Location
CIHR Office, 160 Elgin Street, 9th Floor
Ottawa, ON
Participants
| Chair: | Dr. Jim Till | Ontario Cancer Institute |
| Members: | Dr. Michel G. Bergeron | Université Laval |
| Dr. Ian Graham | Ottawa Health Research Institute | |
| Dr. Geoffrey Hicks | University of Manitoba | |
| Francis Ouellette | University of British Columbia | |
| Dr. Michael Rudnicki | Ottawa Health Research Institute | |
| Regrets: | Dr. Charlyn Black | University of British Columbia |
| Dr. Jeanette Ward | University of Ottawa | |
| CIHR: | Dr. Alan Bernstein | President |
| Dr. Mark Bisby | Vice-President, Research Portfolio | |
| Dr. Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch | Director, Ethics Office | |
| Geoffrey Hynes | Research Officer to the President | |
| Andrew McColgan | Senior Policy Advisor, Corporate Planning and Policy |
Welcome and Introductions
Jim Till called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He welcomed the participants and invited Alan Bernstein to make some introductory remarks on behalf of CIHR.
Dr. Bernstein thanked members for agreeing to participate in this initiative and highlighted the fact that Committee included representation from across CIHR's mandate. He referenced the values in "Blueprint", CIHR's strategic plan, and the importance of the principles of freedom of inquiry and unrestricted dissemination of research results. He stressed the need to develop a policy that is practical and effective.
Participants introduced themselves and identified their areas of relevant expertise and interest.
Mark Bisby mentioned how he had initiated discussion on this project at CIHR in response to a number of complaints he had received from researchers who had experienced difficulty in obtaining access to products developed from CIHR funded research projects. He stressed the importance of having a workable policy that balanced the need to put research products in the public domain with the need to promote the commercialization of products for the benefit of Canada.
Meeting Objective and Committee Terms of Reference
Jim Till outlined the meeting objectives and structure. He noted that the Committee should identify and fully explore the issues and be far-sighted in making its recommendations to CIHR.
Participants discussed the draft Terms of Reference (TOR). It was suggested that a reference be added to the TOR that would talk about advising CIHR on how the policy could eventually become a Tri-Agency policy. With this modification, Participants agreed to adopt the TOR.
Project Background and Current CIHR Policies
Mark Bisby gave a presentation that provided some background and context to the project. He highlighted some of the key policy drivers (e.g., harmonization with other organizations). He also discussed some of CIHR's policies in relation to the proposed policy areas, and identified the gaps that currently exist. He also noted that when discussing access to publications, we must recognize that the principle investigator is the best judge of where research should be published.
Members discussed Dr. Bisby's presentation. In reference to open access (OA) publishing, it was suggested that the Committee not burden itself with the task of trying to address the issues raised by publishers regarding the OA business model. Members asked questions related to the funding mechanisms available to support these responsibilities, the length of time researchers would be expected to maintain material banks and how overhead costs would covered. Dr. Bisby noted that regular operating grants support small scale infrastructure (e.g., databases) and that the new Research Resource Grant program is designed to provide support in this area. It was noted that the type of resources that would be required to store research products would probably not be eligible for funding under the Indirect Costs program.
Policy Development Discussion
1. Name of the Policy
It was suggested that the name of the policy be changed to avoid confusion between research products that are used as tools for further research and the end products of research (e.g., drugs, vaccines, medical devices). Members agreed to change the name of the policy to "Access to Research Outputs."
2. Policy Sections
Members were presented with a proposed outline for the policy. The outline included the following sections.
Geoff Hynes led the Committee in a discussion of each of these sections. The following is a summary of this discussion.
No comments were made on the draft preamble text.
Members agreed that the policy should apply to all research projects to which CIHR provides funds, including projects co-funded with partner organizations, including industry. In the case of co-funded projects that gave rise to intellectual property of potential commercial value, it was suggested that industrial partners could be offered the "right of first refusal" and that a delay could be allowed to provide the time necessary to secure intellectual property protection (e.g., file a patent application). Furthermore, Members agreed that this policy should be broad and equitable, but must contain limits such as "no longer than" or "all research must be made public within X weeks" to ensure responsibility and accountability.
No comments were made on the draft policy objectives.
No comments were made on the guiding principles.
A. Research materials
Members agreed that the policy should include examples of theme III/IV (health services and population health) research materials. Theme III/IV equivalents to theme I/II research materials (such as cells, antibodies, PCR primers) could include survey instruments (e.g., questionnaires), or standardized testing methodologies.
Members agreed that costs associated with the sharing of research materials should be born by the requester. It was further recommended that costs should be reasonable and should only cover the cost of producing (when necessary) and shipping materials.
Members agreed that software and protocols should be considered a research material.
It was suggested that the policy could contain reference to the use of material transfer agreements (MTAs) without going into details on what would need to be included in the agreement. The details of these agreements should be handled by institutions.
Some additional comments included:
B. Research data
Members were interested in hearing about the types of data from themes III/IV that could be covered by this policy. Interview transcripts, digital recordings, and questionnaires were provided as some examples that could be included of data in the theme III/IV community. Members were asked to provide any additional examples to Geoff Hynes.
It was suggested that CIHR should avoid providing an exhaustive list of examples and preferred databases because science changes quickly and certain fields are just beginning. However, it was recommended that the policy list a couple of examples for deposition in established databases. For example, DNA sequences should go to GenBank, and gene expression data to GEO. This approach will allow PI's the flexibility to determine to the appropriate archive for their data, based on their knowledge of where it would be most widely accessible.
C. Peer-reviewed published results
Jim Till gave a presentation on the concept of open access and the archiving of publications. Francis Ouellette gave a presentation on his experiences with open access publishing, which can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/nd7xf. Both presentations stressed the need to educate research community on open access to publications and the different routes to achieve open access (e.g., open access journals, self-archiving in institutional repositories or on personal web sites).
Members identified a number of issues related to access to publications.
It was also recommended that CIHR make an effort to identify and list in the draft policy existing and well established Open Access repositories that could be utilized for deposition of published results.
Members agreed that research outputs should become available to other investigators with a delay of no more than six months after publication or other disclosure of the existence of the output. This timeframe would be consistent with the IP Schedule being developed for the Tri-Agency MOU.
Members agreed that it should be acceptable for a researcher who provides a research output to another researcher to request an acknowledgement, but not authorship, in papers that are published using the output. Members agreed that the "third party rule" is a reasonable request/agreement. The third party rule would establish that researchers who receive a research output (e.g., monoclonal antibodies) would not be able to share this output with another researcher without notifying the researcher who provided them with the output in the first place. It was suggested that if there is no IP involved then a Simple Letter Agreement (SLA) should be acceptable to authorize the transfer of the research output from one researcher to another.
Next Steps
Geoff Hynes outlined the next steps in the policy development process, including the timelines for the development of drafts and consultation with the research community. Members noted that CIHR must be sure to include all stakeholders in the policy process, particularly health charities and industrial partners.
Jim Till brought the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to the attention of Members. He suggested that the Committee consider making a recommendation to CIHR to endorse this document through this policy initiative.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
