Docstoc

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY_ NORTHRIDGE

Document Sample
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY_ NORTHRIDGE Powered By Docstoc
					CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

RESEARCH AND GRANTS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING: October 9, 2009   APPROVED BY COMMITTEE: November 13, 2009
Sub. to Exec. Comm. November 24, 2009 Approved by Exec. Comm.
Sub. to Acad. Senate                  Approved by Acad. Senate
POLICY ITEMS

Members Present:         S. Auerbach, E. Jackiewicz, R. Mehler, S. Oppenheimer, J. Quinonez-
                         Skinner, D. Rachmanov, J. Razani, L. Shelton (Chair), M. Wall

Members Absent:          L. Chu, J. Griffin, M. Johnson, S. Perez

Staff:                   S. Lang, S. Rose

Guest:                   G. Jahn


I.       Call to order

         10:04 a.m.

II.      Approval of Minutes

         Minutes of the September 11, 2009 meeting were unanimously approved.

III.     Old Business

         A.     2009-10 CSUN Competition for Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity Awards

                1.       Discussion of sample proposals as a review exercise

                         Committee members were given five sample proposals to review at the previous
                         meeting. L. Shelton asked members for their ranked order of the proposals, which
                         were then tabulated. This provided a starting point for members to discuss the
                         review and ranking process. It was agreed that this was a very helpful exercise.

                2.       Review of application form and guidelines

                         L. Shelton asked for any suggestions the committee members had for changes on
                         the application form and guidelines. S. Oppenheimer suggested that a signature line
                         be added for the applicant on the 1st page of the form. He noted that the application
                         has lines for the chair and dean to sign, but not for the applicant. The committee
                         agreed that an applicant signature line should be added, along with the statement “I
                         certify, that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
                         application is accurate and truthful.”
M. Wall expressed concern about the employee id number being included on the
application and asked about the handling of the applications. S. Lang said that after
the ranking meeting, all copies are returned to the Research and Sponsored Projects
office and then are shredded. The Chancellor’s Office requires a summary report
each year on this competition and employee ID numbers are included in the report.
The committee discussed the situation and agreed that it has not been a problem
thus far, and that it saves time when compiling this report, it is fine to leave the
employee ID number on the application.

S. Auerbach stated that applicants need to break down methods better and said that
when human subjects are involved they should describe how IRB will be addressed
and include this in their timeline. She suggested that IRB should be indicated on
the application. Discussion followed and it was agreed that there should be a
checkbox added to the application for human subjects and animal research. It was
also agreed to add to the checklist, item 3d timeline, “including any necessary
approvals (human/animal subjects).” In addition, on Proposal Evaluation (GL pg
4), Prospects for Success section, add on to 1st bullet, “including any approvals for
the use of human subjects or animal research.” Also, add to item 1b on page 2 of
GL, “Committee considers it the applicant’s responsibility to get approval for any
research involving human or animal subjects and that approvals are obtained in a
timely manner. S. Oppenheimer stated that a lot of people don’t realize how often
you need approval. S. Auerbach suggested that Suzanne Blanding, the Compliance
Officer in Research and Sponsored Projects give an open workshop to let people
know how and when to get approval.

S. Auerbach stated that the instructions on research methods on page 3 of the
guidelines (item 3c) need to be specific, so that the applications include step by step
explanations of methods. R. Mehler stated that the more specific you make the
instructions, the more likely they won’t apply to everybody. S. Oppenheimer said
that details will enhance the application in methods for science and non-science
applications. He suggested that the statement “If applicable, step by step details are
preferred” be added to item 3c of the guidelines.

J. Quinonez-Skinner suggested that a budget itemization form would be good to
clarify what the budget will be used for. She noted that equipment purchases are of
particular concern and that guidelines should be provided for providing a
breakdown of costs. L. Shelton suggested that the budget page of the application
(pg 2) state “Explanation, with breakdown of costs” under Materials/Supplies and
Other sections.

She also suggested that the statement “A detailed budget and supporting materials
may be included as part of the 3 pages of additional materials” to the instructions at
the top of the Budget Itemization (page 2) of the application.

S. Auerbach: Add IRB approval to criteria and make timeline realistic. Put
“Including any necessary approvals for human or animal subjects.”
IV.   New Business

      A.     Initiatives to Assist Applicants – Development of Tips Sheet

             L. Shelton stated that the Committee can discuss the Tips Sheet today or come up with
             suggestions and take them up at the next meeting. S. Lang suggested that committee
             members e-mail her their suggestions and a list will be compiled for discussion at the next
             meeting. L. Shelton asked that suggested tips be e-mailed to S. Lang by Nov. 1st so she
             can compile a list and send them out.

V.    Adjournment

      11:27 a.m.

				
DOCUMENT INFO