Toward a Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Policy on the Norman Campus

1. Toward a Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Policy on the Norman Campus Kelvin K. DroegemeierOffice of the Vice President for Research11 April 2011 Meeting with the Norman Campus Faculty Senate(following a meeting with the NC Faculty Senate Executive Committee on 4 April 2011)

2. Motivation • The Norman Campus already has a Financial COI policy (section 5.10 of the NC Faculty Handbook) • However, COI encompasses a much broader set of issues • Conflict of Commitment • Use of Resources • Use of Official Position • Relationships with Organizations • COI is receiving much greater attention at the national level owing to a culture of increased transparency and reporting at the Federal level (e.g., NIH, FFATA) • The AAHRPP report recommended a more comprehensive COI policy for the Norman Campus (recall the HSC policy approved in March, 2010 by the OU Board of Regents)

3. Process • On 12 August, 2010, the OU-wide Compliance Advisory Committee directed the Norman Campus VPR to draft a broader personal COI policy • On 19 September, 2010, an ad hoc task force was created • Morris Foster, Chair (Office of the VPR) • Greg Heiser (Provost Office) • Kurt Ockhershauser (Legal Counsel) • Andrea Deaton (Office of Research Services) • Colin FitzSimons (Office of Technology Development) • Cameron McCoy (Corporate Engagement Office) • Bob Palmer (School of Meteorology) • Shiva Raman (School of Industrial Engineering) • Emily Meazell (College of Law) • Carol Silva (Department of Political Science) • Faustina Layne (Office of Compliance) • Nicki Hickmon (Private Sector – Atmospheric Technology Services Co) • The draft report was delivered on 9 February 2011 and provided to the NC Provost, University VP for Strategic Planning and Economic Development, Compliance Advisory Committee, and NC Faculty Senate Executive Committee. KD met with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee on 4 April 2011.

4. Draft Document • Is presently written as an addition to the existing Norman Campus Financial COI Policy • Includes the broader COI elements enumerated earlier • Is in first draft form but has been reviewed by OTD and Legal Counsel • Is sufficiently complete to share with a limited audience but needs a lot of additional work (e.g., better guidance to faculty about managing conflicts)

5. Questions and Issues • Should the existing Financial COI policy and the new policy be folded together into a single policy, possibly including existing OU-wide Institutional COI Policy? • Need to ensure consistency with IRB and other relevant policies. • Key to success will be a parallel implementation plan: the policy alone is otherwise of little value. • The new policy is an opportunity to address other issues of compliance (e.g., communication among key organizations such as Legal Counsel, ORS, IRB, Export Controls, IACUC)

6. Faculty Senate Exec Input • The COI draft • Addresses individuals’ responsibilities but not those of the University – need a balance • Is heavily laden with legalease and should be more readable (perhaps in implementation plan) • Should be used as a mechanism to place ALL COI policies in a single location (the Faculty Handbook), which is subject to Faculty Senate approval • What about other COI policies that exist across the University (e.g., members of the Research Council in reviewing proposals from their programs)?

7. Path Forward • Compliance Advisory Committee will discuss the draft on 27 April 2011 • Existing draft needs significant work and other issues need to be addressed • Merging all Norman Campus COI into a single policy • Faculty Senate Exec issues • Creation of an implementation plan • Additional involvement of Faculty Senate is key • Goal is to seek Regents’ approval of final policy by end of spring, 2012 semester

8. NRC Committee on the Future of America’s Research Universities: Possible Implications for the University of Oklahoma Kelvin K. DroegemeierOffice of the Vice President for Research11 April 2011 Meeting with the Norman Campus Faculty Senate (Campus-wide seminar given 11 February 2011; video available on VPR web site)

9. Study on Future of America’s Research Universities • On 1 July 2010, the National Research Council (operating arm of the National Academies) formally established a 22-person Committee on Research Universities to answer the following • What are the top ten actions that Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the future health and vitality of America’s research universities and thus American competitiveness? • Committee Chair: Chad Holliday, Chairman of the Board, Bank of America, retired chairman and CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company • Consensus report expected in May, 2011 • Emerging backdrop message: Reduce government regulation and intrusion • Two major committee issues studied initially: • Regulation/Compliance -- Unfunded compliance mandates, many of which contribute nothing to transparency and accountability. More than 60 new ones added during past 20 years with NO additional funding to perform them. • Recovery of Indirect Costs (Facility and Administration Costs, or Overhead) – current practices greatly limit what universities actually recover compared to what they are allowed to recover. Un-recovery for OU: $30 million from FY07 through FY09.

10. Some Early Suggestions • Fully enforce recovery of allowable indirect costs (present OU rate is 50%, actual recovery for research is 30%, for research+outreach is 21%) • Allow administrative and secretarial support to be charged directly to research grants • Harmonize Federal compliance regulations among the 25 agencies that fund universities • Provide special exemptions for research universities (e.g., regulations for chemical plants, high-security facilities) • Pay-as-you-go system for new regulations and compliance requirements as they’re added • Eliminate regulations that add zero value and do not enhance accountability, for example • Time and effort reporting for faculty • Monitoring of research institution sub-contractor compliance • Reinforce use of Single Audit act to avoid duplication

11. Some Possible Implications for OU • Reduced Regulation • Reduction in administration and compliance burdens placed upon faculty (now 42% of the time they spend doing research)  more time to conduct research and to teach • Limited growth in research-related staffing levels in Compliance Office, Legal Counsel, Export Controls, Office of Research Services • Greater recovery of allowable indirect costs • Ability to strategically invest more funds in faculty start-up, equipment, retention, facilities, seed grant initiatives • However! Because Total Research Costs = Direct + Indirect (overhead), greater recovery of Indirect Costs means • Less money for direct research costs in if Federal research budgets go flat  lower research productivity  reduction in Oklahoma competitiveness, less technology for economic development • More time spent by faculty writing proposals instead of teaching and research