Subject: COI lite
To: Peter B Gilkey <gilkey@uoregon.edu> Add to address book...
From: Ian McNeely <imcneely@uoregon.edu> Add to address book...
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0800

Peter,

Thanks for sending this along. I think the document can indeed provide a good
basis on which to move forward. Whether or not this form is preferable to the
current one, I can't really say at this point. But I do have a few general
reactions, and then some piecemeal suggestions.

First, will the conflict of commitment issues generate a separate
questionnaire? I can imagine that there may be some overlap here, but if that
process yields another seven questions or so, then we may be back to a form
that's too lengthy.

Second, the logical flow of the questions could be clarified by indicating in
bold the subject of each one, e.g. " 3. Federal funding " or " 1. Sponsorship
of research ." This might help faculty members to discern what we're going
after in each case. It might also reveal places where the questionnaire itself
could be streamlined and/or clarified -- Q1 and Q3 seem to overlap a bit, for
example.

Third, requiring faculty to read policy 3.095 (and make a formal affirmation
to that effect) might be seen as somewhat of a poison pill. That document is
extremely long, so perhaps we should find a way to ensure that the
questionnaire effectively covers all the issues raised by 3.095, directing
faculty to consult specific portions of that policy only when the answer to a
given question is "yes."


Specifics


"inherent obligation" might sound a bit too admonitory as phrased. It might be
more accurate to say that service to the outside world is inherent in our
teaching and research, but that activities outside the university can also be a
natural extension of what happens inside campus walls. 


Q1:

- Is "entity" too broad or perhaps too vague a term here and in other questions?

- The definition of "relative" is perhaps too expansive. Certainly the question
should cover those living under the same roof and preumptively sharing income &
expenses. But siblings and parents perhaps ought to be excluded.

- In footnote 2, publication "honoraria" should perhaps be "royalties." Also:
presentations, invited lectures, etc. are quite often composed anew for the
occasion and are not necessarily based on previously completed research. I know
this is the case for me.

Q2
- "directorial" instead of "director"?

Q3
- I find "other basis" a bit confusing even with the footnote

- "impaired objectivity" sounds a bit like a legal concept and a bit like a
philosophical one. We should find a way to zero in a bit more precisely on the
forms of impairment we want to guard against.

Q4

- this question could cover just about anybody, such as those who profit even
minimally from publication royalties on specialized monographs. Would it be
appropriate to limit it to amounts over $10,000 in a 12-month period?

- we might also want to clarify even further that the question only goes after
professional activities, not all money-making activities (which could include
eBaying one's coin collection, for example)

Q5

- this seems to put the onus on the faculty member to determine what appears,
or might appear, to create conflicts in a variety of hypothetical cases. A bit
more guidance and specificity would be helpful here.

Q6
- typo: "potential of interest"

Q7

- again, the reference to policy 3.095 sends one off on a lengthy reading
assignment

- why is Q7 not included in the "if you answered yes to questions 1-6..."
section? is this just a typo?


Best,
Ian



------------------
Assoc. Prof. Ian F. McNeely
Department of History
319 McKenzie Hall
1288 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1288 

Subject: Re: COI lite
To: "Peter B Gilkey" <gilkey@uoregon.edu> Add to address book...
From: Ian McNeely <imcneely@uoregon.edu> Add to address book...
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:53:32 -0800

Yes, please feel free to post. --Ian