Hi Debanu, the section of your quote of the NIH rules is introduced with "The only acceptable channel for communication about the review of an NIH grant application after submission ", i.e. it would not restrict James to upload the draft before(!) he submits. James might want to double-check with the NIH, though ;-)
Cheers, Tim On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:31:35 -0700 Debanu Das <debanu....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I think it is quite different for publications/open publications > (investigator initiated submissions on outcomes of grant-funded > research, which are meant for public dissemination, even though all > patentable IP is still employed-owned, whether a university, a > national lab or a company) vs grant applications (which typically go > through university sponsored research or grants admin and there are > rules around funding agreements and ownership between universities > and funding/sponsoring agencies and NDA/confidentiality agreements > between funding agencies and reviewers). > > I doubt that you can freely upload grant applications (to biorxiv or > any similar portal) and reviews but you can check with the > LBL/Berkeley (or funding agency) office on that. I think confidential > sharing of your application and reviews with collaborators or other > third parties that include NDAs is allowed. > > An excerpt below but more details also available at this link (which > also pertains to the larger issue being discussed and which I alluded > to earlier): > > From: > https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-044.html > "Maintaining security and confidentiality in the NIH peer review > process is essential for safeguarding the exchange of scientific > opinions and evaluations without fear of reprisal; protecting trade > secrets or other proprietary, sensitive and/or confidential > information; providing reliable input to the agency about research > projects to support; and safeguarding the NIH research enterprise > against the misappropriation of research and development to the > detriment of national or economic security. In addition, maintaining > integrity in the peer review process is important for maintaining > public trust in science. > > This Notice reminds all participants and stakeholders in the NIH peer > review process of federal statutes, regulations, and NIH policies > regarding peer review security and confidentiality; their > responsibilities for abiding by those rules; and possible actions > that the NIH (in coordination with other offices) may take and > consequences that may ensue from a violation of those rules. > Participants and stakeholders include but are not limited to" > > Best regards, > > Debanu > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:13 PM James Holton <jmhol...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > Hey Debanu, > > > > Hmm. Last time I did it I didn't have to go through any IP lawyers > > to upload a pre-print to biorxiv. What I was thinking of is > > something similar to that. Researchers, on their own, deciding to > > upload their applications and reviews. What would be the > > motivation? Well, I imagine it is not an uncommon situation where > > you might want help from more than just the reviewers on how to > > revise your application. I know I always try to get all the help I > > can get. > > > > Might even be able to use biorxiv to do it? Or am I missing > > something? > > > > -James Holton > > MAD Scientist > > > > > > On 6/27/2022 12:16 PM, Debanu Das wrote: > > > > Thinking about it some more, I think all the materials (patentable > > IP or trade secrets, which in the US are IP and under Defense of > > Trade Secrets Act) of a researcher are owned by the university. So > > just getting across tech transfer/IP of individual univs would be a > > massive hurdle before thinking of being able to upload grants > > proposals for sharing. > > > > And funding agencies would first also have to negotiate (and > > convince) with all univs to allow it, even if somehow taxpayers and > > funding agencies could be first convinced about the need or value > > in doing this. In fact, in that scenario, there would actually be > > no need for a new system to share proposals. All funding agencies > > just have to open up a portal to access submitted grants (and I'm > > quite sure the agencies already have massive security around > > hacking attempts to access all this material). > > > > Cheers, > > Debanu > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:58 AM Debanu Das <debanu....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Dear John, > >> > >> For sure it is an aspiration as a society and as a civilization: > >> to think beyond individual nations. And for that we have some > >> examples as you mentioned at the scientific (IUCr, PDB) and > >> political level (UN). We also have the EU, ASEAN, NATO, etc. > >> > >> However, despite having these organizations, I think even within > >> most of them, for critical strategic information that dictates > >> competitiveness and preparation, sharing is restricted to within > >> the group (at least for the political ones). For that matter, even > >> individual agencies within countries often have restrictions in > >> data and materials sharing. > >> > >> I think if we solve the issue of national competitiveness, social > >> inequality, etc first, we will not even have to discuss if there > >> could be issues openly and globally sharing grant proposals. I > >> guess the counter proposal could be made that maybe more sharing > >> of more information will eventually lead to equity everywhere > >> (which to some extent is reflected in the open sharing of > >> publications). > >> > >> But for now, I think there are practicality hurdles to cross on > >> these, which is why I mentioned "workable" in my initial response. > >> Just in the last few years, we have seen examples of more and more > >> focus on IP theft, computer hacking to steal research data from > >> organizations and companies, more focus on ensuring > >> confidentiality of the peer review process, and computer security > >> to avoid leaks of material, and so on. > >> > >> Not trying to be cynical here, I think it is great for us as a > >> community to always have an eye on a larger and nobler purpose > >> while working within current practicalities and frameworks. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Debanu > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:18 AM John R Helliwell > >> <jrhelliw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Debanu, > >>> There is indeed much at stake here. > >>> Would I do it now, share my proposals, No. > >>> Would I do it if funders’ rules required it. Yes. > >>> When might funders’ rules require it eg when Tax payers insist > >>> that the priority is achieving societal goals asap. Might that > >>> happen in the foreseeable future? I don’t think so because we are > >>> as scientists good at thinking so far out of the box, such as the > >>> internet, or from the 19the century electricity and magnetism, > >>> the tax payer sees the benefit of an individual’s curiosity > >>> driven research. The bigger point is can we also think beyond > >>> individual nations? We know we can: the UN, International Council > >>> for Science, IUCr…… So, it probably isn’t a one size fits all > >>> idea that James has put forward… > >>> Best wishes, > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 27 Jun 2022, at 19:03, Debanu Das <debanu....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> >So, 2nd question is: would you do it? Would you upload your > >>> >application into the public domain for all to see? What about > >>> >the reviewer > >>> comments? > >>> >If not, why not? Afraid people will steal your ideas? Well, once > >>> >something is public, its pretty clear who got the idea first. > >>> > >>> I do not think this ("upload your application into the public > >>> domain for all to see") is a workable or desirable idea for a > >>> variety of reasons. There are far greater issues that just about > >>> getting credit for your ideas. Which is somewhat of an academic > >>> and personal pursuit. > >>> > >>> For one, the entire R&D paradigm and programs and IP of entire > >>> nations (which seems primarily would be the US and potentially > >>> some EU countries under this case who if at all choose to sign up > >>> for this), universities, companies (business grants) and funding > >>> agencies will wreak havoc (~30-40% of US GDP). We already know > >>> there is a lopsided distribution of which countries taxpayers are > >>> funding major IP & innovation. So there are major economic, > >>> political, social and national competitiveness aspects at stake. > >>> I doubt that even NSF, DoD, DOE, NIH/HHS or any other government > >>> funding agency will support such initiatives. Transparency and > >>> openness in publishing research is a different ball game, even > >>> though there too there are lopsided effects at the end in many > >>> cases, but overall good for world progress, hopefully. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Debanu > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:09 PM James Holton <jmhol...@lbl.gov> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Greetings all, > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to ask a question that I expect might generate some > >>>> spirited discussion. > >>>> > >>>> We have seen recently a groundswell of support for openness and > >>>> transparency in peer review. Not only are pre-prints popular, > >>>> but we are > >>>> also seeing reviewer comments getting published along with the > >>>> papers themselves. Sometimes even signed by the reviewers, who > >>>> would have traditionally remained anonymous. > >>>> > >>>> My question is: why don't we also do this for grant proposals? > >>>> > >>>> I know this is not the norm. However, after thinking about it, > >>>> why wouldn't we want the process of how funding is awarded in > >>>> science to be at least as transparent as the process of > >>>> publishing the results? Not that the current process isn't > >>>> transparent, but it could be more so. What if applications, and > >>>> their reviewer comments, were made public? Perhaps after an > >>>> embargo period? There could be great benefits here. New > >>>> investigators especially, would have a much clearer picture of > >>>> format, audience, context and convention. I expect unsuccessful > >>>> applications might be even more valuable than successful ones. > >>>> And yet, in reality, those old proposals and especially the > >>>> comments almost never see the light of day. Monumental amounts > >>>> of work goes into them, on both > >>>> sides, but then get tucked away into the darkest corners of our > >>>> hard drives. > >>>> > >>>> So, 2nd question is: would you do it? Would you upload your > >>>> application into the public domain for all to see? What about > >>>> the reviewer comments? > >>>> If not, why not? Afraid people will steal your ideas? Well, once > >>>> something is public, its pretty clear who got the idea first. > >>>> > >>>> 3rd question: what if the service were semi-private? and you got > >>>> to get comments on your proposal before submitting it to your > >>>> funding agency? Would that be helpful? What if in exchange for > >>>> that service you had to review 2-3 other applications? Would > >>>> that be worth it? > >>>> > >>>> Or, perhaps, I'm being far too naiive about all this. For all I > >>>> know there are some rules against doing this I'm not aware of. > >>>> Either way, I'm interested in what this community thinks. Please > >>>> share your views! On- or off-list is fine. > >>>> > >>>> -James Holton > >>>> MAD Scientist > >>>> > >>>> ######################################################################## > >>>> > >>>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > >>>> > >>>> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, > >>>> a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions > >>>> are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > >>> > >>> > > ------------------------------ > > > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > > This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a > mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are > available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ -- -- Tim Gruene Head of the Centre for X-ray Structure Analysis Faculty of Chemistry University of Vienna Phone: +43-1-4277-70202 GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
pgptsyhvwPsBQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
