Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2007
Members in Attendance:
Dr. Roger Mitchell, Chair, Dr. Jeanne Daffron (by telephone), Dr. Richard Johnson (by telephone), Representative Bob Onder, Mr. Kevin Sprouse, Mr. Edward Stevens
Staff Attending:
Ms. Jessica Eads - Missouri Department of Economic Development, Ms. Stacey Hirst - Missouri Department of Economic Development, Mr. Mike Mills - Missouri Department of Economic Development, Mr. Rob Monsees - Missouri Technology Corporation
Guests:
Dr. Jim Baker, Missouri State University, Springfield; Dr. Roger Beachy, Danforth Plant Sciences Center (by telephone); Dr. Bill Duncan, Kansas City Area Life Sciences; Mr. Alex Eaton, MoBIO; Mr. Kelly Gillespie, MoBIO; Mr. Mark Linit, University of Missouri; Dr. Tom Payne, University of Missouri; Mr. Rob Rose, Danforth Plant Sciences Center; Ms. Rose Windmiller, Washington University;
New Business :
Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. after declaring a quorum with six members of the Life Sciences Research Board participating in the meeting. Chair Mitchell welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the Governor and the General Assembly for approving and appropriating funds to the Life Sciences Research Board. He also thanked the staff from the Missouri Department of Economic Development, Mike Mills, Stacey Hirst and Jessica Eads, and the Executive Director of the Missouri Technology Corporation, Rob Monsees, for organizing the meeting.
Chair Mitchell called on Mike Mills to report on the first agenda item, Review of Legislative Action and Funding.
Mr. Mills reported the legislature appropriated $13.4 million through House Bill 7 to the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund. House Bill 7 is the appropriations bill for the Department of Economic Development (DED). The Governor transferred the responsibility of the Life Sciences Research Board (LSRB) to the DED by Executive Order, which fits very well with the DED mission. The focus of the bill language is on bioenergy and animal health and nutrition. The funding will be available on July 1, 2007; however, there are many challenges ahead as this is the first attempt to set up the process under the statute. The LSRB has a heavy responsibility to prove to the Legislature there are many worthy causes and appropriate projects to fund in Missouri. The first challenge is to establish the Centers for Excellence and establish a process by which the board will accept and approve projects. Mr. Mills asked if there were any questions.
As there were no questions brought forth, Chair Mitchell asked Mr. Mills to describe the action item listed in the agenda. Mr. Mills stated the LSRB is responsible for establishing the process and procedures by which they will approve projects for funding with the $13.4 million appropriated. Of these funds, up to 2% of these funds or $269,000 is allowed to be used for administrative purposes. Mr. Mills suggested to the LSRB to fully fund the 2% in order to have available funds to set up the processes of the board which includes hiring additional staff where appropriate, funding the processes of the Centers for Excellence and paying for legal fees as contracting protocols and procedures are established. Mr. Mills stated his recommendation is to leave the administration up to the DED, with guidance to work with our partners the Missouri Technology Corporation on day-to-day activities. The MTC is directed by Rob Monsees and is statutorily established to be a partner to DED on all activities and projects focused around science and technology. It is possible the DED will need additional hands on the ground to help with the establishment of the Centers for Excellence and have already made contact with various institutions to offer leverage on the LSRB funds. Mr. Mills suggested again that the LSRB authorize the full 2% to be used for administrative purposes under the DED and to approve the DED to work in partnership with the MTC to establish the processes and procedures.
Chair Mitchell asked the LSRB members if they had any questions or concerns.
Dr. Daffron asked if the LSRB agreed to the recommendation from Mr. Mills, then what responsibility does the board have to spend those funds.
Mr. Mills responded the DED would expend the funds through the normal state protocols and procedures so there is one check to make sure the funds are spent appropriately. Second, he assumed the board would not want to get into the details of the administrative process, but the DED would definitely be open to bringing these expenditures back to the board for approval if that was the decision of the board.
Dr. Johnson asked if administration would include screening the projects.
Mr. Mills said yes, within that $269,000 is how the DED would pay, not only for the persons processing the activities, but also for operational costs of the board, minimal operational costs for the Centers for Excellence, but the statute also requires a peer review of the projects, so the costs of these activities would come from the 2%.
Dr. Johnson asked how the screening is accomplished and is this part of the Centers for Excellence.
Mr. Mills responded yes, there is a process by which the Centers for Excellence establish the screening groups amongst themselves. These screening groups are a very hands on working group that recommend projects to the Centers for Excellence which then goes to the full board for funding. Then, there is another level of review, the peer review, which we believe by statute should be a separate, disassociated, non-conflict group. This peer review group could even be an out of state firm and be contracted with to conduct the peer reviews.
Dr. Johnson confirmed the LSRB work would then be to review the recommendations made by the Centers for Excellence and the peer review and select the final candidates.
Mr. Mills agreed and stated the biggest challenge of the LSRB is to narrow the candidates because more than likely there will be more applications than what there are available funds. By the time it gets to the LSRB all of the projects should be well vetted and justifiable and it will be up to the LSRB to then decide which projects are chosen to receive funding.
Mr. Stevens asked if the LSRB would still be a part of the process in selecting the peer review agency and making those types of decisions.
Mr. Mills responded that yes, the LSRB will be very much a part of that process and the DED would be more than comfortable, before entering into any contractual obligation, to bring the decision back to the board for approval. A full blown Request for Proposals (RFP) would be done for the peer review process.
Mr. Stevens also asked what the cost might be to engage an agency for these types of activities.
Mr. Monsees responded it is too preliminary to provide a breakdown on this type of services, however, other organizations that have used this type of service state it has cost about $1,000 per proposal. A framework for a budget will be put together over the next few weeks and brought back to the LSRB.
Chair Mitchell entertained a motion to authorize the full 2% of the $13.4 million to be used for administrative expenses through the DED in collaboration with other partners, such as the MTC, with any contractual agreements to be brought back to the LSRB for review and approval.
Representative Onder made the motion to approve the full 2% administrative funds and for the DED to partner with MTC. Dr. Johnson seconded the motion. Hearing no objections the Chair declared the motion carried.
Chair Mitchell then moved to the next agenda item for discussion and action and he asked the LSRB members to review and comment on the draft RFP document for the Centers for Excellence.
Mr. Mills responded the statute establishes how the Centers for Excellence are defined with four established overall: one in the St. Louis area within the city of St. Louis, and encompassed by St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin counties; one in the Kansas City area encompassed by Jackson, Clay, Andrew, Buchanan and Platte counties; one in the Springfield area encompassed by Greene, Christian and Webster counties; and one established as a Missouri statewide center. As we have seen by the guest attendance at the meeting today, there are excellent partners out in the field that have already initiated the process of establishing these centers in the respective regions, Dr. Duncan in Kansas City, Dean Payne with the help of Mark Linit for the out state center, Dr. Baker and Mr. Allen Kunkel in the southwest region of the state, and Dr. Beachy and Mr. Rob Rose in the St. Louis area. We hope to encourage cross centers of excellence as well and not geographical silos. Mr. Mills then asked Mr. Monsees to go through the draft RFP document.
Mr. Monsees stated the first page is introductory in nature and spells out the deadline for proposals as July 13, 2007. Page 2 includes language from the statute that prescribes the funding is intended to help build capacity, which is something the legislature intended by hoping to leverage other funds. Also on page 2 he pointed out the resolution that was approved by the LSRB on April 12, 2007 to clarify the focus, and there is also an excerpt from House Bill 7 which further clarifies the focus of the projects. Page 3 includes a program description which heavily pulls language from the statutes which prescribes how the Centers for Excellence are to be established. It also includes the language that “consideration should be paid to focus on agriculture research and commercialization” per the governor, legislature and the LSRB. There is mention of statutory guidance that the LSRB is defined to consider and approve the organizational plan of each Center for Excellence. There is also language that highlights the screening committee and specific statutory guidance that the screening committee makeup members cannot be employees of any of the public or private entities that want to receive funding. Page 4 includes statute language which talks about the research and commercialization missions of the Centers for Excellence and the fact that 80% of the funds are to be used to build research capacity at public and private institutions and 20% of the funds for grants to promote life science technology transfer and technology commercialization. Page 5 of 7 discusses the LSRB views the Centers for Excellence as “virtual organizations, whose purpose is to think strategically about the important life science research and commercialization” important to their region. There is some confusion that the Centers are focused on buildings, but the Centers for Excellence are actually virtual in nature. The next section on page 5 describes the makeup of each Center for Excellence. Page 6 is really where the definition comes as to what the LSRB expects to receive from the proposals and how the proposals should be structured in order to have uniformity between the proposals. There may be multiple proposals from each region, we just do not know at this time. The last page contains information on who and where the proposals should be sent.
Chair Mitchell asked if there were any questions from the board members.
Dr. Johnson asked about the section on the definition of the Centers for Excellence, which seems to break out the different campuses of the University of Missouri and has them listed all under one Center.
Mr. Monsees responded there is not duplication as the language states “the University of Missouri-Kansas City and University of Missouri-St. Louis shall participate in the Centers for Excellence in their respective geographical regions.”
Dr. Johnson asked where the University of Missouri-Columbia fit into the Centers.
Mr. Monsees responded the University of Missouri-Columbia is under the definition of the out state Center for Excellence.
Mr. Stevens asked if the Centers for Excellence were going to be made up of more than one entity, so there is not just one organization as the Centers.
Chair Mitchell said the Center will have a chair and an advisory board.
Mr. Monsees commented that peppered throughout the statute it talks about the Centers for Excellence being comprised of a consortium of public and private not for profit academic, research, or healthcare institutions or organizations that meet these certain criteria. So, the Centers will have many players involved in the organization. In Kansas City, for example, you may have the University of Missouri-Kansas City, KC Area Life Sciences Institute, MRI and Missouri Western University all as members of the Center for Excellence in Kansas City.
Mr. Stevens asked if an institution had to be a member of the Center for Excellence in that region in order to be eligible for funding in a particular region.
Mr. Monsees responded they did not, and further stated institutions that focus on human health research are not excluded from participating in the Centers for Excellence. However, the nature of the awards will focus on areas of bioenergy, plant and animal sciences.
Mr. Stevens said on page 3 of the RFP under the Program Description, it states the selected projects under consideration should focus on agriculture research and commercialization and this is the guidance we are operating under. However, it does not appear that members of the Centers for Excellence have to be focused on these areas, but they should be scientists and representatives of the communities and not be so focused. As part of the screening process, we may want those types of scientists and researchers to review the projects.
Mr. Monsees stated when this RFP was drafted it was meant to be mindful of the guidance of the Governor, General Assembly and the LSRB, but it is not a limiting factor. If that needs to be spelled out more directly we can put it in the document, because this is a work in progress and changes can be made.
Chair Mitchell entertained a motion to approve the draft RFP language for the Centers for Excellence with relative focus on the screening committee. Mr. Stevens made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Sprouse. Hearing no opposition, the Chair declared the motion carried and draft RFP language approved.
Chair Mitchell then moved to the next item agenda to review the timeline for completion of the process and asked Mr. Monsees to draw out the timeline.
NOTE: The draft timeline is attached as a separate document.
Rep. Onder asked if the LSRB approves the peer review group.
Mr. Monsees stated yes, the LSRB would approve this group and they have started discussions about this effort. To his knowledge Kansas City has contracted with a company to conduct peer reviews in the past and he asked Dr. Bill Duncan to comment.
Dr. Duncan commented they used an organization in Lee’s Summit that taps into national resources for these types of reviews and they charge about $1,000 per proposal.
Mr. Rose further stated the peer review should be conducted in a public forum and set as a gold standard. The selected firm should be unaffiliated with any of the participating organizations or institutions in the state. Mr. Rose suggested this process should be started right away and the LSRB should not wait until August.
Dr. Jim Baker stated the biggest challenge from the regional standpoint is the pressure at the screening committee level. He believes the LSRB should make it very explicit the screening committee is not a peer review committee, because some proposals are going to get turned down and might be angry they were not selected. The flow of the proposals is crucial.
Mr. Stevens stated he believes all of the proposals from the screening committee should come forward to the LSRB to be reviewed. They should be prioritized by the screening committee and then again by the peer review.
It was agreed the screening committee will evaluate, prioritize and forward each project to the LSRB for review.
Dr. Payne asked for clarification that each proposal has to come through the Centers for Excellence and be screened before being sent to the LSRB and proposals cannot go directly to the LSRB without going through the process.
Mr. Mills stated this is true except for the statewide projects under the 20% for statewide research and commercialization projects. It is the discretion of the LSRB whether or not they carve out the 20% for the statewide projects.
Mr. Monsees stated it will be the function of the LSRB to delineate which projects may be included in the 20% statewide pool and how those funds are divided between the participating organizations and institutions, because the statute is very explicit that no Center for Excellence may receive more than 50% of the total funds.
Ms. Windmiller commented in past grant opportunities they have had one institution or organization be the lead on the project to receive the funds even thought several may be involved in the proposal.
Mr. Linit commented this should be clarified in the RFP that 20% may be carved out for statewide projects.
Mr. Mills suggested having further discussion about the statewide pool as early as the July meeting.
Chair Mitchell then asked if there was any new business to be brought forward.
Mr. Mills reported Missouri did not make the cut on the federal Bioenergy Research Center by the U.S. Department of Energy. We have not been formally told, but believe this to be the case as we were not on the list for the last round of site visits. Missouri is still in the running, however, for the National Bio and Agro-defense facility (NBAF) to be awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This is an investment of $450 million and has a massive impact on economic development in Missouri. This proposal was put together in cooperation with the University of Missouri-Columbia and Washington University with the location of the facility in Columbia. The second round of cuts will be announced in July. The location of a federal research center is one area where Missouri is lacking. The final down selection will not be made until fall of 2008.
Chair Mitchell then asked about the date of the next meeting.
Ms. Hirst stated she has set aside either Tuesday, July 24th or Monday, July 30th as possible dates for the next meeting.
The consensus of the LSRB members was that July 24th was the most acceptable date and the meeting would start at 2:00 p.m. It would be decided later whether or not the meeting would be held by conference call or face-to-face.
Chair Mitchell entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sprouse made the motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Rep. Onder. Hearing no opposition the Chair declared the motion passed and meeting adjourned.