2004
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE UFRF PROFESSORSHIP AWARD RECEIPIENTS
The
Office of Research Affairs would like to congradulate the
following recipients of the 2004 College of Medicine UFRF
Professorship Award:
Nasser Chegini
Obstetrics &
Gynecology
Marian Limacher
Medicine
Maurice Swanson
Molecular Genetics & Microbiology
William Hauswirth
Ophthalmology
Reuben Ramphal
Medicine
The UFRF professors were recommended by their college
deans based on nominations from their department chairs, a
personal statement, and an evaluation of their recent research
accomplishments as evidenced by publications in scholarly
journals, external funding, honors and awards, development of
intellectual property, and other measures appropriate to their
field of expertise.
The three-year award
carries with it a $5,000 annual salary supplement and a
one-time $3,000 grant. The professorships are funded from the
university`s share of royalty and licensing income on
UF-generated products.
(Posted 06/04/04)
2004
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE RESEARCH
DAY
Once again the College of Medicine Research Day was a
great success. A pat on the back to everyone who took part in
making the day a true "Celebration of Research".
Congratulations to the following
winners.
2004 Medical Guild
Graduate Research
Competition |
|
Medical Guild Graduate Research
Competition |
Medical Student Research Day
Winners |
|
Mary Ann Checkley 5th Place, Rahul Kanadia 2nd
Place, Alaric Falcon 5th Place, Eric Sandberg 3rd Place,
Edgar Rodriquez 4th Place and Karen Vieira 1st
Place. |
Siva S. Radhakrishnan and
Pui Y.
Lee |
2004 Resarch Day Awards
|
Outstanding Basic
Posters |
Outstanding Clinical Posters |
|
JeongHoon Joo
|
Linda Papa, M.D. |
Basic Science Award
Winner |
Lyle L. Moldawer,
Ph.D.
Department of Surgery
|
|
Clinical Science Award
Winner
|
Desmond A. Schatz,
M.D.
Department of Pediatrics |
Life Time Achievement Award
Winner |
Gerold L. Schiebler,
M.D
Department of Pediatrics
In
Recognition Of An Extraordinary Careerof Academic
Achievement and Outstanding Service Your Dedication And
Success Has Brought Great Honor And Recognition To The
College Of Medicine And The University Of
Florida.
(Posted
06/04/04) |
COLLEGE
OF MEDICINE POILCY FOR PEOPLESOFT PROPOSAL SYSTEM
Effective July 1, 2004, College of Medicine will
require the use of the PeopleSoft Proposal Preparation and
Processing system. For those who wish, you may begin to
utilize the system after the PeopleSoft go live date (June 18,
2004).
Post July 1, 2004, COM will anticipate all proposals
to be submitted via the Pre-award PeopleSoft system. The
College will maintain the requirements of all documents that
are currently needed to approve at the college level, i.e.
-Financial conflict of interest on all key
personnel
-Cost share letter
-
Certain sections of the clinical/research contract agreement
o 1st page of the contract that names the
contract parties in agreement
o Section of the agreement
referring to cost per patient or not to exceed an amount
o
Attachments to the contract, i.e. cost
information
- Letter of intent to establish a
consortium or the agency face page signed by the consortium’s
institutional official or company’s CEO
- Time
commitment letter
- Completed sponsor forms (excluding
the research plan)
o Agency face page or
administrative information page
o Abstract or project
description
o Agency budget and budget justification forms
completed
o Facilities & administration (F & A)
checklist page
§ Keywords
– COM/ Office for Research and Development requires that
keywords associated with the proposal be indicated. COM
faculty are required to choose from a list of specific
research themes (attached)
COM prefers the documents to be attached to the
PeopleSoft proposal, but will accept faxed documents or by
hard copy with the appropriate designation to the PI and
sponsor indicated on the copies.
COM requires the PeopleSoft’s budget to be completed
for effort and salary requested on all personnel. The
PeopleSoft budget needs to match what has been completed on
the agency forms. The supplies, expense, and equipment
categories can be completed with a line item total, with the
exception of tuition and patient care cost requested. The
budget completed in PeopleSoft will replace the COM clinical
trials and modular checklist page.
COM will no longer require a copy of the biographical
sketches for review. It will be the responsibility of the PI
to comply with all agencies requirements.
Memorandum of Understandings to set up sub-accounts
will be replaced by setting up separate projects in the
PeopleSoft system.
If the sponsor does not allow for Facilities and
Administrative (F&A) cost, a copy or link to the sponsor
guidelines should be attached to the PeopleSoft proposal
(preferred) faxed, or sent via hard copy. F&A distribution
should be completed on all projects set up in PeopleSoft
sub-accounts.
If the PeopleSoft system is not functioning correctly
or to the satisfaction of the COM, a hard copy of the proposal
will be accepted. If any problems arise with the system,
notifications will go out indicating the application to be
completed using the DSR-1 on-line form and route a hard copy
of the proposal as we do in our current policy.
If the system works in regards to completing the
proposal submission information, but the workflow (electronic
approvals) is not functioning, the COM will accept the DSR-1
on-line form as we are accepting in the current policy, with a
notice to our office that the proposal resides in the
PeopleSoft system for approval.
If you have any questions, please do not hesistate to
contact us at (352) 273-5398.
OTHER HELPFUL LINKS:
UF
BRIDGES OVERVIEW
UF
BRIDGES FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR PROPOSL PREPARATION
CREATING
AND SUBMIITING GRANT PROPOSALS: GETTING STARTED
CREATING
AND SUBMITTING GRANT PROPOSALS: ADVANCED FEATURES
UF START
PROPOSAL PAGE TUTORIAL
UF
START PROPOSAL PAGE INSTRUCTION GUIDE
DSR
ANNOUNCEMENT ON TRANSITION TO PEOPLESOFT PROPOSAL
PROCESSING/AWARD ADMINISTRATION
(Posted
06/04/04) |
The Research and Research Training Grant Applications
and Related Forms (PHS-398 PHS-2590 PHS-2271 PHS-3734),
Revised Version 5/2004, have been submitted to OMB for review
and approval. Once OMB approval is received, the new forms
will become available for use and will be accessible on the
NIH web site.
There will be a transition period when both the new or
old forms will be accepted. Until that time grant proposals
should continue to be submitted using the current
versions.
For the full version of this annoucement, go to NOTICE:
NOT-OD-04-044 of the NIH
Guide. (Posted 06/04/04)
OER
GRANTS WEB SITE GETS USABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND GOOLGE
SEARCH ENGINE
In an effort to make its web
site more user-friendly, the Office of Extramural Research
(OER) has re- organized the "Grants - OER Home
Page", as well as many of the top level site pages, and
has made minor design changes, including a new left-side
navigation bar. These changes are in response to a web survey
and a follow-up usability study conducted earlier this year.
In addition, all site searches now use a Google search engine
and a search box has been added to the top right-hand corner
of site pages.
It is hope that these changes will enhance your
experience in using the OER web site. Please send any comments
or suggestions to the OER Webmaster.
For the full version of this annoucement, go to OER Grants:
Current News Flashes & Archives, May 13,
2004.(Posted 06/04/04)
ENROLLING
PATIENTS IN RESEARCH
According to the Office of Human Research Protection
(OHRP), the primary issues surrounding the participation of
prisoners in research has always been whether prisoners have a
real choice regarding their participation in research, or
whether their situation prohibits the exercise of free choice.
A secondary issue is whether confidentiality of participation
and of data can be adequately maintained in the prison. DHHS
regulations have special requirements regarding the membership
of an IRB that reviews research involving prisoners. At least
one member of the IRB must be a prisoner or a prisoner
representative with the appropriate background and experience
to serve in that capacity.
In order to enroll prisoners into a study here at the
University of Florida, the investigator must indicate on the
Introductory Questionnaire he or she intends to do so. This
allows the IRB to arrange for the inclusion of a prisoner
advocate during the review process in accordance with the
Federal guidelines. This means investigators may NOT enroll
any prisoners in a research projects unless the IRB has
approved the inclusion of this vulnerable population. If a
prisoner is enrolled in a study not approved for prisoners it
must be reported immediately as a protocol deviation.
If a subject who is enrolled in your study becomes
incarcerated, the investigator should notify the IRB and
withdraw the subject. If the investigator wishes to keep the
“incarcerated” subject enrolled in the study, a study revision
must be submitted for IRB approval. (Posted 06/04/04)
New
Checklist for Informed Consent Forms
Federal regulations dictate that certain information
MUST be in all Informed Consent forms. These elements have
been determined to meet the requirements for “Respect for
Persons” as detailed in the Belmont Report. While most of this
information is built into our blank template form, the IRB
sometimes is unable to approve Informed Consent forms because
required information is absent. In order to facilitate faster
reviews for researchers we have developed the Informed Consent
Checklist to help you verify that your consent forms possess
the mandatory elements of Informed Consent. Please use this
form to check any new consent forms (including those submitted
with Revisions and/or Continuing Review). Note this checklist
is intended to help reduce any problems that the Board may
have with your consent, and thereby speed up the approval
process for your study. (Posted
06/04/04)
Alert!!
IRB-02 has Expanded Review Responsibilities
Principal Investigators at the Gainesville Health
Science Center may now choose to use either IRB 01 or IRB 02
for previously un-submitted / un-reviewed survey Research
provided it meets specific criteria.
If any component
of the research involves the following, it cannot be submitted
to IRB-02:
· Drug and device clinical trials
·
Treatment related projects (surgical, physical therapy,
etc)
· Tissue/Data Banks
· Projects that involve
the utilization of VA employees, resources or
patients
· Projects that use or disclose Protected
Health Information (PHI) from a covered entity, which requires
compliance with HIPAA privacy regulations.
· Projects
previously approved by and conducted under another UF IRB
·
Projects disapproved by another IRB
If IRB 02 determines that it does not have the
requisite expertise to review a Particular protocol, then the
submission will be forwarded directly to IRB 01. Should this
occur, the investigator would be notified and required to
revise the submission based on IRB 01’s forms and policies.
Projects that have already been approved at or submitted to
IRB 01 must continue to be reviewed there.
(Posted 06/04/04)
CHANGE
IN WIRB FEES
For those of you who utilize the Western Institutional
Review Board (WIRB)
for industry-sponsored clinical trials,
they have announced a new fee schedule that went into effect
on June 1, 2004. This information has been posted on the
Jacksonville IRB website since the first announcement was made
but I am sending this notice to all researchers on the
Jacksonville campus to be sure everyone is aware.
Click here for WIRB
Fee Schedule Revision
If you have questions about the new fee schedule,
please feel free to contact me in the IRB office or you may
contact WIRB directly at 1-800-562-7489.
(Posted
06/04/04) |