program review report - suny · program review report networks of excellence june 12, 2015 ......

Program Review Report Networks of Excellence June 12, 2015 Review Team Members:

Review Team Member SUNY/campus affiliation Title

Susan Avery, Ph.D. SUNY Research Council President and Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Helene Benveniste, M.D., Ph.D. Stony Brook Medicine Professor and Vice Chair of Research, Department of Anesthesiology

Magnus Bergkvist, Ph.D. SUNY Polytechnic Institute Assistant Professor, Nanobioscience David Conover, Ph.D. Stony Brook University Vice President for Research James Dias, Ph.D. University at Albany Vice President for Research Nicole Flaherty, Ph.D. SUNY Polytechnic Institute Graduate student Janine Jurkowski, Ph.D., M.P.H. University at Albany Associate Professor, Health Policy,

Management & Behavior; Research Associate, Center for Elimination of Minority Health Disparities; Research Associate, Center for Social and Demographic Analysis

Donald Nieman, Ph.D. Binghamton University Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost

Todd Sacktor, M.D. Downstate Medical Center Distinguished Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology, Anesthesiology, and Neurology

Richard Smardon, Ph.D. SUNY ESF Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Environmental Studies

Li-Ru Zhao, Ph.D. Upstate Medical Center Associate Professor, Neurosurgery Charles Zukoski, Ph.D. University at Buffalo;

SUNY Research Council Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

SUNY Networks of Excellence Program Review Report

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Review Scope and Approach ..................................................................................................................... 5

Review Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Review Approach ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Review Observations .................................................................................................................................. 7

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Objective I: Promote Innovative, Collaborative Research .................................................................................................... 7

Workshops, Collaborative Meetings and On-line Communication ..................................................................................................... 8

Emphasis on Top Funded “Rainmaker” Faculty ................................................................................................................................ 9

Faculty Mentoring and Development ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Objective II: Provide Experiential Learning Opportunities for Students .............................................................................. 10

Objective III: Produce Social Benefit and Economic Opportunity for NY............................................................................ 10

Focused Efforts – Tie to State and/or Successful Teams ................................................................................................................ 11

Recommendations and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 12

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix A: Networks of Excellence Objectives and Measurable Outcomes .................................................................... 13

Appendix B: Networks of Excellence Awards and Outcomes ............................................................................................ 14

Appendix C: Networks of Excellence Financial Report (as of 3/30/15) .............................................................................. 19

Year 1 Allocation (7/1/13-6/30/14): $4,000,000 ............................................................................................................................... 19

Year 2 Allocation (7/1/14-6/30/15): $4,000,000 plus rollover of $478,503 ....................................................................................... 24

Appendix D: Networks of Excellence Participant Evaluation.............................................................................................. 26

Appendix E: Notes from First Program Review Team Meeting .......................................................................................... 40

Appendix F: Notes from Second Program Review Team Meeting ..................................................................................... 43


3 | P a g e

Introduction

“I think we need to keep in mind while we’re moving forward that the return on investment on our networks of excellence will be slow. It’s not going to be a one or two year return. We’re talking 5 to 7 probably, but we are

moving in the right direction. So it requires patience and intelligence to get to the end point.”

– SUNY Trustee Angelo Fatta | December 2014 SUNY Research Council meeting

The SUNY Networks of Excellence facilitate system-wide collaboration by bringing together faculty and researchers and harnessing institutional expertise from across SUNY’s campuses to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems. Each network assembles scientists and scholars from varied campuses to engage in a joint program of research on a specific topic and enhance related experiential learning of students. The networks are engaging industry partners and working to create intellectual property that is ready for commercialization. By bringing together the expertise disbursed across the campuses into a collective network, SUNY can better position itself to become a national and international scientific leader, compete for research grants, and educate the next-generation workforce. The SUNY Networks of Excellence were launched in 2013. The Networks originated from discussions of the SUNY Research Council—which lends deep and broad thinking and understanding to the question of SUNY’s leadership as a 21st Century public comprehensive research-intensive university system—in March and December 2013 in which the Research Council advised SUNY on how to advance information and collaboration technologies, human capital development, research infrastructure and facilities, and science and engineering frontiers throughout SUNY. The SUNY 4E, Brain, Health, and Materials & Advanced Manufacturing networks launched in August 2013 with a $4 million investment from the Research Foundation for SUNY with the Arts & Humanities and Teaching, Learning & Assessment added in 2014. The earliest awards made through the Networks will be terminating by the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year. The Year 2 RFP process is close to being complete with awards being made from each network (using funding approved by the RF Board of directors from the fiscal year that started July 1, 2014).

4E ENERGY

ENVIRONMENT ECONOMICS EDUCATION

MATERIALS & ADVANCED

MANUFACTURING BRAIN

HEALTH

Academic Linkages

Public-Private Partnerships

Collaboration Platforms

Data Analytics

ARTS AND HUMANITIES

TEACHING, LEARNING & ASSESSMENT


4 | P a g e

The scientific and scholarly expertise spread across the system was to be networked around a set of shared research activities and focuses aimed at creating a progressive and durable culture of collaboration, enhancing the research environment across all campuses, and advancing knowledge on the topic. The central purpose of the networks when they were formed was to:

Transform how SUNY engages in the research enterprise Partner in joint research initiatives, primarily funded via external sources Ensure that broader impact is realized from SUNY generated science

Investments in the Networks of Excellence are expected to produce outcomes that include new strategic, scaled-up multidisciplinary grants in high priority research areas, measurable societal impacts relative to the grand challenges, a broader portfolio of funding from state, federal and industry sources, and an enhanced reputation for SUNY nationally and internationally. The six current Networks are SUNY 4E (Energy, Environment, Economics, Education), SUNY Health, SUNY Brain, SUNY Materials and Advanced Manufacturing, SUNY Arts & Humanities, and SUNY Teaching, Learning and Assessment. SUNY 4E (Energy, Environment, Economics, Education) Focuses on research across SUNY related to energy and the environment with associated economic considerations and educational programming. Sustainability and environmental research are key areas of interest. In 2014, SUNY 4E invested $778,000 in multidisciplinary research projects on topics including biosensors, water resources, climate, as well as energy sources, use, management, and storage. SUNY Health Maximizes SUNY’s diverse health-related assets to support basic, clinical, and public health research. In 2014, SUNY Health invested $900,000 in a variety of areas, including clinical applications of 3D printing, treatments for infectious disease, biosensors, big data, and aging. SUNY Brain Advances the frontiers of neuroscience research by integrating current investments in neurosciences, neuroclinical services, and analytic sciences at multiple SUNY campuses. In 2014, SUNY Brain invested $800,000 in the areas of vision and brain mapping; plus provided research opportunities for 13 SUNY undergraduate students through the Brain Summer Scholars program. SUNY Materials and Advanced Manufacturing Applies SUNY’s capacity to innovate to revitalize New York’s manufacturing sector. The ultimate objective is to establish a single statewide voice for materials and advanced manufacturing research to ensure continued public-private collaboration and success in innovation and the pursuit of federal funding. In 2014, SUNY MAM invested $710,000 in the areas of in the areas of biomaterials, energy materials, flexible electronics, green composite materials, digital and additive manufacturing, functional and responsive materials, informatics, characterization, and education. SUNY Arts and Humanities The goal of SUNY’s Arts and Humanities Network is to create interdisciplinary inquiry across the studies of the arts, humanities, and social sciences to explore and address a broad range of issues surrounding the human condition in contemporary life to develop projects to effectively create societal change. Since its first meeting in May 2014, faculty participants worked together to create a vision and mission statement, shared ways to create external partnerships to grow grants and funding, and issued the network’s first RFP. Proposals are required to have a social benefit component and the network expects to fund its first set of projects in 2015. SUNY Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (TLA) Targets SUNY's core business with a focus on leveraging SUNY's historic and substantial research strengths to drive unprecedented sharing and scaling of best practices, across the entire SUNY system and beyond, both in online self-regulated and classroom-based Learning environments. In 2014, SUNY TLA held its initial planning meeting.


5 | P a g e

Review Scope and Approach

Review Scope Prior to requesting additional funding for the networks within the RF’s annual Operating Plan/budget, which will be voted on by the RF Board in June 2015, a program review was undertaken to ensure the program is on the path to meeting its objectives and providing an appropriate return on the investments by SUNY and the RF. The objective of the review was to assess to what extent the original goals of the Networks were being met. Those original goals, prior to the convening of the Review Team, were to:

Break down boundaries and bring together faculty and facilities from the broadest possible range of campuses.

Identify, pursue, and secure external funding to support the designated collaborative research activities.

Provide experiential learning opportunities for students.

Establish public private partnerships (may include collaboration with business, industry, non-profit organization, government).

Establish a cutting edge IT infrastructure, including communication tools (e.g., video and online connections) and common research tools and platforms, which will allow for seamless collaboration.

Develop a state-of-the-art and comprehensive data analytics infrastructure that will advance our ability to capture and use big

data in support of the Networks.

Review Approach The review was be conducted March through May 2015 so the recommendations could be taken into consideration in the RF’s 2016 Operating Plan/budget. Review data and analysis included:

Objective measures (see Appendix A) o Short-term

Number of faculty attending Network-funded workshops Number of faculty submitting letters of intent/proposals Number of external proposals submitted by Network-funded teams Number of outside partners engaged on Network-funded teams (other universities, industry) Number of students engaged in Network-funded research projects Meetings with Federal Agency Directors/Program Managers

o Long-term Number of large multidisciplinary program/project type awards received Number of invention disclosures submitted by Network-funded teams Number of publications by Network-funded teams

Network-related published articles from the 4E, Health, Brain, and MAM Networks. Network awards report including lists of principal investigators, faculty collaborators, and award outcome summaries. (See

Appendix B) Network financial report for year one and two. (See Appendix C) A survey of 157 Network-funded faculty members. (See Appendix D)


6 | P a g e

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) Special Report on ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? which details an equivalent program with similar objectives.

The opinions expressed by the members of the Review Team. Key Stakeholders The following stakeholders were or will be kept apprised of the progress and recommendations from the program review team:

Faculty (Faculty Senate Committee on Graduate Studies and Research) Vice Presidents for Research Campus Presidents Chancellor and cabinet at SUNY System Administration President’s Council at RF RF Board of Directors SUNY Board of Trustees – Committee on Research and Economic Development


7 | P a g e

Review Observations

Overview The Review Team studied various program documents over the course of March and April—including reports, published articles, and survey results—and had several key observations regarding the Networks current path towards meeting is objectives and providing SUNY with an appropriate return on the investments in the program. Among those observations, the Review Team noted that the objectives and measures originally outlined for the Networks paralleled the entire mission of SUNY to enhance society through education and research, as well as SUNY’s current efforts to function more like a unified system. The objectives were appropriately pared down to reflect what the Review Team perceived as the strategic objectives of the Networks. The key objectives that were agreed upon express the Review Team’s belief that the Networks of Excellence should:

Promote innovative, collaborative research among SUNY faculty Provide experiential learning opportunities for SUNY students. Produce social benefit and economic opportunity for New York and beyond.

The Review Team pointed out that there was a mismatch between the broad strategic objectives of the Networks as they are currently stated and the understanding that the core objective is to increase research funding at SUNY. If the Networks’ strategic objective is seeking scaled-up multidisciplinary grants in high priority research areas, the Review Team felt that it should be explicitly detailed in the objectives and that the Networks also needed to better capture the importance of building industry and foundation partnerships. While it was understood among the champions of the networks and the ability to generate external funding was a criteria used in reviewing and awarding seed grants, it may not have been clear to all stakeholders and is not clear enough in the objectives as written. The Review Team observed some key thematic areas that the Networks should focus their energy on in order to drive the Networks down a clear path to achieving its strategic objectives. The Review Team’s observations and findings are outlined in the following sections, broken down as they relate individually to the Networks strategic objectives.

Objective I: Promote Innovative, Collaborative Research According to the Review Team, the strategic objective to “promote innovative, collaborative research” is a broad objective that has a wide spectrum of scale. It was not clear to the Review Team that there had been appropriate attention paid to the scale or the reality that the development of the Networks of Excellence will take considerable time and effort. Success of the Networks, both individual Networks as well as the entire program, for the Review Team will require facilitative leadership to guide the Networks towards their strategic goals; a strong staff support infrastructure to alleviate the administrative burden of managing the Networks from the participating faculty; as well as exploring ways to ensure faculty have the time necessary to devote to the success of the Networks and Network-funded projects. The Review Team observed that the impact of the Networks on collaboration across the system can be evaluated by looking at the opportunities created by the Networks that would not have otherwise been created if not for the Networks. Additionally, this also includes looking at how many Network-funded teams were formed with new/upcoming faculty or faculty who had not previously worked together. The Review Team conducted a survey of Network-funded faculty to better capture the faculty perspective. The survey revealed that based on the faculty responses, the Networks have been successful, to-date, at bringing together faculty collaborators that had not previously worked together (see Figure 1). Of those faculty surveyed:

2/5 of Networks collaborations were between people who knew each other but had not collaborated previously. 1/4 of collaborations of surveyed faculty were between researchers who did not know each other. 1/4 of Network-funded collaborations were built on existing collaborative relationships.


8 | P a g e

Figure 1: NETWORK-FUNDED FACULTY RESPONSE TO TEAM FORMATION

How did you form your Network of Excellence-funded research team?

Response Number Percent of Total Built on a previous or existing collaboration 20 22.7 % Invited researchers I had not previously worked with, but wanted to collaborate with 34 38.6 % Met at Network-hosted Charrette or meeting 22 25.0 % Other (Please specify)* 12 13.6 % TOTAL 88 100 % *Responses: “Through the SUNY Eye Institute” (2); “Asked to participate by a team leader” (1); “Was invited by a researcher I had not previously met” (1); “I felt forced to include people from other institutions that I had nothing in common (with) just to get funding.” (1); “Only on mailing list to follow actions” (1) Source: Survey conducted by the Networks of Excellence Review Team

Additional results from the same survey suggest that the perception of the Network-funded faculty is that the Networks have been successful in promoting a more collaborative research environment between and among SUNY campuses (see Figure 2). Figure 2: NETWORK-FUNDED FACULTY PERCEPTION OF OBJECTIVE I SUCCESS

Through my participation in the Networks of Excellence, I have been enabled to…

Investigators Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree

Total

…ask research questions that I would not normally be asking. 2 8 9 38 30 87 …develop my capacity to work as a member of a collaborative research team.

3 6 10 38 30 87

…collaborate with researchers from other disciplines that I might not otherwise have had the chance to work with.

3 1 13 29 41 87

Source: Survey conducted by the Networks of Excellence Review Team.

Keeping in mind that this is not a comprehensive or definitive list, the Review Team observed several key areas that the Networks could focus their collective efforts on developing to further advance the Networks on the path of achieving their strategic objectives. These areas included:

Continuing to support workshops and collaborative meetings that bring faculty together.

Putting additional emphasis on getting top funded faculty engaged in the Networks.

Using the Networks as an instrument for faculty mentoring and development.

Workshops, Collaborative Meetings and On-line Communication The most positive aspect of the Networks identified by the Review Team was the workshops’ ability to bring people together from across the system who are focused on the same research problems. The Networks should be promoting these collaborations, with or without the opportunity to provide faculty with seed funding. Though this was seen as the most successful and least expensive output for the Networks, the Review Team noted several factors for additional consideration:


9 | P a g e

The Networks have been successful at establishing independent teams but they have not yet been successful at establishing

the Networks to function as “networks” of cross-campus, cross-discipline faculty collaborators.

Not all faculty interested may be willing to attend Networks-sponsored workshops and meetings. Faculty travel to one or two research conferences, on average, during the course of the academic year. Adding an additional meeting or conference for them to attend, without a specific value added, could cause a loss of faculty participation at other Networks events.

Workshops may lack the appropriate focus to draw potential faculty collaborators. Specifically in the MAM Network, they divide

their focus between “verticals” or major topical areas of strength in the system that can be leveraged. Along the same thought process, there was a sense in the Brain Network that separate meetings for specific topical areas would be more beneficial as they felt things were becoming too diluted in the larger Network group.

For the networks to function effectively, it would be helpful to publish profiles of faculty research interests across the entire SUNY system to facilitate the ability for faculty to identify potential collaborators.

Emphasis on Top Funded “Rainmaker” Faculty Due to the importance of top faculty to SUNY’s research enterprise, the Review Team noted the need to survey what percentage, if any, of SUNY’s top funded faculty are engaged in the Networks. These “rainmaker” faculty members are defined, for the purposes of the Networks, as those that have multiple or long-standing grants and/or generate more than $1million in sponsored expenditures per year. Small seed grants may not be a draw for these top faculty to actively participate in the Networks, based on the expertise of the Review Team. Currently, the Networks are focused on developing collaborations between and amongst SUNY campuses only. Given that, the Review Team did not necessarily find added value in all the participating faculty being exclusively from SUNY institutions while excluding other leading institutions from being involved. Based on the Review Team’s observations, the Networks finite resources may be more effectively utilized to pull together teams that include top funded faculty—combined with the opportunity to engage non-SUNY institutions and their faculty to fill gaps in expertise—to compete for large multidisciplinary program/project type awards. The team observed that the rainmaker faculty may not act as leaders, per se, but their involvement would act as a magnet to attract others to participate.

Faculty Mentoring and Development Promoting a collaborative research environment may involve developing mechanisms for top funded faculty to assist and mentor junior assistant professors and other collaborators that are less experienced researchers. The Review Team observations suggest that forming smaller teams, with concentrated groups of faculty members focused on specific topical areas, could help build the necessary environment to enhance faculty development opportunities; this would allow there to be a focus on the present and future of research at SUNY. Supporting the focus on faculty development, the Review Team suggests that faculty with limited proposal experience would benefit from Networks-supported proposal review. Funding field experts to review proposals and provide feedback prior to faculty submitting proposals would be especially beneficial for newer applicants. Proposal development feedback from more experienced faculty members would also potentially increase the chances of successful external funding proposals.


10 | P a g e

Objective II: Provide Experiential Learning Opportunities for Students The Review Team observed that experiential learning opportunities for students should not only be measured by their involvement on Networks-funded research teams, but should also include students’ attendance and/or presentation at related conferences as well as research workshops. Developing the kind of collaborative environment that allows for viable graduate student involvement is the same type of environment that engenders innovative, collaborative research amongst faculty. Results from the Networks of Excellence survey conducted by the Review Team indicate that the participants feel the Networks have been only moderately successful at enabling them to provide students with adequate experiential learning opportunities (see Figure 3). Figure 3: NETWORK-FUNDED FACULTY PRECEPTION OF OBJECTIVE II SUCCESS




Total

…provide learning opportunities for SUNY undergraduate students 7 12 30 21 13 83 …provide learning opportunities for SUNY graduate students 4 7 17 38 17 83 …provide learning opportunities for SUNY post-doctoral researchers 8 15 28 18 15 84 …recruit students 8 16 32 19 5 80 Source: Survey conducted by the Networks of Excellence Review Team

Objective III: Produce Social Benefit and Economic Opportunity for NY Nationally and in New York, higher education is struggling with the changes to the way research is funded. Given the funding environment, the Review Team observations suggest that the Networks may provide an opportunity for SUNY to develop new approaches for conducting university-based research. SUNY and the RF are not funding agencies and there needs to be a more sustainable funding formula for the Networks going forward. The Research Foundation’s primary role is to provide support to SUNY and assist in convening campus faculty and staff in support of the Networks goals. Results from the survey conducted by the Review Team suggest that the Networks of Excellence have been successful in enabling participants to work on projects with potential to drive innovation and produce social benefits to the State (see Figure 4). Figure 4: NETWORK-FUNDED FACULTY PRECEPTION OF OBJECTIVE III SUCCESS




Total

…work on projects that have the potential to drive innovation, economic opportunity, and/or job growth in New York State.

2 4 8 48 23 85

…work on projects that have the potential to produce social benefits, either within New York or beyond.

2 5 14 38 27 86

…be making links between my work and the private sector. 4 8 33 27 11 83 …be making links between my work and the non-profit sector. 3 14 36 22 8 83 …be making links between my work and research or industry partners in other countries.

8 19 35 16 6 84

Source: Survey conducted by the Networks of Excellence Review Team


11 | P a g e

Focused Efforts – Tie to State and/or Successful Teams The Review Team observed that developing objectives tied to societal problems with foci of significant and critical interest to New York State may provide opportunity to seek additional support. SUNY is a state agency and is uniquely positions to help solve state problems – which may also be important nationally and globally. Each Network should have an action strategy that outlines the goals they wish to accomplish in the short-term (two to three years) with an understanding of possible long-term goals (more than three years). The Networks must identify steps to get there and find ways to better identify specific pockets or areas of opportunity in different research fields with collaborators from other universities. There may be existing teams that are currently on this path which needs further examination. Developing infrastructure is important to the Networks success. As an example, the majority of the awards (5 of 8 awards) granted by the Brain Network are in vision research. There is currently an infrastructure in place supporting that field in the form of the SUNY Eye Institute. The Eye Institute has had an intellectual infrastructure and have been working together for five to six years. The Networks should look to scale-up the successful practices of the Eye Institute to other Networks.


12 | P a g e

Recommendations and Conclusions

Recommendation No. 1 Clarify the objective of the Networks of Excellence

Clarify the objective of the program to be more explicit that it is primarily a vehicle for bringing more external research dollars to SUNY. Downstream outcomes of bringing in more external funding include:

innovative, collaborative research among SUNY faculty experiential learning opportunities for SUNY students social benefit and economic opportunity for New York and beyond

Recommendation No. 2 Focus on strategies that will most effectively achieve the stated objective

A two-level strategy should be employed for achieving the objective of bringing more external research dollars to SUNY, with the emphasis on forming teams including top funded SUNY faculty (i.e., key faculty members who have multiple or long-standing awards and/or generate more than $1million in sponsored expenditures per year) and external partners to work together toward large multidisciplinary program/project type awards. It is understood that it takes time to achieve an NSF Science & Technology Center or an Engineering Research Center. The best faculty within SUNY should be brought to bear to attract others to the team, and it’s not clear that these faculty have been participating in Networks workshops or projects. The networks should employ “facilitative leadership,” which is critical to interdisciplinary research efforts.

It is also important to focus on developing a collaboration ecosystem based on smaller, more focused topics and bringing together seasoned faculty to mentor others and build a sense of community. The extraordinary diversity of institutions and people and ideas in SUNY, the largest comprehensive university system in our nation, affords tremendous opportunity for building and nurturing talent. Mentoring our faculty that are newer to the research game is a critical role the networks can play.

Recommendation No. 3 Focus on solving New York State problems

It is appropriate for SUNY’s Networks of Excellence to focus on research problems critical to New York State, which are also problems facing the nation and the world. SUNY is an agency of the State of New York and should be considered a critical R&D partner with expertise across the entire spectrum of state issues. SUNY and other state agencies should partner to apply for major funding opportunities, including federal and private foundations.

Recommendation No. 4 Continue to place workshops and faculty collaboration at the core of the Networks

Investing in getting faculty together, through face-to-face meetings and remote collaboration technology, will yield benefits, both small and large. The team suggests that the focus be on bringing faculty together (including potentially reimbursing for travel) and not on seed funding, as the RF should not be seen as a funding agency and should not build up an infrastructure to act as one.


13 | P a g e

Appendices

Appendix A: Networks of Excellence Objectives and Measurable Outcomes The program review will encompass the networks’ objectives and measurable outcomes.

Objective Measurable Outcomes Data

To promote innovative, collaborative research among SUNY faculty

Number of faculty attending workshops ~400

Number of letters of intent/proposals submitted by funded teams for external funding 23

Number of large multidisciplinary program/project type awards received No data yet

External awards received by funded teams 3 1 NSF, 2 NYSERDA

Expertise across the system NoEs have tapped into (NoE funded faculty – 163 and decide the denominator: top funded faculty, all funded faculty, or all faculty)

TBD

To provide experiential learning opportunities for SUNY students

Number of students employed using NoE funds 73

To produce social benefit and economic opportunity for New York and beyond

Number of publications by funded teams 27

Number of Invention Disclosures submitted by funded teams 1

Number of faculty/student start-ups resulting from Networks No data yet

Number of outside partners engaged on teams (industry, other universities, etc.) 12

Suggested by Program Review Team: Number of policies, policy statements, programs and other products that are disseminated and have potential for influence outside academia


14 | P a g e

Appendix B: Networks of Excellence Awards and Outcomes

Network PI, Faculty Collaborators, Award Title, Summary Report

4E Andrei Lapenas (PI), UA; George Robinson, UA; Ruth Yanai, Syracuse; James Castracane, UA; Mohamed Trebak, UA; Natalia Tokranova, UA; Maurizio Mencuccini, Edinburgh; Adam Wild, Syracuse “Aphid-Like Biosensors for Ecosystem Studies: NANAPHID Proof of Concept” 1 patent application in progress, 1 grant application submitted, 1 NSF IDBR awarded ($800k/2 years, 6 institutions)

Christopher D. Thorncroft (PI), UA; Lance Bosart, UA; Aiguo Dai, UA; Henry Bokuniewicz, SBU; Brian Colle, SBU, Minghua, Zhang, SBU “Climate Change and Extreme Weather in NY State and Its impact on Inland and Coastal Flooding” Held 1 workshop with 60 attendees

Marina A. Petrukhina (PI), UA; Artem R. Oganov, SBU; Elena R. Margine, BU “Joint Theoretical-Experimental Quest for Novel Carbon-Based Materials for Energy-Related Applications” 1 publication in process; 1 invited presentation

Nathaniel C. Cady (PI), Poly; Laura Schultz, Poly; Christopher Nomura, ESF “Biomimicry as an Approach to Research on Energy and the Environment” Had 2 meetings; identified themes and potential external funding opportunities to pursue

Omowunmi A. Sadik (PI), BU; Catherine T. Lawson, UA “I-SEES-Institute for Smart Energy & Environmental Sustainability” Workshop held November (2014)

Kathryn B. Friedman (PI), UB; Valerie Luzadis, ESF; Joseph Makarewicz, Brockport “Integrating Science, Policy, and Economic Considerations in Understanding Managing Nearshore Water Quality in Lake Ontario” Submitted session proposal for IAGLR conference and identified potential funding sources; submitted 1 proposal for external funding

Hao Zeng (PI), UB; Peihong Zhang, UB; Liesl Folks, UB; Bin Yu, UA; Xingwu Wang, Alfred; Carolina C. Ilie, Oswego “Smart Magnetic Materials for Energy Conversion” 3 manuscripts publications and 4 external grant applications planned

Christopher S. Lowry (PI), UB; Berat Haznedaroglu, UB; Karen Salvage, BU; Joe Graney, BU “Workshop On Water Resources Issues Related to Unconventional Natural Gas Production” Workshop held in August with 17 participants

Guodong Sun (PI), SBU; Hyungseon Oh, UB “Workshop on Dynamic Islanding as an Accelerant for Grid Restoration and Enhancement to Reliability”


15 | P a g e


Jack Dehovitz (PI), Downstate; Gene D. Morse, UB “Conference to Lay Groundwork for SUNY Global Health Institute” Held 1 workshop in October, 60 attendees

Kathleen Magiera (PI), Fredonia; Mary Kay Szwejbka, Jamestown; Barbara Chorzempa, New Paltz; Jennifer Moon Ro, Fredonia “Southern Tier Energy Production: Powering Up Middle School Writers to Learn About Their Communities” Met with partners; outcomes unclear based on current materials

Stephen J. Padalino (PI), Geneseo; Kent Johnson, Alfred; Matthew Fox, Monroe “Biofuels Research and Education Collaboration”

Andrea Frank (PI), New Paltz; Ryan A. McPherson, UB; Michale Kelleher, ESF “Educational Space as a Flexible Sensitive Sustainable System” 2 internal grant applications submitted, 1 external grant application submitted, meeting planned for May

Eric M. Leibensperger (PI), Plattsburgh; Huiting Mao, ESF; James Schwab, UA “Adirondack Air Chemistry and Climate: Developing a Collaborative Partnership” 1 grant proposal submitted to EPA, not funded

Sherine M. El Hag (PI), Alfred; Mansokku Lee, Geneseo; Michael Ziolkowski, Brockport “Soci-Economic Impact of New Energy in New York” Held 3 small workshops held, 2 manuscripts in process

Paul D. Hirsch (PI), ESF; Ali Andalibi, SBU; Carmen E. Carrion-Flores, BU; Kathryn Bryk-Friedman, UB; Roberta Johnson, UA; Valerie A. Luzadis, ESF; Christopher T. Nomura, ESF; Kenneth Shockley, UB “Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Communication in Complex Socio-Ecological Systems: An Integrative Approach to Research, Policy Translation, and Curriculum” Submitted 3 conference abstracts and of those, 1 conference presentation was completed, 1 workshop held in Feb, 1 proposal for external funding submitted, developing proposals for NSF

Karin E. Limburg (PI), ESF; Stephan B. Baines, SBU; Anne E. McElroy, SBU; John R. Waldman, CUNY “Restoring Ecosystem Integrity and Ecosystem Services in Jamaica Bay, NY: A Research Planning Workshop”

Douglas J. Daley (PI), ESF; Jamie Adams, Oswego “Workshops to Develop Faculty Mentors and Sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates in Water Resources Science and Engineering”

Philippe Vidon (PI), ESF; Jonhong Wang, UA; Henry Bokuniewicz, SBU; Todd Walter, Cornell; Gregory Boyer, ESF; Ted Endreny, ESF; Lindi Quackenbush, ESF; Colin Beier, ESF; Craig Ferguson, UA “The integrated water-system of the great lakes region: its condition and challenges for the future”


16 | P a g e


Funded late James W. Fossett (PI), Rockefeller Inst; Kathryn Bryk Friedman, UB; Christopher Thorncroft, UA; Richard Perez, UA

“Homeland Security Outside the Beltway” Held 1 conference, shared 1 concept paper with DOD on cybersecurity Second SUNY-wide video-conference planned for April 2015, stemmed from their first conference

Brain Awards William Collins (PI), Stony Brook University; Johnathan S Carp, Wadsworth Center; Gerwin Schalk, Wadsworth Center “Integrating High-Resolution Brain Activity Mapping & Operant Conditioning to Improve Urinary Function” Did not submit report

Lawrence Wrabetz (PI), University at Buffalo; Helene Benveniste, Stony Brook; Randy Carter, University at Buffalo; Dimitrius Samaras, Stony Brook; Paul Vaska, Stony Brook; Robert Zivadinov, University at Buffalo “Multi-Modal Functional Brain Mapping, for Pre-Symptomatic Diagnosis in Leukodystrophy” Did not submit report

Helene Benveniste (PI), Stony Brook; John Danias, Downstate; Hedok Lee, Stony Brook; Maiken Nedergaard, University of Rochester “Role of Glymphatic Pathway in Glaucoma” Research proceeding as planned

Michael Zuber, Upstate Medical University; Stephen Fliesler, University at Buffalo; Hjun Qu, University at Buffalo; Gail M. Seigel, University at Buffalo; Andrea Viczian, Upstate “Membrane-permeable Transcriptional Regulators for Retinal Repair” Did not submit report

Robert McPeek, Optometry; Gregory Zelinsky, Stony Brook “Mapping Superior Colliculus Activity in Naturalistic Contexts: A Neuro-Computational Approach” Submitted 1 major proposal to NSF/NIH CRCN

Jose-Manuel Alonso, Optometry; Ji Ung Lee, CNSE; ; Kenneth Shepard, Columbia University; Harvey Swadlow, University of Connecticut “A Novel Ultra-Thin Multielectrode Probe for Neuro-Recordings” Planning NIH submission

Qasim Zaidi, Optometry; Daniel Ts'o,Optometry; Youping Xiao, Downstate “Mapping Neural Transformations for Context Based Perceptual Adjustment” 2 abstracts have been submitted to conferences and a collaborative R01 proposal is being prepared for NIH


17 | P a g e


Stewart Bloomfield, Optometry; Josa Manuel Alonso, Optometry; Gary Matthews, Stony Brook; Eduardo Solessio, Upstate Medical University; David Trolio, Optometry “A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Prevention & Treatment of Myopia” Research continuing

Health Jessica Seeliger (PI), SBU; Mahmood Hussain, Downstate; G. Ekin Atilla-Gokcumen, UB; Robert Rizzo, SBU; Markus Seeliger, SBU “Exploration of Lipid Transport Proteins as Drug Targets for the Treatment of Tuberculosis” Currently preparing a manuscript for publication, and continuing technical work on all specific aims.

Paul Agris (PI), UA; Kathleen McDonough, UA; Paul Kostyniak, UB; Patricia A. Masso-Welch, UB; Alan Chen, UA; “Drug Discovery and Development of Novel Antibiotics Against Gram-Positive Pathogens” Anticipate manuscript submission in the Spring of 2015. Project presented at ASM regional conference, October 2014. An abstract for an oral presentation by a postdoctoral fellow at ASBMB (March 2015) has been accepted. An abstract has been submitted for review for presentation of the project by an undergraduate from the Agris lab at the annual Sigma Symposium hosted by The RNA Institute at the University at Albany in March 2015.

A collaboration has been established with Dr. Matthew Disney at The Scripps Institute. Kaiming Ye (PI), BU; Sally Temple, UA; Yunbing Xie, Poly; Minglin Ma, Cornell; Gretchen Mahler, BU; Guahao Da, RPI; Sha Jin,

BU “3D Printing Tissues and Organoids for Personalized Organ Transplantation” Research team submitted 1 Science and Technology Center pre-proposal to NSF request $24 million.

Sharon Brangman (PI), Upstate Med/Cornell; Gerlinde Van de Walle, Cornell; Roy Cohen, Cornell; Magnus Bergkvist, Poly; Ji Ung Lee, Poly; Theresa Curtis, Cortland; Elad Levy, UB; David Erickson, Cornell “Development of Hand-held Biosensors for Rapid Diagnosis & Study of Neural Disease & Neurotoxins”

MAM Albert Titus (PI), UB; Nathaniel Cady, Poly; Ivan Gitsov, ESF; Yizhi Meng, SBU; Li Niu, UA; Kaiming Ye, BU “Focus Area: Biomaterials” Industry partnering, identified possible companies for ESD to investigate: Bruker, PerkinsElmer, Scientia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, J&J companies Research papers being developed and submissions to journals planned Funding Applications planned for NIH, NSF, DARPA Research symposium planned for spring or summer 2015

Gary Halada (PI), SBU; Mark Driscoll, ESF; Liesl Folks, UB; Jeff Ge, SBU; S.B. Park, BU; Tarun Singh, UB


18 | P a g e


“Nascent Area: Digital & Additive Mfg” Conference held in Stony Brook, approx 60 attendees. Another conference planned for UB in March.

Thomas Furlani (PI), UB; Peter Borgesen, BU; Joel Saltz, SBU; Stephen Weiter, ESF “Informatics”

Christopher Nomura (PI), ESF; Maen Alkhader, SBU; Magnus Bergkvist, Poly; Junghyun Cho, BU; Ivan Gitsov, ESF; John Welch, UA “Nascent Area: Green Composite” 5 external awards (2 from NYSERDA for $100K each), 11 additional applications submitted with over a dozen partners

Shadi Sandvik (PI), Poly; Ivan Gitsov, ESF; Mark Poliks, BU; Vladimir Samuilov, SBU; C.J. Zhong, BU “Nascent Area: Functional & Responsive Materials” Planning joint manuscripts and proposals

Steven Novak (PI), Poly; Junghyun Cho, BU; David Kiemle, ESF; Tad Koga, SBU; Jim Dias, UA; Ken Tramposch, UB “Characterization” Compiled list of characterization equip., planning hiatus in Year 2

Daniel White (PI), Poly; Nathaniel Cady, Poly; Joe Gardella, UB; Maria Hepel, Potsdam; John Parise, SBU; Miriam Rafailovich, SBU; Charles Spuches, ESF; Stan Whittingham, BU “Education and Outreach” - Coordinated with existing programs

Eric Eisenbraun (PI), Poly “Flexible Electronics” - Coordinated with existing programs 5 proposals submitted 5 conference abstracts submitted


19 | P a g e

Appendix C: Networks of Excellence Financial Report (as of 3/30/15)

Year 1 Allocation (7/1/13-6/30/14): $4,000,000

Awarded to Collaborative Teams for Projects: $2,998,575

Project Awarded Spent to Date

Balance (as of 4/15/15)

Termination Date

4E Climate Change and Extreme Weather in NY State and its Impact on Inland and Coastal Flooding

10,000 6,583.25 3,416.75 31-Aug-15

Aphid-like Biosensors for Ecosystem Studies: NANAPHI Proof of Concept

135,000 86,438.60 48,561.40 30-Jun-15

Joint Theoretical-Experimental Quest for Novel Carbon-Based Materials for Energy Related Applications

135,000 79,926.82 55,073.18 30-Nov-15

Biomimicry as an approach to Research on Energy and the Environment

3,000 1,420.15 1,579.85 31-Aug-15

I SEES-Institute for Smart Energy & Environmental Sustainability

10,000 4,831.93 5,168.07 28-Feb-15

Workshop On Water Resources Issues Related to Unconventional Natural Gas Production

9,596 5,227.20 4,368.40 31-Mar-15

Integrating Science, Policy, and Economic Considerations in Understanding Managing Nearshore Water Quality in Lake Ontario

134,899 106,623.40 28,278.60 31-Oct-15

Smart Magnetic Materials for Energy Conversion 135,000 132,330.00 2,669.43 31-May-15

Workshop on Dynamic Islanding as an Accelerant for grid Restoration and Enhancement to Reliability

9,916 0.00 9,916.00 31-Mar-15

Conference to lay groundwork for SUNY Global Health Institute

10,000 6,846.60 3,153.40 31-July-15


20 | P a g e

Awarded to Collaborative Teams for Projects: $2,998,575 (cont.)



Termination Date

Southern Tier Energy Production: Powering Up Middle School Writers to Learn About Their Communities

2,741.09 2,741.09 0.00 31-Dec-14

Biofuels research and Education Collaboration 3,000 1,273.08 1,726.92 30-Jun-15

Educational Space as a Flexible Sensitive Sustainable System

3,000 1,201.84 1,798.16 10-Jun-15

Adirondack Air Chemistry and Climate: Developing a Collaborative Partnership

2,991.76 2,991.76 0.00 31-Mar-15

Socio-Economic Impact of New Energy in New York

19,500 5,648.26 13,851.74 31-July-15

Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Communication in Complex Socio-Ecological Systems: An Integrative Approach to Research, Policy Translation, and Curriculum

135,000 106,968.35 28,031.65 31-Aug-15

Restoring Ecosystem Integrity and Ecosystem Services in Jamaica bay, NY: A Research Planning Workshop

2,562.85 2,562.85 0.00 28-Feb-15

Workshops to Develop Faculty Mentors and Sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates in Water Resources Science and Engineering

10,000 1,115.51 8,884.49 30-Jun-15

The Integrated Water System of the Great Lakes Region: It’s Condition & Challenges for the Future

114,775 40,182.21 74,592.79 30-Sep-15

Homeland Security Outside the Beltway 6,520 2,328.81 4,191.19 1-Jul-15

Health-Drug Discovery and Development of Novel Antibiotics Against Gram-positive Pathogens

150,000 106,491.27 43,508.73 31-May-15


21 | P a g e




Termination Date

3D Printing Tissues and Organoids for Transplantation

150,000 118,269.84 31,730.16 30-Sept-15

Planning Grant to Produce a Roadmap to the Creation of a SUNY-Wide Centralized “Big Data” Repository of SUNY Electronic Health Record Data

149,912 68,596.24 81,315.76 30-Nov-15

Exploration of Lipid Transport Proteins as Drug Targets for the Treatment of Tuberculosis

150,000 112,803.58 37,196.42 31-Aug-15

SUNY Network Aging Partnerships: Investigating Frailty and Enhanced Lifespan Across the Health Spectrum

147,482 58,712.95 88,769.05 30-Sep-15

Development of Hand-held Biosensors for Rapid Diagnosis and Study of Neural Disease and Neurotoxins

150,000 104,375.67 45,624.33 30-Sep-15

Brain- Multi-modal functional Brain Mapping for Pre-symptomatic Diagnosis in Leukodystrophy

80,388 39,000.00 41,388.00 30-Sep-15

Integrating High-resolution Brain Activity Mapping and Operant Conditioning to Improve Urinary Function

106,463 98,964.76 7,498.24 30-Jun-15

Role of Glymphatic Pathway in Glaucoma 147,000 54,792.97 92,207.03 30-Jun-15

Membrane-permeable transcriptional regulators for retinal repair

93,675.00 60,613.86 33,061.14 30-Jun-15

A Novel Ultra-thin Multielectrode Probe for Neuronal Recordings

150,000 22,398.31 127,601.69 30-Jun-15

Mapping Superior Colliculus Activity in Naturalistic Contexts: A Neuro-computational Approach

46,000 32754.38 20,768.79 30-Jun- 15

Mapping Neural Transformations for Context Based Perceptual Adjustments

98,588 85,060.39 13,527.61 30-Jun-15

A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Prevention and Treatment of Myopia

85,000 29,175.25 55,824.56 30-Jun-15

MAM- Characterization 15,000 0.00 15,000 30-Jun-15


22 | P a g e




Termination Date

Education and Outreach 15,000 1,629.00 13,371.00 31-Dec-15

Flexible Electronics 175,000 126,745.61 48,254.39 31-Dec-15

Energy Materials 175,000 84,792.08 90,207.92 31-Dec-15

Functional and Responsive Materials 40,000 6,471.23 33,528.77 30-Jun-15

Biomaterials 175,000 101,231.81 73,768.19 30-Jun-15

Informatics 15,000 0.00 15,000 30-Jun-15

Support for Nascent Technology Area in Digital and Additive Manufacturing

40,000 25,719.98 14,280.02 30-Jun-15

Green Composite 60,000 40,642.50 19,357.50 30-Jun-15

* Data from Oracle Business System (APT Award Level report in Oracle Report Center)

Used to Convene Network Faculty: $115,721

Workshop Spent *

4E

Aug. 2013 Inaugural Retreat Aug. 2013 Inaugural Retreat May 2014, Binghamton

$20,611

Brain

Nov. 2013 Stony Brook Dec. 19, 2013 - virtual

53,393

Health

Nov. 2013

13,638

MAM

Sept. 2013 Buffalo Meeting Dec. 2013 Albany Meeting Mar. 2014 Binghamton Mtg.

22,353

AAH

May 2013: Purchase

5,726

* Data from Oracle Business System (Accounts Payable Invoice Query in Oracle Report Center); Budgeted data not available for Year 1


23 | P a g e

Used to Support Students: $66,607

Program Budgeted Spent

BNE Summer Scholars 66,607 66,607

* Data from Oracle Business System (APT Award Level report in Oracle Report Center)

Other: $202,008

Purpose Budgeted Spent

Central Office Infrastructure (salaries)

N/A 85,508

Proposal Review (Health) N/A 60,000

Proposal Review (Brain) N/A 400

Proposal Review (4E) N/A 56,100

* Data from Oracle Business System (Accounts Payable Invoice Query in Oracle Report Center)

Year 1 Funds Returned to General Network Pool:

$77,555 (campus awards) + $443,324 (CO Awards) $520,879 (Total Returned) - $11,000 Grants Management Software $15,000 4E Fellow $478,503 rolled over to NoE FY2015 Account Rollover Budget Allocation $180,000 MAM Industry Matching $20,000 AaH $106,000 Clinical Trials Infrastructure $34,000 Telepresence Room $50,000 Campus Reimbursement for NoE Administrator Effort $88,503 Unallocated


24 | P a g e

Year 2 Allocation (7/1/14-6/30/15): $4,000,000 plus rollover of $478,503

Awarded to Collaborative Teams for Projects: (awards not made yet made; budgets by network provided): Total Budgeted: $2,952,000

Network Budgeted+

MaM 842,500 (includes Industry Matching)

4E 807,500

Brain 742,500

Health 862,000

AaH 160,000

Teaching, Learning, and Assessment 100,000

+ Budgeted data from NoE FY2015 plan documents

Used to Convene Network Faculty To-Date: $86,115

Workshop Budgeted+ Spent*

4E

Oct. 2014, Fall Charrette ESF

June 2015 (upcoming)

60,000 11,571

Brain

December 2014: Buffalo

100,000 35,788

Health 50,000 0

MAM

December 2014 - Boston

40,000 14,611

AaH

October 31-Nov. 1 2014

25,000 24,145

* Spent data from Oracle Business System (Accounts Payable Invoice Query in Oracle Report Center) + Budgeted data from NoE FY2015 plan documents


25 | P a g e

Used to Support Students To-Date: $0


Brain Summer Students Program 70,000 0

4E Summer Students Program 45,000 0


Marketing: $0


NoE Marketing 50,000 (MAM, 4E, Health, Brain contributed $12,500 each)

0


Other To-Date: $74,664

Purpose Budgeted Spent

Reimburse campuses for NoE administrator effort

50,000 48,722

4E Fellow 15,000 14,424

Clinical Trial Infrastructure (includes fellow)

113,108 7,018

Telepresence Room 34,000 $0

Central Infrastructure 13,500 4,500

* Spent data from Oracle Business System (Accounts Payable Invoice Query in Oracle Report Center) + Budgeted data from NoE FY2015 plan documents


26 | P a g e

Appendix D: Networks of Excellence Participant Evaluation April 2015 Survey was open April 11- 30, 2015

Response rate: 89/157 (56.7%) Data analysis by W. Lash-Marshall and M. Ewald (SUNY ESF)

1. What Network or Networks do you participate in? (Choose all that apply)

Network Number of Participants SUNY 4E 29 SUNY Health 17 SUNY Brain 15 SUNY MAM 12 SUNY Arts & Humanities 0 SUNY TLA 0 More than one Network* 15 No answer 1 TOTAL 89

*More than one NoE: 4E & MAM (5); 4E & Health (3); 4E & Arts & Humanities (1); Health & Brain (4); 4E, Health, and MAM (1); 4E, Health, Brain, and MAM (1)

2. How did you learn about the Networks of Excellence?

Q2 Response Number Percentage

Invitation to a Network Meeting or charrette 17 19.1%

Email from a member of the SUNY Research Foundation

9 10.1%

Office of Research Programs or Vice President of Research at my home institution

37 41.6%

I was contacted by a colleague at my home institution

11 12.4%

I was contacted by a colleague at another SUNY institution

10 11.2%

Other (please specify)* 5 5.6%

TOTAL 89 100%

*Responses: Member of the SUNY Eye Institute (2);“Serving on the NoE Steering Committee” (1); “Member of SUNY Research Council” (1); “Received an email call for proposals” (1).


27 | P a g e

3. How did you form your Network of Excellence funded research team?

Q3 Response Number Percentage of Total

Built on a previous or existing collaboration 20 22.7%

Invited researchers I had not previously worked with, but wanted to collaborate with

34 38.6%

Met at Network‐hosted Charrette or meeting 22 25.0%

Other (Please specify)* 12 13.6%

TOTAL 88 100%

*Responses: “Through the SUNY Eye Institute” (2); “Asked to participate by a team leader” (1); “Was invited by a researcher I had not previously met” (1); “I felt forced to include people from other institutions that I had nothing in common (with) just to get funding.” (1); “Only on mailing list to follow actions” (1).

4. From your perspective, what are the most significant benefits that have come from your participation in the Networks of Excellence? (n = 87, 98% responded. 14 responses listed multiple benefits.) ‐ 59 respondents included connecting SUNY campuses as the most significant benefit from

participating in the NoE.

o Promoting Networking/development of collaborations (30) Meeting people across SUNY (26)

Meeting new researchers closer ties with colleagues New Researchers new collaborations Met researchers with whom I am exploring other projects Met researchers and developed partnerships Networking within SUNY Met colleagues at other SUNY Meeting people across campuses Meeting colleagues of similar research interest across SUNY Meeting people across campuses Get to know people across campuses and work with them New collaborations with colleagues at SUNY, meeting new people for

possible collaborations. getting to know colleagues from other SUNY and developing new

conversations Working closely with researchers within SUNY who have similar interests Networking with new colleagues across campuses Meeting new people/developing collaborations builds collaborative relationships great opportunity to collaborate with people in the same field and share

resources engagement with new faculty meeting new researchers in my field getting to know colleagues from other SUNY and developing new

conversations


28 | P a g e

Introduction to other researchers, creation of new teams Introduced to a valuable collaborator Networking with SUNY faculty new collaborations sharing amongst colleagues

Research/opportunities across SUNY (4)

Learning about existing opportunities Become better acquainted with SUNY research Meeting new people and learning about research across SUNY Awareness of SOA elsewhere

o Has supported and increased collaboration (12)

Increased Collaboration and support provides platform for collaboration Begin a relevant dialogue with colleagues Multidisciplinary collaborations Identify other collaborators developed new collaborations New collaborations Support and incentivize for existing collaborations and to build new ones break down barriers to collaborations working together as a comprehensive team fast team building process Build relationships with like-minded professionals, bridging boundaries

o Building collaborations across campuses (11)

Incentive for multiple campuses to collaborate NOE has been instrumental in developing intercampus collaborations, especially for

people with limited time to write proposals. Developing fruitful collaborations across several institutions Learning about what's being done at other SUNYs and starting new collaborations Collaborating with other SUNY Develop long term and deep relationships for multi-institutional research initiatives. new collaborations across SUNY collaborating outside of home institution Exceptional collaboration across campuses gained that would not have happened if

NIH had not facilitated chance to work with colleagues across SUNY- would not have happened otherwise having the opportunity to work on a joint project

o For Advancing science (6)

New collaborations have led to several grant applications, helpful to advancing science

Have access to large group of people to tackle big science which is impossible without collaboration

Collaboration provided expertise and starting money for a project I would not have otherwise attempted

opportunity to collaborate on high risk projects chances for collaboration and better utilization of resources


29 | P a g e

new collaborations that could lead to further ventures

‐ 25 respondents listed the provided funding itself as the greatest benefit of the NoE:

o Has already allowed or will allow teams to obtain additional funding (11) Ability to get seed money to beget more funds down the road. Eventually lead to new funding Lead to new funding Possibility to generate data for NSF proposal Nice funding mechanism to bring together SUNY for larger proposals Exploring options for additional funding Will facilitate my long term research agenda and writing of a NIH grant proposal Lay foundation for further grants stimulated new ideas for grant proposals Obtained large Federal Grant Funding from NSF

o It could be used for seed money or starting a new research project/collaboration (7)

Seed funding directly from NOE Funding collaborative pilot projects Seed funding to assist with new projects Small workshop grant initiating new research Seed funding for collaboration Seed money to jump start collaborations Provided funds to work on a collaborative project that would not have happened

without NOE

o Funding has changed an important component of research process (7) RF funding makes SUNY much more competitive in bad funding climate, more

opportunity for students Funding to equalize relationships by providing funding for all parties Funding makes collaboration happen Gave our group research money to work together, at an undergraduate research

institution this collaboration is very important Enabled funding of a grad student that significantly furthered the project Cash to support travel and workshops Funding from a BNE grant allowed for joint project with faculty across SUNY Students and faculty from different SUNY had the opportunity to collaborate on

cutting edge research. Students benefit


30 | P a g e

‐ 10 respondents listed one of the following “other” categories as the most significant benefits:

o Could take research is a new direction (7) New research direction Helps to reframe problems in exciting ways explore and build on novel ideas Broadened scope of research activities Collaboration permitted exploration of important medical question in a new way Allowed to do more research Got over threshold for proof of content

o Increased awareness of science in SUNY (3)

Greater awareness of science and expertise within SUNY Gained new perspective of people working on similar topics but with different angles. learning of efforts at other SUNY campuses and having the opportunity to support

them

‐ 3 people stated the NoE had not provided them with any benefit or that benefit had not been realized yet.

o None o Support for new collaborations has been discussed casually but not formally organized o Its role has been minimal so far, I hope it can change. Significant benefits are yet to come

5. What would you change or improve about the Networks of Excellence? (n = 77, 86.5% responded, 10

responses included multiple suggestions for changes.)

‐ 25 respondents suggested changes to NoE funding: o Increase the amount of funding o When divided among multiple participants the amount of funding is insufficient to get a new

program off the ground o Increase level of funding o Increased funding for more projects would help cement links between campuses o Increase funding per team (2) o Funding is currently too low (3) o More money overall o more funding means greater chance of federal funding o Funding is inadequate for multiple participants o More funding for research o Funding is restrictive allows for PI salary support o Have more funding in education o Allocate more seed money to foster cross-campus collaboration than allocating a large sum for

a few projects o Should be focused on areas that bring in money o Consider cash to support graduate students o Fund faculty time o Smaller team would beget more meaningful funding o Fewer, larger grants o Supporting research is useful, but could also be used to fund large cross-SUNY events. o Funding is too wide for my research


31 | P a g e

o Make grant dollars more transparent o We had our funding cut by 23% and were asked to have additional co-PIS it's been a

challenge to move forward with broader interests and less funding

‐ 12 respondents identified the need to improve or address time constraints o One year time periods are over ambitious and difficult to sustain o Funding should be longer than one year o Sustain funding for more than 3 years o Extend time frame of support o 2+ year timeframe o make funding duration longer o Two years instead of one o time frame is too short o Yearlong does not lend itself to long term institutional changes necessary to develop robust

relationship/change institutional culture. o It takes almost a year for grants to be allocated, so consolidate process o The second round of funding was too rushed o Funding times does not match regular academic cycles for funding students on new projects

‐ 11 respondents suggested changes or improvements to the overall structure of the NOE

o Define operational framework o It is unclear what the NOE's goals are overall o Must become sustainable o Improve the system o There is no organization to the network, no incentives to participate and therefore little

cooperation. Out of touch locally. o Networks of excellence be the theme and use different networks to be selected rather than

designated o Don't require multi campus collaborations o PI’s do not take the intercampus aspect seriously, just another pot of funding o More opportunities for students o Allow teaching faculty to apply for course release o NOE seems fine but there is a lot of distrust, so more work is required

‐ 7 responses included suggestions or improvements for NoE Events

o Setting up phase project such as NIH UH2/UH3 consortium will serve better for the purpose. Have pre planned exercises to facilitate interactions.

o Have more opportunities for researchers to come together o We have a lot of talk and not a lot of action. o Spend more time on projects than people o Encourage cross network interactions, increase emphasis on outreach efforts. Focus less on

updates. o More networking opportunities o Bring teams together at beginning of grant cycle, and again at the middle and end o Did not find the charrette and workshops helpful, were too vague o Somehow develop better interactions o Have more grant or project driven collaboration

‐ 7 respondents currently had no suggestions for changes

o Nothing, this is a great resource to kickstart new collaborations o Project is ongoing so we should stay the course for a while


32 | P a g e

o No suggestions o Nothing, brain network and NOE has worked very well o It is too early in the process to make changes o nothing yet o Not much can be done

‐ 5 respondents suggested improved communications from SUNY across the NoE.

o Would have been nice to have a central point of contact in SUNY. It's Confusing to know where one network starts and the other ends

o More clarification on opportunities o Create a network database o More collaboration across networks o Find better ways to identify collaborators and identify major gaps that limit participation

‐ 4 respondents suggested changes to the reporting requirements of NoE funding:

o Keep and expand the program without bureaucracy of applications and reporting o Let one break out major components from minor components o reduce paperwork required, one progress report per year for multi-million grants and two for

less than less than $150K It o Keep extra flexibility with grant deadlines and establish fellowships for graduate students

‐ 2 respondents were not supportive of the NoE overall.

o Eliminate them, they are a waste of money and the 1 SUNY idea is naïve o I am not a firm believer in NOE I think that collaborations result more in grassroots (bottom up)

efforts The following questions are in reference to the three objectives of the Network of Excellence.

6. Objective 1: To promote innovative, collaborative research among SUNY faculty To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements:


I have been enabled to… Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree Total

...ask research questions that I would not normally be asking.

2 8 9 38 30 87

...develop my capacity to work as a member of a collaborative research team.

3 6 10 38 30 87

...collaborate with researchers from other disciplines that I might not otherwise have had the chance to work with.

3 1 13 29 41 87

...collaborate with researchers from other disciplines that I might not otherwise have had the chance to work with.

2 0 7 19 59 87


33 | P a g e

7. Which of the following outcomes have been a result of your participation in the Networks of Excellence?

(choose all that apply) (n = 83, 93% responded)

Total Percentage Identified opportunities for funding that I intend to apply for that I would not otherwise be considering.

51 61.4%

Applied for funding that I would not have otherwise applied for.

39 47.0%

Obtained funding that I would otherwise not have obtained. 25 30.1%

Attended meetings, workshops, or conferences that I otherwise would not have been able to attend.

45 54.2%

Authored or co-authored papers that I would not otherwise have contributed to.

14 16.9%

Other (Please specify)* 7 8.4%

*Responses: “Obtained new cell line for my work” (1); “I expect to publish in a new area” (1); “No real value added” (1); “None of the above or haven’t seen the outcomes yet” (2); “Formed a network that would not have existed if not for this grant” (1); “Benefitted in my conversations with the NYSDOH by my involvement in the NOE. One more piece of evidence of the commitment SUNY is making to be a strong partner to NYS DOH (1).

8. Please use the space provided to expand on any of your responses above or provide comments regarding

this objective and how the Networks can support you in participating in innovative, collaborative research. (n = 29; 32.6%) 20 respondents (69%) provided clarifications on their answers to Question 7:

o 4 respondents reported NoE funding allowed them to conduct new research or conduct research in a new field. “I am basically opening a new line of research in my lab. This line of research is very

promising and would not have been possible if it was not initially promoted by the NIH Brain Initiative and later supported and funded by SUNY Brain…”

“This work lead my research team to go into a field which we would not on our own and provided the opportunity to apply our expertise to a health related question…”

“…The project is a big idea with high risk and has been difficult to pursue on my own. It is only through the BNE funding and collaborative environment created by this grant that it got off the ground.”

“…helps foster a culture of collaboration across SUNY campuses”

o 4 respondents were currently applying for grants or plan to in the future “…pursuing a center grant” “…poised to take advantage of other funding opportunities” “identified a NOAA grant that was appropriate to our interdisciplinary research topic” “We will be able to submit a grant proposal because of the BNE funding…”

o 3 respondents had already applied for and/or obtained funding

“Submitted a team proposal (NSF-DMREF)…obtained NSF funding….”


34 | P a g e

“…I have become part of a team that has not only generated a series of grant proposals, presentations, and publications…but also remains cohesive enough to have a good chance of surviving beyond our 4E support…”

“…has already secured 100K funding from NY state…”

o 3 respondents highlighted that the NoE have promoted collaboration across campuses and individuals. “…I am now part of a multi-investigator consortium involving two SUNY campuses…

[I] otherwise would not have been working if it was not for the Network's promotion of such collaborations.”

“Great opportunity to collaborate especially with a community college.” “…created an exploratory research project that spans all four campuses.”

o 2 respondents emphasized both publications and grant applications are forthcoming

“…planning both a co-authored manuscript and a grant application.” “Project is still ongoing, and while likely leading to proposal applications and paper

submissions, these have not yet occurred.”

o 1 respondent’s publications are forthcoming “papers will ensue”

o 1 respondent clarified the funding they obtained

“I receive travel funding to attend our group meetings. SUNY 4E provides accommodation for attending its Charette's”

o 1 respondent stated that they did not experience any of the outcomes in Question 7.

o 1 respondent stated they are applying to NoE again for a new project.

8 respondents (27.6%) provided comments on how the NoE can support them in meeting Objective 1:

o 3 respondents suggested ways to build on the NoE model “Expand the program to 2nd, 3rd years…Establish named fellowships for graduate

students participating in the program… “…the question is whether SUNY will be part of this [expanding the funded research

project]. Without SUNY Brain, I think that the chances would be very small. With SUNY Brain, we can really make it!”

“…I would be sure of its [my research project] survival if the networks would provide continuing logstical and financial support for these groups, in both time, travel, and the facilitation of activities.”

o 2 respondents suggested the NoE could do better in what funding supports. “…better support for PIs to travel to interdisciplinary conferences and meetings” “…fund faculty time”

o 2 respondents need more time to meet as a team and complete their research.


35 | P a g e

“…allowing us to meet and discuss our work; and also give us more time to develop the projects. 6-18 months is really a very short time to execute new science in new fields.”

“…we needed a no-cost extension due to delays in data collection.”

o 1 respondent thinks the NoE needs to increase their research budget.

o 2 respondents thought it was too early in the process to evaluate the NoE. “…we're still in the system integration phase and have not yet acquired our pilot

data.” “…it is early in the process we hope to use the funding as seed money for bigger NIH

level grants.”

o 2 responses were not usable (“see above” and “n/a”)

9. Objective 2: To provide experiential learning opportunities for SUNY students. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements:

"Through my participation in the Networks of Excellence, I have been enabled to..."

“I have been enabled to…” Strongly Disagree Disagree



...provide learning opportunities for SUNY undergraduate students

7 12 30 21 13 83

...provide learning opportunities for SUNY graduate students

4 7 17 38 17 83

...provide learning opportunities for SUNY post‐doctoral researchers

8 15 28 18 15 84

...recruit students. 8 16 32 19 5 80

10. Please use the space provided to expand on any of your responses above or provide comments regarding this objective and how the Networks can support you in providing experiential learning opportunities for students. (n = 18, 20.2%) 15 respondents (83%) provided clarifications on their answers to Question 9:

o 9 respondents expanded on the learning opportunities they were able to provide, including 6 that described student involvement and 3 that described why they did not have student involvement. “One rotating student, one current student have taken part in the project. The lions

share of the work, has been done by the PIs and technicians.” “…we have strengthen the skill set of the students on our team and have given them

opportunities to participate in a clinical research project that did not previously exist.” “Funding was only available to support one PhD student” “…funding for one summer undergraduate intern.”


36 | P a g e

“…i recruited 4 undergraduate students and their work with me counted as their senior design project. An additional graduate student (masters) has helped and this experience that he gained allowed him to land a high profile job…”

“Our project involved graduate students. However, after deliberation we as a team concluded that it made most sense for the Buffalo team to have the GAs there with them as they were conducting the data collection activities, and it is in that work that the students would be most valuable and learn quite a bit as the data collection involved interviews in the field.”

“My particular collaborative project has not involved students, so far.” “I have mostly interacted with the other co-PI and the PI.” “We had all the personnel we needed at first.”

o 2 respondents clarified why they were not able to recruit students

“…not long-term enough to recruit any new students. Cutting edge biomedical research is more suited to grad students and post-docs. We engage undergrads in the research supported by the SUNY award, but they are not paid by the SUNY funding.”

“Due to short deadlines with start dates, it was hard to use this program to recruit new students, but potentially this should be the goal.”

o 1 respondents explained how they used NoE funds to recruit students “We have used the grant to include all 3 levels of student (UG, G, PD) and recruit.

The interdisciplinary nature of our grant has been awesome in recruitment of students into our research group.”

o 1 respondent emphasized it was too early to evaluate the outcome “The project funded by SUNY Brain is less than one year old and this is a short time

to evaluate a real impact on training…” o 2 responses were not applicable.

4 respondents (22%) provided comments on how the NoE can support them in meeting Objective 2:

o 3 respondents emphasized the need for more funding to meet objective 2 “Limited funds did not allow me to recruit anyone other than unpaid undergrads.” “Not enough money…to recruit any new students…We engage undergrads in the

research supported by the SUNY award, but they are not paid by the SUNY funding.” “The funding isn't large enough to support students.”

o 1 respondent suggested there is a need for more SUNY-wide mentoring for graduate students

“Graduate students can be mentored by SUNY as a whole, access to the best of the best.”


37 | P a g e

11. Objective 3: To produce social benefit and economic opportunity for New York and beyond. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements:

“Through my participation in the Networks of Excellence, I have been enabled to...”

Strongly Disagree Disagree



...work on projects that have the potential to drive innovation, economic opportunity, and/or job growth in New York State.

2 4 8 48 23 85

...work on projects that have the potential to produce social benefits, either within New York or beyond.

2 5 14 38 27 86

...be making links between my work and the private sector.

4 8 33 27 11 83

...be making links between my work and the non‐profit sector

3 14 36 22 8 83

...be making links between my work and research or industry partners in other countries.

8 19 35 16 6 84

12. Please use the space provided to expand on any of your responses above or provide comments regarding this objective and how the Networks can support you in working toward producing social benefit and economic opportunity for New York and beyond. (n = 12, 13.5%) 9 respondents (75%) provided clarifications on their answers to Question 11, all of which were specific to their project’s goals.

o Private Sector (2) “…may go commercial in the future” “I work on commercialization and work to help my colleagues and their students start

companies.” o Links to other countries (1)

“We have not made links to other countries. But we have made a strong link with a local company and put in a joint grant proposal with them around the technology we're working on.”

o Objective 3 overall: (2) “…we have the potential for the 3 last questions [links to private, non-profit, and

international industry partners] and it may become that I strongly agree when I see these emerge.”

“A recent meeting at Millenium Challenge Corporation involved a discussion about a new research and practice arrangement between CTG and the MCC around open data. A particular area of interest of the MCC is open data in the developing world. One of the projects that received great attention from the MCC team is the CIDR project. They are very interested creating integrated repositories of health data and in


38 | P a g e

the overall issues of information sharing. This project contributed to their interest in our work.”

o Provided clarification on why they may not have met statements in Question 10: “The work was primarily in the service of basic research.” “There was no mandate to include private sector or non-profit partners and funding

was not available for international partners.”

o 1 respondent felt the components of Objective three were not applicable to their project.

2 respondents (16.7%) provided a comment on how the NoE can support them in meeting Objective 3: o “I am convinced that we are going to see major changes in the design and manufacturing of

multielectrode arrays within the next 10 years and that both non-profit and industry are going to play a major role in this major transformation in brain research. The NIH Brain Initiative is just the beginning of the change. I really hope that SUNY and the New York State become leaders in driving innovation within this important sector that involves major advances in both information technology and neuroscience.”

o “…learn about companies in other regions that could benefit from our campus research programs and expertise.”

13. Listed below are investments the Networks of Excellence have made to support participants and meet the

previously listed objectives. Please indicate how effective each investment has been in enabling you to achieve the results you hope to achieve through your participation in the Networks.

Very

Ineffective Ineffective

Neither Effective nor Ineffective Effective

Very Effective Total

Putting on Charrettes. 4 6 29 30 14 83

Funding travel to meet with your research team.

1 2 19 32 29 83

Providing funding to run workshops for SUNY colleagues.

2 7 30 27 18 84

Providing funding to hire undergraduate students.

5 10 39 17 11 82

Providing funding to hire graduate students.

2 8 23 28 21 82

Providing funding to hire post‐doctoral researchers.

5 11 30 16 21 83

Providing funding to obtain equipment.

6 10 37 21 8 82

Providing funding to attend conferences.

2 16 32 22 9 81

Providing support for collaborative grant development.

2 7 9 29 37 84

Providing information about funding opportunities.

3 6 13 38 23 83


39 | P a g e

14. Any other thoughts regarding the Networks of Excellence? (n=24; 27%)

‐ 14 respondents (58.3%) reported positive thoughts regarding the NoE.

o 7 strongly endorsed the continuation of the NoE Great program! NOE is the most important of all recent initiatives by SUNY Research foundation This is an important and valuable program that should be ramped up, made more

visible and used to expand cross campus collaborations “Excellent program that could be strengthened with state funding and open reviews” “Excellent idea that needs continued support” Keep it going! This is great, should be continued and expanded I hope you can keep this going

o 4 provided thanks for the funding support they received

thank you very much for support! Thank you for the support!! Well done, thank you! Thank you for uniting our campuses

o 2 emphasized the Benefits of NoE

“Great opportunity to collaborate, kept my lab going.” Has been a boost for many scientists in the program.

‐ 5 respondents (20.8%) made specific suggestions for the NoE

o I would like to see SUNY support the SUNY EYE INSITUTE o Time extension would help to solidify collaborations, a year is short. Two would be better o A conference to bring all awardees together? o Support for grad students and post doctorates could help. Faculty time is really critical o application submission is too complicated

‐ 2 respondents (8.3%) recorded negative thoughts regarding the NoE

o They should be eliminated, this kind of funding is wasteful. o I think this is too big and unwieldy to be effective


40 | P a g e

Appendix E: Notes from First Program Review Team Meeting March 30, 2015 Attendees:

Member Name SUNY campus/affiliation Title

Susan Avery, Ph.D. SUNY Research Council President and Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Helene Benveniste, MD, Ph.D.

Stony Brook Medicine Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Anesthesiology

Magnus Bergkvist, Ph.D. SUNY Polytechnic Institute Assistant Professor, Nanobioscience

David Conover, Ph.D. Stony Brook University Vice President for Research

James Dias, Ph.D. University at Albany Vice President for Research

Janine Jurkowski, Ph.D., MPH

University at Albany Associate Professor, Health Policy, Management & Behavior; Research Associate, Center for the Elimination of Minority Health Disparities; Research Associate, Center for Social and Demographic Analysis


Todd Sacktor, MD Downstate Medical Center Distinguished Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology, Anesthesiology, and Neurology

Richard Smardon, Ph.D. SUNY ESF Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Environmental Studies

Li-Ru Zhao, Ph.D. Upstate Medical University Associate Professor, Neurosurgery

Charles Zukoski, Ph.D. University at Buffalo SUNY Research Council

Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Unable to Attend:

Member Name SUNY campus/affiliation Title

Robin Jacobs-Gedrim SUNY Polytechnic Institute Graduate Student, Nanoscale Engineering Program Review Team Charge SUNY Provost and Interim RF President Dr. Alexander Cartwright kicked off the meeting with a charge to the Program Review Team. He asked the team to consider key questions about the Networks of Excellence, including: What have they done? What were the original vision and goals? How effective have we been at achieving these goals? He also expressed to the team that they should be thinking about the future as well (e.g., What is the best way to allocate our finite resources in support of the Networks?) He indicated that it would be unrealistic to expect tremendous results in only two years; it is early to measure and growing research and innovation takes a long time. There was question about whether the team should be concerned with the source of funds that are supporting the Networks of Excellence and the continued sustainability of the program. Provost Cartwright answered that yes, the team should be concerned with the sustainability of the Networks, including the level of investment and the activities being supported – looking for things that may be an easy lift with a big payoff (such as housing for students visiting other campuses to do research). The source of funds is not a discussion for this particular team. A team member sought clarification about what the expectations are surrounding this review, stating that a thorough review will take a considerable amount of time; more time than is currently allotted for the team’s work. At this early


41 | P a g e

stage, RF and SUNY are looking for refinements and tweaks to the program based on the work to date and an assessment as to whether we are on a path to reach our objectives. Networks of Excellence Overview The Program Review Team received a briefing about the history of the Networks, the Year 1 activities and funding approved by the RF Board, the current activities under way, and the key role of the VPRs as champions and the central and campus infrastructure supporting the Networks. A team member commented that one of the most important aspects of collaboration is to get to know each other. It would be helpful to have a keyword search so research and clinical faculty can find one another. A team member suggested that the goals of the Networks parallel the whole mission of SUNY to enhance society through education and research as well as SUNY’s effort to function more like a unified system. Perhaps this broad definition should be more focused. A member observed that it takes time to build trust and it helps to know what is happening at other campuses. Perhaps being invited to give a lecture at another campus would be more beneficial than a large conference. In terms of the statistics provided in the overview, it would be helpful to add things like the number of investigators vs. just the number of awards. Objectives and Measures Dr. Paul Hirsch of SUNY ESF facilitated a conversation about the Networks of Excellence objectives and measures in order to ensure that the Review Team agrees with the objectives and the measures so they can be provided with data to analyze prior to the next meeting on April 27. Comments by the members of the Program Review Team include:

It is important that we be intentional with regard to the solving of societal problems. It is much more difficult to measure societal impacts.

Networks should be about fostering a community of scientists and creating a culture of collaboration versus simply being a source of individually-based seed funding. Faculty will always be interested in opportunities for funding; how do we germinate much larger proposals that would have not otherwise occurred with the Networks?

Research takes a long time and it will take an equally long time to rationally assess the success (or failure) of the Networks.

We should ask ourselves questions about the larger “collaboration ecosystem” and the “innovation ecosystem” at SUNY: 1. What are the elements of a collaboration ecosystem?

○ How do you connect people and ideas? ○ Funding? ○ What are the communication tools to bring people together?

2. Have we developed an innovation ecosystem to facilitate discovery? ○ Do we have the right supportive people in place to help faculty with disclosures and patents? ○ Is there a clearly defined pipeline for technology transfer? Is the disclosure process easy for

faculty to understand and access? ○ How is the business and venture capital community being connected?

The review needs to focus on things that reflect expectations of the Networks from the outset. The only data point to consider is not just participation. We should be considering (by asking VPRs and PIs):

o Have the Networks generated proposals that would not have been submitted otherwise? ○ What fraction of expertise across the system have we actually tapped into? ○ Is the current participation level in the Networks what we would expect relative to their scale and

that of SUNY? ○ Are we doing enough to engage faculty? What more can SUNY be doing?


42 | P a g e

The most important thing is that faculty know each other. Need a more active Web site where faculty can search by key work. Want to be able to work together to generate preliminary data to write a grant (e.g., in stroke – looking for experts).

Need to determine how to assess the sustainability over time; there will be ebbs and flows. The assessment is missing a process evaluation. Suggest we lay out the activities of the Networks on a

continuum – we want to measure social change, interdisciplinary research, and engagement of underrepresented minority students.

Survey and Wrap-Up The Program Review Team discussed a possible survey to be sent to faculty funded through the Networks to obtain information that can’t be measured as easily as the other measures identified. Suggestions from the Review Team included:

● There are four key audiences that the team may want to collect data on:

○ Networks-funded teams that are currently working on projects. For those that have received funding, what is the impact of that funding? Are the tools currently available adequate for collaborative communication?

○ Faculty that are participating in the Networks (attending workshops etc.) but that are not currently receiving funding.

○ Faculty that are not participating in the Networks in any capacity. Survey should ask why not? ○ External partners (industry & foundations) - this is in need of some development ○ VPRs

It is early; the challenge is to break down boundaries – we need to assess whether the approaches applied to date have worked?

It may be helpful to consider comparing those that have been successful with collaborative proposals through the Networks to those faculty that have had successful collaborative proposals without being a part of the Networks.

It is important to consider the political process as well as the scientific process. The Networks needs successes in the short-term to develop a proof of concept for continuing the Networks. This necessitates a need for the Networks program to be more focused on specific outcomes. Long-term success involves developing a mechanism to build the infrastructure and build relationships.

● How do the Networks generate partnerships that lead to long-term partnerships for major proposals? The meeting ended on time. Action items:

‐ Refine at least the survey to funded faculty and send it out so we have results before the 4/27 meeting. ‐ Determine feasibility of sending out additional surveys. ‐ Refine the objectives and measures document and collect as many of the measures as possible to provide

to the Review Team prior to the 4/27 meeting.


43 | P a g e

Appendix F: Notes from Second Program Review Team Meeting April 27, 2015 and May 5, 2015 Attendees:

Member Name SUNY campus/affiliation Title Susan Avery, Ph.D. SUNY Research Council President and Director, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution Helene Benveniste, MD, Ph.D.

Stony Brook Medicine Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Anesthesiology

Magnus Bergkvist, Ph.D.

SUNY Polytechnic Institute Assistant Professor, Nanobioscience

David Conover, Ph.D. Stony Brook University Vice President for Research James Dias, Ph.D. University at Albany Vice President for Research Nicole Flaherty, Ph.D. SUNY Polytechnic Institute Graduate Student

Janine Jurkowski, Ph.D., MPH

University at Albany Associate Professor, Health Policy, Management & Behavior; Research Associate, Center for the Elimination of Minority Health Disparities; Research Associate, Center for Social and Demographic Analysis


Todd Sacktor, MD Downstate Medical Center Distinguished Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology, Anesthesiology, and Neurology

Richard Smardon, Ph.D.

SUNY ESF Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Environmental Studies

Li-Ru Zhao, Ph.D. Upstate Medical University Associate Professor, Neurosurgery Charles Zukoski, Ph.D. University at Buffalo

SUNY Research Council Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Also: Paul Hirsch, Ph.D., ESF (faculty fellow) Richard Burke, Ph.D., Maritime (faculty fellow) Cathy Kaszluga, Bryan Allinson, Angela Wright, Jacquie Spano, Ellen Kelly, Tremayne Price from Central Office


44 | P a g e

Review of Materials RF VP for Strategy and Planning & Networks Program Owner Cathy Kaszluga provided the Program Review Team with a brief overview of the materials provided to the team for review prior to the meeting. Materials included: Networks of Excellence Objectives and Measures (updated reflecting discussion from March 30

meeting) NoE Financial Report for Year One and Year Two Networks of Excellence Workshop Descriptions Networks of Excellence Awards and Outcomes Published Articles about the Networks of Excellence European Court of Auditors (ECA) Special Report on ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated

Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? o A team member commented that the ECA report was informative and helped with

providing a framework for thinking about the direction that the Networks and the review team are going.

Preliminary Networks of Excellence Survey Results o Though the preliminary results from the survey were positive, the team noted the possible

survey bias due to the targeted survey audience being Networks-funded faculty; surveys of non-funded faculty and faculty outside of the Networks will be explored for the future.

Insights on Discussion Questions Dr. Hirsch facilitated a discussion about the materials provided to drive to preliminary recommendations from the team to SUNY Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor; RF Interim President Alexander Cartwright and the SUNY and RF Boards. The recommendations will be compiled into a final report to be reviewed prior to and discussed at the May 18 meeting. Discussion Questions The discussion was centered on the following set of questions: We’ve narrowed the Networks of Excellence objectives based on input from the last meeting. Are

they still too broad? What is the best way to support top faculty across the system in achieving their research goals and

winning large-scale center grants? What is the best way to bring all faculty together to help them collaborate across campuses and

across disciplines? Which investment (activity) do you feel provides the biggest return on the investment? Please rank

order the activities/investments by expected return on investment – from highest to lowest (e.g., seed funding, workshops, facilitating meetings with federal agencies, collaboration technology, etc.).


45 | P a g e

Review Team Comments Objectives There is tension between the desire to achieve the Networks broad objectives and the relatively

narrow focus of the Networks as a vehicle for building and sustaining research at SUNY. Are the networks the place to do it all or a place to go after major awards? If the key success is collaborations to seek larger center-type federal funds, that should be explicitly outlined in the objectives for the Networks. The experiential learning opportunities for students and producing social benefit are assumed when conducting research (especially federal).

The objectives have been pared down by the Networks team in an appropriate way, however, not sure the “number of faculty attending workshops” as a measure actually provides us with any valuable information for the purpose of program evaluation.

There are some objectives and measures that could be interpreted to carry more weight than others. The Networks can be evaluated based on two key questions:

1. Are the Networks enabling opportunities/activities that would not have otherwise existed? 2. How many teams formed with new people or people that had not previously worked

together?

There could be other measures for the student experience objective other than looking at the number of students involved on funded projects (e.g., conference/workshop attendance etc.).

Nationally and at SUNY, higher education is struggling with the changes to the way research is funded. How can we sustain our capacity to conduct research in this new funding scene? Who selects which projects get funded? Maybe a think tank for each network - What is SUNY going to do and how do we get there? Are the Networks a new method of addressing this?

To promote innovative, collaborative research is a very broad objective and has a wide spectrum of scale. It is not clear that there has been attention paid to the scale or a realization that developing these Networks will take a considerable amount of time. Takes leadership, buying out time, great staff support.

SUNY should look to models at other institutions such as the University of Colorado for best practices. There may also be some lessons learned from NSF’s regional research coordination networks.

The developing the innovation ecosystem is critical to the success of the Networks. What does the innovation pipeline look like? Are the processes easy for faculty to navigate? Technology transfer, garnering venture

funding.

There are some key points that are not captured in the current Network objectives: There need to be a clearer pathway for industry into research as a whole. Part of the goal of the Networks is sharing best practices across the system.


46 | P a g e

In addition to opportunities to connect industry partners, we need to also think about Foundation funding opportunities.

There needs to be a clearer definition of goals and outcomes for the Networks (i.e., SMART

objectives – specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timed as defined by EU Financial Regulation)

The Networks and the Program Review Team should be focused around the following questions:

o What is the biggest impact that SUNY can have as a system through the Networks? Things that cannot be done at a campus?

o What, if any, is the window of opportunity for the success of the Networks? There needs to be a point at which the networks show the promise of the intended outcomes.

Focused Efforts – Tie to State and/or Successful Teams The current timeline of five years built into the program is too long to be effective. We see that we

helped groups get together, encouraged them with money; there have been some external proposals submitted and some publications, but are they the right kind of proposals? We need to identify the faculty that would be able to pull together a team that will be competitive for major program/project funding. This would make more effective use of current resources. This elevates research in SUNY.

Each Network should have an action strategy that outlines the goals they wish to accomplish in the short-term (two to three years) with an understanding of possible long-term goals (more than three years) and a champion/leader. Must identify steps to get there and find ways to better identify specific pockets or areas of opportunity in different research fields with collaborators from other universities. There may be teams that are half-way there now.

Look at the fact that the majority of awards (5 of 8 awards) in the Brain Network are on vision. There is currently an infrastructure in place in the form of the Eye Institute. They have had an intellectual infrastructure and have been working together for five to six years. We should look at what the Eye Institute is doing that makes them so successful.

One of the things that the Networks can do is to help identify opportunities that might not otherwise happen naturally without the infrastructure and supports that the Networks provide (e.g., the classicist working with the specialist in diabetes).

Key questions to consider: What are we trying to accomplish? Is it sustainable? Developing objectives tied to societal problems with focus areas of significant interest to the State may provide opportunity to seek additional support from the state. SUNY is a state agency and is uniquely situated to help solve problems – which are also important to the federal government and the world.

SUNY should pay attention to our major players – top funded and center directors and see if there are opportunities for growing those into larger center opportunities.


47 | P a g e

Perhaps we should identify the problems within the state, which are also national emerging topics likely to be funded and SUNY host a national workshop (e.g., coastal resurgence with climate change issues; NYS is unique with a lake coast and a marine coast). This is our unique position. Challenge each network to host a national workshop.

Focus on Top Faculty We need to look at what, if any, “rainmaker” faculty are engaged in the Networks. Generally, these

faculty members are already busy and are not necessarily drawn to participate in the Networks; small seed grants are not going to draw the system’s top faculty.

Can’t leave behind the other faculty – faculty need R01s so they can play in the larger grants. They

need to do the preliminary work. Non Ph.D.-granting institutions have strong faculty too.

Mentoring

Are the networks a system wide mentoring effort? Although campuses might be able to play a more instrumental role in supporting young faculty.

How to involve the top faculty to help and mentor young associate professors who are most at risk

throughout SUNY and nationally? Perhaps smaller teams having smaller meetings with concentrated groups of faculty focused on a specific topical area. This would help us focus on our present and our future.

It would be helpful to fund an expert in a field to review proposals before submission. For example, pay an honorarium to review proposal and provide feedback. Especially helpful for newer applicants.

Collaboration outside SUNY

Winning center-type proposals are those the combine the best people with the best ideas from the

best universities in the country. There is no value in having all participating institutions being from SUNY if it does not allow for the involvement of top faculty from other institutions.

Why just stick with SUNY - what are the selling points for intra SUNY collaboration? Some faculty are willing to serve as co-PIs in order to collaborate with faculty at institutions that provide better post-award support. It is a drain to have to learn processes and systems to hire grad students, purchase equipment and do subcontracts – want to focus on research!

Workshops The most positive aspect of the Networks is the workshops bringing people together from across

the system who are focused on the same problem. We need to promote these collaborations, even without the opportunity for seed funds. This is the Networks’ most successful and least expensive output.


48 | P a g e

The Networks have been successful at establishing independent teams but we have not yet been successful at establishing the Networks to function as networks.

We are currently thinking of having an All-Networks meeting, is there any value to proceeding?

o What is the goal/objective to having an All-Network meeting? This type of meeting might be too all-encompassing to attract faculty members that are interested in a specific topical area. Faculty only travel to one or two such conferences, on average, during the course of the year. Adding an additional meeting/conference for them to attend might cause a loss of faculty participation at other Networks events.

o It might be of value to have a SUNY research conference with parallel session and mix of disciplines to see what other faculty in the system are working on, while combining with additional working sessions to determine Network priorities.

Specifically in the Brain Network, there was a sense that separate meetings for specific topical

areas would be more beneficial as they felt things were becoming too diluted in the larger Network group.

Faculty workshops were really good. Brought into contact with other campus people never would have worked with otherwise. Once the teams are formed it is helpful to integrate others into the team to supplement areas of expertise and available technology. It might be a good thing to follow up with the teams to see what is making them successful.

How do people get into the network? Collaboration Technology and Other Supports How do we get faculty together and get them to know each other? We need each faculty member

on a shared collaboration platform with identifying information on their research (research interests, key words) to allow faculty to better connect and collaborate with each other. Connecting via a collaboration platform can lead to working together, meetings, site visits, and teleconferences to generate preliminary data and go after an external grant.

o The RF is currently in the process of implementing the Microsoft SharePoint collaboration platform that will possibly provide a way for faculty to be connected. Currently looking for funded faculty to engage for feedback on how to make the platform useful to them.

We need to understand that developing the collaborative synergies amongst faculty necessary for

the Networks to be successful will take a considerable amount of time.

Collaborating - more webinars vs. travel. People can present at webinars and have dialogue and conversation (faculty member just presented to others across the country thanks to RWJ Foundation).

Cross campus IRB is important. If clinical review is not available on the campus, helpful if another campus IRB can help. Would be good to have an agreement between campuses (like Cornell and U of R have). Same for IACUC.


49 | P a g e

Collaboration technology is important but it might not be practical to use equipment that is situated at another campus.

Leadership Each team needs to have its own champion to facilitate to help the team move forward towards

their goals and to help them build capacity within the Networks.

Success boils down to facilitation and leadership. Someone needs to kick butt!

Students It is important to get grad students interacting.

Seed Funding SUNY and the RF are not funding agencies and there needs to be a more sustainable funding

formula going forward. RF is a convener.

Is it possible to have a second set level bridge funding for those that need a little more time or a little more funding to get results?

Awards and outcomes - data is midyear data which was only 6 months in. People are working and trying to do things. Projects have needed no-cost extensions. Have to really show something for that year but the time was so short. Need to balance between the need to show outcomes to leadership/politicians/boards and the realities of science and what it takes to make progress.

How are reviewers looking at the teams asking for more funding – the team may not have had enough time to achieve initially stated objectives?

Federal Advocacy

It is important to interact with federal program officers. Logistically this may be hard to coordinate

centrally.

program review report - suny · program review report networks of excellence june 12, 2015 ......

Documents