Faculty Senate
Research and Grants Committee
2011-12 Year-End Report
Submitted by: John C. Cushman
Date submitted: March 16, 2012
Committee Membership
First
Last
Dept
Mines and
Geology
B&P
Geography
Lib
BMB
Math
Pediatrics
ME
Geoffrey
Sharon
Douglas
Patrick
John
Valentin
Echezona
Yanyao
Blewitt
Brush
Boyle
Colegrove
Cushman
Deaconu
Ezeanolue
Jiang
Markus
Roberto
Grant
Anupama
Kemmelmeier
Mancini
Mastick
Mohan
Karitka
Shetty
Qi
Jonathan
Peter
Wan
Weinstein
Weisberg
Sociology
Physics
Biology
English
Internal
medicine
Phys and
Cell Bio
Physics
NRES
W. Larry
David
Williams
Zeh
Psych
Ex Board
Unit
COS
CLA
COS
LIB
CABNR
COS
SOM
EN
CLA;
ICR
Liaison
COS
COS
CLA
SOM
SOM
COS
CABNR
COS;
IRB
Liaison
Liaison
Committee Annual and Standing Charges
Purpose: The Research and Grants Committee monitors university policies and offices that
significantly affect the ability of faculty to compete for external funding, conduct high-quality
research, and publish research results. The committee studies the best practices of our aspirant
institutions, and makes recommendations to improve the university’s research capacity.
Chair to meet with the Executive Board in March 2012. Report due for Presentation to Faculty
Senate in April 2012.
Standing Charges:
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 1 of 21
1. Develop strategies to implement the recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate over
the past three years. Report on the implementation status of these recommendations, and
assess whether any of the recommendations should be modified or dropped.
2. Review the Research and Grants 2010-11 report and recommendations with the Vice
President of Research, determining if they are viable or not and should be developed
further or if they have been adequately resolved. Report back to the Executive Board
regarding these mid-year for determination of additional charges.
3. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the
RGC. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be
improved.
4. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting RGC objectives, and
report recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any
request for review.
5. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board
for issues related to RGC charges and objectives.
6. Appoint a liaison from the RGC to the Institutional Review Board Executive Committee
and the Indirect Cost Recovery committee (Ensure there is adequate faculty input
regarding the procedures and formula for internal distribution of Facilities and
Administration (F & A) and their use and allocation through the use of open forum, email,
surveys, etc.) Report committee progress to the executive board and/or senate. Identify
other campus committees with similar missions, and appoint liaisons as appropriate to
facilitate communication between these committees and the Faculty Senate. Recommend
strategies for improving communication between RGC, the OHRP office and IRB panels,
the Office of Sponsored Project Administration, and other relevant campus committees.
Additional Charges:
7. Consulting the Center for Advanced Studies report to enhance research support and the
research climate on campus, consider the following questions and make recommendations
as needed:
1. What is the equitable balance between teaching load and active research?
2. Do mechanisms for crediting supervision of student research need to be adjusted?
3. Should teaching loads be lessened for grant writers?
4. Should teaching credits be banked for free research time?
5. Should an established threshold of F and A money to create an automatic teaching
release be created and, if so, propose a threshold?
8. Study aspirant university policy and create a policy on Principal Investigator (PI)
Eligibility, considering:
1. Is the university’s research mission and compliance obligations best served by a
narrow or broad definition of eligibility?
2. How will exceptions to the policy be handled?
9. Review and provide input regarding the recommendations from the Indirect Cost
Recovery report.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 2 of 21
Detailed Committee Activity
Research and findings
1. Fundraising directed at operating or endowment funds that would support research
activities do not appear to be the top priority for UNR because the President and the
Provost determine the priorities and goals for the University in consultation with the UNR
Foundation, with the Deans of each College or Division weighing in terms of their
respective units. In 2010, $2.68M out of $16.75 M (16%) of foundation funding was given
for research fellowships, assistantships, professorships and other research. In 2011,
$7.45M out of $27.31 M (27.3%) of foundation funding was given for research in these
same categories. Other research might include items such as funding for undergraduate
research or funding for specific research programs in a particular laboratory. The UNR
Foundation approaches donors for support by first understanding the interests of a
particular donor and where possible their financial circumstances, who may or may not
have an interest in funding research. This approach is undertaken by the development
officers who are housed within their respective Colleges. Currently, Directors of
Development exist within the Colleges of Business Administration, Education,
Engineering, Health Sciences (2), Journalism, Liberal Arts (2), Library, and Science.
Vacancies for these Director Offices exist in Athletics (an offer is in process to hire
someone) and in College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources (hiring
will occur once a permanent dean is in place).
2. In 2011, research funding of the University was $81,418,121 with 73% coming from
Federal sources and only 2.7% coming from state sources. The current ICR rate is 41%
(up from 40.5%). The dissemination of research data is much improved with award,
expenditure, and F&A by funding sources, PI, Department, College, and activity being
posted on the OSPA website. In addition, the Office of Research is now publishing a short
newsletter entitled “Research Affairs” that highlights changes in staffing and policies and
summarizes the mission and roles of various research-related offices on campus, as well as
reporting on recent research funding and expenditures.
3. A new Associate Vice president for Research Services, Dr. Gary Snowder, was recently
hired. The stated purpose of this position is to work with the deans and associate deans of
the colleges to ensure that the University’s Research Division is responsive to the needs of
researchers and scholars across campus. Specific assigned duties include oversight of
OSPA, Office of Undergraduate and Interdisciplinary Research, Technology Transfer
Office, Effort Reporting, and Research Infrastructure. The committee applauds this muchneeded addition the Research Division. A new VPR will not be hired until the 2013-14
biennium.
4. Staffing of OSPA was critically low with many unfilled positions being left vacant over
the last several years. The OSPA office has had several changes over the last few years,
including several changes in Directors. A new permanent Director of OSPA, Charlene
Hart, was hired February 1, 2012, and there is now an expectation that open positions will
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 3 of 21
be filled in a timely manner. The committee noted that post-award processing could occur
slowly, taking up to two months from the time an award is made before accounts are set
up.
Currently, there are three vacant positions within OSPA: a Post-Award Manager Position,
an OSPA Information and Training Specialist, and a new pre-award position for which a
job description is being developed. The Post-Award Manager Position is expected to be
filled by May 1, 2012. The Information and Training Specialist position search has been
approved and will be posted by March 1, 2012 with a projected fill date of June/July 2012.
The new pre-award position is expected to be filled by September/October of 2012.
5. Grants specialists have now been hired and embedded within several Colleges (e.g.,
CABNR, ENG, COS, CLA, CE, and the Department of Psychology) to assist faculty with
all aspects of grant preparation. Unit currently lacking embeds include MEDU, COJ,
SOM, and DHS). This is seen by the RGC as a very positive development and is expected
to help improve the submission of additional research grant applications. However, not all
units or colleges are being served equally. Furthermore, these specialists carry out tasks
that are mostly technical, clerical, or budgetary in nature during the grant submission
process. In order to better attract large-scale programmatic grants (e.g., IGERT, MRI,
GAANN, etc.,) the RGC recommends the hiring of a Grants Coordinator or Facilitator
who could assist with the organizing, writing, or editing of grants for specific faculty
groups (see Recommendation #7 below). The committee envisions a position similar to
the grants coordinator currently employed by DRI. Some units have hired Grants
Coordinator on an ad hoc basis and have paid for them from ICR funds.
6. Support for seed funding to stimulate extramural research grant applications on the
UNR campus is inadequate. The Junior Faculty Research Awards has been suspended for
the past five years. These grants used to be of up to $10,000. Current budget deficits
prevent these grants from being awarded. It should also be noted that recent programmatic
grant awards, such as INBRE and EPSCoR, have been providing limited seed grant funds
in an effort to make up for inadequate seed funding. With reduced state funding lines, it is
imperative that the university becomes more self-supporting through its research
enterprise. A small investment in seeding promising and innovative (i.e., high-risk, but
high-reward) research would pay long-term dividends. Not to do so is shortsighted.
In contrast, peer universities within the region continue to have robust programs for
seed funding of the research enterprise despite experiencing fiscal cutbacks. For example,
The Vice President for Research Office at University of Utah has created a “Funding
Incentive Seed Grant Program that supports 1-year $35,000 seed grants sponsored by the
University of Utah Research Foundation. Over $0.5 M are typically awarded every 6
months. In addition, Core Research Facilities can apply for research instrumentation
grants with nearly $0.8 M awarded annually. A Technology Commercialization Projects
program also supports 2-year $35,000/year seed grants.
The Vice President for Research Office at Utah State University sponsors both a
Research Catalyst fund (1-year $20,000 seed grants for individuals) and Seed Program to
Advance Research Collaboration (SPARC) (1-year $35,000 seed grants for groups). A
statewide Utah Science Technology and Research initiative (USTAR) is a long-term,
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 4 of 21
state-funded investment to strengthen economic development within the state that devotes
$23 M to research funding.
A General Research fund with 2-year $10,000 seed grants are sponsored by the Oregon
State Research Office at a rate of about $100,000/year. In addition, a Research Equipment
Reserve Fund is available for equipment valued at $7500-$100,000 at a rate of about
$600,000/year.
At Washington State University, the Office of Research and the Graduate School
provides $25,000/1-year seed grants at a rate of about $150,000/year. In addition to
faculty and graduate student small grants programs and several other internal grants
programs in specific subject areas.
Idaho State University maintains an internal seed grant program that funds proposal up
to $18,000/1-year at a rate of about $180,000 year.
On April 16, 2012, the Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) announced a
new seed program to support entrepreneurial UNR faculty to self-organize into
transformative, integrated research partnerships. Funding will be available to support up to
three (3) pre-proposal development grants (up to $3000 each). After review by the VPR’s
University Research Council, one (1) of the Proposal Planning Reports would be selected
and supported by additional funding (up to $20,000) for the creation and submission of a
strategic, collaborative, nationally competitive research grant. The committee noted that
while this is certainly a step in the right direction to stimulate the development of large
collaborative grants (see recommendation 13 below), it does not provide adequate funding
to help foster the gathering of preliminary data often essential for the submission of a
nationally competitive federal research grant.
7. A faculty travel grants program remains in effect that provides only $300 for domestic
travel and $700 for international travel. These are modest contributions, but still helpful.
8. UNR currently has not conduced adequate strategic discussions about research priorities
in the past and currently lacks a strategic plan to focus efforts on specific research needs.
Recommendations for strategic planning for research activities were included a 2008
report provided to the President by the Pappas Consulting Group, Inc. A more visible role
is needed for the University Research Council (URC), which is currently made of
Associate Deans of Research (or appointees acting in this capacity) within various
Colleges and Schools. The purpose of the URC is to advise the VPR on matters relating to
research and research training, the University’s strategic plan and overarching policy,
referred to the committee by the Academic Board, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chair of the
Committee, or a member of the University Executive with portfolio responsibility for
research. The URC is also expected to monitor the development of the University’s
policies in relation to research, to advise on the coordination of the University’s research
effort, to monitor the quality of the University’s research activities, and to promote the
University’s research activities and accomplishments.
The RGC noted that the many faculty members do not know about the existence of
the URC, as it has not generated any reports informing the faculty senate or other bodies
of its recommendations or activities. The URC should work to better publicize itself to
faculty members. The RGC respectfully requests that a copy of this report be forwarded to
the URC so that they might assist in making the recommendations outline below.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 5 of 21
9. UNR currently provides a formal Faculty Release Time Program in the form of its
Course Buyout Policy. The purpose of this policy is to provide faculty members with
funding to develop external grants proposals or to pursue scholarly activities including
research and writing and other grant related activities. Many UNR faculty members are
not aware of the existence of the current Course Buyout Policy and can find details at:
http://www.unr.edu/administrative-manual/2000-2999-personnel/academic-andadministrative-personnel/2513-course-buyout-policy. Buyout of teaching is determined by
mutual consent of the department chair and dean.
Peer institutions, such as Oregon State University, also offer teaching release
programs that provide members with release time from teaching to pursue research
activities including preparation of individual and group grant applications and to perform
research once a grant is awarded. Requests are handled on a case-by-case basis and
teaching expenses are accounted for during the application process. See:
http://oregonstate.edu/research/incentive/frt for details.
10. The Vice President for Research (VPR) Dr. Marsha Read is commended for holding
regular, informal meetings with faculty members to receive feedback and input with
College representatives in the area of research as well as faculty members involved in
research. This is in response to a previous recommendation made by the RGC. Written
responses to recommendations made during 2010-2011 are appended below.
11. The Vice President for Research (VPR) Dr. Marsha Read is commended for the
development of a list-serve (researchnotes@lists.unr.edu) in 2009 to inform interested
researchers on the UNR campuses about grant opportunities, recent grant awards, and
other research-related topics. The RGC noted that many faculty members remain unaware
of its existence, as it has not been advertised since that time, but the list-serve is being sent
to all new hires.
12. In the past, the RGC has made the recommendation that an on-line electronic grant
filing and processing system, including electronic signatures, be adopted by OSPA for the
routing and processing of research grants and contracts. This recommendation is finally
being implemented. To use the system Deans, Chairs and PIs and staff will need to be on
board and will initially require support and training. In the fall of 2011, OSP hired a parttime position to support faculty and staff members in the use of the new SharePoint
proposal routing process. The College of Science established business processes for the
routing and approval using the system. The College of Engineering has interested PIs who
would like to use the system as well. There has been quite a bit of coordination at multiple
levels of administration and staff to get the system up and running for the COS. The
School of Medicine in Las Vegas has also been using the system successfully since
summer 2011. The current system is ready to go, but OSPA will wait until the migration
to the most current version of SharePoint (2010) is completed before the campus-wide
rollout occurs. The rationale here is that it would be easier on members and staff to use the
routing process under the newer version to begin with, rather than to learn two versions
within a few months of each other. The interfaces look quite a bit different from one
another (imagine Office 2007 vs. 2010).
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 6 of 21
The College of Science, volunteers from College of Engineering and Medicine Las
Vegas faculty and staff members are using the system currently. SharePoint 2010 will be
rolling out shortly, and because the interface looks significantly different than that of the
current SharePoint 2007 interface, OSPA has decided to wait until SharePoint 2010 is up
and running before it is rolled out to other colleges. Additionally, OSPA will be filling a
student worker position to provide campus assistance for using this system. An OSPA
Information and Training Specialist will also be available to assist faculty with
SharePoint. Unfortunately, OSPA currently does not have funding for a full-time staff
person to support SharePoint. Depending on the training demands associated with this and
other software systems, a full-time staff position should be considered as student worker
assistance can be intermittent, which is unacceptable if a grant deadline is near.
In preparation the use of the system by other units within UNR, Department Chairs will
be asked to provide memos that designate those authorized to approve the OSP 1, 11, etc.
forms on their behalf. An additional memo designating those individuals who can
approve on behalf of the Dean will also be needed. Once received, these names will be
added to the appropriate groups in order for approvals to be processed electronically.
13. According to the VPR the pool of funding for start-ups has been static whereas the
overall start-up packages have increased in the last few years. Therefore, more funding for
start-up packages would be required. If new faculty member hires occur in the future as
has been announced, then a doubling in start-up funding would likely be appropriate and
prudent to satisfy new position demands and ensure that adequate funds are available as
needs arise.
14. There are no plans to establish a pool of bridge funding to help faculty members who
are transitioning from one source of funding to another, or who temporarily (i.e., short
period of time) lose their funding. Furthermore, the Salary and Benefits Committee noted
in their 2011 report to the Faculty Senate that bridge funding of soft-funded positions
between grant contracts is currently made at the discretion of the unit or the VPR and that
the current budget climate and administrative opposition makes funding of a bridge salary
pool (like DRI’s) unlikely at this time. However, the RGC has made a recommendation
below in favor of establishing a Research Support Fund that could address this issue in
part.
15. There are no plans to establish a pool of leave funding for research faculty members
whose appointments are soft-money funded from research grants and contracts. This issue
was investigated by Dr. Williams of the RGC and the VPR reports that procedures for
setting up leave pools would need to be negotiated with federal authorities and that the
DHHS regional office would not entertain such a suggestion. Thus, the proposal
for establishing a pool of money to be used for leaves of absence for grant-funded faculty
members appears to be stalled at this time. The RGC noted that DRI does provide for sick
and annual leave pools.
16. The 2010-2011 RGC recommended the use of an online electronic filing and
processing system in the University Travel Department for the processing and execution
of travel requests and refunds and the use of an online electronic filing and processing
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 7 of 21
system in the University Purchasing Department for the processing and execution of
purchases.
A follow-up response was received from Tom Judy who indicated that while these are
desirable goals, these recommendations would require a state-of-the-art software
capability that UNR currently lacks. The current financial system for purchasing is from
the mid-1990. However, Mr. Judy indicated that a campus representative to an NSHE
System-wide Steering Committee that has undertaken the task of identifying, acquiring,
and installing new financial system software, similar to the recent effort to acquire and
finally implement the new Student Information System from PeopleSoft. The RFP for an
updated financial system went out on March 8, 2012. This effort should result in the
acquisition of the capabilities recommended by the RGC. The timeline for completion of
this effort is uncertain at this time, but would be in the one and one-half to two year
timeframe, optimistically.
Related to both Travel and Purchasing issues is the need for electronic signatures in the
implementation of these systems. A long-standing request of NSHE System Chief Counsel
is the approval of acceptable standards for acceptance of electronic signatures. This
request has been delayed several times and now seems to be an objective of the new
systems to be acquired above.
Additional Charges
17. The RGC was asked to define what is the equitable balance between teaching load and
active research. The answer depends heavily on the specific appointment of each
individual faculty member and must be balanced by the needs of the teaching and outreach
demands present within each unit. However, questions including teaching release time for
grant writers should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Recent budget cuts and related
layoffs of tenured and tenured-track faculty and faculty member reductions due to attrition
and retirements have resulted in increasing teaching loads in several departments, so there
is little appetite for release time. Release time is also countered by the need to have highly
prestigious faculty members provide high quality teaching to undergraduates as opposed
to having teaching done by LOA’s or graduate students. Faculty members seeking
reductions in teaching load are directed to the Course Buyout Policy at:
http://www.unr.edu/administrative-manual/2000-2999-personnel/academic-andadministrative-personnel/2513-course-buyout-policy.
18. The RGC was asked whether or not teaching credits can be banked for free research
time. Currently, faculties are credited for supervision of student research by student fulltime equivalent (FTE) generated as prescribed by NSHE in 2010. Accumulation and
withdrawal of teaching credits depends on the teaching needs within each unit, which can
change from semester to semester, and thus, a prescribed policy might hobble the
flexibility required for coursework delivery. Such decisions are best made at the discretion
of individual faculty members in consultation with their department chairs. Similarly,
should an established threshold of F&A money generated by a faculty member be created
that generates an automatic teaching release? Again, teaching demands are changeable
and automatic establishment of a threshold might impair the ability of a unit to meet
teaching needs. Such decisions are best made on a case-by-case basis.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 8 of 21
19. The RGC investigated principal investigator (PI) eligibility according to UNR policy
and uncovered policies that can be interpreted as sending mixed signals. The NSHE code
currently does not preclude postdoctoral fellow from applying for any grant, contract or
postdoctoral training grant or nationally competitive postdoctoral fellowships as permitted
under guidelines of the research office of each institution. At the same time, UNR
prescribes a narrow definition of eligibility by not allowing postdoctoral fellows to serve
as PIs on grant applications except for specific postdoctoral fellowship programs. The
current policy is prescribed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and limits PI
eligibility to university-paid appointments that are not adjunction appointments or “in
training” appointments such as medical residents, post doctoral researchers, or students.
The committee felt that a broad policy of PI eligibility is desirable for expansion of the
research enterprise. However, any advantages inherent in broadening PI eligibility or
making exceptions to this policy for the sake of increasing research capacity at UNR
would be offset by increased potential liability and compliance failures and thus would not
be well justified at this time. The policies surrounding PI eligibility should be brought into
congruence and procedures should be put into place for the process of how postdoctoral
fellows who secure research funding should proceed in order to remain compliant with
IRB policy.
Interface with Indirect-cost-recovery (ICR) committee
The indirect-cost-recovery (ICR) committee, chaired by Dr. J. Hayes, reviewed the
current formula for the distribution of ICR funds and has issued their report in 2011. The
RGC reviewed this report and makes the following recommendations.
20. The ICR committee is considering a recommendation to request the addition of three
more staff members to the OSPA office to help with and speed up proposal processing and
submission, and grant processing paperwork. The RGC supports this recommendation
because future growth of the UNR research enterprise would be aided by adequate staffing
by well-qualified individuals. This recommendation is being addressed (see item #12
above).
21. The ICR committee is considering a recommendation to establish a University
strategic research fund to stimulate and support strategic initiatives in research. Such a
fund might be supported with up to 10% of future, revised ICR distribution formula. The
RGC supports such a recommendation and suggests greater involvement by the UNR
Foundation to achieve this goal among other recommendations listed below. The ICR
committee is also considering a recommendation to increase the College percentage of
ICR distribution.
22. The ICR committee is considering a recommendation to phase out the current 3.75%
of F&A funds that currently goes to development efforts within the UNR Foundation. The
RGC recommends that this allocation be continued in the near future, however, strategies
for reducing the UNR Foundation’s dependence of this amount of ICR support should be
evaluated immediately and this rate could be reduced slowly over a period of years.
Furthermore, the Foundation should strive to better inform faculty members about how
these funds are leveraged for increasing research support. Greater accountability and
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 9 of 21
demonstration of a return on this investment to research activities is needed if the
Foundation is to justify continued support of this diversion of F&A funds. The Foundation
reports that the current ratio of ICR rate of investment return is about 1:6. Many faculty
members are unaware of this rate of return. One mechanism to better document the return
on investment to research is to break down the distribution of funds flowing from the
foundation as Instruction, Research, and Outreach instead of the rather generic category
currently reported as “Programmatic Enhancements”. Alternatively, ICR funding could be
directed towards support of Directors of Development within those Colleges with
development officers to create improved communication on how these funds directly
benefit faculty research efforts. The RGC is sensitive to the idea that donors typically do
not want their donations used to support overhead expenses of the Foundation. In light of
this, it should be noted that federal grant dollars do support overhead and perhaps
Foundation funds could be drawn from a general fund that is not directed for any
particular purpose.
23. The ICR committee is also considering a recommendation of establishing University
Research Advisory Council to advise the VPR on how to use the strategic research fund.
The RGC is confused by this recommendation because such a research advisory body
already exists in the form of the VPR’s University Research Council and by the
existence of the RGC of the Faculty Senate. This recommendation might stem from the
low visibility of the VPR’s University Research Council and their lack of effective
communication and reporting to faculty members.
24. The ICR committee is considering a recommendation to phase out the current 2.62%
of F&A funds that currently goes Scholarly Activity Fund. This agreement was made at
the time when the COS and the CLA split to compensate the loss of extramural grant
support funds and reflected funding allocated at the time by the VPR and the Dean of Arts
and Science for self-funded research and scholarly activities. The Scholarly Activities
Pool was intended to provide an on-going source of funds to faculty members in those
colleges whose research efforts are typically not funded by external granting agencies.
The RGC recognizes the cultural contributions made by the faculty members within the
CLA to the community at large and thus recommends continuing support of the Scholarly
Activity Fund at 2.62% of F&A funds.
Interface with Institutional Review Board (IRB) Executive Committee
25. The RGC liaison to the IRB Committee met with Nancy Moody, Director of the Office
of Human Research Protection. The office is operating very efficiently, is testing its new
electronic system and is targeting December 2012 for campus wide adoption of "IRB
manager" electronic submission software. A review of protocol reviews by the committee
indicates a favorable situation in terms of low full board protocol decisions and
increasing expedited reviews. UNR is expected to undergo an AAHRPP accreditation site
visit in May 2012.
2011-12 Recommendations (listed in order of priority)
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 10 of 21
Improve the research enterprise of the university in order to drive advances in innovative
discovery-driven instruction efforts, improve student engagement and retention, and
degree completion rates, foster increased intramural and extramural funding rates, and
advance the economic development and diversity of the state. Specific recommendations
for how to improve the research enterprise of the university are listed below.
Recommendation 1. Publish an annual, stand-alone, Research Magazine highlighting
campus research projects, funding and expenditures, recognition of research
accomplishments, examples of the positive impact that research can have on economic
development. The Research Magazine should be written in lay language with short stories
derived from press releases or feature stories covering university-wide research activities.
The emphasis of such stories should be on (potential) applied outcomes of research
findings that might help private and public sector companies and organization realized the
society and economic benefits of conducting basis research. The Research Magazine could
be published by the VPR’s office in association with the President’s Communications
Office staff. If understaffing is a problem for these offices, then coordination among
Colleges to repackage existing articles and press releases and stories could reduce the time
demands associated with putting together such a research magazine. Peer institutions, such
as UNLV, publish such an annual report. Some Schools and Colleges also publish their
own annual reports. The Research Magazine could be a very useful tool for development
or fundraising efforts across UNR, marketing research innovation, improving stakeholder
and alumni relations, informing federal, state, and local policy makers and research
program directors, and student recruitment activities. Printing costs associated with
printing such a magazine are estimated to be about $17,000 for 10,000 copies.
Recommendation 2. Establish a Research Innovation Fund via the UNR foundation.
Funds should be targeted specifically for this purpose from donors with key target areas
identified to suit a wide range of general donor interests (i.e., Renewable Energy Initiative,
French Language Instruction, etc.). Specific programmatic needs of interest to donors
should also be identified. Funds would be used to support seed grants in the range of
$25,000 to $500,000 as conducted by all regional peer institutions including the
University of Arizona, Oregon State University, The University of Oregon, Utah State
University, the University of Utah, Washington State University and the University of
Washington. Seed funding should not be limited to tenure-track faculty members as it was
in the past through the Junior Faculty Research Awards.
A second area of support would be to create and support endowed professorships
in priority research areas on campus. Both the innovation and endowed professorship
funds would be excellent “naming” opportunities for donors. The current model used by
the UNR foundation is to have the Deans and their Development Officers, who would also
engage Department Chairs, working together to identify specific donors or corporate
partners for specific project initiatives. Even though this approach appears to be narrowly
focused and fails to take advantage of the much larger body of potential donors, it should
be noted that the minimum gift required for establishing an endowed professorship is
$500,000. The development of a fundraising campaign would be a way to engage more
potential donors about the need for endowed professorships, which is a concept being
considered by the UNR Foundation in consultation with the President and the Provost.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 11 of 21
This recommendation reiterates past calls for increased support of research made by the
Pappas Consulting Group in 2008 and the Center for Advanced Studies in 2009. The RGC
strongly urges the President and the Provost to finally take action on this issue and can
find no good reason for such inaction and apparent apathy.
Recommendation 3. Hire a dedicated Vice-president for Research to relieve the
workload of Marsh Read who is currently fulfilling the responsibilities of two positions
(VPR and Dean of the Graduate School). This office has remained unfilled at UNR in a
dedicated capacity since the departure of Mark Brenner in 2008. This recommendation
reiterates the same recommendation made by the Center for Advanced Studies 2009
Report (see Appendix 3). The vacancy of this office sends a loud and clear signal to UNR
faculty members and to potential new hires that research is not a priority for the
university. Further, activities targeting research activities such as two-way communication
between researchers and administration about campus research infrastructure and
instrumentation, extramural research opportunities, could be better emphasized. As noted
above, the hiring of a new Associate Vice president for Research Services represents real
progress in improving the effectiveness of the Research Office. Hiring a new VPR should
occur in the 2013-2014 biennium.
Recommendation 4. Establish a Research Support Fund via the UNR foundation.
Funds should be solicited from donors from the following set of priority areas: Bridge
funding for faculty research, support for research “start-up” funds and faculty recruitment,
support for junior faculty research, postdoctoral fellowships, graduate student stipends,
and undergraduate research scholarships and stipends. A dedicated pamphlet that
specifically targets research and specific research areas of strength within UNR, similar to
existing Foundation pamphlets that target Endowment Opportunities, Estate and Gift
Planning, Faculty Support, and Student Scholarships should be developed and printed at
little cost. The Foundation appears to be receptive to taking immediate action on this
recommendation. The lack of institutional and state support for graduate-level research is
especially troubling due to the recent withdrawals of nearly all support for
interdisciplinary graduate programs on the UNR campus.
Recommendation 5. Establish a Graduate Student Alumni Association via the UNR
Foundation. Graduate students are more likely to support research related activities
through a separate and distinct program that is specifically targeted at supporting graduate
school activities such as graduate student stipends and research fellowships and teaching
assistantships Funds should be solicited from graduate donors who typically have greater
earning potential than alumni who have not sought graduate degrees and who would have
a natural affinity to support graduate school activities. The Graduate School Dean and the
Graduate Student Association (GSA) could help coordinate the establishment of this
program and a Graduate Student Alumni award at Homecoming or other events to
showcase the existence of this association. The Director of Alumni Relations offered
resources such as electronic communications, a chapter start-up manual, etc. to whoever is
interested in organizing a Graduate Student Alumni Chapter. This process is used
whenever a chapter is initiated, as they are volunteer-driven. The Outstanding Graduate
Alumnus award has also been officially incorporated into the annual Homecoming Gala at
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 12 of 21
the request of VPR Marsha Read. These items, in addition to working with specific
Colleges and Departments, could assist the Development Office in doing targeted graduate
level fundraising.
Recommendation 6. Restore funding of Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs and
expand funding for these programs in the future. The recent budget cuts to nearly all
interdisciplinary graduate programs will result in long-term, devastation to the research
enterprise of the university and will cut the important links in undergraduate research
training afforded by a postdoctoral-graduate student-undergraduate student training
continuum present in many research laboratories. Recently, the VPR restored some
funding to Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs. For example, $100,000 was restored to
ATMS for DRI instruction, as well as $100,000 for Hydrologic Sciences to preserve
teaching contributions made by DRI faculty members. This action was taken because the
DRI faculty members are the only instructors currently available for teaching needed
courses for these degree programs. In addition, each Interdisciplinary Graduate Program
received $19,000 towards a graduate assistantship and a director stipend of $1000-$4000
depending on the size of the program. In addition, the Deans agreed to provide their
portion of operating dollars for this coming year that they provided last year. While these
partial restorations of funding are much appreciated, the RCG felt that these stop-gap
measures currently in place do not provide a sustainable model for base funding of the
interdisciplinary graduate programs into the future, and that these programs are vital for
maintaining the strength of the UNR research enterprise.
Recommendation 7. Hire a dedicated Grants Coordinator or Facilitator to assist in the
strategic coordination, development, and polishing the presentation of large, group grants
as well as individual investigator grants. The role of this person would be distinct from
the dedicated grant specialists embedded within colleges who provide mainly technical
and administrative support rather than strategic assistance. The Grants Coordinator or
Facilitator would assist with the organization and writing of programmatic grants for
specific faculty groups or individual faculty members as time permitted.
Recommendation 8. Establish an Office of Research Development and develop a UNR
Research Agenda. This office would serve as a liaison between the UNR Vice-president
for Research and the UNR Foundation to facilitate targeted and aggressive development
efforts for research. This office would also work with targeted faculty members and Deans
as they have in the past to cultivate donors and corporate partners to improve donor
relationships. An example of Research Agendas developed at peer institutions can be
found at: http://oregonstate.edu/research/research-agenda.html. The Office of Research
Development and the new Associate Vice president for Research Services, Dr. Gary
Snowder, could take the lead in coordinating the efforts of the Media Relations Office and
the Integrated Media (Marketing) offices in the development of the Research Magazine
mentioned above in Recommendation #1.
Recommendation 9. Lobby the State Legislature to create and FUND a statewide
Research Innovation Fund. UNR has not made an effective case to the State Legislature
that research investments will lead to economic development and diversification within
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 13 of 21
the state. The top priority for most high-tech or biotech companies is a highly trained
workforce. The university should be doing everything in its power to develop and
diversify the UNR research enterprise. Doing so could also provide leveraging
opportunities for fundraising by the UNR Foundation. All leadership administrators and
faculty members within UNR are urged to make serious and concerted efforts to have
strategic discussions about research priorities, plans, and needs. This fund would be
distinct from the recently created, but unfunded “Knowledge Fund” set up by the State
Legislature in 2011.
Recommendation 10. Increase the visibility of research activities and their impact on the
local community and society showcasing research faculty and staff members and their
results in pubic outlets such as the print media, including the aforementioned Research
Magazine, radio and television media stories and shows, and the video monitors at Lawlor
Event Center and sporting events.
Recommendation 11. The RGC recommends that the Regents policy that currently limits
postdoctoral scholar appointments to 5 years be increased to 7 years to reflect national
trends in time of service in this type of appointment, the current realities of the academic
job market, and to recognize the potential research contributions of postdoctoral
researchers.
Recommendation 12. Advertise the VPR’s research notes list-serve
(researchnotes@lists.unr.edu) to all faculty members each semester and provide
instructions on how faculty members can subscribe.
Recommendation 13. Explore potential new, collaborative research opportunities where
they exist within discrete units. For example, one very worthwhile investment would be to
develop a dedicated, clinical research unit within the SOM in Las Vegas to help jump start
clinical research. Currently, individual researchers are being approached by
representatives of private industry (e.g., pharmaceutical industry) to take up clinical
research, but there is no forum to do so. Each individual investigator is expected to
develop their own clinical trial unit, which is a daunting undertaking and discourages
many potential clinical researchers. The formation of a clinical trial unit in which research
resources together can be pooled would be a worthwhile investment in 2-3 years as has
been demonstrated by other medical schools. In this regard, Dr. Thomas Schwenk, VP for
Division of Health Sciences and Dean of the UNR School of Medicine, has committed to
building a campus-wide infrastructure for clinical research in general and clinical trials in
particular using departmental and school F&A. Similarly, Emergency Medicine has a
very robust infrastructure upon which enhanced programs can be built and these deserve
further discussion moving forward.
Recommendation 14. Due to recent increases in airfares and fuel prices, the RGC
recommends that the VPR increase faculty travel grants program provide $500 for
domestic travel and $1000 for international travel.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 14 of 21
Appendix 1: 2010-11 RGC Recommendations (and VPR responses)
Recommendation 1. The RGC recommends the use of an online electronic filing and
processing system, including electronic signatures, in the OSPA office for the processing
of proposal and research grant/contract paperwork. This will modernize and help to speed
up the business of the OSPA office. Most (external) proposal submission today is done
electronically, but our internal workings are not yet up to this standard.
Response: The VPR Office has been working with IT to develop an electronic routing
system. While the NSHE legal counsel has not given permission for electronic
signatures, the system does use electronic approvals from relevant parties as dean,
chair, etc. The system has been beta tested with Cooperative Extension, then revised
and is currently being beta tested with UNSOM (primarily clinical faculty at the Las
Vegas campus). Revisions have been indicated. When these revisions are made, we will
move to beta testing with a wider faculty group such as College of Science. The goal
would be to have beta testing complete Fall 2011 and implement campus-wide Spring
2012.
Lisa Wilson is spearheading this effort of OSPA and is copied on this e-mail.
Recommendation 2. The RGC recommends the use of an online electronic filing and
processing system in the University Travel Department for the processing and execution
of travel requests and refunds. This will help to expedite University travel procedures in
general and, in particular, those required by research activities such as conference and
professional meeting travelling as well as travel to perform experiments in national
facilities and out-of-campus laboratories.
Response: While travel is often related to research activities, the travel department
reports to Tom Judy and the Vice President for Administration and Finance – Mr. Ron
Zurek. VP Zurek and Tom Judy have been copied on this e-mail response.
Recommendation 3. The RGC recommends the use of an online electronic filing and
processing system in the University Purchasing Department for the processing and
execution of purchases. This will help to expedite University purchasing procedures in
general and, in particular, all purchase related with research funded by grants and
contracts.
Response: As with travel, the Purchasing department does process a significant number
of grant/contract related purchases, but does not report to the Vice President for
Research. Purchasing is under Vice President for Administration and Finance, Mr.
Ron Zurek.
Recommendation 4. The RGC recommends that the VPR’s office re-establish the
practice of annual Junior Faculty Research Awards. This additional source of funding and
support for junior faculty was important in the past and current, promising young faculty
should be able to benefit from it.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 15 of 21
Response: This is a worthwhile funding goal and will be considered for reestablishment as the financial picture improves. However, it should be noted that the
goal would not be prioritized as high as the following (1) expansion of OSPA staff, (2)
bridge funding (see next recommendation), (3) a fund for supporting strategic research
investments (new hires, large equipment) and (4) expanding support for VPR Core
Research facilities. The budget cuts ran deep in the VPR budget and it will take time to
restore.
Recommendation 5. The RGC recommends that the University set up a pool of bridge
funding the help faculty active on research who temporarily lose funding or as they
transition from one source of funding to another. At the moment, the University offers no
back up to the “ups-and-downs” of research, soft-money funding. Such a fund would have
an important impact on graduate students and post-doctoral research associates who are
fully supported by and dependent on research grants and contracts.
Response: see response to recommendation 4
Recommendation 6. The RGC recommends that the University establish a pool of leave
funding for research faculty whose appointments are soft-money funded from research
grants and contracts. The University is lagging behind in several aspects that are relevant
for soft-money research faculty. The lack of a leave-pool prevents research faculty who
significantly contribute to the research enterprise in campus from pursuing professional
development.
Response: The VPR and Tom Judy from the Administration and Finance division met
with members of the RCG in the Spring of 2011. At this time, the indications are that
legally it is not possible to establish a leave pool for only soft-funded faculty, but it
would need to be a leave pool for all faculty. The main issue to be overcome with the
establishment of a university wide leave pool is the financial liability associated with the
first year of transitioning to a leave pool as at that point, no leave would have accrued
and charges for leave would need to be subsidized. It is obvious that the recent budget
situations do not allow for this at the current time.
Recommendation 7. The RGC recommends that the University Foundation consider the
establishment of a pool of funding for graduated research assistantships given the recent
loss of all interdisciplinary graduate program research funding.
Response: This recommendation would need to be considered by the Provost and the
Vice President for Development as well as the President, as the President and the
Provost set the larger development goals for the UNR Foundation. They have been
copied on this e-mail.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 16 of 21
Appendix 2: 2009-10 RGC Recommendations (and VPR responses)
Recommendation 1. Coordination between offices (such as gaps in coordination between
OSPA and HR
Response: OSPA is working to make sure that communication is effective will all
relevant units on campus. An outcome of one such discussion is that HR is currently
looking at issues related to hiring research personnel that do not fit neatly into the
classified system.
Recommendation 2. Research Climate and mentoring.
Response: The VPR instituted with this Fall a Research Fellows program. This targets
8 junior faculty (selected by and recommended by their respective deans) to participate
in a Grantsmanship program that provides for a series of one-on-one meetings designed
to provide research mentorship. This is coupled with some campus-wide grants
workshops that open on a first come/first serve basis to all faculty. These first
workshops were completed this past week.
Recommendation 3. Implementation of and transition to electronic systems for the OHRP
and OSPA. Specifically, question have been asked about (1) the ability of a new OSPA
system to provide efficient service for small grants from non-federal sources (2)
coordination among OHRP, OSPA and HR systems and (3) the implementation and
training processes.
Response: Both OSPA and OHRP are in beta testing phases for electronic routing and
transmission systems. The beta testing is anticipated to last into the Fall 2011 semester
with the goal of campus-wide implementation Spring 2012.
Recommendation 4. Flexibility with regard to using grant funds to address personnel
payment issues (some researchers expressed interest in being able to set aside grant funds,
to bused to funding necessary expenditures such as pregnancy leave.
Response: Federal regulations for the use of federal funds would prohibit setting aside
funds to pay for pregnancy leave. A leave pool would need to be established to
accomplish things of this nature. The issues related to establishing a leave pool are
addressed in the responses to the 2010-11 report from RCG.
Recommendation 5. Two-way communication between researchers and administrative
offices to efficiently gather information about researcher issues, to provide a basis for
ongoing system improvement.
Response: The VPR uses the Research Council composed of a representative from each
college (often the Assoc. Dean for Research) and members of the faculty senate to help
maintain the described two-way communication. In addition the list serve “Research
Notes” used by the VPR is another avenue to provide relevant (hopefully) information
to researchers across campus. It is noted that the 2009-2010 report calls for the RCG to
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 17 of 21
facilitate this two-way communication via a campus-wide survey to be developed and
implemented.
Recommendation 6. A series of recommendations from the past are around developing
more effective communication to and from the OHRP, to expand services of the OHRP to
non-UNR campus faculty, and formation of an IRB Users Group
Response: As noted previously, the OHRP is beta testing an electronic system to
improve transmittal of protocols, etc. The new Director (copied on this e-mail) is in the
process of reviewing current OHRP policies and procedures with the goals of quality
improvement in mind. More information on changes in that office will come from the
Director, Nancy Moody as she moves to implement changes to reflect improved
customer service. A continuing issue is the ability of the OHRP to respond to those
units with high demands (large number of protocols). The ability to respond in a timely
manner is in part, dependent upon having appropriate expertise on the IRBs to allow
for appropriate review. It is important to note that the Department of Psychology has
been very responsive to this need and has forwarded the names of several faculty to
serve on the Social Behavior Board. It is also good to note that the faculty who noted
IRB service as part from UNSOM was higher this year and will help in providing
expertise related to the biomedical IRB. It is this type of collaboration that is important
to continued improvement in the OHRP ability to process protocols as efficiently as
possible.
Recommendation 7. It was recommended that there be a review of policies governing the
use of long term, grant-funded research faculty and their ability to participate in some
limited teaching and service roles.
Response: The Provost office (Provost copied on this e-mail) has a fund to buy-out
limited (5%) of a faculty to facilitate their ability to participate in teaching and service
activities.
Recommendation 8. It was recommended to develop a plan to improve support for
faculty research and scholarly activities in fields without access to significant external
funding.
Response: The F&A generated does provide a portion of funds for the Scholarly
Activities Program that is administered by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. The
long-term goal is to establish these funds from non-F&A sources, and obviously with
improved financial conditions to expand the size of the pool to facilitate the scholarly
and performance based activities of such faculty.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 18 of 21
Appendix 3: Center for Advanced Studies (CAS) 2009 Recommendations (12
Excellent-Rated Ideas (rated > 4 on a 5 point scale) for Fostering Research at UNR
Reducing barriers to conducting research
1. Electronic signatures for grants and OSPA Transmittal forms
Faculty members wonder why, in the modern era, that have to carry grants from
office to office for signatures.
2. All grant and research related entities on campus need a service organization
mentality
Researchers feel that all units and levels (department staff; OSPA; the IRB; the VP
for Research; Deans) should be adopt a service orientation for encouraging and
supporting research and should be evaluated on that basis. Often researchers feel as
though they have to use social capital just to bring in funds to the campus and to
run projects. It begins to feel like begging for help in order to do their job, which is
discouraging.
3. Streamline the hiring process for technicians or other grant staff
Hiring a technician or other grant staff at UNR is a lengthy process that is
burdened by the State classified system. We need a way to hire people outside of
the classified system to avoid the lengthy paperwork. These projects are focused
and time-limited -- researchers need to be able to hire staff quickly when grants
come on line, or when fast changing research needs call for it. Other Universities
have systems in place that are not as burdensome as ours.
6. We need more efficiency in administration of funded research activities
When State strictures are applied on top of Federal rules in the operations of units
of the Controller's office, UNR researchers are boxed in by conflicting, Byzantine
strictures that stifle research productivity. State-sponsored activities should
conform to State rules but externally funded activities should conform to the rules
of the funding agency (usually federal), not necessarily the State rules. All units of
the Controller's office -- purchasing, PCard, travel, personnel, etc. – should
separate the oversight of federally funded research from the oversight of Statefunded activities. With fewer rules to follow, and clearer sets of rules, the
Controller's units will be able to do their jobs more efficiently, saving
administrative costs.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 19 of 21
Dealing with infrastructural problems
12. Increased support for post-award grant administration.
Current administrative assistants and PIs are often already overburdened with the
duties involved in administering grants. Periodic reporting, accounting, and other
paperwork unrelated to the actual research will increase dramatically if our goal of
increasing external funding is realized. We need to find a way to increase support
for post-award grant administration.
17. Increase graduate student support
Graduate students and post-docs fuel the process of research. The number of
graduate student members often limits the productivity of a lab. If research is to be
increased, we must increase graduate student support to attract more and better
students. This should be considered an investment since productive labs will often
successfully compete for external funds that can then finance further grad support.
Helping the University and local community to understand the role of research
20. Show the economic impact of funding by linking reports of funding to staff /
employment impact
In the recent RGJ story on faculty salaries it became evident that the public does
not understand how much employment and economic impact is produced by
research grants. The University needs to both track and tout these numbers.
21. Research needs to be marketed to the public – citizens need to understand what
research is and how it impacts the economy
Through web-based, print, and broadcast media we need to get the story out.
Research makes a difference in the economic, health, and social life of the
community. Create a Researchers’ Speakers Bureau and direct public relations
toward this theme.
Recognizing, incentivizing, and rewarding research productivity
27. Provide Chairs, Deans, VPs, with total F & A generated each year and by whom
In some units, F&A is sent to a common ICR account that then administrators
(such as chairs and Deans, or VPs) can access. However, they often do not know
where this money comes from and who and which project exactly has generated it.
This makes it difficult for researchers to advocate effectively for increased support
within their own units. Administrators often view these indirect funds as "manna
from heaven" and perhaps as a result they may fail to apply these funds to the
development of sorely needed research infrastructure. The lack of information also
leads to all faculty requests for help and for support for research to be considered
equally when the contribution is actually not equal. F & A distribution should be
made transparent, particularly to administrators. Creating a tradition on campus
that at the end of the year, OSPA sends an analysis, of which investigator and
which project generated the ICR funds administrators have accessed the previous
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 20 of 21
year, would bring more visibility to the contribution of research to regular
departmental operations as well. These benefits are often invisible to other faculty.
30. Graduate teaching and research supervision needs to be recognized in the teaching
recipe even when it is not classroom based
More credit should be given for supervision and training that is not classroom
based. One way to do that might be for the various credits for thesis, research
supervision, and dissertations all to be linked to faculty, not just to departments as
a whole, and when a certain number of such credits accrue faculty should be given
an earned release from classroom teaching.
Increase appropriate accountability
49. Foundation funding needs to be linked to research
A large amount of University-wide F & A goes to the Foundation. The foundation
should be held accountable for those funds and their impact on fostering research
growth. The CAS, the Council of Funded Researchers [another proposed idea], the
VPR, the Provost and the President should get a quarterly report stating how the
funds were used to promote research
Administrative changes
59. We need a Vice-President for Research. The search should proceed immediately.
And we need one with a real budget
The VP for Research office seems to have been devaluated over time. We need a
nationally recruited, powerful VP for Research with a real budget to make a
difference in the life of research on this campus.
Faculty Senate End-Year Report
Page 21 of 21