Students and faculty sponsors work in tandem to design and implement a research or scholarly project, and its important to support the student aspect of the equation. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Do you remember the feeling you had the first time sitting at the wheel of a car? Were you overcome by the feeling of excitement, anticipation, fear, or perhaps a combination of them all? For many, obtaining a driver’s license is a rite of passage; a symbol that you are equipped with both the knowledge and skill of how to safely operate a motor vehicle. This achievement, however, would not have been made possible without the sacrifice of devoting hours to driver’s education and training under a supervisor.

Forging new paths

By the same token, college students who have dedicated years of study in various academic fields may also be ambivalent about conducting research. They will be in dire need of an experienced researcher’s guidance as they navigate down the unfamiliar road of academic research. It is their responsibility to help shape the student’s research interests and forge new paths.

By fostering student-led research, faculty sponsors can assist students by aligning their educational experiences with their career goals. This positions them for compelling careers in academic research.

Student at the wheel

Before a student can be placed in the driver’s seat of their own research protocol, they must be fully equipped with the right tools. If not, they will begin this journey without clear direction. Such was the case of several students at an unnamed university who conducted more than minimal risk studies without IRB approval.

The students started the protocol but were advised by their faculty sponsor that IRB approval wasn’t necessary before conducting research. One of the students rode in ambulances collecting data. They published their findings and even graduated before this was brought to the attention of the university’s Office of Compliance. This is a clear case of noncompliance and the severity of this issue is similar to driving a car without a license.

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is the governing entity for human subject research. Their role isn’t primarily a research review process. It ensures that human subjects are treated ethically and that their rights are protected. This brought up issues of consent, confidentiality, and potential risk to human subjects and was an example of significant non-compliance.

Federal regulations and university policy mandate IRB approval for research involving human subjects. The requisite applies to faculty, staff and students. The availability of options may create more questions than answers when submitting their first student-led research protocol.

Mapping it out

The University of Houston has taken steps to manage research compliance and optimize student success. It established an Institutional Review Board that reviews only student-led protocols. It’s unique in that very few institutions have this sort of program available. In the two years since its inception, the program has become a transformative resource for both students and their faculty advisors.

Faculty and student protocols are typically grouped together. However, the UH Student IRB Program gives them a single point of contact for IRB-related concerns and individualized support.

The UH Office of Research Integrity and Oversight (RIO) has established an infrastructure to support student-led research through their pre-IRB review process. Students are encouraged to drop by to seek advice or brainstorm with a coordinator. Services, training and educational materials, such as the Faculty Sponsor Manual, are also available to support faculty sponsors.

The submission process can be pretty daunting. Kirstin Holzschuh, executive director of RIO, mentioned that students are unfamilar with the IRB requirements and process. As a result, their protocols would often be sent back for significant revisions. The pre-review system helps eliminate the possibility of their protocols getting stuck in the review process.

Representatives from this office regularly interface with the UH research community. They travel to various colleges and departments across campus and guest lecture on the IRB submission process. They also talk about the ethics of conducting research with human subjects.

Students and faculty sponsors work in tandem to design and implement a research or scholarly project. Therefore, it’s imperative to cultivate an environment where student researchers feel informed and supported by their advisors and the UH community.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Nitiya Spearman, the author of this post, is the internal communications coordinator for the UH Division of Research.

To err is human, after all. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

University of Houston: Navigating non-compliance and human error in research

houston voices

To comply is to obey, or conform to instruction or official requirements. In a perfect world, research non-compliance wouldn’t occur and following the rules would be a behavioral norm. But the reality is, to err is human.

To err is human

Often times the judgement of our own, and others, poor decision-making is rooted in the innate tendency to view things in black or white – categorizing behaviors as either right or wrong, good or bad, thus deeming them as either ethical or unethical.

But this way of thinking often conflicts with the gray world in which we exist. So what happens when research decisions land somewhere in the moral gray area?

Before answering, here are two situations to consider that involve the over-enrollment of research participants:

Case 1:
The IRB has approved a survey for 40 subjects. The PI realizes after the survey has been open for several weeks that she forgot to set a participant limit within the survey program and 60 subjects have completed the survey.

Case 2:

A study involving a new drug to control diabetes symptoms is approved to enroll 30 participants. The study doctor thinks the drug may be beneficial, so she continues enrolling, for a total of 80 subjects.

The devil is in the details

Why is over-enrollment of subjects considered non-compliance?

Many institutions have agreed, within their assurance to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to apply the Common Rule to all human subjects research, whether the research is funded or not.

The Common Rule regulations found at 45 CFR 46.109(a) and 45 CFR 46.111 (1) state that the IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities. This includes the maximum number of research .

And what must the IRB review?

Under the above regulatory requirements, the IRB must evaluate all instances of non-compliance.

In these cases of over-enrollment, the IRB must review the number of subjects over-enrolled and assess any potential effects on additional subjects and/or the research, as well as determine if the noncompliant data may be used for research purposes.

What UH IRB says about Case 1:

While over-enrollment in a survey seems low-risk, depending on the content of the survey questions, the IRB could determine the issue to be more serious, such as for a study collecting data related to illegal substance use or questions about traumatic events (legal or psychological harm). The IRB must ensure that risks to subjects are minimized; only the number of subjects needed to statistically justify the research are approved. Depending on the number of subjects over-enrolled and the time period over which they participated, the non-compliance could also be considered continuing.

What UH IRB says about Case 2:

Investigational drug studies often pose more than minimal risk of harm to subjects. In these studies, it is even more critical to ensure that additional subjects are not exposed to potential harms without scientific justification

In a drug study, the PI may not continue a study based on opinion; the reason a physician is blinded to treatment assignment in many drug studies is to avoid potential bias.

Finding non-compliance: What can you do?

If the number of subjects enrolled exceeds the number approved by the IRB, a finding of non-compliance is justified. The IRB will review the numbers, the Principal Investigator’s reasons for over-enrollment and assess what procedures were conducted in these subjects. Often over-enrollment is inadvertent, however the committee also has the ultimate authority to determine whether the data may be used for research purposes.

Corrective actions, such as continuing education of the PI and/or study team to ensure this issue does not occur again in the future, are often required. In the most serious cases, the IRB may suspend or terminate approval.

If the non-compliance rises to the level of being serious (harms or has the potential to harm subjects or others) and/or continuing in nature, it must be reported to federal oversight agencies such as the Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the FDA. These agencies ensure that the institution is monitoring for these activities and puts appropriate fixes in place.

The importance of intetrity

Non-compliant research can be due to inadvertent errors or deliberate acts of noncompliance. The results could be the same. Human subjects could be harmed. Funding and reputation at an institution conducting research could be negatively affected. In times of reduced federal funding for basic research, there are direct financial costs to the agencies when funds and resources are misused.

The responsibility of ensuring that research protocols are adhered to rests upon the shoulders of the researchers involved.

If you were a member on the IRB, what would you consider to be appropriate consequences for the PI in these situations?

It’s important to note that non-compliance, whether it’s a “little white lie/inadvertent error” or a deliberate violation of the approved protocol can undermine the integrity of both the research process and the academic research enterprise.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Nitiya Spearman, the author of this post, is the internal communications coordinator for the UH Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

12 winners named at CERAWeek clean tech pitch competition in Houston

top teams

Twelve teams from around the country, including several from Houston, took home top honors at this year's Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at CERAWeek.

The fast-paced event, held March 25, put on by Rice Alliance, Houston Energy Transition Initiative and TEX-E, invited 36 industry startups and five Texas-based student teams focused on driving efficiency and advancements in the energy transition to present 3.5-minute pitches before investors and industry partners during CERAWeek's Agora program.

The competition is a qualifying event for the Startup World Cup, where teams compete for a $1 million investment prize.

PolyJoule won in the Track C competition and was named the overall winner of the pitch event. The Boston-based company will go on to compete in the Startup World Cup held this fall in San Francisco.

PolyJoule was spun out of MIT and is developing conductive polymer battery technology for energy storage.

Rice University's Resonant Thermal Systems won the second-place prize and $15,000 in the student track, known as TEX-E. The team's STREED solution converts high-salinity water into fresh water while recovering valuable minerals.

Teams from the University of Texas won first and second place in the TEX-E competition, bringing home $25,000 and $10,000, respectively. The student winners were:

Companies that pitched in the three industry tracts competed for non-monetary awards. Here are the companies named "most-promising" by the judges:

Track A | Industrial Efficiency & Decarbonization

Track B | Advanced Manufacturing, Materials, & Other Advanced Technologies

  • First: Licube, based in Houston
  • Second: ZettaJoule, based in Houston and Maryland
  • Third: Oleo

Track C | Innovations for Traditional Energy, Electricity, & the Grid

The teams at this year's Energy Venture Day have collectively raised $707 million in funding, according to Rice. They represent six countries and 12 states. See the full list of companies and investor groups that participated here.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

Houston startup is off to the races with its innovative running shoes

running start

Despite Houston’s reputation as a sneaker town, there are few actual shoe companies headquartered in the Bayou City. One that is up and running is Veloci Running, an innovative enterprise that combines the founder’s history as a track runner for Rice University with the realities of running in a changing world.

Tyler Strothman started running cross country growing up in Wisconsin and Indiana before moving to Texas to attend Rice in 2020. Naturally, his college life was altered significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, Strothman contracted the virus, leading to pneumonia and causing him to consider other plans for his future.

One thing that stood out from Strothman’s running career was how bad his shoes fit.

“Traditional shoes narrowed in, cramped the front of my feet, and it was causing foot pain,” he said in a video interview. “But any other shoes that were shaped to better fit the natural foot shape were more barefoot (style)—they were more minimalist overall. And that was hurting my calf and Achilles. It was pulling on it, kind of like a rubber band.”

Strothman decided to start Veloci and went on to win the annual Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship's H. Albert Napier Rice Launch Challenge in 2025. The win secured $50,000 in startup money, which Strothman used to immediately launch his new runner-centered shoe design with himself as the CEO at the age of 24.

Along for the jog was Strothman’s college friend, Austin Escamilla, who serves as chief operating officer. Escamilla believed in Strothman’s vision, but the project immediately ran into snags beyond Veloci’s control, particularly with manufacturing in Asia.

“It was quite a year to start a shoe business, especially dealing with tariffs and global economic trade tensions,” he said in the same video interview. “We've luckily had some really good partners and really solid advisors throughout the journey who've either done it or had some good feedback and advice. It certainly takes a village, but every day is different. So, it's fun to come into work every day and problem solve.”

The flagship Veloci shoe is the Ascent, which comes in both men’s and women’s sizes. It combines the wide toe cage that Strothman wanted with extra support cushion for a softer, easier run. They retail at $180. Strothman has personally been testing them for a year, noticing reduced lower leg pain when he runs.

At the same time, Veloci has attended to some of the more unique running problems in Houston and other hot, Southern states. A combination of heat and humidity makes for a very soggy shoe if not designed with such environments in mind. The Ascent is built to be very open and breathable, allowing hot air to flow and keeping sweat from building up. These various comfort improvements have made the Ascent Strothman’s favorite running shoe.

“I put on more pairs of this Veloci shoe than I have in my other running shoes in the last seven years,” he said

Currently, Veloci is still a very niche brand. Since the company launched last year, they’ve sold roughly 10,000 pairs. Those sales come either directly through their website or from specialty running stores, most of which are located around the Houston area, like Clear Creek Running Company in League City.

Building community around the shoe through these specialty retailers has been a prime marketing strategy. Part of the $50,000 grant went to a custom van that Veloci can take to various 5Ks, runs and events to get people interested in the brand. The personal touch has helped news of Veloci spread through the running world.

“We went to many run clubs throughout the last year,” said Escamillia. “We've been to pretty much every one of the major run clubs at least once or twice. Folks who try on the shoes, love them, become fans and post and repost…. The marketing side's been a lot of fun.”

Intuitive Machines lands $180M NASA contract for lunar delivery mission

to the moon

NASA has awarded Intuitive Machines a $180.4 million Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) award to deliver science and technology to the moon.

This is the fifth CLPS award the Houston spacetech company has received from NASA, according to a release. It will be the first mission to utilize Intuitive Machines' larger cargo lunar lander, Nova-D.

Known as IM-5, the mission is expected to deliver seven payloads to Mons Malapert, a ridge near the Lunar South Pole, which is a "compelling location for future communications, navigation, and surface infrastructure," according to the release.

“We believe our space infrastructure provides the scalability and flexibility needed to support an increased cadence of new Artemis missions and advance national objectives. This CLPS award accelerates our expansion efforts as we build, connect, and operate the systems powering that infrastructure,” Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said in the release. “We look forward to working closely with NASA to deliver mission success on IM-5 and to provide sustained operations and persistent connectivity in the cislunar environment and across the solar system.”

The delivery will include the Australian Space Agency’s lunar rover, known as Roo-ver, and another lunar rover from Honeybee Robotics, a part of Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. Intuitive Machines will also deliver chemical analysis instruments, radiation detectors and other technologies, as well as a capsule named Sanctuary that shows examples of human achievements.

Intuitive Machines previously completed its IM-1 and IM-2 missions, which put the first commercial lunar lander on the moon and achieved the southernmost lunar landing, respectively.

Its IM-3 mission is expected to deliver international payloads to the moon's Reiner Gamma this year. It’s IM-4 mission, funded by a $116.9 million CLPS award, is expected to deliver six science and technology payloads to the Moon’s South Pole in 2027.

The company also announced a $175 million equity investment to fuel growth earlier this month.