall meeting was suggested. Collaborative Efforts It was suggested putting together an anonymous survey for faculty that would focus on incentive programs, the SPIN database, and efforts to collaborate with WSRI, etc. Feedback on the suggestion was not very positive as a few Council members felt that the targeted faculty would not respond. It was mentioned that some of the faculty that are working on bigger projects have barriers for accessing or spending time with key personnel that can assist on these projects. The suggestion was made that after Research Council meetings, thirty minutes are set aside for these types of faculty discussions. The recommended team would consist of Dr. Keferl, Dr. Parker, Dr. Broderick and Dr. Cutcliffe, and Dr. Albayyari. COGR Update Dr. Fyffe noted the similarities between current COGR and FDP areas of interest and discussed the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Hanover Research It was announced that we will not be renewing our membership to Hanover. It was noted that the COSM has implemented a process for internal review of proposals that is led by Dr. Paula Bubulya.


2016 Debate Research Council was asked to consider how we can highlight the various areas of research when the 2016 Debate takes place, with the possibility of including a fundraising event. Maybe Research Council can lead this for the university. In addition, it was mentioned that the Research Officers Council is looking into a State‐wide research event. RSP Training Opportunities Information on the following training opportunities was provided to Research Council member for disseminating. Training opportunities are also announce on the Faculty listserv. Please contact RSP for one‐on‐one training needs.

New Faculty Orientation Friday, 10/2/15, 9 a.m. to 12 noon, Student Union E156A‐C

“Using the SPIN Funding Database” Wednesday, 10/21/15, 10:30 to 11:30 a.m., LX012 Tuesday, 12/8/15, 3 to 4 p.m., LX012

“RSP Gateway: Proposal Development and Tracking” Wednesday, 10/7/15, 2:30 to 4 p.m., Student Union 163A Tuesday, 12/1/15, 2:30 to 4 p.m., Student Union 163A

“Grant Proposal Development and Writing: Understanding the Components of an Effective Proposal”

Thursday, 11/19/15, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m.; Student Union E156A

“Write Winning Grant Proposals—NIH and NSF” Wednesday, January 27, 2016, daylong, Berry Room, Nutter Center

NSF CAREER Seminar Thursday, January 28, 2016, a.m. only, Berry Room, Nutter Center

research council fall semester 2015 faculty senate report · the 2015‐2016 research council...

Documents