1. INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATION (ITAR)
    AND OPENNESS IN SATELLITE-BASED RESEARCH

This is an issue of regulation by the federal government of how research in Space is conducted. The technology of putting experiments in space and communicating and controlling those experiments has been declared a matter of national interest and in the realm of weaponry. Control of this matter has been moved from Commerce to State, and in the current Washington climate, is proposed to be managed in a tight, proscriptive manner.

At the end of last year, ITAR was beginning to cause significant problems in those areas of the University involved with satellite-based research. At issue are export regulations which now place scientific satellites, and all related data, components, software, parts, and materials on the Munitions List. As a result, a non-citizen's participation in research and development of a scientific apparatus that involves or relates to a satellite (such as the various components of GLAST, Gravity Probe B, or LISA) could be, under ITAR, a "deemed export" requiring an export license from the Department of State. With the large non-US community of graduate students, post docs, staff and faculty at this university, we regard this as an important matter to be followed.

We hope to give guidance on how such work be done on campus, and encourage this university to work with other leading research universities in the nation to work with the congress and administration to bring the law into a sensible place.

2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES STEMMING FROM
    EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND DISTANCE LEARNING

Educational ventures involving the use of new technologies for distance learning create potential conflict situations for both the individual faculty member and for the University as an institution. The Committee on Research plans to meet jointly this year with the Learning Technologies Board, chaired by Craig Heller, to examine policy questions related to the management of those conflicts, ownership of intellectual property, and other issues.

This item spawns two associated issues :

• Distance Learning and Equity in outside Companies, and
• Ownership of 'new forms of expression.'
  
  

C-RES will try to address these issues during this academic year.

Examples of such issues are :

• new course materials are developed for on-line distribution through a non-Stanford distributor. Ownership of this new material is not clear, but the institution's interest in having free access to such material should be protected;
  
  
• Stanford faculty on a 9-month appointment are free to teach elsewhere during the summer, but should not make significant use of Stanford resources in doing so;
  
  
• the development of on-line educational materials is heavily resource- dependent, unlike the development of a traditional textbook. This should be reflected in the Stanford policy about ownership of such materials;
  
  
• any use of the Stanford logo or name must be approved by the institution and there should be some compensation for such participation;
  
  
• companies and other academic enterprises who wish to associate with Stanford should "come in" through a University office and not through arrangements with an individual faculty member.
  
  

NOTE: In discussion with the Steering Committee, C-Res was encouraged to find ways of moving discussion on these two general items forward and finding ways to engage broad faculty awareness and involvement in an exchange that might lead towards definition of university policy. To that end, C-RES will attempt to develop "White Papers" on these two areas and share them with the Steering Committee this year. These papers would set out the issues for this campus, give examples of the concerns and suggest various paths forward for discussion.

3. INCREASING AGENCY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO
    DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE

NIH has recently mandated a training module on the protection of human subjects, and the Office of Research Integrity is floating a proposal for mandatory training in the responsible conduct of research. How should the University respond to an anticipated increase in requirements for mandatory education and training? This goes along with concerns about the amount of faculty time consumed in managing and administering such research in response to federal regulation.

---

This seems a full agenda - and we do not look to other material but, of course, stand ready to deal with whatever matters under our purview may arise during the academic year.

Submitted by:

David Leith, Chair
Upon discussion in the first meeting
Committee on Research
October, 2000