The equipment purchased with grant money from the National Science Foundation contributed to winning the Corp! magazine Science and Technology Award.

It is also assisting with research projects in multiple departments, said Jennifer Schisa, associate professor of biology and one of the authors of the grant.

The microscope uses up to four lasers, so researchers can see the relationship, for example, between four proteins, she said. The old microscope only used two lasers and was ten years old.

“Essentially the laser slices through from top to bottom and you can see everything,” Schisa said.

The grant was awarded in August of 2009 and the microscope was purchased in January 2010. The department tested four different microscopes before making a decision. The price of the microscope was $463,150.

“We’ve already published a paper with data collected using the microscope,” she said.

Another part of the grant included money for Imaris, sophisticated software which helps to analyze the images. The software is common among research universities.

Grants from the NSF are competitive, so this was an accomplishment for CMU, Schisa said.

“If other schools have this kind of equipment and we don’t keep up, eventually we won’t be able to publish,” she said. “It’s expected that you use the best equipment.”

The new microscope’s benefits are not exclusive to biologists. A total of ten faculty members contributed to the grant in some way, including members from other departments. The psychology department also makes use of the microscope.

Students are able to use the new microscope, as well. Biology graduate student Rachel Grattan is studying shrimp embryos, and began using the new microscope last semester.

“Having experience operating a microscope at this level is the same as operating a microscope at a research company,” Grattan said, “so it’s great for people who want to go into scientific research as a career.”

Seeing how a greater number of structures interact and where they are in relation to one another is the biggest difference between the old and new microscope, Grattan said.

“There’s a dramatic difference,” said Okemos graduate student Megan Wood, who also uses the microscope to pursue her degree in biology.

With the new microscope, students are able to be trained using cutting edge equipment, Schisa said.

“It highlights the quality of the work that the students and faculty do here,” Schisa said.

The funding available in Michigan is to help reinstate appropriations cut in the higher education bill. The applications will be reviewed by the Governor’s office with the intent to issue awards prior to the end of 2009.

Interim Provost Gary Shapiro said the funds will be used for need-based financial aid.

“I am very confident that we will receive all of that funding,” Shapiro said. “This is exactly what the state is looking for — targeting the funds at needy students. I would find it difficult to believe they wouldn’t support (our funding).”

He said $450,000 is to be reserved for students with emergency financial needs by discretion of the financial aid office.

Interim University President Kathy Wilbur said all of the funds will be used for need-based financial aid, including some funds used to assist freshmen and transfer students eligible for the Pell Grant and lost the Michigan Promise or Michigan Competitive scholarships.

Trustees elect new officers

The Board of Trustees elected new officers for the 2010 calendar year. Trustee Stephanie Comai was elected as Board chairwoman and will take over for Gail Torreano. Sam Kottamasu was elected to a second term as co-vice chairman, and Trustee Marilyn French Hubbard was elected to a first term as co-vice chairwoman.

Endowment fund investment policy

The Endowment Fund Investment Policy was amended to allow the addition of private equity and credit, non-investment grade, fixed asset classes.

This shift of funds reduces the Investment Grade and U.S. Equities fund ranges by 5 percent.

“Private equity could be funds that aren’t traded over the stock market that are private investments and (the credit fixed class) could be bonds that are not AAA rated,” said David Burdette, vice president of Finance and Administrative Services.

He said all they are changing is the range of each asset class to allow the addition of the new assets.

“All it really does is give our outside fund managers the ability to tweak the investments,” Burdette said. “It decreases the risk and increases the return. We’re diversifying the portfolio, which spreads the risk and also, we believe, will get a greater return.”

Acquisition of confocal microscope

The National Science Foundation has provided a grant of $463,150 for the purchase of a confocal microscope for use by faculty in the areas of developmental biology, cell biology and neuroscience.

Interim Provost Gary Shapiro said the microscope will replace an outdated microscope and will be used for multidisciplinary research and teaching.

“It supports an undergraduate microscopy program, which is the only program of it’s kind in the state, and a very excellent biology department,” he said. “It certainly has an important consequence for our students.”

Authorizer oversight information system

The Center for Charter Schools entered an agreement with Corporate Computer, Inc. in 2003, and the Board of Trustee approved a renewal of the agreement.

The agreement allows the Center to market, sell and distribute the Authorizer Oversight Information System. The system was designed to oversee the schools in the charter. The agreement brought in about $100,000 this year and about $300,000 over the past couple of years, said Trustee Stephanie Comai.

The meeting takes place at 9 a.m. Thursday in the president’s conference room in the Bovee University Center.

The total amount being requested is $1.5 million, where $1.42 million will go toward additional renovations in Brooks Hall and $80,000 for classrooms and safety rules.

“We’ve had temperature control problems in that building, so this money will address those issues,” said Steve Smith, director of public relations. “The university has been moving quickly to try and resolve the issues, but we’re still investigating as to why these errors were made.”

The deferred maintenance fund maintains the buildings and facilities on campus.

Renovations to Brooks Hall, built in 1964, began in August 2008 with new underground water piping and installation of air supply duct work for the air conditioning. Piping, duct work and the installation of 120 heat pumps were among some of the additions this past summer. Facilities management has performed most of the additions and fixtures.

The Board also authorized $750,000 at its September meeting for renovations.

There have been noise level problems since the new heating ventilation and air conditioning system has been added, Smith said.

“We need to do some upgrades,” he said.

Burdette also will request approval of the capital outlay budget for 2010-11 consisting of a bio-technology building, with a proposed cost of $75 million.

Other agenda items

Interim Provost Gary Shapiro will propose the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is funding intended to help stabilize budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in education. CMU has the opportunity to apply for funding up to $2,342,100.

Any grant exceeding $500,000 in one year requires prior formal Board action before the university accepts the grant.

“When state government approved its state appropriations for CMU, they took into account the federal stimulus dollars that were designed to keep our appropriations at a continued level from last year,” Smith said.

The Board also will discuss changing the name of the Department of Art to the Department of Art and Design, along with the election of Board of Trustees officers for 2010.

Also on the agenda is discussion to authorize rights to market, sell, distribute and further develop the Authorizer Oversight Information System software. Corporate Computer, Inc. entered an agreement with the Center for Charter Schools on June 25, 2003.

The National Science Foundation has provided a grant of $463,150 for the purchase of confocal microscope to be used by faculty in development biology, cell biology and neuroscience. The Board will vote to authorize negotiations to form a contract to purchase a microscope not to exceed that amount.

Student liaison meeting

The Student Liaison Committee will meet with the Board at 4:30 p.m. today in the UC’s Terrace Room C Student Government Association President and Mount Pleasant senior Jason Nichol will discuss several topics.

One such topic is the request to make student opinion survey results available to students online. As of now, students may obtain SOS results in Charles V. Park Library on a compact disc.

“We, as students, think it’s beneficial because it’s a consistent measurement,” Nichol said. “All we’re hoping to do is move it from its current form on CD to the Internet, which is the medium our generation prefers to consume information.”

Other issues SGA will discuss with the Board is the possibility of removing phones from residence halls. Nichol said an estimated $400,000 to $600,00 can be saved just from removing the phones from the residence halls since students do not even use them to begin with.

This was the right move and benefits all parties involved: the university, the faculty and, most importantly, the students.

On Oct. 27, the Board of Trustees approved returning $619,489 of a $770,119 grant to the NSF because of what investigators called plagiarism in the research.

Mathematics professor Douglas Lapp and former mathematics professor Azita Manouchehri, now at Ohio State University, were found to have been involved with the wrongdoing. Lapp spoke with CM Life on Thursday and said he was at fault for not double-checking his co-worker’s work. Manouchechri, according to documents, has a “pattern of being ‘careless.’”

Although Trustees did not reveal the real reason behind the move during its special session, CMU revealed the documents Wednesday to CM Life instead of waiting for the Freedom of Information Act to force its hand.

The university should use this as a model for when problems arise to make sure everyone is in the know — an asset to a transparent university. It’s only fair to those affected the most.

While this situation was completely transparent, there have been others in which students have wanted answers and wanted their voices heard in which the university kept information withheld, with the recent changes to tailgate and the lawsuits involving women’s basketball coach Sue Guevara and former soccer coach Tony DiTucci being a few of them.

This information was discovered, not informed of, by CM Life and, in turn, it makes it look like the university is trying to cover things up. We know that’s not always the case but, sometimes, image is everything. Again, it comes down to taking responsibility.

In the NSF grant case, CMU worked well to make sure the student body and public knew about the grant. Documents, reports and e-mails were all provided to CM Life when they were asked for. Administrators spoke to reporters, and even one of the names on the report, Lapp, spoke to CM Life to share his side of the story.
CMU was in wrong; There is no denying this fact. Every party involved admits it, including Lapp. Even though the reprimands for the faculty involved will not get released, the university should keep in mind it fails students found guilty of plagiarism.

Students are looking at this as a “lead by example” situation. CMU should not just send a letter of reprimand — the professors involved should have to pay a price similar to what a student would have to if they are found to be plagiarizing or being a party to it. Professors need to be held to the same standard as students.

The entire NSF grant plagiarism situation is what transparency is all about: accessibility to the truth. That’s all students want to know.

A committee organized by Interim Provost Gary Shapiro determined the two put together a National Science Foundation grant proposal for a multi-year project entitled “CONCEPT: Connecting Concept and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers.” The proposal was submitted in September 2004 with no involvement from other faculty.

The committee found uncited information from three different sources in the proposal, according to its report.

The total grant amount was $770,119, and the university spent $619,489 over the course of the project. The Board of Trustees decided to return the money at a Oct. 27 special meeting with other university funds after it determined the project could not be completed.

It was later revealed violations of the academic integrity policy were the primary reasons behind it.

“There’s two instances of plagiarism,” Shapiro said. “In essence, both the grant proposal, as well as the work output, were plagiarized.”

The committee found Manouchehri plagiarized the work output — a set of course materials designed to better teach math.

Lapp said he only had minimal involvement with the actual writing of the proposal and did not plagiarize. Instead, he said he was more involved with looking over the writing and providing Manouchehri with feedback.

“Oftentimes, there is one person who takes the lead of writing,” Lapp told CM Life. “I am at fault in the sense that I did not check my colleague’s work.”

Manouchehri, now a professor at Ohio State University, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Input from other members

Other project members had different takes on each professor’s involvement in the grant proposal, according to the documents.

Two members claimed Manouchehri wrote the proposal based off Lapp’s ideas. Another member said the proposal was a genuine collaboration, in which both individuals played a significant role.

Manouchehri informed a fourth member that she wrote the proposal, according to the documents. A sixth person who did not participate in the grant research also said Manouchehri wrote most of it.

Shapiro said he could not speak on each professor’s level of contribution other than what is presented in the report.

Lapp, who served as principal investigator of the research team, said it is not common practice for faculty to check each other’s work for issues such as plagiarism.

In a report from the investigation committee dated July 28, 2008, the committee states, “In this particular case, both Dr. Manouchehri, as a co-PI, and Dr. Lapp, as the PI, signed off on the proposal and the evidence supports the fact that they were each actively engaged in the proposal development.”

The report stated “gross negligence” was shown by the individual who copied and pasted the information into the proposal, while a certain level of “carelessness” was displayed from the individual who did not directly plagiarize, but still participated in forming the proposal.

Lapp said he received a letter from former Provost Julia Wallace, in which she stated Lapp had not plagiarized. But because he was the principal investigator, he was still held as partially responsible.

“Any grant proposal I submit for the next five years … has to be thoroughly checked,” he said.

Lapp was also required to attend an academic integrity workshop.

Steve Smith, CMU director of public relations, said the university has never seen a similar case before.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is an isolated incident,” he said.

Move to Ohio State

Manouchehri, who formerly taught at CMU, accepted a position at Ohio State University on June 25, 2007.

Just one day after that, Lisa DeMeyer, another math professor involved in the grant, brought up her concerns about Manouchehri and possible foul play.

CMU was originally considering subcontracting the agreement so Manouchehri could continue her portion of the research at OSU, but the idea was tossed aside after allegations started to mount.

An investigation into the controversy soon followed.

“Wayne Osborne, who at that time was interim vice provost for Research and Sponsored Programs, did an initial inquiry and reported that there was enough evidence to conduct an investigation,” Shapiro said.

Osborne reported the situation to Shapiro, who arranged to form an investigation committee. The committee members were Barbara Taylor, director of Faculty Personnel Services, and Kirsten Fleming of Northern Kentucky University. Janine Janosky, former vice provost of Research and Sponsored Programs, also worked with the committee.

After Manouchehri was accused of the violations, Shapiro notified administrators at OSU about the situation in a letter dated Dec. 21, 2007.

“The academic integrity policy calls for contacting and notifying the supervisor of an individual who is accused of violating it,” he said.

OSU spokeswoman Shelly Hoffman said she is unaware of the case, but would look into the matter with university administrators. As of late Thursday night, Hoffman did not have any additional information.

After calling for the investigation, Shapiro froze the grant funds in late December 2007. The $619,489 in grant money had already been spent, but no more money could be withdrawn from the grant all the way up to the recent decision by CMU to reimburse the NSF.

The allegations against the faculty members were not brought up at the October Board of Trustees meeting in which the reimbursement was approved. Shapiro said revealing all the details of the investigation at that time would not have been appropriate.

“We felt it was premature at that time to announce anything other than returning the funds, because in fact we were still engaged in some discussions and communication with the NSF,” he said.

To graduate with a degree in secondary mathematics, one must take a series of cohorts that covers various math topics. While one going into the teaching field would expect to be taught various strategies and approaches to teaching math, this was not the case in several of these classes.

Throughout my course of study, I learned how to use the N-Spire, an expensive calculator that my professors expect administrators and math teachers to incorporate into the curriculum. I felt as though I was being taught to use an expensive piece of equipment to market to my future employers.

While I was not pleased with the education I was paying for, I kept my mouth shut because my professors stressed the importance of students being able to explore mathematics using tools such as the N-Spire.

They constantly reassured us that what we were learning was based on research that proved that this calculator is a crucial tool for learning through exploration.

It is disheartening to hear that the research may not be unique to the setting in which I was learning, and that the research they were claiming as their own may not have been discovered by CMU faculty.

In every class on CMU’s campus, professors include a section on student professionalism that includes a portion regarding plagiarism.

Students risk credit, their grades and expulsion from the university for plagiarism. Professors should be held to the same standards that they impose upon their students.

I would hope that the university I have attended for six years would not hold a double standard.

Danna Galvin
Saint Clair senior

Apparently that’s not enough for some people.

I’m not talking about students violating these policies; I’m talking about the two mathematics professors who violated the university’s research integrity policy, costing the university $619,489.

Earlier in the week, two independent investigators concluded that plagiarism had taken place in both the grant proposal and research materials for CONCEPT: CONnecting Content and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers, a research project funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

In order to guarantee that CMU will continue to get grant funding from the NSF in the future, and because it was the ethical thing to do, the Board of Trustees voted to return $619,489 to the NSF.

Where the money will come from is still up for debate.

Personally, I think the professors guilty of the plagiarism should have to pay for a large portion of it. Due to privacy issues, the professors’ names have not been released. Interim University President Kathy Wilbur did say however, that one of the professors is no longer here at Central Michigan University.

If legally possible, the university should open up a civil case against these professors and try to get them to pay part of the grant money back.

So far, the university has not commented on the disciplinary actions taken against the other professor involved. The professors involved should be fired immediately. If the university decides not to fire any of the professors, they should at least have their salaries and benefits cut, with the difference going toward paying back the grant money.

I doubt the university will be able to recover the full amount from the two professors, but they should definitely not get off scot-free.

What kind of image does this send to our students? “If you plagiarize, we may give you a failing grade in the course but, if one of our professors plagiarizes, we’ll cover the $619,489 that they essentially stole from the NSF.”

These two professors ought to be ashamed of themselves. They knew better. I have never seen a syllabus that doesn’t include the academic integrity policy in it, so how could these two professors read off that policy and tell students not to plagiarize while they themselves were doing it?

I commend the Board of Trustees for doing the right thing. It was the smart thing to do in order to secure future grant money.

At a time when the university is struggling financially, we cannot afford to throw away this much money because of two professors’ stupidity. The professors need to be held accountable and need to pay for a substantial amount of the grant.

Apparently that’s not enough for some people.

I’m not talking about students violating these policies; I’m talking about the two mathematics professors who violated the university’s research integrity policy, costing the university $619,489.

Earlier in the week, two independent investigators concluded that plagiarism had taken place in both the grant proposal and research materials for CONCEPT: CONnecting Content and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers, a research project funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

In order to guarantee that CMU will continue to get grant funding from the NSF in the future, and because it was the ethical thing to do, the Board of Trustees voted to return $619,489 to the NSF.

Where the money will come from is still up for debate.

Personally, I think the professors guilty of the plagiarism should have to pay for a large portion of it. Due to privacy issues, the professors’ names have not been released. Interim University President Kathy Wilbur did say however, that one of the professors is no longer here at Central Michigan University.

If legally possible, the university should open a civil case against these professors and try to get them to pay part of the grant money back.

So far, the university has not commented on the disciplinary actions taken against the other professor involved. The professors involved should be fired immediately. If the university decides not to fire any of the professors, they should at least have their salaries and benefits cut, with the difference going toward paying back the grant money.

I doubt the university will be able to recover the full amount from the two professors, but they should definitely not get off scot-free.

What kind of image does this send to our students? “If you plagiarize, we may give you a failing grade in the course but, if one of our professors plagiarizes, we’ll cover the $619,489 that they essentially stole from the NSF.”

These two professors ought to be ashamed of themselves. They knew better. I have never seen a syllabus that doesn’t include the academic integrity policy in it, so how could these two professors read off that policy and tell students not to plagiarize while they themselves were doing it?

I commend the Board of Trustees for doing the right thing. It was the smart thing to do in order to secure future grant money.

At a time when the university is struggling financially, we cannot afford to throw away this much money because of two professors’ stupidity. The professors need to be held accountable and need to pay for a substantial amount of the grant.

Mathematics associate professor Lisa DeMeyer was one of the seven faculty members on the investigative staff for the grant proposal and was a senior staff member on the project.

She said in a letter e-mailed to Central Michigan Life she did not participate in writing the grant proposal.

“I assisted the co-principal investigators developing course materials, that was going to be my job but the project was stopped before the work was complete,“ DeMeyer said.

The Board of Trustees decided to return $619,489 in grant money to the NSF after plagiarism took place in the proposal and the research.

Two members of a math department research project were found to have violated CMU’s research integrity policy, and one of those people is no longer working at CMU, said Interim University President Kathy Wilbur in previous interview.

Of the seven CMU math faculty listed on the original grant, two have since left the university — Azita Manouchehri, now a professor at Ohio State University, and Ken Smith, now a professor at Sam Houston State University.

The other math faculty members still at CMU include Douglas Lapp, Charles Vonder Embse, Dennis St. John and Carl Lee.

“We have not made a final determination but, tentatively, it will come from reserved funds from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs,” said interim Provost Gary Shapiro. “We intend to send the money relatively soon.”

The Board of Trustees approved to reimburse $619,489 in grant money Oct. 27 to the NSF because two members of a math department research project violated Central Michigan University’s integrity policy. The grant, which Director of Public Relations Steve Smith said was set at $770,119 to improve the math department’s secondary education program, was approved in 2005.

Interim University President Kathy Wilbur and Shapiro handled questions at the Academic Senate meeting Tuesday about what happened with the grant and what will be done.

“I think there is a great deal of pressure on faculty members to receive grants,” Wilbur said. “I’m sensitive to that, but it’s certainly not acceptable behavior.”

Faculty concern

Two outside investigators hired by CMU reported two math faculty allegedly copied and pasted uncited information as part of the research for “CONCEPT: CONnecting Content and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers,” which the NSF grant was approved for.

One faculty member in particular, Orlando Perez, chairman of the political science department, showed his concern at the meeting.

Perez said he believes the situation has already been resolved since the money is returning to NSF and the grant was terminated, but he is concerned about where the money will come from and how it will affect the university.

“We are under budget constraints, and this is a lot of money,” Perez said. “I’m concerned that colleagues of mine committed what is a major breach of academic integrity. We tell our students all the time that they shouldn’t plagiarize in their papers, and here we have colleagues who should know better.”

Shapiro said he could not comment on the disciplinary actions being taken on the faculty involved in the research project.

Wilbur said she is only familiar with one of the members involved in the plagiarism, who left Central Michigan University, and is unable to speak for the other member.

Of the seven CMU math faculty listed on the original grant, two have since left the university — Azita Manouchehri, now a professor at Ohio State University, and Ken Smith, now a professor at Sam Houston State University.

Preventative measures

There have been some discussions between Wilbur and Shapiro about other ways of preventing similar situations. Wilbur said they are exploring their options.

Some options presented to the A-Senate included using software similar to turnitin.com and increasing training on ethics for those applying for grants.

“We’re considering a number of options, and we are not ready yet to make the final decision and announce it to the university community,” Shapiro said. “We want to take actions to reduce the likelihood that this would ever occur again.”

Other actions are being considered, but are under study, he said.

“We have to, in some sense, weigh activities which would reduce or eliminate the possibility of research misconduct,” Shapiro said.