You are
here: FSSC >
Research > 2005 Research Retreat
As part of its strategic planning process the
Research Advisory Council (RAC) recently sponsored a
campus-wide Research Retreat with over 100 participants in
attendance. After formal presentations regarding our current
research enterprise, we divided the attendees into two types
of breakout groups. The first session was assembled
according to research themes and institutes, and the second
was organized as randomized groups of 8 –9 investigators
from across disciplines. Each group was asked to address
four questions:
-
What are the
obstacles/impediments to research?
-
Where should research
at LUMC be in 5 years?
-
What is needed to
advance research and achieve that 5-year goal?
-
How can the environment
be changed to improve synergy among researchers?
In general, the participants were very positive about the
retreat process and the fact that their input will have an
impact on the evolving strategic plan for continued
development of research at LUMC. They were encouraged by
data presented during the formal session that our dollars
per capita and per usable square foot of research space is
very good. This demonstrates that our active individual
research faculty are quite productive. They (the faculty
participants) had several suggestions as to how we can
further advance this productivity and maintain a competitive
stature in the changing climate of biomedical research.
The attachment is a bulleted summary of the major issues and
suggestions that were raised by the faculty during the
retreat, including some current action plans.
The Research
Advisory Council (RAC)
Donald Bers,
Ph.D. Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D.
Luisa DiPietro, Ph.D.
John M. Lee, M.D., Ph.D., Chair
Robert Flanigan,
M.D. Nancy Muma, Ph.D.
Dale Gerding,
M.D. Brian Nickoloff, M.D., Ph.D.
Richard Kennedy,
Ph.D. Tarun Patel, Ph.D.
Katherine Knight,
Ph.D. Allen Samarel, M.D.
Elizabeth Kovacs,
Ph.D. Pamela Witte, Ph.D.
RETREAT
SUMMARY 2005
“White
Paper”
Major
Issues Raised During Research Retreat, Including Some
Current Action Plans
Improve
“Research Culture”
Although the
efforts of the 2010 Implementation Committee and the
Research Advisory Council are recognized by most
individuals, some faculty have the perception that research
continues to be a less highly valued activity at SSOM than
are teaching and clinical care activities. The faculty
agrees that the new SSOM Dean should continue to place more
emphasis on research and help the clinical faculty and
medical students value research as a major enterprise of
SSOM.
Research
could be significantly enhanced by returning a larger
portion of “indirect costs or salary recovery” to the unit
or investigator from which the grant initiated. Research
productivity at SSOM could also be enhanced by having less
bureaucracy and more helpful service-oriented persons in SPA
(sponsored program accounting), HR, and purchasing.
Improve
Research Office Infrastructure And Core Facilities
These issues
are being addressed based on the Infrastructure Report and
the Core Reports from the 2010 Implementation Committee. The
major recommendations regarding infrastructure were the
creation of the following offices:
-
Clinical Trials Office
(a consultant’s report on reorganization of the CTO was
recently received)
-
Office of Scientific
Integrity
-
Office of Core
Facilities
-
Office of Technology
Transfer (recruitment for a director has begun)
-
Office of Grants
Administration (in place)
Regarding
Core Facilities, there should be a Director of Cores as well
as a subcommittee composed of Core Supervisors that meets
regularly to determine current and future needs.
Focus
On Developing Excellence in Targeted Areas
Our goal
should be to become known as a research-intensive medical
center that is small yet focused, so that specific areas of
excellence can be fostered, developed, and gain in national
prominence. Continued vigorous development and growth in
the research programs within the current Institutes
(Cardiovascular Disease, Oncology, Burn and Shock Trauma,
and Neuroscience) is an important goal. In addition,
additional targeted research areas should be identified and
developed. Suggested new areas for growth that arose as a
result of the retreat included programs for infectious
disease, alcohol research, transplant immunology, and
nutrition & obesity.
Promote Translational Research With Increased Interactions
Between Clinical And Basic Scientists
A number of
investigators proposed a Center for Translational Medical
Sciences or a Clinical Research Center in order to conduct
clinical trials in a centralized facility.
There was much discussion
of cross-training of basic scientists and clinicians. This
should be fostered at the institute level, and could use the
Oncology Institute’s model of a DOCs (Dean's Office Clinical
Scholars) program, where clinicians are given protected time
with salary offset to conduct research with basic
scientists. Other suggestions included defining ways in
which to increase collaborations between basic and clinical
scientists, and to increase the interaction between basic
scientists and clinical trainees. A
collaborative/translational research program will be piloted
by the RFC in the near future. Finally, the Comprehensive
Campaign includes plans for a number of clinical research
faculty positions in its proposal.
Increase
Commitment to Clinical Research In General
Currently, there is a
perceived lack of incentives for clinicians to do research,
including a lack of start-up funds for clinician scientists.
Also, there needs to be more protected time, sabbaticals,
and research salary support for clinicians.
Other
proposals included integrating clinical research into the
medical school curriculum as well as resident curriculum.
One particular suggestion was considering a clinical
research honors program for interested medical students. In
addition, we can encourage faculty and resident enrollment
in M.S. degree programs.
Finally, it is recommended
that because of the success of the DOCs program in the area
of oncology, that additional DOCS be added in non-oncological-based
areas of clinical investigation on the medical school
campus. Again, the comprehensive campaign proposal includes
funding for clinical research endeavors.
Improve
Mentoring For Faculty, Particularly Clinical Research
Faculty
Two subcommittees of the
RAC were formed to address these issues: 1) the Faculty
Development Advisory Committee and 2) the Clinical Research
Advisory Committee. One issue raised by clinical faculty at
all levels of seniority is the limited availability of
protected time to initiate or continue research endeavors.
Develop
Technology Transfer Office
Dr. Kennedy is in the
process of hiring a half-time director. Currently, proposals
are being directed to Matt Raymond on a consulting basis.
This position was proposed by the Research 2010
Infrastructure Report to the Dean in January of 2003.
Improve
Graduate Student Recruitment and Stipends
Efforts must be made to
improve recruitment and stipends of graduate students. This
may be done in part through interactions with the Dean of
the Graduate School at LUC.
Continue The
Improvement of Interactions with Research Services At Hines
VA
A joint IACUC
reciprocity MOU agreement has been signed. A joint invited
research speakers program is under discussion. Sharing and
leasing agreements for research space continue to be
explored.
Improve
Communications Among Faculty and Administration
It was suggested that open
research meetings/retreats in institutes and departments
should be held regularly. These should be well advertised,
and faculty from different disciplines should be encouraged
to attend. In addition, a newsletter from the research
office should be established and distributed among all
faculty on a regular basis. A keyword database for
identifying extramural funding opportunities and identifying
expertise on campus is currently being piloted by ORS.
Continued improvement in the Loyola Wired Campus calendar
system was suggested as well.
Work With
Development Office To Improve Public Awareness Of Research
At LUMC/SSOM
