Guidelines for Reviewing Requests to Accept Restricted Research Agreements

The "to consider" section is for principal investigators and reviewers to use when completing and considering requests, respectively.

Specific issues for the section to be completed by the principal investigator:

Question #2: Please provide a summary of the intellectual significance of the proposed research.

To consider: Is the significance of the project enough to outweigh the principle of academic freedom? Does the project help the University achieve its strategic goals? Which of the following factors could justify an exception in this case?

• Unique opportunity for students: The project represents a demonstrable, exceptional opportunity for students to develop specialized know-how and possibly to transition to industry.
• Unrestricted benefits outweigh restricted downsides: The project involves both restricted and unrestricted output, and the scientific/technical value of the unrestricted results ensures that the public reasonably benefits from the project.
• Significance to Minnesota: The project relates directly to an economic or industrial sector of elevated importance to the people and state of Minnesota.
• Significance to national security: The project will advance the state-of-the-art in a technology or field of critical importance to national security, such as AI, biotechnology, hypersonics, or quantum computing (among others).
• Public safety/interest: The public’s interest is best served by not publishing research results.
• Rights of indigenous peoples: The project involves the need for a sovereign nation to protect research results directly impacting their tribal lands, customs, or culture.

Question #3: Please provide a summary of any history you have of work with this sponsor.

To consider: A researcher who has worked with the sponsor before may be better able to predict how the proposed restriction will be handled.

Question #4: Will any special physical or data security arrangements be needed?

To consider: There might be financial impacts to the University, including the renovation of buildings before and after the project. If the space will not be accessible to other faculty and students, will different space need to be renovated to accommodate them? Will an additional server be needed to secure data?

Question #5: How will this project affect the educational progress of students working in your group? [Note: This topic has historically been of high importance to reviewers]

To consider: Are students depending on the publication in order to complete their degree?  Has each student been informed of the potential restriction and, if so, what does the student think? Can they use the data for their thesis? Is there access for other students working with the equipment or data? Would lab meetings be open to all group members or would some information be restricted?

Question #6: How will this project affect the career progress of faculty, staff, or postdocs working in your group? How will they be accommodated? [Note:  This topic has historically been of high importance to reviewers]

To consider: Are any faculty or staff working on the project depending on the publication for their evaluation? Are there restrictions on equipment once the project is over?

Question #7: To what extent will faculty, staff, postdocs and students involved in the project be able to publish and discuss the progress and results of their work with individuals not involved in the project? [Note:  this topic has historically been of high importance to reviewers]

To consider: What is the scope of the proposed sponsor review? Is it drawn as narrowly as possible? What is the likelihood any review will lead to restrictions in dissemination and for how long? Can the researcher still work with the data while the analysis of the data is being reviewed? Has the principal investigator committed to appropriate measures that will protect the educational and professional goals of students and staff?

Specific issues for the section to be completed by the Associate Director, Export Controls and Research Security:

Question #1: Please describe the export control requirements or foreign person restrictions, as well as the material consequences for the research students, faculty, and staff involved.

To consider: The principal investigator and compliance personnel must understand the potential impact on the workplace environment. How many personnel/positions will be impacted by any foreign national restrictions? Are students and others likely to be able to publish their research after sponsor approval, in either restricted or public journals/events? Can the export control and security risks be appropriately managed?

Specific issues for the section to be completed by the Associate VP for Research and Innovation Administration:

Question #4: Does the sponsor request this restriction on all agreements, regardless of need or is the sponsor asking for this restriction because of the nature of this particular project? Is the sponsor or prime contractor a government agency?

To consider: If the restriction relates to who can work on the project, the restriction may have no practical effect on the project because no individuals fitting the restricted criteria will be employed on the project. If it will have an effect on the project, the University could seek authorization to allow an individual to work on the project. However, it may take several weeks or months to get authorization. How will this delay affect the individual's academic progress and general progress for the project? Can another individual do the work? Is the agency tolerant of time extensions?