Comments to Steve Olshansky
Ken Klingenstein, Internet2
Kevin Morooney, Penn State University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
|Copyright © 2006 by Internet2
and/or the respective
Final Report: A Workshop on Effective Approaches to
Campus Research Computing Cyberinfrastructure
2006 Arlington, VA
by the National Science Foundation - Grant No. OCI-0627970,
Pennsylvania State University, and Internet2
findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Cyberinfrastructure has become a key enabler
for scholarly research. Faculty and researchers are becoming
increasingly reliant on a mix of high-performance computing
and communications (HPCC) hardware, software, networking, virtual
organizations, and key research computing support professionals.
To help develop a greater understanding of the key campus challenges
in cyberinfrastructure, NSF sponsored a workshop developed
by Penn State, with assistance from Internet2, in April, 2006.
This workshop brought together a combination of CIOs and high
level campus technical representatives – CTOs and others with
similarly broad responsibilities – to share approaches
and common problems, and to strategize about ways in which they
would be able to improve their respective institutions’ support
for the demands of current and future research computing. Attended
by almost 70 people, representing 40+ US research universities,
NSF and Internet2, the workshop was well received and feedback
to date indicates that it was highly valuable to the participants
on several levels.
The key findings from the workshop include:
IT infrastructure roles are varied and vital to the support
of overall national cyberinfrastructure, including data center
support, campus-based system administrative support; specialized
local and regional networking, provision of campus computing
resources, provisioning authentication, authorization and
virtual organization services, etc. Scalable and consistent
approaches to these needs and those related to them appear
to all rely on such campus efforts.
negative reinforcements exist in the current environment. For
example, grant solicitations at several major funding agencies
seem to favor "autonomous, small clusters in closets" over
more sustainable and secure resources. Personal lambdas are sought
by scientists less for their performance needs than to obviate
the "friction" of campus network security. Lack
of coordination of Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) creates
major obstacles to inter-institutional data collaborations.
Campuses may be legally liable to continue to provide services
that were committed to by researchers who have since left
these institutions; such situations can dissuade a campus
from future commitments.
is increasing conflict between research computing systems
and campus security procedures. Capabilities available to
researchers are being limited by campus concerns about the
vulnerability of research systems to attack, and the exposure
of personal and sensitive information stored on them.
- The profile of
researchers who use campus research computing cyberinfrastructure
seems different from those who use national resources. Many
campus research cyberinfrastructure users do not need massive
computational resources. Most often, their critical need
is in data lifecycle management, helping to mitigate the
problems caused by transient graduate student data managers.
Other needs are for readily available if not high performance
cycles, and relatively primitive, but local, visualization
systems over some high-end but inconvenient facility.
- There are several campuses which are very
active in supporting local research cyberinfrastructures,
but even they are challenged with chronically insufficient
resources to support their researchers, and do not perceive
that their problems and input are being adequately recognized
and addressed by federal funding agencies.
- Among these leadership institutions,
there is a considerable amount of undocumented but seemingly
common approaches to provisioning research computing services
and resources. Those range from which architectures are most
appropriate for selected categories of computational algorithms
(and even software license structures), to management options
for shared storage infrastructures. Documenting and sharing
this knowledge would clearly have value.
- The absence of planning
guides that reflect the business cases developed by the leadership
institutions is a problem that could be addressed by white papers,
which could map issues and identify the opportunities and the
challenges. Such analyses are needed for both partners in a campus
cyberinfrastructure: the central administration and its IT organization,
and the research communities that need to understand the benefits
of partnering with a point of "institutional drag."
campuses that are less active or those that do not provide
central IT cyberinfrastructure support, there is increased
recognition of the need for cyberinfrastructure development.
This introduces additional questions:
- By what mechanism, and from what source(s),
will this work be funded, particularly during the initial
- Who is concerned about this, both among campus and
national research communities, and the funding agencies;
are they concerned "enough?" Who
will drive the national discussion and local instantiation
of that national discourse?
- There are apparent benefits to
the coordination of cyberinfrastructure development at national
and institutional levels. Computing jobs frequently move
from campus to national centers and vice versa. Data provisioning
for large data sets, as exemplified in the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) activities, should be engineered carefully using multiple
tiers in their design. Authentication and authorization for
national resources need to leverage and integrate with campus
identity management. Improved communication mechanisms need
to be established and nurtured in all of these areas.
The workshop website, with
links to the proposal, agenda/presentations, and roster, is
The CIO and Campus
The first segment of the workshop focused
on perspectives, both technical and policy, for CIOs. The CIO
participants were particularly interested in the following:
- Campus cyberinfrastructure is not just about the technology.
We need to understand and engage the research community,
bridge the cultures, enhance the collaborative relationships
on campuses and between campuses, and learn from each other.
What is the process by which the workshop participants can
best continue sharing and collaboration among this community?
How can we best interoperate and integrate among campus and
national cyberinfrastructure efforts?
- We need to address the primary drivers and value
propositions for campus involvement in research support – focusing
especially on funding, balancing priorities, and sustainable
support. Value propositions need to be established for both
campus administration and for researchers. What are useful
campus techniques or incentives to encourage faculty to think
institutionally as they craft their proposals?
- On campus,
an increasingly complex mix of central and distributed components
is a given – how can we best balance and manage in this
environment, and provide the support needed in a sustainable
manner? Safe, secure, cost-effective operations – these
are primary institutional goals that must be approached to
place the fewest limits on researcher capabilities.
- How can we most
effectively move beyond campus boundaries in inter-organizational
collaborations, while minimizing any possible friction introduced
by campus boundaries? How can we trust remote users as much
as trust those on our own campuses? Can we use emerging federations
of trust for our purposes, or are new federation structures
- At several funding agencies, review panels do not
consider the security and sustainability of research computing
resources that may be awarded, nor do they factor in the
development of shared, leveragable resources. The funding
model we often see – small,
investigator-initiated grants – feeds the problem of
autonomous clusters hidden in closets, which in turn makes
support issues more challenging. It is worth considering
a holistic view that would promote larger sharable, campus
systems. The campus is in fact a logical nexus for the development
of cyberinfrastructure. Along with other NSF programs that
span disciplinary areas, how can NSF most effectively build
cross-cutting campus cyberinfrastructure programmatically?
- Improved investment in federated Identity
Management (IdM) would significantly benefit the research
and education community at large, encouraging national development
and implementation of enterprise IdM in support of research
computing. Also, as Virtual Organizations (VOs) become a
more useful construct beyond big team science, there is a
need for dynamic management, e.g., the ability to dynamically
create VOs without unnecessary friction, and provide the
appropriate access controls and authentication, as needed.
One step in providing more effective support to VOs could
be a clearinghouse that can contain, and distribute VO metadata
for campuses who want to provide institutional-level support
some ways the federal funding model appears to be going into
a set of high-end initiatives, such as building petascale
machines and grids, without a similar focus on important,
if more pedestrian (and hence more tractable) needs. The
most urgent needs for researchers on campus, especially considered
across the major science funding agencies, appear to be data
management, improved security including identity management,
and convenient resources such as computing and visualization
platforms more than massive high-performance resources.
- Long term, we plan to create
a sustainable campus funding model for research computing.
Individual grant funding tends to be episodic and unpredictable,
researchers switch institutions but institutional commitments
remain, creating serious support issues for the university
while increasing the possibility of researchers deprioritizing
investments that are not science-critical. Campuses could
establish some baseline service offerings, particularly in
those areas (such as data management training, and authentication
and authorization) where there is little campus expense and
considerable researcher benefits.
- We want and need to be able to leverage each others'
ongoing efforts, and learn from each other. All of us must
address cost-recovery components, and integration of our
campus identity management systems into virtual organization
support services. Common models and shared wisdom are essential
to an effective national cyberinfrastructure.
In addition to these
recommendations, this report highlights a roadmap of campus
issues that identifies key themes emerging from the workshop,
a list of potential leverage points to identify possible opportunities
for community action, and a map or inter-institutional issues
which describes major challenges and approaches to interrealm
sharing of resources.
Roadmap of Campus Issues
There are a number of major issues to be considered in planning
for campus efforts. While an exhaustive list was out of scope
for the workshop, some key issues were discussed.
- Making a business case and negotiating
commitments, factoring in the needs and wishes of campus
administration, central IT, and key users/communities
- Moving from strategic
commitment to tactical plans: lining up required seed funding,
implementing infrastructure improvements, and encouraging
Some specific issues to consider:
- Shared computing
facilities and data centers
Almost all institutions report
that shared computing facilities are perceived as mutually
beneficial once engineered. The level of those facilities
varies greatly, from simple data center space to shared condominiums
where researchers install blades or disks. The researchers
realize greater computing access than stand-alone systems
(the whole is greater than the sum of its parts due to load
balancing); departments cite the absence of machine room
costs and the chance to transform that space into offices
or labs as benefits; campus facilities management appreciates
the reduced energy, cooling and remodeling costs; security
is improved; and the campus enterprise is more robust.
leadership institutions reported the return of motor pool
computing – providing
a variety of computing vehicles in order to match needs to
resources. Some jobs need large memory; some need fast I/O,
and some need the ability to run multiple jobs simultaneously.
In some cases, software licenses for scientific packages
are priced per CPU, effectively eliminating some architectures.
Fiber access is often a costly challenge
outside major metropolitan areas, if not in procuring it
then in lighting it. The growth of Regional Optical Networks
(RONs) is certainly a positive step, but situations vary
greatly depending upon the specific circumstances or location
of research facilities.
In many cases, campus networking
costs are among the hardest expenses to specifically allocate
to or recover from a project, and also among the most important
and costly. At the same time, connectivity is a key component
of cyberinfrastructure, and one which needs to be upgraded
to meet the current and anticipated demands of researchers,
and of the campus as a whole.
funding and cost recovery models
Given the nature of HPCC and
the rate at which it is expanding, it is important to identify
cost-effective funding models that serve to bootstrap or
bridge support for central resources to be utilized by multiple
projects, but which can be difficult to fund from individual
project grants. In addition, taking advantage of broadly
leveragable resources and economies of scale can and should
be a factor in central planning, to the extent that this
is practical. There is growing desire to be able to amortize
these longer-term investments across multiple projects, if
this can legitimately be factored into project budgets.
The workshop resulted in
recognition of the need for a better cost recovery model
for attendant support and infrastructure not directly specified
in project budgets (e.g., how are robotic storage and backup
tape systems funded, since they span across multiple projects?).
Two examples of storage cost recovery strategies were presented:
- Some campuses rent storage capacity along
with support, upgrades, etc. (typically on a per/TB basis),
to PIs/projects rather than have them use their funding
to purchase actual disk drives which decline in cost as
they increase in capacity and regularly become obsolete.
This approach allows service levels to be maintained, and
provides ongoing revenue streams to central IT for expansion,
support, and upgrades. Ultimately this model has some benefits
as allocated funding is more effectively utilized, central
IT can take advantage of economies of scale, and storage
capacity can be more quickly adjusted to project requirements – whether up or down – over
the life of the project.
- Central IT pays for core storage
infrastructure – centrally
managed, high transfer rate, etc. – but researchers
pay for the actual disks they acquire that plug into
the disk farm.
- Campus IT Policy development
Policy and related enforcement
issues on campuses can be particularly challenging to some
scholarly resource sharing, and research requirements should
be addressed early in the campus planning process and continually
tweaked to meet evolving needs. In many cases, policies
are much more effective when they are not developed in
isolation from the research community and imposed upon
them by central IT, but rather created collaboratively
and facilitated where appropriate by education and outreach
mechanisms. There is a clear benefit to building trust
and partnerships among the community, which bear long-term
benefits to all concerned. There is significant value
in facilitating effective communication in both directions,
and developing strong relationships among researchers
and campus IT professional staff.
also want to consider reward systems to encourage researchers
to think institutionally. Space, budget, recognition, and other
incentives may help.
2. Development and Implementation
participants recommended the following areas of focus for development
- Facilitating research
through provisioning of resources, services, identity management
and virtual organization services, etc.
- Creating effective
partnerships with researchers, Institutional Research Boards,
network managers and security professionals, etc.
full breadth of development activities were beyond the workshop
scope, but some specific issues emerging from the workshop
- Inter-organizational collaboration
are using Virtual Organizations (VOs) as tools to bring
together researchers spanning multiple institutions,
bringing several problems to the forefront: how to enable
the required Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
(AAA) without introducing more friction than necessary?
Interrealm/federated trust mechanisms would seem to be
an obvious solution, but not enough institutions are
currently equipped (in terms of having enterprise directories
in place, the MACE/Internet2 Shibboleth System, or participation
in a trusted federation structure), to currently provide
these services and progress is difficult. Yet the practice
of VOs issuing individual credentials to remote users
is becoming too burdensome, both for the resource holders
issuing them and the users trying to manage them. Furthermore,
campus compliance and audit requirements are not supported
by these external and ad hoc approaches, yet another
source of friction.
Example issues include:
- The portability of the data
to address regulatory compliance (e.g. HIPAA/FERPA)
when users of protected data are outside your institution
and determination of who is responsible
- How to manage overlapping VO
memberships, including campus and PI level
or mapping relevant policies between institutions.
of enabling tools such as the Shibboleth system, myVocs,
- Architecture design
Computational needs are often
subject to change, emphasizing the need for architectural
approaches which are as extensible, scalable, and as cost-effective
as possible in order to permit more efficient aggregation
and utilization of resources. Scarcity is driving ingenuity
on some campuses – e.g.,
pooling HPCC resources in a condo model, harvesting short-term
cycles when available to supplement guaranteed resources,
and building grids to avoid expensive systems sitting idle
when they could be doing productive work on other projects.
Running counter to this desire among central IT is the
need by some/many projects to utilize an architecture optimized
to their particular requirements. This inherent tension
may require creative compromises in order to best meet
the needs of both sides.
Since different systems
architectures often require code to be developed in such
a way as to take best advantage of the resources being
utilized, it is critical for both sides to establish effective
communication as early in the development process as possible.
Some architectures have relatively steep learning curves,
requiring particular attention to support and education
are working to implement diverse architectures, trying to
proactively determine what their particular user community
will want, and provide it to the extent this is practical.
Solutions that emphasize sharable architectures, rather than
individual designs with little likely application beyond
the project at hand, are more likely to be effective in that
they are serving as catalysts for interdisciplinary projects
and serve the needs of their users now and in the future.
Being able to take advantage of economies of scale and to
build systems that can be more easily repurposed for other
users is particularly important in this arena, since the
systems and components are often so costly.
In some ways there
are conflicting goals to be resolved: making big users more
productive versus. making high-end computing facilities easier
to use, creating more demand for those scarce resources.
- Physical and Logistical support represent more
significant problems than cycles
The relative useful lifetimes
of HPCC resources is short, compared to telescopes or other
large scientific instrumentation. Cost recovery is a difficult
problem, along with the related issue of how to fund infrastructure
and support. In many ways, there seems to be an inherent
disincentive to move toward implementing economically feasible
and scalable data centers, even as the need for quality
physical environments becomes more apparent.
sustainability of required support infrastructure is quickly
becoming one of the most challenging issues, particularly
in the unpredictable sponsored funding environment in which
most campuses find themselves. This includes, but is not
limited to, storage, networking, data/network security,
support staff (including training), performance tuning,
troubleshooting, problem solving, backup, disaster recovery,
data-center infrastructure (power, A/C, physical security).
PIs are pushing central IT to provide support for their
needs, often beyond the funding available in their respective
grants. In some cases central IT may not even be aware
of all of the clusters on their campuses, given how inexpensive
and relatively easy they are becoming to do the initial
setup (especially when the vendor is still in the room) – if
not to optimize or support effectively over time. On occasion,
central IT is finding itself competing with faculty for
grant funding. A growing challenge faced by many campuses
is how to best avoid this friction, or at least the perception
Bootstrap funding is often overlooked
and difficult to obtain, in that many of these support structures
need to be established prior to deploying specific computational
resources specified and funded in a particular project. Creating
the infrastructure required to effectively support HPCC needs
to be planned and implemented in advance of large projects,
so that central IT will not be caught in continuous catch-up
mode, or that the PIs and their projects suffer, or at are
not as efficient and effective as they could be. As more
campuses address this issue, a planning guide will be essential.
- Education and outreach
Education and outreach are ongoing challenges,
and much like security, must be addressed as a process
rather than an end goal. Researchers don't need or want
to become computer scientists or security specialists,
but outreach efforts to them can be very valuable in
facilitating effective communication. Specific examples
derived from workshop participants include:
tend to be autonomous and instrumental in their focus,
in contrast to central IT which by its nature takes the
broader systems view, which in turn brings conflicting
culture issues into play.
an environment in which particular hardware architectures
have specific requirements in order to most effectively
utilize their capabilities, educating users/researchers/support
staff about how to structure new code to maximize use
of particular resources is becoming ever more important.
- Security awareness training for research IT staff is
critical, especially since the security field is constantly
shifting and staff and researchers are transient.
for Research (VPRs), Deans, Department Chairs, and Provosts
are often not equally informed when it comes to these
sorts of issues, which is not surprising given their
particular roles and priorities. There needs to be a
coordinated effort to engage them and enable ongoing
communication channels, for the benefit of all concerned.
This would include the identification of current loci
of policy and decision authority affecting this space
and assessment of how this is working, and determination
if subunits, such as departments and colleges, represent
the best institutional level for such decisions.
- It is
desirable to see an education component, training undergraduates
and post-doctoral fellows. Discussion focused on integrating
integrated into the curricula and the role (if any) that
central IT play in this.
There needs to be
enhanced understanding of the appropriateness and benefits
of using supercomputing and national scale centers, as opposed
to local HPCC resources. Depending on the particular project,
in many cases it can be more productive to use local resources,
because of better accountability, availability, and the ability
to control and customize the resources to the particular
needs of the project. Some wider awareness of the options
for research should be encouraged, especially for new researchers.
In planning outreach and education in this context, it is
important to recognize and emphasize the public good to the
research community and to the campus, and the often indirect
ways in which researchers will benefit. "All gain from
raising the water level..."
Ongoing evaluation and assessment are essential
to enable long-term goals. Much of that assessment must
come from the users and stakeholders in order to ensure
they have a strong voice in the process. In particular,
as researchers come to appreciate the impact of their decisions
and processes, both on the central infrastructure as well
as on fellow researchers, they will be are more able to
participate as active partners and ensure the success of
Given the rapid rate
at which technology is evolving, and as new projects come
on board and old ones retire, building flexibility and
a strong feedback mechanism into the planning and deployment
process will be increasingly crucial.
- Security and data management
More capabilities, and significantly larger quantities
of data are being generated (much of this sensitive and
regulated), which brings attendant security problems to
the fore. Security and appropriate management of this data
must be addressed, and supported, as a process rather than
an end goal. Example issues include:
- Responsibility for the management
and security of the data (The PI, university, or sponsoring/funding
- Individual servers run by individual faculty
or small groups – which are generally not centrally
managed and in some cases not even known to central
IT and which can create one of the largest security
threats to a number of campuses. Moving sensitive data
from central IT supported systems to these local systems
often creates huge security risks
restrictions do Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
place on the data?
- Network isolation, which can help
in some cases, also can discourage broader access and
availability while ignoring physical security issues
in the data center.
- Encryption – including
appropriateness , and management of keys
- Foreign students – managing
access to restricted data or systems
- Local or remote
data generation and the need for access by remote users
collaborating with PI
- Developing tools for managing
groups and privileges, e.g. Internet2 Grouper™ and Signet™ projects
- Visualization – important
to many researchers, but costly to implement well for
protection and the challenges for central IT being
familiar with the kind of data it may be held responsible
for protecting (not having a medical center does not
mean that there are no HIPAA issues to be aware of – patient-identifiable
data may exist without central IT being aware of it).
Processes need to be developed with these sorts of
challenges in mind, e.g. asking about HIPAA or other
regulatory issues when researchers provide data to
- The natural tension between security and
the needs of an open research community. Campuses must
balance between the somewhat orthogonal goals of flexibility,
security and performance.
Security reviews are becoming more common, but at the same
time more challenging to perform, especially as they span multiple
departments and multiple institutions. The environment is becoming
increasingly complex, with more devices to protect, and more
potential threat vectors enabled by this complexity. Similarly,
in these distributed computational environments, more users
means more security awareness training and more complex policies
and procedures required.
Potential leverage points
opportunities for community action emerged from discussions:
- Coordination of input to NSF on topics of shared interest
There was agreement among participants that they want to see
an organized means by which the campus IT cyberinfrastructure
professionals could provide input and proposed alternatives
to NSF, on a range of topics affecting their community and
for which NSF policy can or does play a central role. Examples
could include, but are not limited to:
- Observations about consequences
of the NSF funding model, including the individual grants
that feed the problem of autonomous clusters hidden in
- NSF’s proposed layered model – workgroups,
campuses, petascale machines , and suggestions regarding
where does central IT fit into this model
- The cyberinfrastructure
needs of typical campus researcher, and recognition that
while the petascale machine and large scale grids may
meet some large modeling/simulation projects, this represents
a relatively small percentage of the campus researcher
base, especially when viewed cross-agency. Often the
most pressing needs are in data management and simple
- Encouraging NSF to support pure
storage acquisitions in addition to computational resources
NSF storage guidelines
- Working with NSF and campus leaders
to promote campus development and facilitate culture
change in how researchers view campus infrastructure.
- Shared libraries of key domain applications ported to
Since various systems architectures require specific
software optimization in order to perform to their fullest
potential, there would be broad benefit in maintaining a library
accessible to researchers, to facilitate leveraging previous
work, learning from others, and eliminating duplication of
- Ongoing collaboration among campuses
were enthusiastic about this opportunity to network with
each other; to share stories; and to share model policies,
SLA and MoU templates, suggested approaches (e.g. for education,
outreach, support, etc.), and common problems/solutions.
Consensus was that there is a real need for continuation
of this collaboration, which could take many forms. Early,
relatively simple steps in this direction could include
wikis and mailing lists dedicated to various topics of
broad interest. Further opportunities to meet in person,
while more difficult to coordinate, seem to be of interest
as well. These could include meetings arranged in conjunction
with meetings likely to be attended by at least subsets
of this group, such as SC, Internet2 member meetings, Committee
on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) meetings, or other venues
attracting a similar audience.
Given the extensive presence
of medical research, there was also interest in closer interaction
and collaboration with the Association of American Medical
- Shared vocabularies/semantics
the broad adoption of relevant models and vocabularies, both
technical and policy, can be a significant step toward enabling
inter-realm collaboration and related access control systems.
- Facilitating inter-organizational
As inter-organizational collaboration becomes
more common, there are a number of ways in which campuses
can work locally toward a common goal of facilitating federated
IdM. Examples include the sharing of business cases, approaches,
policy frameworks and templates, and working to overcome
local barriers to adoption of supporting infrastructure – e.g.,
the Shibboleth system.
A community effort to encourage the
adoption of technologies and policies to enable collaboration
would be a benefit to the community as a whole.
A Map of Inter-institutional issues
Federated trust, and in particular the facilitation of virtual
organizations spanning organizational boundaries, is rapidly
becoming a top goal of a broad spectrum of campuses and related
- PKI – key management, certificate
authorities, policies – ongoing obstacles to wide adoption.
management – consistent Identification and Authentication
(I&A) policies among collaborating organizations. Credential
revocation and retirement policies also come into play.
of required infrastructure at the campus level, e.g. enterprise
directories and the Shibboleth system. Increased investment
in federated IdM by funding agencies could facilitate adoption
vocabulary or common schema (e.g. eduPerson) particularly
in the definition of roles used for role-based access control,
and for attributes required to make informed access control
of the role of federations, including agreement on required
levels of assurance (LoAs) for specific application classes
best ways to convey VO membership consistently across all
resource owners, while managing overlapping VOs and determining
authorities for VO attributes
- Enhancing federal agency cooperation – there
would be value in bringing together NASA, DoE, NIH, and NSF
to the extent practical to agree on a common set of policies
that would in turn facilitate the sorts of large collaborative
projects that seem to be the wave of the future.
Resources, funding, and
support assume different dimensions in this context, including
ways to deal with users or resources beyond your borders
organization is set up to support its own user community.
In collaborative environments, challenges include the possibility
or practicality of dedicating a portion of local resources
for inter-institutional projects
- The political issues
raised by external users using local resources when seeking
support from central administration
tend to influence approaches. Frequently, technology precedes
policy, leading to some potentially awkward issues but making
a case for a new paradigm for regulatory efforts. Examples
and/or enterprises as creators of digital signatures, which
can encourage different approaches depending upon the context
inconsistency of interpreting regulations (e.g. HIPAA, FERPA)
and technical drivers (e.g., data may fall under IRB regulation,
and yet researchers may need to share it on a data grid.)
Issues include data management in this sort of open environment
and the value of more detailed and consistent guidance from
relevant federal agencies about how best to implement the
of who is responsible for data security in inter-realm collaborative
environments and identification of the data "home"
are trying to collaborate, yet technology and policy can
interfere (e.g., legal staff tend to be worried about university
indemnification, especially for outside users. It is clearly
better to have lawyers who are IT-savvy, if possible.) Issues
include ways to educate the legal and regulatory communities
and encourage effective communication and whether this is
the appropriate leverage point, given the significant funding
- The need for
IRB offices to work together to facilitate collaboration,
if the project/funding is there to drive it, and corresponding
strategies to facilitate this and make it an efficient process
This report was authored by Ken Klingenstein, Internet2;
Kevin Morooney, Pennsylvania State University (Program Committee
Chair), and Steve Olshansky, Internet2. Special thanks for
contributions by Jim Davis, Iowa State University, and program
committee member Patrick Dreher, MIT.