North Central Regional Association
of
State Agriculture Experiment Station Directors
192th Meeting
September 26, 2011
The Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, CO
Room: “Ranch”
DRAFT MINUTES
Latest update: October
3, 2011
|
Time |
Agenda Item |
Topic |
Presenter |
|
3:00 pm |
1.0 |
Call to Order |
Marc Linit (for Doug Buher), NCRA 2011 Chair |
|
|
2.0 |
Adoption of the Agenda APPROVED |
Marc Linit (for Doug Buher) |
|
|
3.0 |
Approval of the June 2011 Minutes APPROVED |
Marc Linit for Doug Buhler |
|
|
4.0 |
Executive Committee Report & Interim Actions of the
Chair Nothing to report |
Marc Linit for Doug Buhler |
|
3:05 pm |
5.0 |
Executive Director's Report 5.2 ESCOP Marketing Committee Update 5.4 Lead 21 Update 5.5 North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) Transition Update 5.6 One Line Federal Funding
Update |
Arlen
Leholm Steve
Slack, Steve Pueppke, Arlen Leholm |
|
3:30 pm |
6.0 |
6.1 NCCC_temp213 (Coordinating Committee for IP Managers) update 6.2 Suggestions for reducing NC proposal size |
Dave Benfield, 2011 MRC Chair; Arlen Leholm |
|
3:45 pm |
7.0 |
NRSP
Review Committee Update: Final Recommendations for ESS Vote |
Abel Ponce de Leon, Arlen Leholm |
|
3:55
pm |
8.0 |
ESCOP
Executive Committee Update |
Arlen
Leholm for Bill Ravlin |
|
4:00
pm |
9.0 |
ESCOP
Budget and Legislative Committee Update |
Steve
Slack, Ernie Minton, Karen Plaut |
|
4:10 pm |
ARS Report |
Mickey McGuire |
|
|
4:20 pm |
NIFA Report |
Deb Sheely |
|
|
4:20 pm |
Nominations Committee Report |
Chris Hamilton for Doug Buhler |
|
|
4:25
pm |
13.0 |
Discussion
of Joint NC/NE AES meeting topics |
All |
|
4:40
pm |
14.0 |
Other
Announcements ·
U
of MN AES Changes |
All |
|
4:45
pm |
15.0 |
Gap
funding discussion/update (follow-up from summer NCRA Meeting and IP
Teleconference) |
Arlen
Leholm, Karen Plaut, Abel
Ponce de Leon, Joe Kokini |
|
4:55
pm |
16.0 |
Future
Meetings (http://ncra.info/Organization_UpcomingMeetings.php):
|
All |
|
5:00
pm |
Transfer of NCRA leadership to new Chair, Adjourn |
||
AGENDA BRIEFS
Item 5.1: Battelle Study
Update
Please visit http://ncra.info/docs/Marketing/Battelleonlineactivity.pdf
Action
Requested: None, for information only.
Item
5.2: ESCOP Marketing Committee Update
Presenter:
Arlen Leholm
Agenda
Brief: ESCOP System Communication and Marketing Committee (Gerald Arkin)
The
update from the ESCOP System Communication and Marketing Committee will be
given on Wednesday September 28 from 1:30 to 3:00 PM. The new marketing firm, kglobal,
plus members from the Marketing Committee and Cornerstone will provide a
comprehensive update and describe the strategy for marketing the ESS in the
21st Century. (See agenda below from the ESS Program.
|
Wednesday
8/28 1:30 -
3:00 P.M. Crockett
Room |
Discussion
IV: Marketing the ESS in the 21st Century - Macgregor
Ballroom
|
Action requested: None, for
information only.
Item 5.3: NC IP Committee Update
Presenter:
Arlen Leholm, Marc Linit,
Abel Ponce de Leon, Karen Plaut, Joe Kokini, Bill Ravlin, and Dave
Benfield.
Intellectual
Property Update: July 27th Louisville
Meeting and follow up discussions
John Oliver, Lesley Millar,
and Arlen Leholm
August, 2011
Summary
Context
The IP managers from the most of the 12 North
Central States, John Oliver, Maple Leaf Concepts of Canada, and the IP Experiment Station
Committee members, Marc Linit, Karen Plaut, Abel Ponce de Leon and Arlen Leholm
met in person or by phone in Louisville, Kentucky on July 27. The purpose of this meeting was to advance a
Gap Funding concept proposed by the IP managers. A brief summary of discussion and actions
from that meeting are listed in bullet form below.
John Oliver and Arlen Leholm
had follow up meetings with Ron Meesuen, Cultivian,
and other venture capitalists and representatives from industry to test the Gap
Funding concept. A great deal was
learned from these private sector discussions that should prove helpful in
deciding our next steps and strategy for advancing IP from the North Central
Region. Key concepts which will help us
determine next steps are listed in bullet form below.
Summary of Louisville Meeting on July 27th
Discussion points from the Meeting
Creation
of a short document to help IP Managers inform University administration (as
appropriate) of the Gap Funding initiative
Discussed involvement of State entities as possible funding sources
Different States and Universities have initiatives that might complement (or be seen to be competing) with the Gap Funding initiative that might determine who is able to commit to moving forward once the format is agreed upon
How to decide on qualifying technologies? In Ag Bioscience area (What do we mean? probably want a clear definition)
Action from the Louisville Meeting
Decided
that the 12 Universities should have a "dry run" and pull together
2-3 technologies that could benefit from Gap Funding with the following
recommended steps:
·
Create a temporary board and agree on review
criteria for qualifying technologies
· Identify 2-3 final technologies to take to Cultivian (Ron Meesuen's fund) to assess for commercial potential and receive feedback
·
Use these technologies as examples for industry
on what is available from universities
Follow Up meetings by John and Arlen with industry and
venture capitalists
Key concepts from industry
and venture capitalist
There
is far more interest in the Gap Funding concept and advancing agbioscience technology now than before from VC’s and
industry partners. Key reasons for this interest.
·
Because of uncertainty from many factors, Money
(liquidity) is building up in major corporations. Reflects a mindset of low
risk resulting in "fortress balance sheets".
There
is a compelling need to identify good technologies but broaden the criteria and
don’t focus just on POC opportunity
Criteria by industry for advancing
product concepts from new technology
·
Technology must be patentable or able to protect
a proprietary position for company
· The closer a technology is to market the better and viewed as more valuable and less risky. If not close to market then a different form of funding and criteria apply
· Prefer product concepts with a certain regulatory hurdle
· Prefer technology that can fit multiple product concepts (Platform Technology)
· If not a platform, then bundled with other technologies
· Scalable technologies
·
If not close to market, criteria would also need
to identify key milestones and actions that need to occur to de-risk with
assessment of potential cost
Other key take away concepts
from industry and venture capitalists
·
Stay away from state funding. It is a
bureaucratic nightmare (with emphasis)
· Universities should focus on criteria that industry needs to develop product concepts
·
If
universities can meet the criteria from industry for creating new product
concepts from their technology--the venture and industry capital will be
available
· More money will become available as success and financial exits are achieved
· Important to have some early visible wins
· Industry has had some bad experiences with universities and various attitudes exist in dealing with university bureaucracy, including university technology offices. A belief exits that there is a "hole" in university systems that impede the ability of industry to work with scientists/technology offices in collaborations with corporations and venture funds
· Several funding mechanisms should be focused on in early stage development
· Let the market determine the technology winners. NO need for states to create structure to review technologies. Meet industry criteria and the market will determine the technologies that are selected.
Action
Requested: For information only
Presenter: Arlen Leholm
Please view Jeff Jacobsen’s ESS PowerPoint Presentation here: http://ncra.info/docs/Historical/LEAD21%20UPDATE092011.pdf
Action Requested: None, for
information only.
Item 5.6: One
Line Federal Funding Update
Detailed discussion on this issue took place during the September 26 ESCOP business meeting as well as during the morning of September 27. Please visit http://escop.ncsu.edu for the agenda briefs and more information on the outcome of this discussion.
Action requested: None; for information only.
Item 5.7: Winning Teams and Winning Grants
Presenter: Arlen Leholm
Overview
Winning Teams and Winning Grants
Workshop
Arlen Leholm, Robin Shepard and Mike
Harrington
The workshop is designed to assist
teams in attaining higher levels of performance and to enhance the probability
of successfully obtaining funding to support the teams activities. These objectives will be accomplished via a
series of interactive presentations case studies and diagnostic activities that
are designed to facilitate deeper understanding of how teams work, how to
effectively form teams and how to frame cogent grant proposals that result in
funding.
A call for participants will be issued
via directors with a target of attracting those working in or interested in
forming teams.
Although acceptance into the workshop
based on preferences for teams, this will not preclude individual investigators
from participation. However, all
participants are expected to be fully engaged with the workshop and the
homework exercises.
Prior to the workshop, all participants
will receive a CD with the Winning Teams and Winning Grants Manual which
includes a wealth of additional background information and all presentations,
as well a copy of Emotional Intelligence 2.0.
Pre- workshop activities
and homework
·
Identify
team members.
·
Identify
compelling reasons for collaboration and the need for contributions for
multiple participants.
·
Provide
a summary of the broad issue.
·
Provide
tentative objectives.
·
Read
Emotional Intelligence 2.0 and take
online assessment.
General Curriculum Outline:
Day One (full day)
Morning Session
a. Introductions,
Objectives and Why Teams and Collaborations
b. The
Art of Collaboration – Developing High Performing Teams
c. The
Role of Emotional Intelligence -- Review Emotional Intelligence 2.0
d. Project
Management- Best Management Practices
e. A
Framework for Collaboration – applied exercise with case situation. Impact of
organizational and team variables and helpful techniques and tools for success.
Afternoon Session
a.
Opportunities
for Integrated Teams Proposals
b.
Team
Planning – developing goals and use the logic model
c.
Part
1 – The Components to Writing Winning Grants (Finding Funding)
d.
Part
2 – The Components to Writing Winning Grants (Key Elements of Proposals)
Day Two (half day)
Morning Session
a.
Team
Diagnostics (Feedback on the goals/objectives submitted pre-workshop)
b.
Revisiting
and Recapping the Importance of Teams
c.
Intellectual
Property and Ethics
d.
Part
3 – The Components to Writing Winning Grants (Panel Dynamics and Avoiding
Pitfalls)
Enrollment limit:
75 participants
[Draft 6/9/11]
Action
Taken: Ernie Minton, Karen Plaut, and Dave Benfield
have agreed to help Arlen fine-tune the upcoming NC regional Teams meeting.
Presenter: Dave
Benfield, 2011 MRC Chair
Item 6.2: Update on
NCCC_temp213. See Item 5.3 above for IP
committee update and progress
Action requested: Approve this NCCC as a basic committee
framework for our NC IP managers.
Item
6.3: Suggestions for
reducing NC proposal size, prepared by Dave Benfield.
Multistate Research Proposals – NC
Proposals
Concern: Proposals are lengthy and contain duplicate information in various sections. NC proposals are the main concern and longest number of pages.
Question: Can proposals be shortened and still contain necessary information to allow for meritorious peer review by the MRC?
Current Format for Multistate Research Project
Proposals:
Statement of Issues and Justification – 20,000 characters
Related, Current and Previous Work – 20,000 characters
Objectives – 4,000 characters
Methods – 20,000 characters
Measurement of Progress and Results –
Outputs – 4,000 characters
Outcomes or projected impacts – 4,000 characters
Milestones – 4,000 characters
Outreach Plan (2,000 characters)
Organization and Governance (4,000 characters)
Literature Cited (50,000 characters) – not part of page limitations.
Total project not to exceed 15 pages but this is interesting:
If we use 12 point Times New Roman Font (recommended in instructions) then there is an average of 2,622 to 3,818 characters on an 8X10 page. If we take the midpoint between these two numbers 3,220 to represent the approximate number of characters per page then 20,000 characters equates to 6.2 pages and 4,000 characters to 1.2 pages. Thus using the conversion of characters the proposal equates to 22.9 printed pages or less. When I print most of these proposals through the Web Browser they are over 15 pages but this may depend on the font the Browser is set to print.
Question: What sections are most critical to evaluate a request for a new and renewed NC proposal?
Unfortunately NIMSS sections are set to character limits, when a simple requirement of a page limit with the ability to upload a pdf or Word Document would be simpler and a page limitation could be placed on the length of the narrative. This may be an issue for NIMSS to consider in the future if the system is changed and overhauled.
Possible means to shorten proposals and
improve quality:
1.
Reduce Statement of Issues and Justification
by 4,000 characters (1 page). One item
this section calls for is the likely impacts that will be obtained from
successfully completing the work. This
is also asked for in the section on Outcomes or Projected Impacts (4,000
characters). This eliminates duplication
of impacts.
2.
Related,
Current and Previous Work: Probably
needs to be left as is, this is a crucial section.
3.
Reduce
Objective section to 2,000 characters or one-half page rather than close to
page (0.5 pages).
4.
Methods: the main importance of this section is to
provide justification for the approach and for how this proposal is a
collaborative effort. I think you could reduce
this section by 4,000 characters or 1 page.
5.
Outputs: this is a critical section limited to 4,000
characters or 1 page. One possible
approach to this section would be to ask for three to five outputs from the
proposed research. This would limit the
list of outputs typical of most of these proposals.
6.
Outcomes
or Projected Impacts: this is also a
critical section limited to 4,000 characters or 1 page. Again I would propose that the project list
the three to five significant outputs or impacts from the results.
7.
Milestones: 4,000 characters (1 page) I would suggest this section be
eliminated, and we ask for a timeline of each objective common to most
competitive grants (limit this to 2,000 characters).
These possible suggestions could eliminate
2-3 pages from current proposals?
Action requested: Discussion and approval
of these or other suggestions for reducing NC proposal size.
Action Taken: NCCC_temp213 approved and all suggestions for
reducing NC proposal sizes were approved.
Chris Hamilton will update our NCRA Multistate Guidelines document to
reflect these changes.
Presenter: Mickey McGuire
USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Report to NCRA State Agriculture Experiment Station Directors
September 2011
Area Leadership
Northern Plains Area
Area Director: Will Blackburn
Associate Area Director: Michael (Mickey) McGuire
Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana
Midwest Area
Area Director: Larry Chandler
Associate Area Director: Vacant (Harry Danforth retired April 1)
Assistant Area Director: J. L. Willett
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin
BUDGET
FY 2011 Continuing Resolution
FY 2012
President’s Budget Proposal
· ARS Salaries and Expenses: $1,137,690,000
· Program
Initiatives: + $55,723,000
o
Food
Safety
o
Crop
Breeding and Protection
o
Child
and Human Nutrition
o
Animal
Breeding and Protection
o
Bioenergy/Biomass
o
Plant,
Animal and Microbial Collections
o
Production
Systems for Sustainable Agriculture
o
Global
Climate Change
o
National
Agricultural Library
·
Elimination
of Earmarks (- $41,889,000) – Implemented as part of FY 2011 CR
·
Termination
of Extramural Research (-$20,122,000)
·
Laboratory/Location
Closures (- $38,661,000)
·
Buildings
and Facilities (- $223,749,000) –
All unencumbered balances cut as part of FY 2011 CR
·
House
o ARS Salaries and Expenses: $993,345,000
·
Senate
o ARS Salaries and Expenses: 1,094,647,000
Research Priorities and
Initiatives
ARS research continues to address priorities in the following program area: Animal Production and Protection, Crop Production and Protection, Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems, and Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality.
Future program initiatives addressed in the FY2012 President’s Budget include animal and crop breeding and protection, production systems to support sustainable agriculture, food safety, reducing world hunger, human nutrition, bioenergy, global climate change, and other critical areas. These initiatives support Administration and Department priorities.
New Leadership and Vacancies
Midwest Area (MWA)
· Illinois
o National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (Peoria)
§ Bacterial Food-borne Pathogens Research Unit, New Research Leader Todd Ward
§ Bio-Oils Research Unit, New Research Leader Rex Murray (effective July 2011)
§ Crop Bioprotection Research Unit, New Research Leader Alex Rooney
§ Plant
Polymer Research Unit (Gordon Selling, Acting RL)
· Indiana
o Crop
Production and Pest Control Research Unit (Christie Williams, Acting RL; RL
selection contingent on approval)
· Iowa
o National Animal Disease Center (Ames)
§ Ruminant
Diseases and Immunology Research Unit, New Research Leader Eduardo Casas (effective June 2011)
· Ohio
o Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory (Peg Redinbaugh, Acting RL)
· Wisconsin
o Dairy Forage Research Center (Madison)
§ Dairy Forage and Aquaculture Research Unit (Richard Muck, Acting RL)
§ Environmentally Integrated Dairy Management Research Unit (Bill Jokela, Acting RL; new RL selection contingent on approval)
Northern Plains
Area
·
North Dakota
o
Northern
Great Plains Research Laboratory (Mandan)
§ Natural
Resources Management Research Unit, New Research Leader, Matt Sanderson.
o
Grand
Forks Human Nutrition Research Center
§ Healthy Body
Weight Research Unit, Jim Roemmich
·
South
Dakota
o
North
Central Agricultural Research Laboratory (Brookings)
§ Integrated Cropping Systems Research Unit, New
Research Leader Sharon Papiernik
·
Kansas
o
New
Center Name: Center for Grain and Animal Health Research (Manhattan)
§ Arthropod Borne
Animal Disease Research Unit was moved to Manhattan and completed in August
2010. New Research Leader Scott McVey
·
Nebraska
o
Roman
L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research (Clay
Center)
§ New Center
Director, E. John Pollak.
·
Animal
Health Research Unit, Vacant
Action Requested: None, for information only.
Presenter: Deb Sheely
NIFA Report
September 26, 2011
Personnel
Budget
Farm Bill
Department has requested technical amendments only at this time
AFRI
Action
requested: None; for information only.
Item 12.0:
Nominations Committee Report
Presenter: Chris Hamilton for
Doug Buhler
Item
12.1, Open Roles, Action Needed:
·
Replacement
NCRDC board member needed to replace Sue Fritz from UNL
·
Daniel Scholl of SDSU volunteered
·
Replacement
Nominations Committee Member
·
Ernie Minton of K-State volunteered
·
Replacement
MRC member
·
Archie Clutter of UNL volunteered
·
AA
for NC1168: Regulation of Photosynthetic Processes
·
AA
for NC1179: Food, Feed, Fuel, and Fiber: Security Under a Changing Climate
·
Abel Ponce de Leon volunteered
·
AA
for NC1182: Nitrogen Cycling, Loading, and Use Efficiency in Forage-Based
Livestock Production Systems
·
AA
for NCAC4: Horticultural Crops Advisory Committee
·
AA
for NCAC24: Agricultural Education Research Advisory Committee
Item
12.2, Information Only: Thanks to Dave Jackson for taking over NC1183!
Item
12.1, Information Only: 2012 NCRA Officer list,
effective 10/1 (or after Fall meeting):
NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DIRECTORS
2012 Officers and Committee Members
(Fiscal Year 2012 begins October 1, 2011)
Officers:
M.
Executive Committee:
M.
D.
D. Buhler, MI, Past-Chair (09-11) (buhler@msu.edu)
A. Leholm, NCRA, Exec. Vice Chair (
Multistate Research Committee (3-year term):
J. Kokini, IL, Chair (12) (kokini@uiuc.edu)
E. Minton, KS (13) (eminton@ksu.edu)
D. Hamernik, NE (14) (dhamernik2@unlnotes.unl.edu)
A. Leholm, Ex-Officio (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
Resolutions Committee (3-year term):
M.
Nominating Committee (2-year term):
Doug Buhler, MI, (11-13) ( buhler@msu.edu)
Committee on
Legislation and Policy
S. Pueppke, NC Representative, MI (pueppke@msu.edu)
A. Leholm, Ex officio, (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
J. Baker, MI (perm, MSU rep), (buhler@anr.msu.edu)
J. Kokini, IL, (10-12) (kokini@uiuc.edu)
NRSP Review Committee Representative (NCRA):
A. Ponce de Leon, MN (apl@umn.edu)
ESCOP (3-year term):
M.
D. Buhler, MI, NCRA Past Chair (10 & 11) (buhler@msu.edu)
A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
ESCOP Executive Committee:
M.
A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee:
A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee:
S. Slack, OH (oardc@osu.edu)
J. E. Minton, KS (eminton@ksu.edu)
Karen Plaut, IN (kplaut@purdue.edu)
ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee:
W.
W.
A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (leholm@cals.wisc.edu)
ESCOP Science and Technology Committee:
F.W.
J. Kokini, IL (kokini@uiuc.edu)
A. Ponce de Leon, MN (apl@umn.edu)
ESCOP Science and Technology Committee Social Science Sub-Committee:
C.
L.
F.
L.
R.
ESCOP NIMSS Oversight Committee:
J.
F.W.
North Central Bioeconomy Consortium
NCBEC Vice President, J. Colletti (colletti@iastate.edu)
Item 14.0: U of MN
AES Changes
Presenter: Abel Ponce
de Leon
The new U of MN president recently made some major changes to help downsize administration. As such, former AES Dean and Director, Bev Durgan is now leading Extension at UMN and is no longer part of the AES. Sarah Greening and Mike Schmitt are also now only part of EXT. Al Levine is now leading UMN AES.
Action requested:
None; for information only.
Please note: Chris
Hamilton has requested more detailed information on current UMN AES members and
will update the NCRA directory (http://ncra.info/Directories_Directors.php)
when she receives the new list. Please check
back soon.
Item 15.0: Gap funding
discussion
Presenters: Arlen Leholm ,
John Oliver, All
Please see NC IP Committee Update for details on the September NC
IP teleconference.
November
10 is the tentative date for IP managers to meet in Indianapolis, IN (probably
at the Adams Mark Hotel near the airport) with venture capitalist Ron Meussen. NC IP
managers will select one or two technologies to bring forward for consideration
and discussion. Proposals for
technologies will be placed in the online Dropbox
folder (contact Chris Hamilton chamilton@cals.wisc.edu
for details). More
information on this meeting to come.
Please contact the NCRA office for details.
Action requested: Chris Hamilton
will work with Arlen Leholm and John Oliver to set up
this meeting when details and Ron Meussen’s schedule
are finalized.