Webinars

Description of the video:

A PowerPoint display is taking up the majority of the screen with a small webcam in the upper righthand corner showcasing the presenter, Tad Mitchell. The presentation has an IU banner and displays the title: “IU Research – National Security Presidential Memorandum 33: Disclosure Standards and Compliance, and How It Impacts You.”

Tad Mitchell: “Alright, here we go. Alright, good afternoon everyone. My name is Tad Mitchell. I am the Director of Research Security Assurance in the Research Security Office at IU. I hope everyone's having a pretty great Friday. I hope you have a delicious lunch in front, so you that you can enjoy it as I walk us through this webinar titled National Security Presidential Memorandum-33 Disclosure Standards in Compliance and How It Impacts You. This webinar is intended to provide awareness of National Security Presidential Memorandum-33. Or NSPM-33 for short. It includes information for principal investigators and other senior key persons seeking or receiving federal research funding.”

Tad Mitchell: “During this presentation you're gonna hear from the Research Security Office, the Office of Research Administration, and the Office of Research Compliance about NSPM-33 and its upcoming requirements. A few notes before we begin, though. This webinar was expected to last the full 60 min, which wouldn't have left us much time for Q&A, but one of our speakers, Doug Wesseidas from IU Federal Relations, fell ill this morning and he will be unable to attend. That being the case, I've still elected to omit questions and answers from this webinar for reasons that I will share with you later. I know that many of you have questions or you probably will by the end of this webinar, but also please understand that this webinar is primarily intended to serve as a public announcement. It's meant to expose you to NSPM 33 and to make you aware of these upcoming changes and they are coming. And so you can see the horizon as time goes on. We will more than likely host additional webinars as something goes on but I want you also to know that this webinar is being recorded for your future use and for those who were unable to attend today. You will receive a follow up email as well - as well those who aren't here today - with instructions on how to watch. So with that, I will jump right into it!”

The slide changes to a crimson background displaying the text: Introduction – NSPM-33 Overview.

Tad Mitchell: “So first, I’d like to talk about some of IU’s core values, namely 3. The first being academic freedom, which has given so many brilliant minds and researchers the boldness to take their ideas to the next level and make remarkable innovations and discoveries without fear of reprisal. The second, is diversity of community and ideas. IU wouldn't be where it is today, or our country for that matter, if it wasn't for the diverse set of ideas and beliefs and cultures that have led us to the understanding of the world around us, as well as responsible for really establishing some long lasting relationships. This is a critical value that we should always cling to, and we should always remember. Lastly, it's a long worded one, but it is the sustainability, stewardship, and accountability for the natural human and economic resources entrusted to IU. This is the longest worded value among IU’s core values, but it still nevertheless is equally important. And it segues into the reason for NSPM-33.”

Tad Mitchell: “So research at universities has always been a pioneering force towards new and innovations, right? This unfortunately though has made higher education institutes a soft target for those who would exploit those values we just discussed to steal, to delay, or even disrupt, progress for their own self interest, whether it be for personal gain or to acquire an economic advantage. The federal government and research agencies like NIH and NSF are very much aware of this reality and the research security challenges. They've been aware for quite some time. But they all, they like all of us, they know that research security - it's our research is effortful, it's timely, it deserves protection from bad actors, but at the same time, they understand that sacrificing those values for the sake of security is not exactly the right path either.”

Tad Mitchell: “So NSPM 33 was created two-fold. One, to strengthen protections of America's research enterprise while maintaining those values. And how they intend to do that is what we will be discussing today.”

The slide changes to a white background with the text: “What is NSPM-33” and a timeline that has yet to be filled in.

Tad Mitchell: “I think it would really benefit all of us to kind of…if I kind of took you through the life of the NSPM-33. So… No, excuse me. The first is NSPM was issued in January 2021. Shortly after that, the subcommittee on research security was organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. They set out to engage with universities across the country, to build standardization for NSPM-33 implementation. That led to January 2022. Implementation guidance. This is what we will be covering.”

The timeline on the slide has begun filling itself in with stats in chronological order: Jan. 2021. NSPM-33 Issued; OSTP sets out to define standardization; Jan. 2022. OSTP provides implementation guidance.

Tad Mitchell: “Today, this guidance was meant for federal departments and agencies, as well as research organizations, like IU, who need to comply with set guidance. Then in August 2022 Chips and Science Act is signed into law. It does include compliance with NSPM-33. From August 2022 to March of ‘23 federal departments and agencies begin releasing draft policies for universities to comment on and open to the public. Some of you actually may have participated in this, in these comments and for that, thank you. And currently, as we stand, these comments are currently under review with an expected release of a final ruling later this year. They've actually had, recently, a meeting on the hill to discuss the progress of this final ruling. And the conclusion was there were just so many public comments that they are taking everything into consideration, but we are expecting a release of this final rule in either Q1 this year or Q2. This is…this is the reason why I omitted the Q&A session from this presentation.”

The timeline on the slide fills in the remaining empty spaces from where it left off, again, in chronological order: Aug. 2022. CHIPS and Science Act signed in to law. Includes compliance with NSPM-33; Aug. 2022 through Mar. 2023. Requests for Information released; and Future. Comments are under review. Institutions will have one year to implement requirements upon final release. Expected Q1 this year.

Tad Mitchell: “Now we don't anticipate too many changes from what we are about to share with you today, but we also…we don't want to mislead you, because we don't want to be answering a question you may have and, quite frankly, that context could change after the final rule. Again, this webinar was more or less to serve as a public announcement to get you aware of what NSPM-33 is and put on your radar.”

The slide changes to an all white background with the title displaying “What NSPM-33 is not about?” As Tad continues talking, the following bullet points filled in underneath this title: 1. Closed and censored research; 2. Complex and burdensome; 3. Discrimination.

Tad Mitchell: “So let me emphasize what NSMP-33 is not about though. First, it's not about close and sensitive research. It's about protecting America's security. And promoting openness. It's not meant to be complex and burdensome. Quite the opposite, actually. It's intended to standardize processes across research agencies, which Ava will talk about soon to reduce burden on researchers. And then echoing from earlier, it's not about discrimination. NSPM-33 and all resulting policies do not fuel xenophobia or prejudice. In fact, when drafting guidance, OSTP made it their priority that all of these values were adhered to throughout the entire development of NSPM-33 guidance, including asking for public help.”

The slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Why does NSPM-33 Impact Me?” Underneath the title is text that reads: “NSPM-33 applies to covered individuals, who are defined as… an individual who (a) contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a research and development project proposed to be carried out with a research and development award from a Federal research agency; and (b) is designated as a covered individual by the Federal research agency concerned. Consistent with NSPM-33, Federal research and development funding (i.e., extramural funding) and researchers at Federal agency laboratories and facilities (i.e., intramural researchers, whether or not federally employed), including Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories and facilities.”

Tad Mitchell: “So why are you here, right? Why does this impact you? Well, NSPM-33 applies to covered individuals. Who are defined as… I am not going to read this whole definition. I'm not gonna bore you. I'm not gonna strain my voice anymore. Yeah, the abridged version is NSPM-33 is applicable to all principal investigators and other key personnel seeking or receiving research funding.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “How does NSPM-33 Impact Me?”. Underneath the title are the numbered bullet points: “1. Disclosure Requirements and Standardization; 2. Digital Persistent Identifiers; 3. Information Sharing; and 4. Research Security Program”

Tad Mitchell: “How does it impact you? That's what we're gonna be talking about today. So, we're be covering 4 key areas that either will either directly or indirectly impact you, the research, and the researcher. So they are disclosure requirements and standardization, digital persistent identifiers, information sharing and the research security program. We're going to cover each of these areas in this webinar in detail, but I want to start with research security program.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the title: “Research Security Office – Research Security Program”

Tad Mitchell: “And just permit me to take a slight detour - I want to talk about the Research Security Office for a moment.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Research Security Office Overview”. Underneath the title is the text: “We have a Research Security Office? Yes!” Followed by a Research Security Office logo and additional text: “The IU Research Security Office was created to address security risks posed to the research environment at IU and work with the research community to enhance security awareness.”

Tad Mitchell: “So, yes, we do have a Research Security Office. We were created in 2021 under Carl Rhine. Since then, we've turned into an office of 3 teams. We have Research Information Security, Research Security Assurance, and Education and Outreach. For those who may not have known already, Carl retired at the end of the year, last year, and we are now being led by our new Chief Research Security Officer, Collin Rich. He has been making his rounds, meeting everyone of you, currently drinking from the fire hose, but since his inauguration he's really taken some instrumental steps towards taking our program to the next level. So if you haven't met with him, I highly encourage you to please reach out to him, introduce yourself. Collin also serves as our official point of contact for any research security concerns that you may have.”

The slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Research Security Office Overview”. Underneath that title is a subtitle and additional text: “Our Mission – Through its comprehensive research security program, the IU Research Security Office (RSO) protects IU and its researchers from those who wish to exploit IU’s open and inclusive academic environment. RSO operates a research security program in response to federal regulations and sponsor requirements that safeguards the IU research enterprise and mitigates threats to the IU research environment by protecting against: misappropriation of research and development; violations of research integrity; and foreign government interference.”

Tad Mitchell: “So, I wanted to share, and I wanted to say in pursuit of that mission, we want to protect you and your colleagues from misappropriation of research and development. This is going back to that lengthy worded value, right, of stewardship and accountability for resources. We want to ensure that you and your work are safeguarded against both. And it's intentional, but also unintentional harm. Violation of research integrity. This is not in reference to research misconduct, which is handled by the Research Integrity Office under Shelley Bizila, and them we work very closely with. But rather this is ensuring the appropriate controls are in place to protect you and your work, to ensure that research requirements are being met. We want you to do your research with peace of mind and minimal awards.”

Tad Mitchell: “Foreign government interference. Again, I can't stress this enough, our country and IU, would not be where it is today if it wasn't for academic freedom and international collaboration. These values have been a cornerstone of IU and the RSO is going to continue to advocate for such critical, critical, critical, critical engagement…right? Rather, in this instance, we are referring to what is called malign influence. This is where hostile efforts, generally subversive or deceptive in nature, are taken by or at the direction of a foreign government aimed at influencing public policy, opinion, or activities. I remind you that these are foreign governments ultimately responsible, not its people. Some people make that mistake and it's important that you remember these are foreign governments, not its people. Some forms of malign influence include blind government talent recruitment programs. As well as transnational repression. Transnational repression is where scholars come to America to take part in what it has to offer, but are often stalked, they're intimidated, or in some cases they're even assaulted to silent any dissent against their country's government. This sometimes includes threatening family members back home. And this is unacceptable. It is clearly not the engagement that IU seeks. And it's contradictory to our values.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Research Security Office Overview”. Underneath the title is the following text: “We want to support you and our mission through: engagement on research security topics like cybersecurity, foreign travel security, malign influence and insider risk; identifying research security concerns and suggesting appropriate mitigation efforts; and advising, assisting, and training researchers on related regulations, security awareness, and information security.”

Tad Mitchell: “Speaking of engagement, to support our mission, let us talk to you. Let us understand the nature of your work and collaborations, so we can gather a contextual understanding and identify whether or not any risk exists. If a risk does exist, then we can help mitigate. Most importantly, we want to advise, we want to assist, we want to train you on related regulations. And it's also important to note, we're not operating alone. We work with IU units across the university, including those you're about to hear from today.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Research Security Office Overview”. Underneath the title is the following text: “Visit us at rso.iu.edu to learn more about how we can serve you! Also, feel free to email us at rsohelp@iu.edu for an research security concerns you may have.” Underneath that text is a dark blue box with a quote from Collin Rich, Chief Research Security Officer inside it: “We will strive to promote a secure research environment, all while maintaining an emphasis on open scientific and scholarly collaboration with a global perspective.”

Tad Mitchell: “So, if you haven't already, please check us out at Research Security Office, rso.iu.edu. But you can also email us with any potential research security concerns you may have at rsohelp@iu.edu. We are continually updating our site to bring you recent information and guidance. So, please check in and check in regularly.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “Research Security Program NSPM-33 Requirements”. Underneath the title are the following bullet points: “Establishment of Research Security Program; Research Security Training; Foreign Travel Security; Cybersecurity; and Export Control Training.”

Tad Mitchell: “Alright, so now back on track. I'm gonna go through these 5 requirements. With the exception of export control training, which Eric Swink will will kind of allude to during his segment. So, I'm going to cover these real fast with you.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “NSPM-33 Requirement – Establishment of Program”. Underneath that title is the following text: “Section 4(g) of NSPM-33 directs that by January 14, 2022, ‘heads of funding agencies shall require research institutions receiving Federal science and engineering support in excess of 50 million dollars per year certify to the funding agency that the institution has established and operates a research security program.”

Tad Mitchell: “Starting with the establishment of such program. So, under the NSPM-33 any research organization that receives an excess of $50 million per year in federal science and engineering support requires the establishment of a research security program. IU has received over $520 million dollars in federal funding in 2022 alone. Our reputation as a world-class research institute, and also the IU 23rd Plan - we're not going anywhere. So, we expect to fit this category into this.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “NSPM-33 Requirement – Research Security Training”. Underneath that title is the following text and bullet list: “Principal Investigators, Co-Principal Investigators, and Key Persons must certify completion of research security training, which includes the following components: Research Security Threat Awareness; Insider Risk Awareness; and Research Security Incident Response. Training is required as part of onboarding of new personnel as well as regular refresher training.”

Tad Mitchell: “Next, our program is going to be responsible for the delivery of Research Security training. This is going to be both…for both onboarding and annual refresher training related to the following themes you see on the slide…on the slide here. This is an active requirement under the Chips and Science Act, as well. We are currently working on the process for delivery and certification training. Our goal though is to make it as streamlined for you as possible. The NSF has actually already released modules for public consumption. If you're interested, take a look at rso.iu.edu under the NSPM-33 page. I also provided it…a direct link to those trainings at the end of this presentation."

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “NSPM-33 Requirement – Foreign Travel Security”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: “Agencies will require research organizations to maintain travel policies for faculty and staff traveling for organization business, teaching, conference attendance, research purposes, or any offers of sponsored travel that would put a person at risk. Policies should include: Organizational record of covered international travel by faculty and staff; Advanced disclosure and authorization requirement; Security Briefings; Assistance with electronic device security; and Pre-registration requirements.”

Tad Mitchell: “For travel security, some of these requirements under for travel security are already being somewhat filled through existing tools and processes already. We have Chrome River, right? We have Export Control, just…which is electronic security. At RSO, we have foreign travel briefings. It should be noted that this requirement has received much of that public comment and feedback. Most universities have expressed budgetary and resource concerns for managing foreign travel. As time goes on, we're going to continue to work with other units including IU Travel and Export Control to examine existing IU policies and processes. Once that final rule is released, we will hopefully have a better understanding of what is expected in that for travel policy.”

Slide changes to an all white background with the title: “NSPM-33 Requirement – Cybersecurity”. Underneath this tittle is the following text: “Agencies should require that research organizations satisfy the cybersecurity element of the research security program requirement. Aside from cybersecurity training, these cybersecurity requirements apply to access control, network security, anti-virus software, incident response, etc. that are outside of the researcher’s control. Never forget though…you are the frontline of cybersecurity. Recognize. Rethink. Report.”

Tad Mitchell: “Likewise, we are actively collaborating with UISO to ensure requirements are being met in addressing any gaps when it comes to NSPM-33 cybersecurity requirements. I would be remiss to my duties if I didn't remind you, just to always exercise vigilance, and…and cybersecurity. Almost everything we do now has a digital presence…digital presence. So, it's important we all stay refreshed and vigilant.”

Tad Mitchell: “And with that, I am going to take a breather and I'm going to pass the torch to our next presenter. Take it away, Ava.”

Ava Bair is now presenting. The slide changes to an all black background with the IU trident logo and the title: “Office for Research Administration – Federal Sponsor Implementation of NSPM-33”.

Ava Bair: “So, I'm going to talk to all of you about how federal sponsors are implementing NSPM-33. So next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the title: “NSPM-33 Disclosure Policy”

Ava Bair: “And then you can move on to the next slide as well.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Standardized Requirements and Processes for Disclosure”. To the right of this title are 3 separate boxes, each containing an icon along with the following text: “Disclosure requirements, dictate what is required to disclose and what a…be disclosed, will be standardized across federal sponsors to the greatest extent practicable.” Note that some of the text in this first box was cut off by the placement of Ava’s webcam over the text. The other boxes of text: “Disclosure forms and formats will be standardized across research sponsors to the greatest extent practicable.” “Recipients of federal funding will be required to update all disclosures before an award of support, at least annually, and more frequently as federal sponsors deem appropriate.”

Ava Bair: “So, if you've already submitted proposals to multiple federal sponsors, you've probably noticed that their requirements for disclosure are similar or even the same. And this is because NSPM-33 actually outlines the requirements and processes for disclosure. So NSPM-33, actually, explains: who should be disclosing information and what information should be disclosed regarding foreign activities? In addition, it encourages standardization of disclosure forms across all federal sponsors and it also explains when the disclosure should be made. So regarding the standardization in the up coupling…upcoming months, you'll notice that federal sponsors are actually going to move towards common disclosures.Next screen.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Who is Required to Disclose Information?”. Underneath this title are two boxes, one blue and one green. In the blue box is the following text: “All individuals designated in an application as senior/key personnel, except: Program Directors, training faculty, and other individuals involved in the oversight of training grants; Individuals categorized as Other Significant Contributors.” The green box contains the following text: “All senior/key personnel, excluding consultants, in progress reports when there has been a change in active other support, except: Program Directors, training faculty, and other individuals involved in the oversight of training grants.”

Ava Bair: “So who should disclose information? So regardless of which federal sponsor you're working with, when you're submitting a proposal, you should disclose information for all senior key personnel that are listed in the proposal. And then once you receive an award, you're going to have to make sure that you update information and disclosures for all senior key personnel that are actually named in the Notice of Award. Next screen.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “What Needs to be Disclosed?”. Underneath this title are five separate, colored boxes, each with an icon and text. In the first, orange box is the following text: “Academic, professional, or institutional appointments and positions, whether or not remuneration is received, and, whether full-time, part-time, or voluntary.” In the next, gray box is the following text: “Postdoctoral scholars, students, or visiting scholars who are supported by an external entity, whether or not they work on federally-funded research projects.” In the next, yellow box is the following text: “Consulting activities related to research.” In the next, blue box is the following text: “Travel supported/paid by an external entity to perform research activities with an associated time commitment.” In the next, green box is the following text: “In-kind contributions.”

Ava Bair: “Regarding what needs to be disclosed. So you need to disclose your academic professional and institutional appointments and this is usually done in the biographical sketch. In addition, if you have researchers, postdoctoral scholars, visiting scholars that are working on your research, you need to disclose that as well. Consulting activities you need to disclose that if they are related to your research. So if you have consulting activities, for example, to help develop curriculum or to testify in court - that's not necessarily related to your research and so you actually don't have to disclose that. You do have to disclose travel supported by or paid by an external entity, as well as in-kind contributions. So, some examples of in-kind contributions could be if a foreign entity provides cell lines or mice for research. Also, if you have a visiting scholar that comes and does research in your lab, even if you aren't using grant funds to pay for that person's work and they're being paid by another foreign entity, you actually have to disclose that. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “Disclosure Forms”. Underneath this title is following text and numbered list: “Disclosures should be included in the following three documents: 1. Biographical Sketch – Professional Preparation or Any and all academic, professional, or institutional appointments and positions (paid or unpaid, full-time, part-time, or voluntary); 2. Current & Pending/Other Support – All projects currently under consideration and all ongoing projects, irrespective of whether support is provided through IU, another organization, or directly to the individual and regardless of whether or not they have monetary value; 3. Research Performance Progress Report (RPRR) – Anything new or that has changed since proposal submission, JIT, or previous progress report.”

Ava Bair: “So, the forms that you have to use to disclose this information - you're probably all very familiar with it - there is the Biographical Sketch that you include all of your professional positions. Then there is the Current & Pending/Other Support depending on which sponsor you're working with, and this is where you disclose all of your projects, you know, both funded and funded. And then throughout the life of the project once you receive the award, you have to report things in the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). One thing that I do want to mention is that in the RPPR, when you're reporting things, you're reporting things that have happened in the prior year. And if you are working with foreign components. Most of the time you have to get prior approval. So, you shouldn't wait until the RPPR. You should be getting those approvals, the wrap the life of the project and before you submit the RPPR. If you know that you're going to add a foreign component in the next project period, you can make that request in the RPPR for the next project period. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support – September 01, 2022”. Following this title is a chart that lists what type of activity needs which type of form or disclosure reported, followed by a link that lists to the PDF where this chart originated from.

Ava Bair: “So, this screen here actually shows what NSPM 33 requires as far as disclosures and as Tad mentioned, these slides will be available to you, so, when you get a chance, take a look at this and if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us and we can answer them for you. Next slide.”

Slide change to a crimson background with the following title: “NSF Disclosure Requirements”

Ava Bair: “So, NSF has already started making changes because of NSPM-33 and then in the upcoming year they're going to be making additional changes. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “NSF Certifications”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “Both the Biographical Sketch and the Current and Pending document include a certification.; Senior/Key personnel must certify that the information is accurate, current and complete.; Research.gov and Grants.gov only accept the versions prepared in SciENcv.; Certification is completed upon download of the document.; and Refer to the PAPPG, Chapters II.D.2.h(i) and II.D.2.h(ii) and to the biographical sketch and current and pending (other) support pages for policy guidance.”

Ava Bair: “So, in October, NSF started requiring the use of SciENcv and with SciENcv you have probably noticed that there are certifications that everyone has to sign stating that all of the information is accurate and that you are indeed including in all of the information related to all of your domestic foreign activities, paid, unpaid activities… Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “NSF Disclosure Requirements.” Underneath this title are the following bulleted points: “Proposal Submission – Biographical Sketch, Current and Pending (Other) Support, and Collaborators and Other Affiliations must be submitted.; Pre-Award – Updated Current and Pending (Other) Support will be requested by the NSF Program Officer and must be submitted for senior personnel before an award can be made.; Post-Award – If IU discovers that a disclosure should have been submitted at the time of proposal submission, but was not, we have 30 days to submit a post-award request to NSF. This is completed by a new, separate ‘Post Award Information’ notification which provides more space that the ‘Other’ notification that was being used previously.; and Project Reports – Pis and co-PIs must specify whether new, active other support has been received in their annual and final annual project reports. If yes, they must include updated Current and Pending (Other) Support information.”

Ava Bair: “So, NSF Disclosure Requirements at Proposal Submission - this is something that's already taking place - is that NSF is requiring people to disclose activities in your Biographical Sketch. Current & Pending and in your Current & Pending, you also include, again, all of your foreign activities, that…that you may have that is in support of your research. Now one thing that is going to be changing soon is that NSF is going to be using a process similar to NIH in that they will have a ‘Just In Time’ phase. And during this phase – so, it is after you submit the proposal, but before you get the award –NSF is going to ask you to update your Current & Pending and make sure that you update all of your…add any new sources of support that you may have received after you submitted the proposal.”

Ava Bair: “Post-Award. So, once we submit the proposal, if we discover that the disclosure should have been submitted, but it wasn't, we have 30 days to submit a post-award request to NSF. And this should be completed by a notification that we should be able to do in research.gov. As far as project reports, again, you should be specifying whether or not you have any new or active support and updating all of your disclosures. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “NSF PAPPG”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “Spring 2024 Effective Date (Anticipated); New definitions for malign foreign talent recruitment programs (MFTRP), countries of concern, and institutions of higher education; Parties to MFTRP from a country of concern are considered ineligible to serve as senior personnel; New certifications regarding MFTRP by the organization and for senior/key persons; If awarded, PIs and co-PIs will be required to certify annually during the life of the award; and Foreign gifts and contracts disclosure requirement.”

Ava Bair: “So, NSF is going to be updating the PAPPG and they're hoping that the effective date will be the spring in 2024. When the PAPPG comes out, NSF will provide clear definitions for foreign talent recruitment programs, as well as definitions of foreign gifts and contracts. So, when the NSF makes the announcements, I encourage you to read the new guidelines to see how they're defining these things so that you have a better understanding of what needs to be disclosed. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the following title: “NIH Disclosure Requirements”.

Ava Bair: “So, NIH disclosure requirements. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following text: “NIH Disclosure Requirements”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: “NIH requires awardees to report foreign activities through documentation of foreign components, other support, and financial conflict of interest. NIH is seeking to identify the following: Security and integrity concerns of publicly funded U.S. research; Potential scientific and budgetary overlap with proposed research; and Investigator and staff over commitment (effort greater than 100%).”

Ava Bair: “So, NIH disclosure requirements…with them, NIH requires a…awardees to report foreign activities through documentation of foreign components, other support and financial conflict of interest. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “What Is a Foreign Component?”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: “A foreign component is defined as ‘the performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a project outside of the United States, either by the recipient or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not grant funds are expended.’ NIH prior approval required whenever scope of work includes a ‘Foreign Component’, i.e., when a significant part of the project is conducted outside of the United States. This includes: Performance of work by a researcher or recipient in a foreign location, whether or not NIH grant funds are expended and/or; Performance of work by a researcher in a foreign location employed or paid for by a foreign organization, whether or not NIH grant funds are expended.”

Ava Bair: “So for…foreign components. One thing to keep in mind is that NIH requires prior approval for foreign components. So, if you know that you're going to have a foreign component and NIH defines a foreign component as ‘when a researcher performs a significant amount of work in the foreign location,’ and if you know this that this is going to happen, you should include it in your proposal so that you can get that prior approval. If you decide that you're going to add that foreign component after the proposal was submitted, and once you get the award, again, we have to get that prior approval from NIH. So please, reach out to our office and we'll help you get that…that prior approval. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “Examples of Foreign Component Activities”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: “Foreign component activities include: the involvement of human subjects or animals at a foreign site,; extensive foreign travel by recipient project staff for the purpose of data collection, surveying, sampling, and similar activities, or; any activity of the recipient that may have an impact on U.S. foreign policy through involvement in the affairs or environment of a foreign country.”

Ava Bair: “So some examples of foreign components include, you know, doing work with human subjects or animals at a foreign site. Or traveling to a foreign location to do data collections, surveys, sampling, etc. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “Biographical Sketch”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: ‘Positions, Scientific Appointments, and Honors’ should include: All positions, both domestic and foreign; All scientific appointments, both domestic and foreign; All affiliations with foreign entities or governments; All titled academic, professional, or institutional appointments whether or not renumeration is received.” To the right of this text is an image of Biographical Sketch form.

Ava Bair: “So, the Biographical Sketch, this is again another place where you can make disclosures. This is something that you've all been doing because NIH recently updated the guidance on this. And this is where you would include information about all of your positions, appointments, etc. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “NIH Other Support: What Needs to be Disclosed?”. Underneath this title are 3 subheadings each with their own text. The first, blue box has the following text: “Positions, Appointments, and Affiliations: Any and all (visiting and other) academic, professional or institutional appointments held by investigators, including domestic or foreign, paid or unpaid, or full/part-time/voluntary.; and Domestic and foreign consulting relationships.” The next, cerulean box has the following text: “Financial Support: Sponsored awards held at IU, held at another institution/entity, or held as an individual that support an investigator’s research efforts, including start-up packages from entities other than IU and institutional awards at IU or other institutions that are separately budgeted and accounted.” The last, yellow-green box has the following text: “Non-Financial Resources: Non-monetary resources that are uniquely available to key personnel such as office or laboratory space, equipment, supplies, employees, scientific materials, and selection to a foreign ‘talents’ or similar-type program.”

Ava Bair: “So, Other Support. So, with the NIH Other Support, you need to disclose positions, appointments, and affiliations, as well as financial support. And this is something that isn't new, NIH has been asking for this for quite some time now, but something that is more recent is that NIH has been asking us to disclose non-financial resources. So, this includes, you know, participation in foreign talent programs. In addition to that, if you have visiting scholars come in and working in your lab, doing research, and they're supported by another foreign entity, we need to include that as in-kind contribution. If you are getting cell lines or, you know, receiving mice from other entities, and…that would also be included in in-kind contributions as well. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “Supporting Documentation”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted lists: “Support Documentation should include: Appointment letters or other documents (agreement) related to the terms and conditions of the appointment with foreign entities; Employment agreements with foreign entities; and Agreements or sponsored funding received as a result of their appointment and/or employment with the foreign entity (received as an individual as an individual or through the foreign entities involved). Supporting Documentation should not include: Agreements or sponsored funding received from foreign entities and accepted via the investigator’s home institution in the US (These must still be listed in Other Support).”

Ava Bair: “So, NIH also requires us to include supporting documentation as part of the Other Support. So, if you're a part of a foreign talent recruitment program, you should include the letters or documents related to that appointment and it should be translated in English. So, if you receive an actual sponsored award that actually routed through our office and it happens to be from a foreign sponsor, that would…we don't need to include the supporting documentation for that if it's included in the other support as an active award. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “NIH Disclosure Requirements” followed by a chart listing different types of activity and which reports/disclosures are needing to be made.

Ava Bair: “So, here is a list of all of NIH's disclosure requirements. As you can see, there's a lot here, but you will have access to this PowerPoint presentation so you can take a look at it. And again, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the title: “Common Forms”.

Ava Bair: “So Common Forms, this is something that you'll be hearing a lot about. And within the next couple of months. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support”. Underneath are the following bullets: “NSF and NIH have been working closely with other federal sponsors on Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support.; Common Forms have been cleared by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy.; Common Forms implementation expected January 2025.; and SciENcv templates will be available May 2025.”

Ava Bair: “So, NSF and NIH have been working closely with other federal sponsors to develop Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current & Pending, which is great news for all of you because it should make it easier because you can use one form for all of the sponsors that you're working with. And this will be done through sciENcv and templates should be available sometime in 2025. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the following title: “Persistent Identifier (PID)”. To the right of this title are two colored boxes with text inside each. The top, blue box has the following text: “Federal sponsors are directed to incorporate PIDs into electronic systems and grant and cooperative agreement application and disclosure processes.” The bottom, green box has the following text: “Biographical Sketch Common Form and Current & Pending (Other Support) Common Form include a field for a PID.”

Ava Bair: “So NSPM actually encourages federal sponsors to have policies regarding the use of persistent identifiers. And because of this, in the Common Forms, you'll notice that there's actually a field for a persistent identifier. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Open Research and Contributor ID (ORCID)”. Underneath this title are the following bullets: “ORCID is a unique digital identifier that satisfies PID requirements.; ORCID helps link researchers to their grants, publications, and other research-related work., NIH requires ORCID identifiers for individuals supported by institutional research training, career development, and other research education awards. NIH recommends ORCID identifiers for all other researchers.; NSF encourages researchers to obtain ORCID identifiers.; and Funding and publishing sections in SciENcv will automatically populate using data from ORCID.”

Ava Bair: “Many of you may already be familiar with the open research and contributor ID (ORCID). And this is already being required for some things for NIH. ORCID actually satisfies the requirement for the persistent identifier in NSPM-33. So if you haven't obtained one, I highly suggest that you look into it, because again, NIH is currently requiring it for certain programs and they'll probably implement it more broadly in the next couple of months. In addition, NSF is currently encouraging people to obtain the ORCID because you can use it in sciENcv and it makes everything easier because if you add that ID to sciENcv, some things will be automatically populated for you. Next screen.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “ORCID HELP and Resources”. Underneath this title are an ORCID logo and the following bullet points: “ORCID @ IU Indianapolis along with a link; and ORCID @ IU Bloomington along with a link”

Ava Bair: “So, here are, some links so that you can see where, here at the IU campus, you can help…get help in obtaining an ORCID. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Use of Common Forms”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “There will be additional changes to NSF formats in FY24 PAPPG but will continue to be as close as possible to the Common Forms; and Until the Common Forms are fully adopted by NIH, NIH requires applicants and recipients to use the current NIH Biosketch and Other Support formats for applications, Just-in-Time (JIT) Reports, and Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs).”

Ava Bair: “So, the use of Common Forms, I told you that the NSF will be updating their policies and procedures guide in the spring of 2024. They have tried to incorporate as many changes as they can to make it a line with the Common Forms, but there may be slight tweaks once the Common Forms go live. As far as NIH, they are telling people the recommending that people get familiar with the Common Forms, but they want you to use the current NIH Bio Sketch and other support formats until they give everyone the go ahead to use the Common Forms. Next slide.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the following title: “Conflict of Interest and Commitemtnt”

Ava Bair: “And that's it for me.”

Mike Jensen is now presenting.

Mike Jensen: “Hi everyone, my name is Mike Jensen. I'm the Chief Compliance and Policy Officer here at Indiana University. And I'm just gonna take a few minutes of your time today to talk about our internal disclosure requirements here at Indiana University which are much broader than the disclosure requirements that Ava's been describing to you and the reason for that is because they're designed to keep both you and the university in compliance with a broad array of regulatory requirements. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “What is a Conflict of Interest?”. Underneath this title are a satirical cartoon and the following text: “An interest that has the potential OR the appearance of having the potential to compromise or bias the professional judgment or objectivity of the holder of the interest.”

Mike Jensen: “So, let's start out with some basic definitions first. What's a conflict of interest? It is an interest that has the potential or even the appearance of having the potential to compromise or bias your professional judgment in some way. Really important to understand that you can have a conflict of interest even if you're not acting on it. Next slide please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “What is a Conflict of Commitment?”. Underneath this title is a satirical cartoon and the following bullet: “Time or effort that an employee devotes to external activities interferes with the employee’s fulfillment of assigned university responsibilities, or an employee makes unauthorized use of university resources in the course of an external activity.”

Mike Jensen: “Conflicts of commitment are related to conflicts of interest but they're a little bit different. A conflict of commitment refers to the time or effort that you devote to an external activity to the extent that that external activity has some sort of impact on what you're doing for the university. Then that could be an impact on the time or energy that you bring to the…the activities that you're paid for by the university to engage in it can also be…involve unauthorized use of the university resources that are made available to you as a university employee. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Applicable Authorities”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “Principles of Ethical Conduct: Section 8 – Refrain from Conflicts of Interest and Commitment; Conflicts of Interest and Commitment Policy (UA-17); Indiana Criminal Code – IC 35-44.1-1-4 – Conflicts of Interest for Public Servants and IC 35-44.1-1-3 – Ghost Employment; Many others!”

Mike Jensen: “So, there are a whole lot of different regulatory bases for the questions that we ask in this internal document. Every single major funding agency has its own set of COI disclosure requirements. As Ava said, we're hopeful that those are going to be standardized in the near future, which will be a great benefit for everyone, but that those are out there right now. Internally, we talk about conflicts of interest and commitment in our Principles of Ethical Conduct, which is essentially our institutional code of ethics here at the university. We have a Conflicts of Interest and Commitment Policy that's very comprehensive. That's UA-17. You can find that at the university policies website, policies.iu.edu… strongly encourage you to bookmark that one for yourselves. And, finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that these are also a part of the Indiana Criminal Code. The Indiana Criminal Code has a section on conflicts of interest for public servants. We are all considered public servants as employees of a public university here in Indiana. There's also a section in the Criminal Code on Ghost Employment. Ghost Employment is the state of Indiana's term that they use to mean conflicts of commitment. Both of those represent level 6 felonies within the Indiana Criminal Code. But there are many, many others, as I said before, that, that we base these requirements on. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Employee Responsibilities”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “Disclose to the unit head any current or potential conflict of interest or commitment as soon as it is known through the COI-C Disclosure portal at one.iu.edu; Devote university work activities to official university functions; Use university resources only in the internet of the university; Consult with supervisor or associated unit head if there is any question about an external activity before engaging in it.”

Mike Jensen: “So, what does this all mean to you as an employee of the university? If I had to summarize your responsibilities in one word, that word would be transparency. You need to let us know when you have one of these conflicts so that we can talk with you about those and work through any potential issues with you. We have a formal way of doing that. You can find…find our online. Conflict of Interest and Commitment Disclosure Form in the one.iu.edu portal. I think it's a safe bet that just about everybody on this webinar today has a requirement to submit those forums on an annual basis regardless of whether they have a conflict or not. Once you've disclosed through that portal, that disclosure is going to be forwarded to individuals within your unit who are going to be able to review it and then they will talk to you about any concerns that they might have or questions they might have about those activities that you disclose. There's no penalty for you to over disclose in this process. It's under disclosing that always gets people in trouble never over disclosing. So that's a good thing to keep in mind. Another good thing to keep in mind is that it's a really good idea to be proactive about this. So, if you're thinking about engaging in something that is tickling the back of your brain, there may be a problem with the university in some way or another - talk about it upfront with your supervisor, your chair, your dean, give my office a call…we all are on the same page here. We all want to help and avoid problems down the road with these kinds of activities. And that's all I have for today. I'll be turning it over now to Eric Swank.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the title: “Office of Research Compliance”.

Eric Swank: “Thanks, Mike.”

Eric Swank is now presenting.

Eric Swank: “My name is Eric Swank. I'm in the Office for Research Compliance and I'm going to talk about 2 different programs today that dovetail exactly with these new requirements that are in NSPM-33. Talk first about the research related conflict of interest requirements and then I'll talk about our Export Control program. Go ahead Tad, to the next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Federal Regulations and IU Policy on Research COI”. Underneath this title are a subtitle, “Regulations on ‘Objectivity in Research”, and the following text: “[n]ot designed to prevent or hinder relationships among government, academia, and industry. Rather, the revisions are aimed at facilitating such relationships by increasing transparency and accountability so that the resulting research is considered objective and in the interest of the public.”

Eric Swank: “So, the research related conflict of interest program at the university, it's really born out of regulations that were initially adopted in the 1990s and they are focused on objectivity and research. So, when research is done under the name of Indiana University or with federal funding, we want to make sure that it is done objectively. And these regulations were initially passed to make sure that the institution where an investigator works knows about that investigator's personal financial interests that might be related. I want to stress one thing though that the regulations are not designed to prevent or block connections between the academy and industry or government and academy and industry. It really goes back to what Mike just mentioned, which is a transparency-based system. So, people need to be transparent about what their outside financial interests are, and people need to be accountable for any of those connections in order to ensure that the research that's done with the imprimatur of the university and with federal funding is objective. Let's go ahead Tad.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Research Conflict of Interest”. Underneath this title are the following bullet points: “Disclosure of outside financial interests to the university on our internal IU COI form; Evaluation of the interests to determine if it could directly and significantly impact the design, conduct, or reporting of research; and Steps are taken to ‘manage’ any potential overlap: disclosure in publications; disclosure to participating human subjects; Potentially restricting the role of conflicted investigators in specific projects.”

Eric Swank: “So, our research COI Disclosure rides on the same electronic form that Mike pointed you to. So, you can find that in one.iu.edu just by looking up COI or COC that will get you to the right form. The questions on the form that relate to the Research Conflict of Interest mirror up with those federal regulations that I highlighted. We apply those across the board, so regardless of whether you receive outside federal funding, you need to disclose your significant financial interest to the university. And the evaluation that our program does through our faculty committee or through our office staff is to determine whether that significant financial interest could directly and significantly impact the design, conduct, or reporting of research. So, again, we're very focused on whether that outside financial interest could relate to something on design conduct or reporting of that research. If there is some connection or some potential overlap there the Research Compliance office through a COI program will take steps to make sure that that is managed. That can be just by disclosing in your publication that you also have a particular outside interest, for example, a startup company or you've done consulting for the same kind of industry…whatever the outside interest is, that's usually the first requirement to manage a potential conflict of interest, and again, goes back to transparency. If you're doing clinical research or research with human subjects, there may be a requirement to disclose that financial interest to the participants. And in other cases, it may be that the university COI program, the COI committee has determined that roles need to be restricted in some way. So, an investigator with an outside financial interest that represents a conflict might be restricted from data analysis or some other steps in the overall research plan. We may want unconflicted investigators to serve in those key roles. So, those are some examples of exactly how we might evaluate and manage potential research conflict of interest. Next slide, please.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title “FCOI Regulations Framework”. Underneath this title is a flow chart showing how oversight flows back and forth between investigators, institutions, and NIH. “Investigator – Disclosure of SFI Compliance with Institutional Policy; Institution – Institutional Policy Implementation Evaluation of SFI Identification of FCOI Management and Compliance with Regulations Reporting to NIH; NIH – Oversight”.

Eric Swank: “So, this is the broad picture. The institution, through its office of research compliance, has the COI policy - we make the evaluation of the outside financial interest. We also have some obligations to report to the NIH, our public health service, about what those managed financial conflicts are. And it remains the investigators requirement to make that initial disclosure. And as Mike said, I would agree with him, there's, there's no downside to telling us more than what you think you might need to tell us. Over disclosure is never a problem. And go ahead Tad, to the next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Export Controls”. Underneath this title are stock art along with the following text: “Export controls restrict certain listed items and technologies when the US possesses a competitive advantage or national security interest in restricting distribution of that item or technology.”

Eric Swank: “So, that was the kind of research related conflict of interest program, that's administered through our office. And I'll talk about a separate program now. Which is our Export Control program. So, export controls are a set of federal laws and regulations that restrict certain listed items and technologies from being shared internationally. It may be that something is dual use that is, it has a civilian purpose, but also could be used in a military application. Maybe something that is not publicly available, maybe as something that we have a competitive advantage of here in the United States and there's some reasons why the government has imposed restrictions on sharing those technologies. Go ahead to the next slide.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Export Control Training”. Underneath this title is the following text and bulleted list: “Most IU research results are ‘fundamental research’. However, this status is lost when the sponsor must pre-approve the publication of results or when certain foreign nationals are restricted from participating in the research. Additionally, researchers may be using export-controlled items even on fundamental research projects. Training is provided to those working on restricted research, i.e., research that is not ‘fundamental research’. This accompanies a technology control plan to ensure security of export-controlled technology. Typically, combination of in person and online (CITI training) as we set up technology control plans.”

Eric Swank: “So, most research results or projects here at the university are considered to be fundamental research. They're shareable in the open public domain and they're not restricted. However, if there are cases when the sponsor has to pre-approve publication of research results or when there are restrictions on foreign nationals from participating in research, you can fall out of that fundamental research category. And no matter what the status of your project is, you may be using export-controlled items or devices, even on fundamental research projects. And there may be restrictions on bringing or shipping or sharing those across international borders. In those kinds of cases, we would want to set up what's called a technology control plan. And this ironically goes in the opposite direction of transparency. So, this is a case where we are putting some bounds around controlled technology from being shared internationally. When we do that, we would do…set up those controls, specify what it is, with whom it can be shared, who's working on the project. And we've been documenting all that in that technology control plan. At that time our office would set up some training. We also have online training through the CITI program, which is commonly used by other researchers that's available to enforce that sort of training requirement that was specifically called out in NSPM-33.”

Eric Swank: “So, this is a highly technical area, somewhat complicated, so please do reach out to us. Our email will be at the end if you have questions going forward. I think…Tad, back to you, right?”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the title: “IU Federal Relations”.

Tad Mitchell: “That is right.”

Tad Mitchell is now presenting.

Tad Mitchell: "Thanks, Eric and Thank you to all my other panelists. Again, or Doug…who couldn’t be here, today. He's sorry he couldn't make it. He was gonna offer us some really good insight - he works closely with our affiliates in Washington and was gonna give us some federal update on sort of the progress with some other legislation in the works that's closely related to NSPM-33 and the Chips and Science Act.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Federal Update”. Underneath this title are the bullets: “The Deterrent Act; Proposals/Amendments of Concern/NDAA”.

Tad Mitchell: “So, be on the lookout though for any future webinars we may have. We meet with Doug regularly and he keeps us informed and we are happy to share anything we learned from him with all of you.”

Slide changes to a crimson background with the following title: “Conclusion”

Tad Mitchell: “This does conclude…but hold on, don't leave yet! I didt say that we had some resources for you, so please, check these resources out. They’re for your benefits and then also, as you glance over that, for just a minute, I wanted to share to you…with you, as well, this is our contact information.”

Tad Mitchell: “So, please, please…we know that you probably have a lot of questions now. So, please forward any of your questions to any of our offices. Kind of the 3 takeaways, is again with this, is NSPM-33, again, is supposed to increase security mainly through transparency and standardization while holding true to the values we…we exercise.”

Slide changes to a white background with the title: “Contact Information” along with the contact information for the following departments: Research Security Office, rsohelp@iu.edu; Office of Research Administration, iuprop@iu.edu; Office of Research Compliance, researchcompliance@iu.edu; and Federal Relations, dwasitis@iu.edu”.

Tad Mitchell: “Secondly, let us help you. You know, as my other panelists have commented, we're here to support you. We're going to continue to support you. We will keep you posted with any updates to NSPM-33 so be sure to check out any newsletters you might see or any announcements of any future webinars. We highly encourage you to check those out.”

Tad Mitchell: “So, with that, I will end this webinar. I'd like to thank all of you for participating and we wish you a very great happy pre-Friday and Leap Day - I would be remiss if I didn't mention that at least once. So, thanks for coming and we will, hopefully, see you again.”