The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Papers European and Federal Funding Comparison: Ever thought about getting research funding from Europe? Principal Author: Stuart McKissock CRA MCIPS Senior Manager of the Grants and Contracts Team Research & Enterprise, University of Glasgow Research & Enterprise No. 10 the Square University Avenue University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, U.K. Tel. No. 0044 141 330 3255 Fax. No. 044 141 330 5611 Email: s.mckissock@enterprise.gla.ac.uk Secondary Authors: Kathleen Sweeney FCCA Assistant Director of Finance – Research Admin Finance Department University of Glasgow Martin Jamieson BA ACMA MBA Costing Manager Research & Enterprise University of Glasgow Authors Note The authors would like to thank our “compadres”, Matt DeVol and Kathy Burke (La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology); Mike Dollar, Jean Freiser and Antony Peake (The Burnham Institute); and Sandra Nordhal (San Diego State University Foundation). Without their gracious hospitality, professionalism, and ever enduring patience, none of this would have been possible. Abstract Do you have restricted funding? Ever thought about seeking funding from Europe? As the funding rules for the European Seventh Framework Program (FP7) get announced in September 2005, it is expected that the funding scheme will seek to encourage further US research collaboration with Europe. So, what are the major differences when seeking European research funding, as opposed to Federal funding? From September this year, the UK Treasury has imposed a new Activity Based Costing methodology on UK Universities, called Full Economic Costing (FEC). FEC has many similarities to the Federal cost accounting principals. The introduction of FEC will impact significantly on UK pre-award project costing, post-award project management, the cost ledger and UK billing systems. As FEC has many similarities to the Federal cost accounting principles, the University of Glasgow with the help of 3 US research Institutions is reviewing both our Federal and European pre and post- award financial processes. This review will give a comparison between the two funding schemes, and for the US Institution wishing to seek European collaborative funding, an invaluable insight into how the regulations significantly differ, where the gains can be made, and more importantly what to look out for. 172 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book
Relevance to Research Administrators Behind every successful academic and Institution lies a great research administrator. One definition of a great research administrator is an individual who has the ability to support the research academic when seeking research funding anywhere in the world. Is that you? Introduction As funding for research continues to be a major issue internationally, organisations are seeking new and more inventive ways of securing the necessary resources. This is creating an environment whereby more and more Universities and Non-profits are looking further afield, to funders that they have not considered previously. In the past, funding streams from the European Commission (EC) were exclusively for Europe, but under the Framework Programmes 6, and to a greater extent in 7, US collaboration is being actively encouraged. Likewise for UK Universities and Non-profits, as our accounting systems change, more and more collaborative funding opportunities are opening up to us in the United States. So, before launching ourselves into these new funding pots, what do we need to be aware of? In the UK we have extensive experience in the EC funding environment, but limited experience with Federal funding. So in May of this year, the University of Glasgow conducted a study tour of three US research active organisations in San Diego (the La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, the Burnham Institute and the San Diego State University Foundation), to learn more by comparing the differences between Federal and European funding, both pre and post award. This paper is a summary of that review, from the perspective of the European funding system, which we hope will be of value to our SRA colleagues. Background As part of a new UK Government initiative, UK Universities must adopt an amended Activity Based Costing (ABC) methodology called Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) to determine the Full Economic Cost (FEC) of their activities. In so doing, this aligns our accounting systems, processes and practices more closely with that of our US colleagues. It is worth bearing in mind that whilst the European Union (EU) has brought about some commonality within its Member States, the accounting standards, policies and processes are not uniform. Each member country has its own legislation (similar to State law compared with Federal law), Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Accounting Standards. In order to seek European Commission (EC) funding, US Universities and Non-profits will need to collaborate with European organisations, as they cannot bid for this funding directly. Collaboration of this nature also requires adherence to the legal framework of the EC (Belgian or Luxembourg law) and an understanding of the different pre and post-award milestones when operating as a project partner in a European collaborative research project. Project Costing Methodology Papers Universities and Non-profits have three options under European funding rules when costing their participation in a European collaborative research project (such as an Integrated Project or a Specific Targeted Project). These costing options are Additional Cost with indirect flat rate costs (the AC model), Full Cost with indirect flat rate costs (the FCF model), and Full Cost (the FC model). Only Universities and Non-profits, which do not have an accounting system that allows the share of their direct and indirect costs relating to the project to be distinguished, may opt for the AC model. 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 173
Page 1:
2005 Symposium Proceedings The SRA
Page 7:
Dear Colleagues and Friends, Octobe
Page 10 and 11:
Table of Contents Karen M. Wilson.
Page 13:
Poster Abstracts
Page 16 and 17:
Poster Abstracts Poster Abstract 20
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Poster Abstracts Contributed Poster
Page 34 and 35:
Page 37:
Papers
Page 40 and 41:
Papers The principles of respect fo
Page 42 and 43:
Papers The narrative approach, on t
Page 44 and 45:
Papers References Agre, P., Campbel
Page 46 and 47:
Papers Potts, A., Grace, V., Gavey,
Page 48 and 49:
Papers Introduction Day by day soci
Page 50 and 51:
Papers Brent: Karl has been a great
Page 52 and 53:
Papers Karl: During my time at the
Page 54 and 55:
Papers Work Hard. Another very impo
Page 56 and 57:
Papers External Resource Acquisitio
Page 58 and 59:
Papers Generally speaking, fundrais
Page 60 and 61:
Papers Organizations and websites t
Page 62 and 63:
Papers Public HBCUs and smaller chu
Page 64 and 65:
Papers There are key databases avai
Page 66 and 67:
Papers 2. Basic Institutional Compo
Page 68 and 69:
Papers The Utility of Gender, Race,
Page 70 and 71:
Papers As a three hospital health c
Page 72 and 73:
Papers References Amdur, R., Banker
Page 74 and 75:
Papers • Dramatic Growth in Resea
Page 76 and 77:
Papers • Cross Unit Collaboration
Page 78 and 79:
Papers The Development, Implementat
Page 80 and 81:
Papers Background: IRBs in AMCs hav
Page 82 and 83:
Papers Institutional Quality Improv
Page 84 and 85:
Papers Institutional Audit Findings
Page 86 and 87:
Papers References: Burke, G.S. (200
Page 88 and 89:
Papers Table 1 Total Number of Prot
Page 90 and 91:
Papers Sunday, December 7, 2003. D
Page 92 and 93:
Papers Similarly, the OGE audit ind
Page 94 and 95:
Papers Changes to 5 C.F.R. §5501.1
Page 96 and 97:
Papers * * * However, § 5501.106(c
Page 98 and 99:
Papers 4. Conclusion The NIH Februa
Page 100 and 101:
Papers Within the context of a mana
Page 102 and 103:
Papers As illustrated (Figure 1) th
Page 104 and 105:
Papers Figure 3. Recommendation lev
Page 106 and 107:
Papers References Australian Vice-C
Page 108 and 109:
Papers The Problem and Its Statemen
Page 110 and 111:
Papers ated directly or indirectly
Page 112 and 113:
Papers Table 1: Survey Respondents
Page 114 and 115:
Papers Conclusions With the creatio
Page 116 and 117:
Papers APPENDIX 2 I. Research Admin
Page 118 and 119:
Papers facing patients being recrui
Page 120 and 121:
Papers Even if prospective subjects
Page 122 and 123:
Papers sponsors must have some idea
Page 124 and 125:
Papers 4) Heuristics: Since the con
Page 126 and 127:
Papers Hochhauser, M. Informed Cons
Page 128 and 129:
Papers How “readable” are conse
Page 130 and 131:
Papers of vowels per word, some on
Page 132 and 133:
Papers followed by 39 side effect b
Page 134 and 135: Papers References Chall, J.S. & Dal
Page 136 and 137: Papers Coping involves the effort t
Page 138 and 139: Papers Conclusion Defense mechanism
Page 140 and 141: Papers of Pennsylvania in 2000. In
Page 142 and 143: Papers for board members, reviewing
Page 144 and 145: Papers Focusing on “Development
Page 146 and 147: Papers Figure 1: Total UB Internal
Page 148 and 149: Papers Figure 3: Academic staff vie
Page 150 and 151: Papers Respondents’ evaluations o
Page 152 and 153: Papers 140 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 154 and 155: Papers ing proposals, the greater t
Page 156 and 157: Papers Abstract “Best Practices
Page 158 and 159: Papers INSTITUTIONAL ERA PLANNING A
Page 160 and 161: Papers process than an end product;
Page 162 and 163: Papers realization of the benefits
Page 164 and 165: Papers State and private institutio
Page 166 and 167: Papers Institutions of higher educa
Page 168 and 169: Papers Typically, all interactions
Page 170 and 171: Papers Figure 2 There are nine pers
Page 172 and 173: Papers Questions that can be discus
Page 174 and 175: Papers Using the innovation success
Page 176 and 177: Papers students in non-science subj
Page 178 and 179: Papers For example, to address inno
Page 180 and 181: Papers The second is the Botswana T
Page 182 and 183: Papers manpower is not trained, and
Page 186 and 187: Papers As the majority of US Univer
Page 188 and 189: Papers Integrated Project Duration
Page 190 and 191: Papers up to these terms (called
Page 192 and 193: Papers Collective responsibility -
Page 194 and 195: Papers • Revised implementation p
Page 196 and 197: Papers Conclusion SRA is an interna
Page 198 and 199: Papers Virgin Territory: The Role o
Page 200 and 201: Papers and in which disciplines. Th
Page 202 and 203: Papers a historically black univers
Page 204 and 205: Papers Benefits of Working with Jun
Page 206 and 207: Papers Human Subjects Research and
Page 208 and 209: Papers observational and could do v
Page 210 and 211: Papers ted on patients at l’Hopit
Page 212 and 213: Papers The pastor of the Bergen hos
Page 214 and 215: Papers it was at any rate an imposs
Page 216 and 217: Papers The Environmental Protection
Page 218 and 219: Papers of the restriction on the he
Page 220 and 221: Papers Mentoring and Motivating: Br
Page 222 and 223: Papers more importantly, individual
Page 224 and 225: Papers with little or no cash outla
Page 226 and 227: Papers better outcomes for areas th
Page 228 and 229: Papers attention of the research of
Page 230 and 231: Papers discussion of each prepropos
Page 232 and 233: Papers Appendix A Sample Feedback N
Page 234 and 235:
Papers Introduction Certification p
Page 236 and 237:
Papers The list of certified resear
Page 238 and 239:
Papers Research Question 2 What is
Page 240 and 241:
Papers 8. Twenty-nine percent (29%)
Page 242 and 243:
Papers individuals outside their or
Page 244 and 245:
Papers References Bratton, B. & Hil
Page 246 and 247:
Papers Never let your sense of mora
Page 248 and 249:
Papers Lakoff (2002) describes inte
Page 250 and 251:
Papers place blame at the feet of i
Page 252 and 253:
Papers Lower, G. (2005, June 27). W
Page 254 and 255:
Papers Institute of Ecosystem Studi
Page 256 and 257:
Papers • Collaborative research p
Page 258 and 259:
Papers How Administrators Can Help
Page 260 and 261:
Papers How to Develop a Centralized
Page 262 and 263:
Papers The current trend of selecti
Page 264 and 265:
Papers References Kaiser Daily Heal
Page 266 and 267:
Papers 254 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 268 and 269:
Papers 256 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 270 and 271:
Papers Evaluation of Strategies for
Page 272 and 273:
Papers on research activity; manage
Page 274 and 275:
Papers 4. Introduction of encourage
Page 276 and 277:
Papers Table 1 Research Attitudes -
Page 278 and 279:
Papers Constraints When staff were
Page 280 and 281:
Papers Houston, D. & Studman, C.J.,
Page 282 and 283:
Papers to look at the technologies
Page 284 and 285:
Papers areas of responsibilities. T
Page 287:
Symposium Future Proposals
Page 290 and 291:
Symposium Future Proposals Symposiu
Page 292 and 293:
Symposium Future Proposals Symposiu
show all

The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?