Minutes of the Meeting of the Sph Research Renewal Committee

1

The University of Western Australia

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPH RESEARCH RENEWAL COMMITTEE

School of Population Health Conference Room
Monday 14 March2016

MEMBERS:

Professor Elizabeth Geelhoed (Chair)

Professor Colleen Fisher (Head of School)

Professor David Preen (Deputy Head of School)

Ms Anne McKenzie AM (Consumer Advocate/Manager, Consumer and Community Participation Program

Professor Angus Cook

Prof Jane Heyworth

Assoc/Professor Gina Ambrosini

Professor Matthew Knuiman

Assoc/Professor Tom Briffa

Dr Susan Peters (ORE)

Assoc/Professor Lisa Wood

Ms Jenny Mountain

Ms Fiona Maley (Executive Officer Support))

ATTENDEES:

Liz Geelhoed, Colleen Fisher, David Preen, Anne McKenzie, Matthew Knuiman, Tom Briffa, Susan Peters, Lisa Wood, Jenny Mountain

APOLOGIES:

Angus Cook, Jane Heyworth, Gina Ambrosini

WELCOME

1. Agenda

The Chair requested that the standing item updates be moved ahead of priority area updates. David asked to have added to the agenda an ‘Other business’ item of ‘CHSR Renewal’.

Additions to the agenda: updates on

• Funding
• WAHTN
• Linked data
• Faculty Research Committee
• PLUTUS

1. Actions from previous meetings

The requested funding update from the School Managerhas been added to the February minutes.

Anne provided some additional information regarding the WAHTN management committee; she has been invited to attend as a visitor rather than as a member.

1. Standing item updates.
2. Funding

No updates

• WAHTN

Anne reported that Jo Wilkieattended a WADLIPBoard meeting last week and announced funding through WAHTN of $4 million, more than half of which will go to Consumer and Community Participation (CCP). The RRC would like to offer congratulations to Anne and her group. (This information should remain confidential until an announcement is made.)

Colleen would also like to recognize Liz’s original work in trying to get funding in CCP and for promoting the efforts and benefits of the group.

The funding is aimed to pay people in different institutions to take CCP forward, and supported by Anne and her team. The 3 years of funds will pay for salaries etc for Anne, Hayley, Ngaire and a half-time research assistant plus 6 advocates. The funding will be channeled through UWA so there will still be a full-time CCP person for UWA/SCGH based in SPH.

Anne added that this is the only institution in the world with a CCP group, and that they were invited to submit the application. The submission went in last week.

Additional WAHTN news

Science on the Swan is coming up, with a great list of speakers and including some basic/foundational science. Public health should be represented at this.

• Linked data

No updates

• Faculty Research Committee

Liz reported that David Mackeyis now the chair of this committee and the committee is seeing some renewal. He reports 167 NHMRC grants submitted, half of them via PLUTUS, including 2 PhD scholarships.

David brought up the subject of the many predatory conference emails going around at present, which junior researchers are reading as an invitation to present and are then potentially having to pay for. It is recommended that research group leaders apprise their teams of this risk.

Liz discussed a presentation by Nigel Laing, who has been on soft money for 25 years; he has been very successful in grants, won 6 fellowships and still his salary next year is in doubt. The presentation will be distributed to RRC members.

This situation brings a question about a culture shift in thinking in terms of salary, research money and teaching balances and funding at UWA.

Colleen said that with the restructure, 100 academic positions will be lost and 50 put on later; these 50 may be fellows whose funds are finishing [This statement to be checked with Colleen]

David stated that these will be research-active and successful academics.

Susan mentioned that if someone like Nigel is at risk, what does it mean for early-career or mid-career researchers (ECRs, MCRs)?

Liz agreed that there is a lot of uncertainty, especially with the question of the cost of cutting people off with a lump sum as compared to performance managing them to increase performance. She mentioned that Nigel also said that fellowships should be considered awards or prizes rather than as a career path.

Action: This topic is to be put on the agenda as the main discussion point for the next RRC meeting.

Colleen will be meeting with Dean Wendy Erber and will raise the idea of her attendance at this meeting.

Liz reported that Dr Susan Yates (Faculty Research Development and Training Coordinator) is available to present workshops, and wants to encourage PhD candidates, ECRs and MCRs to take advantage of these.
Colleen mentioned that she will be meeting with Susan and will discuss this.

• PLUTUS

Liz communicated Angus’s email response regarding PLUTUS:

Thepreliminary feedback Angus has received onPlutus is that overallthe system seems to have worked reasonably well this year.

The main problemis with messages that are automatically sent out to the reviewers each time some aspect of the grant is updated, which is frustrating/confusing/off-putting for the reviewers who believe that they are being asked to look through the document again. This is nothelpful if we will be seekingtheir participation againin future years.

It should also be noted that thePlutus reviewers should ideally be approached AFTER all the main Investigators have reviewed the grant. It is not really appropriate forPlutus reviewers to be usedthe first option or a replacement for Chief Investigator assessments ofthe Grant.

He will provide more feedbackin April if more comments come through.

It was agreed that the system is still not perfect, requiring double-loading and resulting in reviewers getting requests to re-review.

David reported that he has found a way to circumvent this issue and will share it with anyone who needs it.

Liz agreed and says that the feedback is being sent back to research services.

Action: Angus will attend the RRC April meeting with an update.

1. Report on 4 priority strategic areas

• Foster new ideas

David says that the one page outline will be provided at the next meeting.

Action: Contact David and Gina (over) a week before the next meeting to circulate the outline to RRC members. (Liz/FM)

• Foster industry links

David reported that he, Judy and Sue Young met to discuss more systematic ways of fostering industry links. There was a current list of individual linkages online but this may need to be updated.

The group looked at where SPH already has strong links, with a view to identifying gaps that the School needs to target via David, Judy, or a consortium of a few researchers.

Looking at this from a whole of school (WOS) perspective, it was suggested that every 6 months, 1-2 areas/programs that SPH is running be identified and these be actively discussed and promoted to seek partnerships and potential funding. David, Judy and Sue plan to meet regularly to fine-tune the system.

Liz reported that D’Arcy suggested approaching industry partners with an opportunity for matching funds. Any financial offers would need to go through the Finance Committee first. D’Arcy didn’t specify what the funds he had left with SPH were for (see School Manager report in February minutes), but one suggestion was fund-matching.

David agreed and added that statistical analyses, program evaluation and research skills could also be offered [as in-kind fund matching]. An example is that of Jeff Smith who needs data analysis done with the mental health collective. Offering organisations program evaluations, which they would otherwise have to pay for,could free up funds which could be used for SPH research projects for common benefit. David suggested that a one-page outline could be prepared.

Lisa brought up the point that in consultancy research, the 35% infrastructure load is a competitive disadvantage and that Research Services says that it is under review. Two weeks ago Lisa was told by (other) Paul Johnson by email that the 15% level (available if the university retains intellectual property rights and meets certain criteria) is no longer available.
Matthew noted that 35% probably isn’t sufficient for many departments, but for SPH with no large equipment etc to maintain, 35% is an imposition.
Action: Lisa will forward the email that she received from Paul Johnson and Liz will look into it.

David said that the aim is to make SPH the ‘preferred researcher’ for big groups, in the same way that a Curtin group is ‘preferred’ by the Cancer Council and many primary care organizations. He suggests looking for a gap and exploiting it.

Colleen said that Jan Dunphy has suggested working around NDIS and similar areas. Anne agreed, saying that NDIS has more funding than dementia and is doing some huge projects. Silver Chain is also looking at research projects.

Action: David (and Judy and Sue) will explore options, present ideas and areas on where opportunities lie. He/they will send an email out asking for industry network updates and they will meet as a small group to discuss, identify gaps and report back to RRC.

David mentioned that PHAI/Mike Daube’s group are willing to present workshops, There is a void in formal training and Mike has many small modules, which could possibly be put together as a unit to be offered to MPH students at UWA and Curtin. This could be open to professional development colleagues, staff and other students too. David is exploring this further.
Liz said that she is doing something similar with Curtin via WAHTN and encourages this as it gives better exposure.
Action: Liz and David will provide an update at the next RRC.

• Foster Early-Career Researchers (ECRs) and Mid-Career Researchers (MCRs)

Liz has met with Lisa and Tom, would like to acknowledge and thank them for the huge amount of work they have done in mentoring and supporting ECRs and MCRs, and hopes they keep going with this. Lisa’s situation is uncertain so someone else may need to be added to the group. The question was raised of whether to incorporate ECR and MCR initiatives or whether to focus on each differently.
Action: Liz will get a list of the people doing research in the School to determine how many are on each level and report back.

Research communications update: Fiona discussed Yammer with Anne and Hayley, who said that they don’t really use it much. There is also the point that it is another system for people to learn and to log into. Fiona also talked to the research development advisor at Law, Tara McLaren. She runs a 2-monthly newsletter of funding opportunities relevant to law, plus targeted emails for those opportunities that are specific to only a couple of people or that have short deadlines.

Liz supported the idea of a newsletter or blog. Matthew wanted to know if there was a system that allowed interested researchers to comment and call for other researchers.
Action: Fiona is meeting with Tara on Wednesday to discuss this further.
Action: Fiona will send an example of the newsletter to Liz.

Liz reported that the individual Monday morning coffee meetings with Bruce and a researcher are going well. He is enjoying meeting with people. A number of people in RRC agree that he gives good feedback.

• Leadership.

Liz has recommended that Chloe Thomson contact people regarding a senior researcher to lead a Tuesday seminar each month, to discuss research/present a workshop of their choice. Only David says that he has been contacted so far.

Action: Liz will remind Chloe to contact more researchers.

Liz called for people to identify whether they were on a panel.
Liz is on CRE panel, Tom is on the Future Leaders panel for the Heart Foundation. Frank is on an NHMRC project grant panel every second year.
It would be helpful to have more people on panels as it benefits the school by increasing SPH exposure and also helps to identify what the panel is looking for in grant applications.

David says that a few years ago, SPH identified panel members in order to identify what stands out to panels and reviewers. He suggests that this be done again in September this year.

Action:Liz will call for SPH staff to identify the panels they are on.

1. Other business: CHSR restructure/review/renewal

David notified the RRC that CHSR have been reviewing their structure. Due to the many synergies between CHSR and the Cardiovascular Research Group (CRG), and after discussion with Tom, it was decided that the CVG will join the CHSR. The CHSR will have several major themes, of which CVD will be one. This move will strengthen collaborations and grant applications between the 2 groups.
Tom will assume the directorship of the Centre, starting in April. The RRC offered congratulations to Tom. He mentioned that this is not a ‘supergroup’ but a merging that increases opportunities.

There will be some co-locating of people working in similar areas. The 5 major themes will be CVD, cancer epidemiology, pharmacoepidemiology, vulnerable groups, and maternal and child health.
Liz noted that this may well affect how the rest of SPH functions.

Advisory group

Liz noted that D’Arcy is not available to attend a RRC meeting until June. She suggests that a date be made for the Advisory Group (D’Arcy, Bruce and Maria) to attend, and a plan be made to use their time to best advantage.

Action: Put this on agenda for April meeting (Fiona)

1. Next meeting.

The next meeting of this Research Committee is scheduled for Monday 11April2016at 11.00am, School of Population Health, Conference Room, 1st Floor.

Appendix: Information from School Manager

We have three main PGs that we can use to support research in the school.

First – D’Arcy’s contribution that now sits in the Provisions PG (630010521).

This PG pays for Grant Application Support. Since the start of 2014 until now, the school has awarded 8 Grant Application Support awards, totalling approximately $21,200. If the amount available was increased to $5,000 made available instead of $3,000 per application, then that total would have been approximately $35-40,000 over that period. This only assumes that it applies to the current Grant Applications as it does now. If other State Grants were included, it would likely (at a first approximation) double the amount at a minimum. I would need information on what programmes were to be considered if this was to be expanded, and then work back to look at how many likely applications would be received and funded, to be more accurate.

This PG also supports the Publications Reward System (Part 1) whereby the school pays publication charges for journals with an impact factor over 3.5. Since the beginning of 2014 this has been rewarded 4 times, for a total of approximately $6,700.

Thus, for the two year period 2014 – 15 (and start of 2016) a total of $27,900 has been used from the Provisions PG. The PG at the start of 2014 had a balance of $111,289, and now has a balance of $80,409. Assuming few or no changes to programmes being supported from this PG, the funds would likely be exhausted by 2019-20.

Second – D’Arcy’s most recent contribution that now sits in the Provisions 2 PG (63001071)

This PG currently has $125,000 in the PG. It has not been used for anything to date.

Third – The main School Admin PG (10100001)

This PG supports the Publications Reward System (Part 2)whereby the school pays money to staff at a rate of $1,000 per publication point. In 2015, this totalled approximately $45,000. This support is budgeted out of core funds, and this expenditure may, or may not, be reviewed by the Faculty in future budget considerations to align research support practices amongst Schools in the new academic realignment to be established this year. (In offhand conversations with the Faculty Finance Manager, I get the feeling that things like this, and rewards for supervision completions that happen in other schools, may be given a look at). If that is the case, then those funds would need to be sourced from the Provisions accounts made available by D’Arcy. All of the funds in both Provisions 1 & 2 (in conjunction with the other programmes we support) would then be exhausted by 2019. After that time, new funds would be needed to support this programme.

This PG supports the Publication and Research Recognition Prizes given annually, which total around $1-2,000 per year.

The Reimbursement of Professional Association Fees to serve on those committees is paid from this PG, and varies, but is a small amount. The Travel and Conference Awards have been recommended to be scrapped as I understand it.