View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Suggestion of the Month
Suggestion: A prior approval deliverable
would be helpful for Post Award Grant Administrators to track requests submitted to sponsors for such things as key personnel effort reduction, significant changes to budgets, change of PI, second no cost extension requests, etc. This will create transparency on individual work load, allow for better oversight of issues, and will be a system in line with current existing practice.
Impact: The “Prior Approvals/Other” deliverable
in InfoEd/Insight creates a consistent, structured and efficient business process for tracking sponsor-required prior approvals (second no cost extensions, re-budgeting, effort reductions, etc.) It can also be used for project-related activities needing to be tracked, but don’t fall under any other deliverable category. This deliverable provides transparency for Post GAs, Managers, Department Administrators, Principal Investigators, and others to monitor the progress of the approval/activity. It also prevents prior approvals/other activities from being forgotten, creating a possible compliance issue.
Joseph BeardSr. Grants Administrator,
Partners, RM&
William HonohanSr. Grants Administrator,
Partners, RM
For questions or program registration, email orcd@partners.org
MGH Research Council
November 7, 2016
“Elevate Your Science” Presentation Skills SymposiumMass General Postdoc Association: Communication Series
Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 4:30 – 6:30 pm
Featured panelists: Alessio Fasano, MD, Adam Castoreno, PhD
Looking Your Best on Paper: Building a CV or ResumeGraduate Student Division: Career Advancement Series
Thursday, November 10, 2016, 2:00 - 3:00 pm
Speaker: Lauren Celano, MBA
“Meet & Greet” Networking ReceptionOffice for Women’s Careers: Networking Series
Tuesday, November 15, 2016, 4:30 – 6:00 pm
Guest speaker: Connie Cepko, PhD
Crafting Your CV NarrativeOffice for Clinical Careers: Career Advancement Series
Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 12:00 – 1:00 pm
Speaker: Ted Stern, MD
For questions or program registration, email orcd@partners.org
MGH Research Council
November 7, 2016
R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L
N O V E M B E R 7 , 2 0 1 6
Changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
S Y L V I E B R E T O N , P H D
E L E C T E D R E P R E S E N T A T I V E
Overview
Currently, the salary threshold for an exempt employee is $23,660 annually or $455 per week
Effective December 1, 2016, an update to the overtime regulations will establish a new salary threshold, $47,476 annually or $913/week
The statute does not allow for prorating salaries for part-time employees: all exempt positions, part-time and full-time, are subject to the new salary threshold
Email communications sent to MGH research faculty and administrators on September 28 & October 19
Who is subject to the new regulations?
Are Subject Are Not Subject
Postdoctoral Fellows Graduate Students
Research Assistants Licensed, clinically practicing physicians, including podiatrists, optometrists & dentists
Study Coordinators
Technicians
All other exempt positions, full & part-time
As of December 1st
Postdoctoral Fellows
In response to the regulation, the hospitals have agreed that postdoctoral fellow salaries will be increased to the new threshold to maintain their exempt status
Other positions being reclassified: Research Technician II and Clinical Research Coordinator II
These jobs, as presently constituted, will be reclassified
from exempt to non-exempt
Recent update for Postdoctoral Fellows
Hospital leadership has agreed to support a program whereby PI’s who truly have a funding need due to the FLSA law change will be allowed to apply for one year of supplemental funding
A memo with directions on how to apply will be sent out this week
NRSA Levels
Years of Experience
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
0 $42,840 $43,692 $47,484
1 $44,556 $45,444 $47,844
2 $46,344 $47,268 $48,216
3 $48,192 $49,152 $50,316
4 $50,112 $51,120 $52,140
5 $52,116 $53,160 $54,228
Questions?
Meet the Candidates for ECOR Representatives
Ballot deadline: Friday, November 22, 2016
Assistant Professor (Vote for 1)Michael Prerau, PhDKorkut Uygun, PhD
Hsaio-Ying (Monica) Wey, PhD
Submit your vote:https://ecor.mgh.harvard.edu/elections/votingform.aspx
Michael Prerau, Ph.D.Anesthesia, Critical Care,
and Pain Medicine
Korkut Uygun, Ph.D.Surgery/Center for Engineering in
Medicine
Hsiao-Ying (Monica) Wey, Ph.D.Radiology/Martinos Center for
Biomedical Imaging
Meet the Candidates for ECOR Representatives
Ballot deadline: Friday, November 22, 2016
Associate Professor (Vote for 1) Stephen Haggarty, PhD
Patrick Purdon, PhDElsie Taveras, MD
Submit your vote:https://ecor.mgh.harvard.edu/elections/votingform.aspx
Stephen J. Haggarty, PhDNeurology/Psychiatry/Center for Human Genetic Research
(CHGR)
Patrick L. Purdon, Ph.D.Anesthesia, Critical Care,
and Pain Medicine
Elsie M. Taveras, MD, MPHPediatrics/Population Health
Management
Review of MGH Research CoresNovember 7, 2016
Susan A. Slaugenhaupt, PhD
Dennis Brown, PhD
Alison Hoffnagle, MS
Our mission
• A key component of our mission is to establish a uniform framework for assessing the need, formation, publicity, and ongoing review of research cores.
Our methodology
• Sent questionnaire to Directors of 41 cores
• Site visits to 36 cores
• Survey to the Mass General research community on core use and satisfaction
What we heard from the cores:
• More visibility
• Better nurturing and engagement of the core community
• Help with budgeting and compliance
• Institutional funding to help support cores
What we heard from the research community:
• 512 responses• Over 45% respondents research faculty• Over 50% respondents said they didn’t use MGH cores• Over 50% of respondents didn’t know where to find
information about cores
DoyouknowwheretofindinformationaboutthecoreservicesatMGH?
0
50
100
150
200
250
No
Yes
What we heard from the research community:
• Customer satisfaction top comments: ease of use, quality of services, price, and helpfulness of core staff.
• Customer dissatisfaction: high prices, long wait times, and lack of specific service needed.
• 31% of respondents use cores outside the institution• 73% of users going to external cores did not know if MGH
offered the same serviceIsthereacoreatMGHthatdoesthesamethingastheexternalcoreyouused?
0
50
100
150
200
250
Don'tknow
No
Yes
What we heard from the research community:
• 36% of respondents felt there were core services needed at MGH that are currently unmet by the core landscape.
• The top mentioned needs were proteomics, CRISPR, a seahorse (metabolism assay) facility, more biostatistics, and an animal behavior core.
AretherecorefacilitiesthatarecurrentlynotavailabletoyouthatyouthinkweshouldhaveatMGH?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
No
Yes
Core identified needs:
• Short-term
– Advertising and new websites
– Retreat for Core Directors
– Core Brochure for research community
– Standardization of policies
• Medium-term
– Investigate and implement alternative forms of payment
– Streamline process for budgeting and adding services
– Standardize MTA language for industry customers wanting fee-for-service
• Long-term
– Institutional support for physical space and data storage
– Institutional funding to help support cores
Website under development:
For questions or suggestions contact:nramesh@partners.org
Core identified needs:
• Short-term
– Advertising and new websites
– Retreat for Core Directors
– Core Brochure for research community
– Standardization of policies
• Medium-term
– Investigate and implement alternative forms of payment
– Streamline process for budgeting and adding services
– Standardize MTA language for industry customers wanting fee-for-service
• Long-term
– Institutional support for physical space and data storage
– Institutional funding to help support cores
Research Institute recommendations
• Support cores
– marketing efforts
– core events
– interactions with industry
– training requirements
• With PRCF identify cores deemed critical to the research community and assess their needs
• Form a permanent MGH Core committee
• Work closely PRCF to implement recommended action items at the Partners level
Long-term recommendations dependent on Research Institute Funding
• Work to increase financial commitment to NIH SIG grant awardees
• Identify target areas that are most in demand and form Institutional SuperCores
BHAG
Dependent on Research Institute Funding
• Hard money support for cores (eg. Salary support, equipment, etc.)
• Strategic fund for repair and replacement of equipment
Core Report
For a full copy of the core report:
http://mghresearch.partners.org/ResearchMgmt/ResearchCores.aspx
Partners Research Core Facilities Office
(PRCFO)
Present and Future
Narayanaswamy Ramesh, PhD
Partners Research Core Facilities Office
Partners AMCs host a broad range of core services
Animal Resources Genomics, Omics and
Sequencing
Biorepositories Histology and Histopathology
Cell Biology/
Immunology/Virology
Informatics and Biostatistics
Biochemistry/Physiology/
Reagents
Medical and Research Imaging
Clinical and Translational
Research
Microscopy
Flow cytometry
Expertise needed by Research Cores
Three key areas
Science
PI/Director of the Core is responsible for the scientific
oversight. Partners AMCs have world class scientists.
Compliance
Business operations
PCRF Office helps manage Cores in a sustainable and
compliant manner
Services provided by the PRCF Office
We are a four member team that assists Core Facilities
with
Billing
Monthly analysis of cores fund
Annual Cost analysis and budgeting
Compliance
Top reasons for Cores to fail
Lack of visibility
Not providing timely services
Core members have uncertain career path/future,
leading to high personnel turnover
“To consolidate* or not to consolidate, that is the
question” (*multiple cores into one central core)
Core “cannibalization”
Initiatives to help the Core Facilities
In Process
Redesigned Core facilities website for enhanced visibility
Newsletter both print and electronic highlighting core offerings
across Partners Institutions
Have periodic Core Directors’ retreat to collectively address
core problems
At Planning stage (In collaboration with MGH Research Institute):
Initiate periodic review of Cores
Develop strategy to attract clients from industry
Use Partners Research volume to leverage discounts from
commercial vendors for common reagents and some services
What might be done to better support the Core facilities
and Researchers?
Partners has nearly 120 core facilities; some initiatives under
construction:
1. Core governance: Align PHS and Hospital oversight
of cores
2. Mechanism to support cores directors: e.g. forum to
share best practices, synergies, etc.
3. Periodic review of core mission and operation
4. Business development on behalf of the cores
Proposed Periodic Review of Core operations
Working in conjunction with MGHRI and BRI, we
propose the following
A review should help identify a core’s weakness and
strengthen its business model
Develop a review mechanism (similar to SAC review)
The review panel could be comprised of senior core
directors and other research faculty
Review timeline: every 3-5 years
Should Cores reach out to Biotech/Pharma and other
Business Enterprises?
Yes!Why?
All the AMCs have similar core facilities. The pool of
academic investigators has plateaued or very near;
thus the demand for the services within or among
the institutions is near saturation
Partners is a member of Mass Bio, it is time to
market our services to MassBio members
Over 90 scientific cores with wide array of services
for biomedical research
Access to superior academic support with the
backing of reputed AMC investigators
Services and Initiatives
Sample Marketable Research services:
Microscopy, especially confocal
Pharmacokinetic study for phase I and Phase II clinical trials
Assay development
Biomedical informatics and data mining
Multiple state of the art imaging facilities both for animals and humans
including the only magnetoencephalography facility in Boston area.
State of the art NMR facility to study cardiovascular function.
Established Biobanks that offer biological samples from large cohorts
for various studies
Proposed Initiatives: Reaching out to companies through
Mass Bio
Lab Central
Mass Innovations lab
NEHI
Northshore Innoventures
Commercial enterprises as “cores”
Mature technologies and reagents are offered by
many for-profit and non-profit entities, often more
efficiently and at reduced cost to the user
This should be taken advantage
PRCF Office could negotiate the rates with vendors
to benefit all researchers at Partners Institutions
These vendors should be listed on the cores web
page for the benefit of the research community
Qualities of a successful Core Facility
Consumer focused service offerings
Core directors and administrators with appropriate scientific
expertise and administrative expertise respectively
Promote cross disciplinary collaboration/ideas
Dedicated physical space and technological crew
Organizational capabilities to maximize productivity
Leverage institutional support to offer the best service
(adapted from ABRF-NIH workshop on enhancing the efficiency of Research Core Facilities, proceedings)
Recommended