Council on Research Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Life Sciences Research Building, Conference Room 1143
9:30am-11:30am
Members present: Aiguo Dai, James Dias, Lisa Donohue, Samantha Friedman, Igor Kuznetsov, Janet Marler, John Monfasani, Jen Montimurro, Loretta Pyles
Members absent: Tina DeMarco, Erzsebet Fazekas, Hemalata Iyer, Kevin Knuth, Kajal Lahiri, Yangzi Isabel Tian
Also attending: Antigone McKenna, Thecla Philip
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Council on Research Chair, John Monfasani, at 9:47am.
Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 22, 2013 and October 18, 2013
The minutes were approved with no amendments.
Committee Reports:
1. Benevolent Awards Committee:
Samantha Friedman, chair, reported that there were eleven applications for the Benevolent Association Graduate Student Research awards this semester, totaling $5,904. The total amount of funding available is $3,500. The committee ranked the applications based on the following six criteria: budget, clarity, methods, proposal progress, writing, and outside funding. One application was disqualified due to the fact that its budget was for travel to a conference, rather than research, which is ineligible for funding as stated in the guidelines. The committee recommended funding seven of the proposals, choosing not to fund three proposals which were not at dissertation proposal stage and included funding for conference travel and/or software packages which were available through other means on campus. The seven which were recommended for funding were well motivated and would make best use of the money if awarded.
The recommendations of the committee were unanimously accepted.
2. Conference Support Awards Committee:
Aiguo Dai, chair, reported that they received five applications for conference support awards, many of which were in the social sciences to pay for stipends for speakers. The total amount requested was $11,378, which is below the amount available for these awards. They made the following recommendations:
i. Cruz- do not fund. Local, no other funding, and very expensive for a one-day local meeting
ii. Liang, Messner, Huang, Chen- fund. Substantial external support, 40% international participants, 10% outside national participants from top universities, reasonable expenses. Funding was recommended at $2,500.
iii. Sheperdson – fund at $2,500. Amount requested ($2,678) was over maximum amount. Meal expenses seem high and it only includes 5% international participation; however, external funding has been obtained (CAS, department and outside sources) and they plan on 150 people attending, so recommend funding at $2,500.
iv. Marler- undecided. For the Council to discuss.
v. Siegel, Briar-Lawson – fund at $1,500 or at $2,500 with additional details. It was determined that the proposal was worth funding, especially given that Cuba is a huge opportunity and this conference was to be held locally; however, there was no non-SUNY sponsorship and it was unclear why stipends were so high for SUNY faculty, unless there were travel expenses involved.
The recommendations of the committee were accepted with one abstention (Marler).
Janet Marler excused herself from the room to enable the Council to discuss her application. The Council discussed that while the guidelines specifically require a local location within the Capital Region, it was suggested that the SUNY Global Center is effectively a satellite of the campus, and faculty were being encouraged to use this new facility. The underpinning for the guideline requirement was clearly to drive conferences here for local benefit; however, the issue was raised of reputational benefit, if UAlbany is clearly the sponsor of the conference. Additionally, School of Business alumni actively attend events in New York City, and there might be development opportunities for the university. The total cost of the application was small ($1,250) in comparison to the total cost of the conference ($19,000).
In view of the SUNY location, the reputational benefit to the university and the likelihood of strong alumni participation, it was agreed to support the application by a vote of seven to one, with one abstention.
Action: It was also agreed that the committee should review and revise the guidelines to allow for conferences outside of the Capital Region that makes the most sense for the conference/maximizes benefit to the University.
Old Business
1. FRAP-A Guidelines Revision concerning PIs in consecutive years
The draft new text in relation to PIs in consecutive years was raised for discussion. Concerns were voiced that it might be a disincentive to collaboration if people were disqualified from applying in a subsequent year after being a co-PI on an award. The point was raised that the NIH, whose guidelines form the basis for the FRAP review guidelines, do not recognize co-PIs.
It was unanimously agreed that the FRAP subcommittee would review and revise the guidelines and make a recommendation to COR (Action).
2. Review eligibility of first-year faculty in relation to FRAP and other (conference, journal etc.) awards and start-up funds
There were concerns raised about excluding people from being able to access seed funding for new projects, as the point of the FRAP awards is to enable faculty to obtain more funding from outside sources. It was proposed that applicants be required to disclose other available support including start-up funding and justify what they need the FRAP award for, in line with NIH guidelines. This allows an opportunity for discussion and the final decision would be made by the committee. It was unanimously agreed that the FRAP subcommittee would revise the guidelines in line with NIH procedures (Action).
3. Review FRAP guidelines in relation to co-PIs from different colleges/schools
Following from discussion of item 1, it had been recommended that the FRAP applications be for single PIs only in accordance with NIH guidelines; if additional people wish to participate in a project it would be as a collaborator, so faculty could participate as collaborators on many projects as well as being a PI on a project of their own. It was agreed that this issue would be for discussion within the FRAP subcommittee to make a recommendation (action).
4. Requirement for FRAP recipients to submit a final report
The following text was proposed to be added to the FRAP guidelines after Special Note on page 2, to require recipients to submit progress reports as well as final reports at the end of the term of their award:
Progress Report/Final Report: Recipients of FRAP awards must submit to the Office of the Vice President for Research a Progress Report within a year of the initial award and a Final Report within one month of the end of the Award Period. For the 2013/14 round of FRAP awards the deadline for the Progress Report is May 31, 2015, and for the Final Report, May 31, 2016.
The new text was put to a vote and unanimously approved.
5. Suggestions from the CAS FRAP review panel
The suggestions from the CAS review panel were discussed. The point was made that there is a real need for feedback to be given to the applicants. It was also generally agreed that a requirement be added that there should be a literature review in the project summary to give context to the importance of this project within the field; however, the literature review should not count against the five page limit of the project summary. It was unanimously agreed that the committee should revise the wording of the FRAP guidelines to indicate a high-level literature review. It was suggested that the requirements on page 2 be amended to read “describe the proposed project including major theses of the project and investigator’s understanding of the subject matter as grounded in key citations”. The committee is to revise the guidelines and make a recommendation to COR (action).
The meeting was adjourned at 11:23am.
Submitted by Elizabeth Rooks
Council on Research minutes December 12, 2013Page 1