Department of Psychological Sciences
Staff Research Committee
1st March 2012
Present: Mike Oaksford (MO, Chair), Rick Cooper, (RC), Martin Eimer (ME), Mark Johnson,
(MJ), Naomi Adams (NA, minutes)
Apologies: Jacqueline Barnes (JB), Jonathan Smith (JS)
1.
Minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
2.
Matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting
2.1
Grant overhead returns – transferred.
These had been actioned in December.
3.
New research grants since November 2011
Autistica
EU
EU
3.1
Prof M Johnson
Prof D Mareschal
Prof Mark Johnson
294,750
468,386
511,083
Reviewing grant applications
RC reported that there is increasing pressure (from the College/Executive Dean/ESRC) to
review grant applications before submission. The EPSRC has already made this a condition
of submission and is claiming higher success rates. The other research councils will also
probably move to banning failed submissions from re-applying for a set period. ME said that
he often looks at applications from his mentoring group. There was concern that the job of
assessing applications would fall on a small number of people. MO suggested having all
professorial staff as reviewers, and a check box on pFACT to show that the application had
been assessed. It would require staff members to work on applications well before the
deadline rather than at the last minutes, as reviewers would need at least two weeks to be
able to look at the proposal and provide feedback.
It was AGREED that this should apply only to projects in excess of £50k, and that they should
be submitted to the relevant member of professorial staff 2 weeks before the grant
submission deadline.
4.
Research Studentships
4.1
GTAs
NA reported that at present there was looking like a budget line for two GTAs for 2012/13.
The costs was again discussed with a view to dropping the scheme post-REF. NA will
provide research students figures from 2008 onwards.
The GTAs and their supervisors had met with Michael Thomas to discuss workloads and the
PhD/demonstrating balance as there had been concerns raised. RC said that he would
provide minutes of this meeting.
5.
REF
5.1
Impact Dry Run in progress
JB has submitted her draft impact statement and ME said that he was working with Annette
Karmiloff Smith and MJ to produce others. Ted Melhuish is working on his at present.
5.2
Publications Dry Run completed
The working group had considered the submissions to the publication dry run in early January
and had submitted a report to Trevor Pearce.
6.
Requests for Funding
Prunella Gee (PhD student)– contribution towards transcription costs
The committee agreed to pay half the costs - £320.
Jane French (PhD student) – participant payments
The committee agreed to the £500 request.
7.
Centre for Educational Neuroscience
MO reported that this was ongoing but that funding would have to be reviewed.
8.
Malet Street Labs
8.1
Merlin
There are still occasional problems with ventilation/lighting in Merlin. Mo said that when he
visited the labs they did not seem to be working at full capacity with all booths constantly in
use.
8.2
How to get more space (profit this year Wellcome)
MJ reported that the Master had asked him to put in an application to the Wohl Foundation,
although they primarily fund biomedical research, for funds for further lab space. He had met
with David McGhie, and discussed a structure of surrounding rooms based round
wireless/EEG so that participants brain activity can be tracked as they move through a series
of rooms/tasks – this would be useful for toddlers especially as it is hard to keep them still.
ME and Tim Smith could also make use of this facility. MJ said that he was going to meet with
the new Head of Fundraising, Chris Murphy, as college fundraising should be focussed on
research as well as teaching.
9.
AOB
9.1
Genetics grouping proposal (MJ)
MJ put forward the proposal that the BBK genetics grouping should join The
Bloomsbury Centre for Genetic Epidemiology and Statistics – currently LSHTM and
UCL. The centre funds an administrator so BBK had been asked for £4k per year to
contribute. The committee agreed to this on the same basis as the CEN, that funding
would be reviewed if grant income was not forthcoming after a period of time.
Angelica Ronald would be requested to report to the committee at the end of the year
as to what the future plans were.
9.2
EPSRC data archiving.
RC reported that the EPSRC have a new requirement on data archiving in that all
data must be kept in perpetuity. The other research councils are likely to follow this in
the future.
10.
Date of next meeting
21st June