Suggestion of the Month

Suggestion: A prior approval deliverable

would be helpful for Post Award Grant Administrators to track requests submitted to sponsors for such things as key personnel effort reduction, significant changes to budgets, change of PI, second no cost extension requests, etc. This will create transparency on individual work load, allow for better oversight of issues, and will be a system in line with current existing practice.

Impact: The “Prior Approvals/Other” deliverable

in InfoEd/Insight creates a consistent, structured and efficient business process for tracking sponsor-required prior approvals (second no cost extensions, re-budgeting, effort reductions, etc.) It can also be used for project-related activities needing to be tracked, but don’t fall under any other deliverable category. This deliverable provides transparency for Post GAs, Managers, Department Administrators, Principal Investigators, and others to monitor the progress of the approval/activity. It also prevents prior approvals/other activities from being forgotten, creating a possible compliance issue.

Joseph BeardSr. Grants Administrator,

Partners, RM&

William HonohanSr. Grants Administrator,

Partners, RM

For questions or program registration, email orcd@partners.org

MGH Research Council

November 7, 2016

“Elevate Your Science” Presentation Skills SymposiumMass General Postdoc Association: Communication Series

Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 4:30 – 6:30 pm

Featured panelists: Alessio Fasano, MD, Adam Castoreno, PhD

Looking Your Best on Paper: Building a CV or ResumeGraduate Student Division: Career Advancement Series

Thursday, November 10, 2016, 2:00 - 3:00 pm

Speaker: Lauren Celano, MBA

“Meet & Greet” Networking ReceptionOffice for Women’s Careers: Networking Series

Tuesday, November 15, 2016, 4:30 – 6:00 pm

Guest speaker: Connie Cepko, PhD

Crafting Your CV NarrativeOffice for Clinical Careers: Career Advancement Series

Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 12:00 – 1:00 pm

Speaker: Ted Stern, MD

For questions or program registration, email orcd@partners.org

MGH Research Council

November 7, 2016

R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L

N O V E M B E R 7 , 2 0 1 6

Changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

S Y L V I E B R E T O N , P H D

E L E C T E D R E P R E S E N T A T I V E

Overview

Currently, the salary threshold for an exempt employee is $23,660 annually or $455 per week

Effective December 1, 2016, an update to the overtime regulations will establish a new salary threshold, $47,476 annually or $913/week

The statute does not allow for prorating salaries for part-time employees: all exempt positions, part-time and full-time, are subject to the new salary threshold

Email communications sent to MGH research faculty and administrators on September 28 & October 19

Who is subject to the new regulations?

Are Subject Are Not Subject

Postdoctoral Fellows Graduate Students

Research Assistants Licensed, clinically practicing physicians, including podiatrists, optometrists & dentists

Study Coordinators

Technicians

All other exempt positions, full & part-time

As of December 1st

Postdoctoral Fellows

In response to the regulation, the hospitals have agreed that postdoctoral fellow salaries will be increased to the new threshold to maintain their exempt status

Other positions being reclassified: Research Technician II and Clinical Research Coordinator II

These jobs, as presently constituted, will be reclassified

from exempt to non-exempt

Recent update for Postdoctoral Fellows

Hospital leadership has agreed to support a program whereby PI’s who truly have a funding need due to the FLSA law change will be allowed to apply for one year of supplemental funding

A memo with directions on how to apply will be sent out this week

NRSA Levels

Years of Experience

FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

0 $42,840 $43,692 $47,484

1 $44,556 $45,444 $47,844

2 $46,344 $47,268 $48,216

3 $48,192 $49,152 $50,316

4 $50,112 $51,120 $52,140

5 $52,116 $53,160 $54,228

Questions?

Meet the Candidates for ECOR Representatives

Ballot deadline: Friday, November 22, 2016

Assistant Professor (Vote for 1)Michael Prerau, PhDKorkut Uygun, PhD

Hsaio-Ying (Monica) Wey, PhD

Submit your vote:https://ecor.mgh.harvard.edu/elections/votingform.aspx

Michael Prerau, Ph.D.Anesthesia, Critical Care,

and Pain Medicine

Korkut Uygun, Ph.D.Surgery/Center for Engineering in

Medicine

Hsiao-Ying (Monica) Wey, Ph.D.Radiology/Martinos Center for

Biomedical Imaging

Meet the Candidates for ECOR Representatives

Ballot deadline: Friday, November 22, 2016

Associate Professor (Vote for 1) Stephen Haggarty, PhD

Patrick Purdon, PhDElsie Taveras, MD

Submit your vote:https://ecor.mgh.harvard.edu/elections/votingform.aspx

Stephen J. Haggarty, PhDNeurology/Psychiatry/Center for Human Genetic Research

(CHGR)

Patrick L. Purdon, Ph.D.Anesthesia, Critical Care,

and Pain Medicine

Elsie M. Taveras, MD, MPHPediatrics/Population Health

Management

Review of MGH Research CoresNovember 7, 2016

Susan A. Slaugenhaupt, PhD

Dennis Brown, PhD

Alison Hoffnagle, MS

Our mission

• A key component of our mission is to establish a uniform framework for assessing the need, formation, publicity, and ongoing review of research cores.

Our methodology

• Sent questionnaire to Directors of 41 cores

• Site visits to 36 cores

• Survey to the Mass General research community on core use and satisfaction

What we heard from the cores:

• More visibility

• Better nurturing and engagement of the core community

• Help with budgeting and compliance

• Institutional funding to help support cores

What we heard from the research community:

• 512 responses• Over 45% respondents research faculty• Over 50% respondents said they didn’t use MGH cores• Over 50% of respondents didn’t know where to find

information about cores

DoyouknowwheretofindinformationaboutthecoreservicesatMGH?

0

50

100

150

200

250

No

Yes

What we heard from the research community:

• Customer satisfaction top comments: ease of use, quality of services, price, and helpfulness of core staff.

• Customer dissatisfaction: high prices, long wait times, and lack of specific service needed.

• 31% of respondents use cores outside the institution• 73% of users going to external cores did not know if MGH

offered the same serviceIsthereacoreatMGHthatdoesthesamethingastheexternalcoreyouused?

0

50

100

150

200

250

Don'tknow

No

Yes

What we heard from the research community:

• 36% of respondents felt there were core services needed at MGH that are currently unmet by the core landscape.

• The top mentioned needs were proteomics, CRISPR, a seahorse (metabolism assay) facility, more biostatistics, and an animal behavior core.

AretherecorefacilitiesthatarecurrentlynotavailabletoyouthatyouthinkweshouldhaveatMGH?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No

Yes

Core identified needs:

• Short-term

– Advertising and new websites

– Retreat for Core Directors

– Core Brochure for research community

– Standardization of policies

• Medium-term

– Investigate and implement alternative forms of payment

– Streamline process for budgeting and adding services

– Standardize MTA language for industry customers wanting fee-for-service

• Long-term

– Institutional support for physical space and data storage

– Institutional funding to help support cores

Website under development:

For questions or suggestions contact:nramesh@partners.org

Core identified needs:

• Short-term

– Advertising and new websites

– Retreat for Core Directors

– Core Brochure for research community

– Standardization of policies

• Medium-term

– Investigate and implement alternative forms of payment

– Streamline process for budgeting and adding services

– Standardize MTA language for industry customers wanting fee-for-service

• Long-term

– Institutional support for physical space and data storage

– Institutional funding to help support cores

Research Institute recommendations

• Support cores

– marketing efforts

– core events

– interactions with industry

– training requirements

• With PRCF identify cores deemed critical to the research community and assess their needs

• Form a permanent MGH Core committee

• Work closely PRCF to implement recommended action items at the Partners level

Long-term recommendations dependent on Research Institute Funding

• Work to increase financial commitment to NIH SIG grant awardees

• Identify target areas that are most in demand and form Institutional SuperCores

BHAG

Dependent on Research Institute Funding

• Hard money support for cores (eg. Salary support, equipment, etc.)

• Strategic fund for repair and replacement of equipment

Core Report

For a full copy of the core report:

http://mghresearch.partners.org/ResearchMgmt/ResearchCores.aspx

Partners Research Core Facilities Office

(PRCFO)

Present and Future

Narayanaswamy Ramesh, PhD

Partners Research Core Facilities Office

Partners AMCs host a broad range of core services

Animal Resources Genomics, Omics and

Sequencing

Biorepositories Histology and Histopathology

Cell Biology/

Immunology/Virology

Informatics and Biostatistics

Biochemistry/Physiology/

Reagents

Medical and Research Imaging

Clinical and Translational

Research

Microscopy

Flow cytometry

Expertise needed by Research Cores

Three key areas

Science

PI/Director of the Core is responsible for the scientific

oversight. Partners AMCs have world class scientists.

Compliance

Business operations

PCRF Office helps manage Cores in a sustainable and

compliant manner

Services provided by the PRCF Office

We are a four member team that assists Core Facilities

with

Billing

Monthly analysis of cores fund

Annual Cost analysis and budgeting

Compliance

Top reasons for Cores to fail

Lack of visibility

Not providing timely services

Core members have uncertain career path/future,

leading to high personnel turnover

“To consolidate* or not to consolidate, that is the

question” (*multiple cores into one central core)

Core “cannibalization”

Initiatives to help the Core Facilities

In Process

Redesigned Core facilities website for enhanced visibility

Newsletter both print and electronic highlighting core offerings

across Partners Institutions

Have periodic Core Directors’ retreat to collectively address

core problems

At Planning stage (In collaboration with MGH Research Institute):

Initiate periodic review of Cores

Develop strategy to attract clients from industry

Use Partners Research volume to leverage discounts from

commercial vendors for common reagents and some services

What might be done to better support the Core facilities

and Researchers?

Partners has nearly 120 core facilities; some initiatives under

construction:

1. Core governance: Align PHS and Hospital oversight

of cores

2. Mechanism to support cores directors: e.g. forum to

share best practices, synergies, etc.

3. Periodic review of core mission and operation

4. Business development on behalf of the cores

Proposed Periodic Review of Core operations

Working in conjunction with MGHRI and BRI, we

propose the following

A review should help identify a core’s weakness and

strengthen its business model

Develop a review mechanism (similar to SAC review)

The review panel could be comprised of senior core

directors and other research faculty

Review timeline: every 3-5 years

Should Cores reach out to Biotech/Pharma and other

Business Enterprises?

Yes!Why?

All the AMCs have similar core facilities. The pool of

academic investigators has plateaued or very near;

thus the demand for the services within or among

the institutions is near saturation

Partners is a member of Mass Bio, it is time to

market our services to MassBio members

Over 90 scientific cores with wide array of services

for biomedical research

Access to superior academic support with the

backing of reputed AMC investigators

Services and Initiatives

Sample Marketable Research services:

Microscopy, especially confocal

Pharmacokinetic study for phase I and Phase II clinical trials

Assay development

Biomedical informatics and data mining

Multiple state of the art imaging facilities both for animals and humans

including the only magnetoencephalography facility in Boston area.

State of the art NMR facility to study cardiovascular function.

Established Biobanks that offer biological samples from large cohorts

for various studies

Proposed Initiatives: Reaching out to companies through

Mass Bio

Lab Central

Mass Innovations lab

NEHI

Northshore Innoventures

Commercial enterprises as “cores”

Mature technologies and reagents are offered by

many for-profit and non-profit entities, often more

efficiently and at reduced cost to the user

This should be taken advantage

PRCF Office could negotiate the rates with vendors

to benefit all researchers at Partners Institutions

These vendors should be listed on the cores web

page for the benefit of the research community

Qualities of a successful Core Facility

Consumer focused service offerings

Core directors and administrators with appropriate scientific

expertise and administrative expertise respectively

Promote cross disciplinary collaboration/ideas

Dedicated physical space and technological crew

Organizational capabilities to maximize productivity

Leverage institutional support to offer the best service

(adapted from ABRF-NIH workshop on enhancing the efficiency of Research Core Facilities, proceedings)