S.05-36
?
At
•
IF
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Senate Committee on University Priorities
?
Memorandum
TO:
Senate ?
FROM: Bill Krane
Acting Chair, SCUP
Acting Vice-President, Academic
RE:
Department of Molecular Biology DATE: February
16,
2005
& Biochemistry
The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP)
has
reviewed the External
Review Report on the Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry (MBB),
together with the response from the Department and the Dean of Science.
Motion:
That Senate concur with the recommendations from the Senate Committee
•
on University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Molecular
Biology & Biochemistry on priority items resulting from the external review.
The report of the External Review Committee (ERC) for MBB was submitted on
June 1, 2004 following the review site visit which took place April 21-23, 2004. The
response of the Department Chair was received on September 27, 2004 followed
by that of the Dean of Science on October 19, 2004.
SCUP notes that progress has already been made in adopting the advice of the
External Reviewers and recommends to Senate that MBB and the Dean of
Science be advised to pursue the following as priority items:
Resources
1.1 The Department and Faculty of Science should continue to evaluate the level,
roles and management processes with regard to administrative and research
support staff within the Department.
1.2 SCUP recognizes that space is in short supply across the university and
recommends that the issue of teaching lab space allocation between MBB and
Biological Sciences be considered by a continuing joint committee of both
• Departments and chaired by the Dean. The Dean of Science is urged to take
the advice of the ERC and Department to create a transparent mechanism for
the allocation and planning of space within the Faculty.
2 Pro g rammin g
& teaching
2.1 The Department should endeavor to increase the frequency of offering of
graduate courses strictly for graduate students (perhaps including some
selected undergraduates), as distinct from graduate courses double
numbered with 400 level courses.
2.2 The Department should consider extending the graduate teaching evaluation
system to all areas.
2.3 The Department should create a seminar committee, increase its activity with
regard to its seminar program and consider the establishment of the 'pre-
seminar' program as a course with credit for attendance.
3 Research
3.1 The Department should continue to consider the opportunities afforded by
the establishment of the new Faculty of Health Sciences.
4 Administration
4.1 The Department should continue to review its policies and procedures
regarding its governance and methods of communication with a view to
increasing participation and communication among all stakeholders. In
particular, it should continue its efforts to involve graduate students in the
planning and decision making processes within the Department.
4.2 The Department should continue to review its Graduate Handbook to ensure
it is sufficiently specific, up to date and serves the purpose of fully informing
students, faculty and staff.
c: M. Plischke
B. Brandhorst
0
SCUP 05- 014
O
EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry?
April 21 -23, 2004
Dr. Paul Lasko (Chair of ERC)
Department Chair
Department of Biology
McGill University
B.Sc. Harvard College, A.B. in Biochemical Sciences
Ph.D. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Postdoctoral Researcher - Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge
Dr. Nancy Maizels
Professor of Immunology and Biochemistry
Department of Immunology
• ?
University of Washington Medical School
Undergraduate work at the University of California at Berkeley
Ph.D. Harvard
Dr. Donal Hickey
Professor - Molecular genetics and bioinformatics
Biology Department
University of Ottawa
B.Sc. (NUT)
Ph.D. Harvard
Dr. Alton Harestad
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Simon Fraser University
B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., University of British Columbia
.
a
External Review of
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
?
Simon Fraser University
• April, 2004
?
-
A.
"Issues of Particular Interest":
1. Are DMBB's resources adequate to sustain its current level
of activity
and to
ensure a strong future in research and teaching?
The Committee believes that DMBB is a well-resourced Department.
Nevertheless, there is a great deal of anxiety within the Department concerning the
University's commitment to it. A nearly universally held opinion is that the Department
is shortchanged relative to others in the Faculty of Science, and that the resources
provided to it do not fairly reflect its student enrollment and research activity. It is true
that, as a rapidly growing Department, DMBB is suffering, at least temporarily, from the
fact that research allocation formulae consider multiyear averages rather than present
levels of activity. We consider that this is a problem that will soon solve itself as DMBB
growth begins to level out. However, much Departmental anxiety results from the fact
that it funds much of its activity through recovery of revenue provided from short-term
salary awards.
Rcornmendation
The senior administration and the Department should develop a
writtentransition plan to. deal
.
withthe issue of salary-grant expiration and provide for
permanentfbnding oftheDepartment'scentralactivities. Conclusion of a satisfactory
agreement would go a long way toward alleviating present concerns.
More specific resource issues are discussed below.
(a) Faculty
Althou g h this is a relatively small Department, it has a dynamic group of Faculty
members, many of whom are at an early stage in their careers.
(i) Faculty with salary awards: Because of the recent availability of a number of
Faculty research awards (CRC, Michael Smith awards, etc.), combined with the ability of
several faculty members to obtain these awards, a significant proportion of the faculty
members consider themselves to be essentially "research faculty". On one hand, this is a
very positive development in that it allows new Faculty members to establish solid
research careers. On the other hand, however, it reduces the involvement of these faculty
members in other aspects of Departmental life, and has created some tensions between
(mostly) more senior staff who lack salary awards and more junior staff who have them.
There does not seem to be a clear vision of how the faculty members with salary awards
21
will integrate into the teaching and administrative life of the Department once their
i s
?
- .
awards have expired.
(ii)
Teachin g
Faculty: Because of the Faculty research awards and the rapid
growth in undergraduate enrollment, a number of teaching faculty (i.e., faculty without
Faculty research awards) have been hired and feel they are covering the shortfall in
undergraduate teaching. This raises a concern about having a two-tier faculty system. It is
not clear that the goals of these faculty harmonize with those of the researchers.
Preferably, university teaching and research activities cross-fertilize one another. As
DMBB has evolved a system that includes a large number of specialists in either teaching
or research, this type of cross-fertilization is minimal.
(iii)
Cross-appointed facult
y
: Although the faculty complement looks adequate
at first glance, we note that several faculty members are cross appointed to other
Departments. It was not clear if all of these faculty members considered DMBB to be
their "home" Department. Moreover, there seems to be substantial opportunity at SFU
for individual professors to change their Departmental affiliation; in fact, DMBB was
born from a collection of such decisions. 'While in the case of DMBB a vibrant new
entity resulted, in general, we think that the fluidity of Department affiliation contributes
to instability in all Departments and fuels interdepartmental rivalries.
Recommendation
All courses should benefit from at least some involvement from
facult
y
,wjth.açti
y
e.researci .
.pr
p
gtamS. More use of team-teaching (see below) would
allow this recommendation to be implemented without compromising the constraints of
the salary grant programs, and would enable betterintegration of grant holders into the
pedagogical activities of the Department.
(b) Support staff
(i) Support staff for teaching: The Department provides an extensive set of
required laboratory courses that are resource-intensive in terms of space and technical
staff. The technicians for the teaching labs noted that their greatest difficulty was in
scheduling their time, especially when the large undergraduate labs are running
concurrently. They often have to work long hours, and we were uncertain whether their
scheduling and compensation arrangements are in consonance with relevant collective
bargaining agreements. If they are not this is a matter that requires urgent resolution.
Recommendation
A committee of tenure-track and tenured faculty should be formed to -
órk with. the teaching faculty to carefully examine the tontetit OfthelabOraoty brss
with the goal of reducing the duration of the laboratories. Our impression was that this
could be accomplished without compromising course quality, perhaps by more utilization
of commercially prepared reagents, etc.
0
3
I
l,' Re6thñièndatióñ: The Departmental Adihiriistrat6ft^6ds to
be lãcdëlatly'in charge
bf
.
thetime managementofthe. technical- staff. She must ensure that collective
agreements are respected and the workload of support staff remains manageable.
(ii) Support staff for research: There is one full-time position (for a computer
systems administrator) and one part-time position (for an equipment maintenance
technician). Other research staff members are paid from research grants. For the two
Departmental positions, there was general satisfaction expressed with the level of service
that they provide, but there were concerns about the long-term funding commitment to
the positions. The computer administrator is sometimes placed under multiple,
conflicting demands on his time, and the equipment technician experiences difficulties
related to inexperienced casual users of shared equipment. These problems could be
solved by some administrative changes. For instance, if minimal user fees were
established for both computer assistance and equipment use, and if all scheduling were
handled through the Departmental office, some of these problems might be avoided.
Looking to the future, one can imagine that there may be less work in the area of
computer set-up but that virtually all research equipment will involve some sophisticated
microelectronics. Based on this, the University might consider creating a single regular
technical staff position to service all of the Departmental equipment.
/
' ?
Recommendation A
technical services committee, consisting of several faculty
members and the Departmental Administrator, should be formed to define the duties of
Departmental, research support staff and to deyise .a systemfor .
equitable management of
theirtime. Consideration should be given to instituting at least a partial cost-recovery
system for these services.
Reconimendatioh
At present, the equipment maintenance technician is a graduate
idèiit,\'ho performs the technical task part-time. This is an inappropriate job for a
graduate student, and the student's progress through the program is clearly being
negatively impacted by holding this job. Techniciajis and graduate students;have very
differentdutiesand responsibilities, and the same persbn cannOthOld both positions.
(iii) Administrative staff: The level of administrative staff appears to be adequate,
but its effectiveness suffers from poorly-defined duties and unclear lines of supervision.
One of the administrators is also a part-time faculty member responsible for one of the
teaching labs; this seems to be an excessive and perhaps conflicting set of
responsibilities. This individual also seems to assume extensive student counseling
duties that lie beyond the responsibility of the Department. There also is anxiety about
the long term funding for administrative staff positions, which are presently funded
through salary grant recovery.
Recommendation
Ensure that administrative staff positions are base-funded through
the long-term Department
funding
agreement recommended above.
.
(.
?
. ?
.Rëcothiñéuidation
Eliminate overlap between administrative and academic positions,
iidéisure that the administratiVe pOsitions have clearl-defined ditties and fall under the
supervision of the Departmental Administrator.
(c) Research spc: In general the research space is adequate, and the researchers appear
to be reasonably content with it. More space will need to be made available, however, to
cope with future expansion of the faculty. New space seems to be found on an ad hoc
basis when new positions become available to the Department. A longer-term plan
would relieve anxiety and improve the effectiveness of Departmental recruiting.
d) Teaching spac: The Review Committee felt that an inordinate amount of energy was
being devoted to arguments about teaching space. However, to us the teaching lab space
seemed excellent. Most of the arguments are not about the space itself but about control
of lab space, and of the associated prep rooms. There is a great deal of resentment that
arrangements have to be negotiated with Biological Sciences on an annual basis, and that
these arrangements often work to the inconvenience of DMBB. It appears that many
undergraduate students have migrated from Biological Sciences to MBB but this
Department feels very strongly that a corresponding amount of teaching lab space has not
been reassigned.
?
( ?
Recommendation
The teaching labs are the focus of one of a number of long-standing
thspi.ites between DMBB and Biological Sciences, and to a lesser extent Chemistry.
?
. ?
These disputes appear to us to be rooted in the history of the Departmental splits that led
to the creation of DMBB, and are fueled by interpersonal rivalries. Our estimation is that
-/ both Departments contribute to this problem, and also that they are unable to resolve it
among themselves. We propose that the Facultyof Science commissionan independent
space audit to examine research and teaching space utilization in Biological Sciences,
DvfBB, and Chemistry, and make binding recommendations as to how the available
space might be better utilized.
(e) Administrative space: The administrative space appears to quite limited - althou
gh
no
complaints were voiced in this regard. Again, an objective space audit would identify any
possible problems in this area.
2. Vhat faculty complement is necessary to maintain the three core areas?
Agood critical mass has developed in the faculty, and in general the faculty felt
that they had strong colleagues within the Department. While the Department's recent
recruiting has been superb, we do not think it is feasible or advisable for it to continue
growing at the same rapid pace in the next few years, although a small number of
additional hires may be justified. The fact that the Department has recently hired several
new faculty members should help it to keep up with the new "systems biology" approach
to cellular and molecular research.
?
• ?
(i) Size and quality
in relation to responsibilities and workload, especiall
y
in
bioinformatiCS.
14
Bioinforrnatics is certainly an area that merits support. Not only is this an
emerging area of research but it also provides an important enabling technology to
support the other areas of research. The current bioinformatics group seems especially
active and productive. It would be important to build on this strength.
Recóüiniidatioth
The most serious problem in the faculty that could be addressed by
0 ?
recruitment is the lack of mid-career professors; there is an extremely biphasic age
distribution within the Department. This also leads to concerns about the Department's
ability to find people to assume leadership positions in the short to intermediate term. In
addition to considering specific research specialties for new faculty positions, the
Department might also consider hiring a productive ,mid-careerscientistwith :leadership
ability, perhaps through a Tier I CRC This would help to bndge the gap between junior
and senioriaculty with iflthe Department.
3. What are
the trade-offs between offering a high-quality major program
and
expanding undergraduate enrollments at the lower division?
The faculty of MBB is tremendously accomplished and very well-funded, and the
Department has excellent space and equipment. MBB is therefore an extraordinary
training resource for both undergraduates and graduate students, and it attracts
outstanding undergraduate and graduate students and provides excellent training in
independent research. However, there are several specific areas in which the potential of
MBB is not being used to the advantage of the Department or the institution.
?
.. .
Undergraduate
The overall quality of the undergraduate program is excellent. The undergraduates we
spoke with seemed content with most aspects of the coursework and their interactions
with faculty arid the Department. While the program seems to have developed without
much planning, it is working well for the most part.
Enrollment management
-
numbers of
majors and amount
of
service teaching.
The numbers of majors is high, but seems to have leveled off. To accommodate the
numbers of students without adding courses or course sections, many classes are large.
Nonetheless, most students (at least through the third year) are being served reasonably
well at the current time, despite the large class size.
menditiôifs.
There does appear to be the need for-additional secretarialladvisory.
support for the majors. It is important to recognize that the role of the Department in this
capacity must be distinct from that of student advisory and counseling services that are
better handled by at the University or Faculty level. Non-tenure track faculty may be
devoting too much effort to advising.
Tra
de- of/s between high quality major and expanding enrollnzeizts
One of the most important missions of an undergraduate program is to inspire and
educate those students who will go on to independent professional careers as faculty and
5
NO
researchers. Because of the quality and accomplishments of its faculty, MBB should be
. ?
the perfect home for this sort of undergraduate. Training these students becomes
particularly important in year four, when they typically seek challenging courses and
interesting and independent laboratory research, distinct from large teaching laboratories
with set protocols. However, there are relatively few fourth year course offerin gs,
and
many have very large enrollments.
t
/ 'Récommendatiois.
Establish a 'combine'd"BS'/MS program'.that:would.allow..honors
undergraduates to take courses that are specially designed for and largely restricted to
gduateslde.(iflcOfltrast to the current, 4Q 8.OQ.course,which are large and attempt
to teach both groups). This would provide an excellent training opportunity for students;
and it would also provide faculty with an incentive to teach excellent graduate courses, in
the hope of enticing these students to work in their laboratories. This combined program
could include an opportunity for laboratory rotations in year five.
Course offerings
The increase in numbers of faculty has not been accompanied by a proportional increase
in the amount of teaching done by the Department, even when the high numbers of
teaching buyouts are taken into account. The scope of the course offerings is reasonable,
but could be expanded with the additional faculty on board. The fourth-year curriculum
is not well-planned. Many courses are large, and include both undergrads and graduate
students despite their different educational needs. There was relatively little, faculty
• "ownership" of courses evident, and a strong teaching culture was not being developed
among most junior faculty. This was blamed on the numbers of buyouts, but this does
not fully explain either the quantity of teaching, or the attitude toward teaching. In the
Iona run, the lack of commitment to teaching may present a real threat to the mission of
SFU.
There appears to be significant duplication between MBB and Biological
Sciences, especially in years two and three. Some of this may be inevitable, since the
two Departments are competing for resources pegged to undergraduate enrollment;
however the current rivalry is not in the interests of the students or the institution.
Unfortunately, there appears to have been little cooperation between the Departments in
determining how to allocate responsibility for specific aspects of undergraduate training.
While individual faculty members are on good terms with one another, there is clearly
competition at higher levels, accompanied by duplication of efforts and squabbling over
resources. While a certain level of creative tension may be an incentive to achieve, the
existing rivalry is not in the long-range interest of the institution or of these two
Departments.
Laboratory courses.
Currently, under
g
raduate training in MBB derives much of its
unique identity from several demanding laborator
y
courses. These courses consume
considerable resources in terms of teaching effort and laboratory space. They are not
clearly directed by specific tenure-track faculty. There appears to have been no
discussion of whether such intensive laboratory training is necessary for all students; or
whether some students might not be better-served by a different set of requirements. For
example, honors students directed toward graduate school might prefer to substitute
9.
7
independent research in a faculty laboratory for the course requirement; while students
planning to work as technicians in the biotech industry might need more varied but less
intensive handson experience. The students we spoke with questioned whether the
laboratories might begin earlier (second year). Those with specific interests (e.g.,
structural biology, informatics) felt that the rigid laboratory requirement diminished their
opportunity to explore those interests.
The laboratory courses provided a major source of discontent at many levels.
There were many complaints about lab teaching space and the relative allocation of lab
teaching space to Biological Sciences and MBB. There were many discussions of the
need for more teaching space and new teaching space. However, the reviewers just did
not perceive this as a real problem. The walk-through showed that the undergraduate
laboratory space is absolutely superb. The numbers of students accommodated per
session seemed low. There seemed to have been little attempt to get "out-of-the-box" to
find solutions to issues presented to the reviewers as major and intractable problems.
One simple example. Apparently, despite the advertised space crunch, labs are given
only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This leaves Monday for prep time, which is
realistic; but there was no good rationale for not teaching labs on Friday, even
recognizing that this might mean a TA would need to come in on the weekend to remove
plates from an incubator or finish up other details
,
of an experiment.
ITations.
Within MBB, the iiumbers of laboratory courses required and their
content need to be carefully re-examined. Can laboratory course requirements be better-
tailored to individual students? Can the experimental design be modified so that labs do
not require so many teaching hours, and finish on time? Most institutions just do not
provide the level or extent of laboratory instruction found in MBB. ComparisOn'ith
peer
.
institutions :couldprovidea useful: guide forrealistic'changes inthe:,curriculum. It
might also be necessary to set'the bar higher for admission to the laboratory, or to the
major. In addition, MBB should consider separating -their 400-level courses from
graduate offerings,' 'ideally by offering new courses for graduate students and honors
undergraduates.
MBB and Biological Sciences need to work together to develop' second-and
third-yearcourses jn which ;faculty' members from 'both Departments 'shareteaching, and
to work out some short-term plan for use of teaching laboratory space. It is likely that the
administration will need to guide or mediate this planning. In the long run, it would be
very appropriate for SFU to examine the question of whether more teaching space is
necessary or useful, or whether existing space might be adequate if used realistically by
all Departments involved. This might best be done by employing an external consultant
to examine current space use.
4. Proposed strategies
for developing the DMBB
graduate program,
including
possible
diploma programs.
The MBB faculty are outstanding researchers and most are excellent mentors to their
graduate students. The students we spoke to were very engaged in research and spoke
highly of the scientific mentorship in MBB. Moreover, the SFU graduate students had,
on their own initiative, conducted a poll for the external review. This poll (which
f1:.
8
sampled over 40 from more than 60 current students) confirmed that graduate students in
MBB are very satisfied with their research experience.
Expectations and requirements
To their great credit, the students did look beyond the excellence in basic research, and
provided very specific and useful comments for improvements of the coursework and the
administration of the graduate program. In particular, they perceived an absence of
clarity about graduate funding, expectations, and procedures. The students were not
aware of a graduate handbook that spells out basic rules, such as how much research is
enough for graduation. Graduate students perceived an inequality of expectations among
different advisors. We did not have the time to probe this perception in depth, or gather
statistics about time-to-degree in the various laboratories, but the lack of clarity they
described in the context of graduate education fit with what we heard in other contexts.
Graduate students were concerned that their progress was not monitored in detail.
Although they do meet with research committees on an annual basis, the paper trail is
minimal: the mentor is not required to produce a written report on progress, and typically
a year of hard work is summarized by checking off a few boxes on a form.
t.V ?
Recommendations
If a Handbook for Graduate Students in MBB exists, it should be
advertised better; if not, it should be created. If there are SFU rules which constitute a
default position for Departments which do not write their own rules, then those should be
provided to each student on entry into the program and explicitly applied. Require each
advisor to monitor and report on the progress of each student in an annual written report
that discusses progress to date and goals for the future. This report would be provided to
the student and all members of the research committee after each committee meeting. By
the end of year 2 (master's) or year 4 (Ph.D.), the progress report would document
agreed-upon goals for completion of the degree, and set a timetable for completion. Both
goals and timetable would become more specific the closer a student gets to completion.
The time to degree in each laboratory should be public information, provided to a
Graduate Education Committee and available to all prospective students. Research
committees should be made aware of laboratories that deviate consistently from an
optimal timescale, to provide extra aid for students who might find that their advisors
have unusual expectations. Conversely, MBB should adopt rules governing the amount
of time a student may ordinarily be supported during pursuit of a graduate degree. These
rules should be designed to protect both students and faculty from unrealistic
expectations, while taking into account unusual situations (childbirth, family
emergencies, change of laboratory, etc.).
The proposed Diploma program had a very low profile within the Department. Many
faculty seemed unaware of it, and essentially none considered it to be a high priority.
Given the rapid growth of the Department, its need to consolidate a great deal of change,
its present difficulties with graduate courses, and its priority for high-quality research, we
do not consider that a Diploma program is consistent with the goals of the Department.
Funding and student employment
/1.
9
Some students stated that funding was uneven from laboratory to laboratory, but we did
not investigate this in detail. There may be uneven allocation of TAships. In at least one
case, a graduate student was assigned the job of supervising and cleaning Departmental
instruments. This was time-consuming, limited her progress in research, and did not
encourage development of skills that will be useful to professional progress.
Courses
Graduate students stated that the existing graduate courses are mainly 400/800 courses,
designed for undergraduates, and with large enrollment and little opportunity for the
critical approach that is the heart of graduate education. This creates an especially
difficult situation for students who were undergrads at SFU and have already taken
existing graduate courses but must still fulfill what some regard as onerous course
•
?
requirements to obtain a degree. The course deficit appears to reflect the fact that
teaching is not made a priority for MBB faculty, either by the Department, or because
this is a useful mechanism for graduate recruiting. Because all graduate students have
chosen laboratories before they attend courses, there is little incentive for a faculty
member to communicate excitement about a field to students working in other
laboratories. Teaching is not evaluated in graduate courses, removing one more incentive
• / ?
for good teaching.
Rèé ?
ëñdátiöñMore
small-enrbl!th htiñteiSi gdtätauiesWjth enrollment
restricted to.gfàduate.students! If a few honors undergraduates are admitted to these
courses (e.g., in a BS/MS program), this would create.a real incentive
t6
-
teach. If these
courses focus on primary literature and are taught by a team of faculty members, they
would be fun for both faculty and students. Create aformal evaluation system- for
.,,graduate teaching. Make evaluations public (not just numbers, but all comments fit to
print), so that students may choose among courses based upon evaluation; Use teaching
• evaluations as at least one of the determinants for promotion and for recommendations
for external recognition of faculty.
Seminar program
The seminar program is useful as an educational tool and as a means for uniting a
Department with relatively diverse research interests. It also provides visiting speakers
unfamiliar with SFU with an opportunity to see what an extraordinary institution this is,
and this in turn enhances the success of SFU faculty and students. For these reasons, it
should be seen as a priority for Departmental resources and effort. Students asked that
the seminar program occur withgreater regularity, and that attendance be encouraged.
One rationale raised by students for not attending seminars is that many seminars are not
readily comprehensible to the diverse graduate students in MBB.
\
?
?
There appeared to be no seminar committee charged with the
seminar program, and organizing an excellent program is a huge responsibility to devolve
upon a single faculty member. If there is reorganization of the committee structure in
MBB, the seminar program should be added to the list. This committee could then
ensure that seminars occur regularly, and institute a mechanism to ensure that all students
can learn something from each seminar. Students suggested food as a lure. At some
Q.
schools, there is a pre-seminar session at which graduate students and a local faculty
member (often the host) meet to discuss one or two important papers from the speaker's
laboratory. This brings students to a level where they can understand enough so that
going to a seminar is worthwhile.
?
as a
course with credit for attendance.
Enfranchisement and empowerment of students.
Graduate students did not feel that their views were being solicited or respected in all
areas. The most telling example may have been that graduate students did not know
about the external review until the week before it took place. An unfortunate incident
also recently occurred when the graduate representative to the search committee,
normally a voting member, was disenfranchised without explanation. These omissions
may reflect neglect, or an overall loose structure without clear guiding principles or
procedure.
Rëèirêndafións
Cifr6cèdüres. Adding students to Departmental email lists
may be one simple mechanism to improve the lines of communication. In addition, there
should be more inclusion of gráduatebidetitsin plafi ingand decision-making,
particularly in areas that affect them directly such as courses,- curriculum;and
requirements for students. This participation will enhance their ability to function
effectively when they themselves become faculty members.
. ?
5. Strategies for the Department to engage
in
cooperative research and teaching
programs with the new Faculty
of Health Sciences.
As described in the "Proposal for a Faculty of Health Sciences'.' that was provided to the
Committee, the mandate of this new entity is rather broad, and encompasses areas of
basic biomedical research that DMBB is involved in. It is easy to envision DMBB
researchers with an active role in the Infectious Disease, Biomolecular Interactions,
Aging and Chronic Illness, and Brain Function and Development groups, and it is
similarly easy to imagine that new Faculty of Health Sciences recruits, who are basic
biomedical researchers, may desire affiliation with DMBB.
However, it was difficult for the Committee to grasp exactly how the initial stages of
development of the Faculty of Health Sciences are likely to proceed. Scheduling
conflicts prevented us from meeting its Acting Dean, and different individuals associated
with the Faculty provided us with rather differing views, particularly concerning how
important basic biomedical research will ultimately be in this new unit. Clearly, the first
area to be developed in the new Faculty will be population and public health, as
evidenced by the submission of the preliminary MSc program in this field to graduate
studies in January 2004. If population and public health are indeed the major foci of the
new Faculty, then the opportunities for cooperation with DMBB in research and teaching
will be limited.
\ .
?
?
conmèndátióiis:DMBB already faces numerous organizational and structural
challenges consequent to its rapid growth and to its transition from an Institute into a
Department. At this time, another major reorganization or realignment involving DMBB
anda newFacultywouidpéaftbutbbeili advised. However, the Faculty of Health
Sciences potentially will provide many new opportunities for individual DMBB
researchers to establish research and teaching links, and DMBB will provide the Faculty
with aproximate, dynamic group of biomedical scientists that will help enable its
recruiting and program development activities.
B.
"Other areas to be considered"
In many cases we have discussed these areas in our responses to the specific questions
posed above. Some additional impressions follow.
2. Faculty.
Teaching and research contributions. includina the level of external research support.
We believe we have commented fully on the teaching situation in the material
above.
Research activity is strong and the level of external research support is very good.
Almost all the faculty members have highly active research programs, and many are
publishing in top-tier international journals such as PNAS, Molecular and Cellular
Biology, Current Biology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, etc. The quality of the
research programs of new recruits is very high, and the Department should be
commended for its ability to attract such strong candidates.
3.
Administration.
While the Departmental administration is excellent in many ways, a number of
problems were noted. We felt that the administration of the unit did not fully reflect its
transition from "Institute" to "Department". Well-established procedures that one expects
in a Department either do not exist, or are not perceived by many of the members to exist.
Essentially, the administration needs to be more formalized and more transparent.
Responsibilities should be clearly delegated and institutional rules strictly adhered to. The
rules probably are being followed, but it is not entirely clear to everyone involved that
this is the case. Our impression is that a somewhat autocratic leadership style may be an
impediment in some cases.
\
C\
?
?
RécØrnion:learlines. of command need to beestablished within.the
Department, and substantial delegation of responsibilities from the Chair to the
Departmental Administrator, and to faculty committees, needs to be achieved. Faculty
committees, at least for important matters such as graduate training, curriculum
development and review, and technical/space resource allocation, need to be provided
with a real role in Departmental governance. Communication has to be improved so that
0
1*.
12
all Departmental stakeholders (students. staff, teaching, tenure-track, and tenured faculty)
know what is going on, and feel that they have a say.
4.
Connection of the Department within and outside the University.
The potential connection between DMBB and the new Faculty of Health Sciences
was discussed above. An important challenge for the Department is to improve its
relations with neighboring Departments within the Faculty of Science, particularly
Biological Sciences and Chemistry. We note that, onthe level of individual faculty
members, substantial collaboration and cooperation occurs between DMBB and these
Departments. There also is often representation on DMBB faculty search committees
from members of Biological Sciences or Chemistry, which is a positive development.
But rivalries remain, and these impede the ability of all the involved Departments to best
carry out their missions in research and teaching. An independent space audit, as we
suggested above, would be an important first step in settling a major issue that is causing
continual friction among these units.
We are not aware of extensive formal collaborative arrangements between DMBB
and 'units at other institutions. However, many individual DMBB faculty collaborate
widely both within Canada and abroad. DMBB members also do their share on scientific
•
?
review committees and the like.
?
-
5.
Future Directions.
DMBB is a strong Department. As the new faculty members gain experience and
their programs mature, it is likely to continue to improve and gain stature. DMBB has
the clear potential to be one of the top two or three Faculty of Science-based molecular
biology units in Canada.
We believe the challenges this Department faces can be overcome, and we have
made several recommendations in the material above which suggest future directions the
Department may wish to consider, and which we intend to be constructive in helping the
Department to achieve its full potential.
40
Departmental Response to the External Review of the
. ?
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Simon Fraser University
Sept. 25, 2004
The Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry (MBB) responds here to
the report of the External Review Committee (ERC) submitted after its visit in April,
2004.
In
preparing this response, the MBB Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
(DUCC, including its student representative) met, the Graduate Studies Committee
(DGSC) met with members of the MBB Graduate Caucus, the Department Chair met
with the President of the MBB Student Union, and the MBB faculty members held a
meeting to discuss the report. Various faculty, staff and students provided extensive
written input to the Chair, who prepared a draft of this response for review by faculty,
staff, and students. A penultimate draft of this response was posted for a month on the
MBB website seeking comments, and students were alerted to this.
Overall, the Department is gratified that it is highly regarded in most respects by
the ERC and is enthusiastic about many of the recommendations made by the ERC.
However, we are surprised and disturbed about some of the comments made and
conclusions drawn, often with little explanation or documentation. Moreover, some
statements by the ERC sometimes contradicted information provided in the Self Study
Document (SSD) prepared by MBB or responses to questions that arose in meetings with
the ERC.. Here, MBB has extracted all of the specific recommendations made by the
. ERC and responds to each. In the Appendix, we respond to some statements by made by
the ERC in the report, particularly those which we believe are inaccurate or require
action, even if not presented as recommendations.
To facilitate discussion the recommendations are quoted in their entirety and have
been numbered, but remain in the same order in which they appear in the report of the
ERC.
A.
"Issues of Particular Interest":
1.
Are DMBB's resources adequate to sustain its current level of activity and to
ensure a strong future in research and teaching?
1. Recommendation:
The senior administration and the Department should
develop a written transition plan to deal with the issue of salary grant expiration and
provide for permanent funding of the Department's central activities. Conclusion of a
satisfactory agreement would go a long way toward alleviating present concerns.
Response: MBB 'agrees and urges a rapid implementation, preferably retroactive to the
beginning of this fiscal year (2004). In agreement with the ERC, MBB considers "central
activities" to include secretarial staff, the computer system/instrumentation consultant,
and part time technical support for equipment. MBB wants to be confident that resources
/e,.
(base budgeted secretarial and technical support, non-salary base bud
g
et, and space) will
be transparently and equitably allocated within the Faculty of Science based on current
and projected requirements.
?
0
(a) Faculty
2. Romniendation
All courses should benefit from at least some involvement from
faculty with active research programs. More use of team-teaching (see below) would
allow this recommendation to be implemented without compromising the constraints of
the salary grant programs, and would enable better integration of grant holders into the
pedagogical activities of the Department.
Response:
We fully agree with the
sentiment
behind this recommendation, but disagree
with the need for.the recommendation. It is not possible to have tenure track faculty
involved in teaching all courses in all semesters, particularly the lab courses. All MBB
lab courses are newly designed and have had extensive involvement of tenure track
("research") faculty within the last three years, and all but one (the lab course MB
309)
have been taught by tenure track faculty in the past year. All lecture courses have regular
or exclusive involvement of tenure track faculty. There is only one base-budget funded
teaching faculty (Lecturer) position in
MBB
(plus 18 tenure track positions, not including
the two newly hired tenure track faculty who have not yet arrived), a smaller proportion
than in other laboratory science departments at SFU and most other Canadian
universities. In addition, there are 1.5 replacement Lecturer positions paid from faculty
salary recovery funds. All tenure track MBB faculty hold grants and have active research
programs, and all are actively engaged in undergraduate teaching. The Lecturers teach
not only lab courses, but 200 and
300
level lecture courses. All the Lecturers have
recent, sophisticated research experience, and one remains actively engaged in research.
MBB agrees that tenure track faculty must continue to have an ongoing role in keeping
the lab courses up to date, but considers it entirely appropriate that Lecturers/Lab
Instructors have the predominant instructional responsibilities for the lab courses that
normally have 3 to
5
sessions per week.
In general, MBB does not consider team-teaching of undergraduate courses to be the
best pedagogical approach (based on our experiences in departments where this is
common practice). Team-teaching is done in some courses (e.g., MBB 322 and 422), and
may be done more in the future, especially for graduate and breadth courses. We prefer
the model of a having a single instructor responsible for teaching the entire course in a
given semester because it promotes continuity/commitment and more "ownership" of
courses. We suspect that the ERC did not fully appreciate the trimester system at SFU
and the need to teach many of our courses two or three times each year, usually involving
different faculty each semester (reducing the number of different courses taught per
faculty member in comparison with many universities). Its failure to mention the very
active MBB Co-op program is consistent with this suspicion.
S
/7.
?
2
• ?
(b) Support staff
3
Recommendation
A committee of tenure-track and tenured faculty should be
formed '
to work with the teaching faculty to carefully examine the content of the
laboratory courses with the goal of reducing the duration of the laboratories. Our
impression was that this could be accomplished without compromising course quality,
perhaps by more utilization of commercially prepared reagents, etc.
Response:
All three wet laboratory courses are newly designed (since the Department
began four years ago) under the auspices of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
(which includes tenure track and non-tenure track members and an undergraduate). They
are operating quite effectively (based on student surveys and assessment of lab reports),
with the exception of a few exercises that are being revised (these courses are continually
assessed and revised to keep them current and effective). A new lab manual will be
developed in MBB 308 during Lecturer Don Sinclair's development semester (2004-3)
and will include some revised exercises. All of the exercises have been tested and can
easily be completed within the scheduled laboratory time frame (as attested to by many
students, including those who met with the ERC), but some students do not come to the
labs sufficiently prepared to perform the exercises. The courses try to balance cost- and
time- effectiveness with hands-on experience. For instance, to use an example provided
by the ERC, we believe that students do learn something useful from pouring a gel. In
general, prepared materials are very expensive and the current mix. of locally prepared
• and purchased materials was chosen for cost and pedagogical effectiveness. In order to
cope with the large increase in enrollments in these courses, the Department has made
considerable progress in reducing the work burden on the teaching technical staff in
preparing solutions, materials, etc., for lab courses. The main issue for their workload is
its very uneven distribution due to fluctuations in availability of teaching lab space (3
wet-lab courses are taught in the summer, 1 in the Fall, and 2 in the spring). This is an
inefficient situation that arises because the Department has only one teaching lab under
its control and must "borrow" other teaching lab space that is not always available and
never on a long term basis.
4. 'Reconmendatithi:
The Departmental Administrator needs to beplaced clearly in
chareof the time management of the technical staff. She must ensure that collective
agreements are respected and the workload of support staff remains manageable.
Response:
In Chemistry and Biosciences at SFU the technical staff report to a
Laboratory Coordinator who has technical expertise, not the DA. The MBB
Departmental
Assistant
(DA, not a Departmental
Administrator)_
does
:not have
background in science and is not able to provide supervision of the day today activities
of technical staff, though she-records vacation time, overtime, and sick leave reported to
her. Unless the Department were to create a position comparable to that of Laboratory
Coordinator, formal supervision of the duties of the technical staff must remain the
responsibility of the Department Chair,
as insisted upon b
y
the technical st
q
ff and DA.
0 ?
In actual practice, the activities of the teaching technicians are supervised on a weekly
3
basis by the faculty members responsible for the laboratory courses and by the
Under g raduate Advisor! Program Coordinator (a
V2
time APSAôsition). The
technicians discuss anticipated temporary deviations from the normal work week with the
Chair on a semesterly basis, who consults with the DA to insure that collective
agreements will be respected. There may have been some confusion about these
relatively new supervisory arrangements.
5.
Reconmendation:
The university might consider creating a single regular technical
staff position to eiice all of the Departmental equipment." A technical services
committee, consisting of several faculty members and the Departmental Administrator,
should be formed to define the duties of Departmental research support staff and to
devise a system for equitable management of their time. Consideration should be given
to instituting at least a partial cost-recovery system for these services.
Response:
We agree with the .intent of. this recommendation,
,
but it is based on some
misconceptions.
The Department has no research support staff supported on the salary base
budget. While we are not aware of any significant concerns about the management of the
time of the temporary research support staff,
MBB
will create a Research and Resources
Committee that will oversee the creation and operation of technical services in the
Department. The computer systems/instrumentation consultant position already includes
a role in maintaining and providing instruction on other sophisticated equipment. His
role is not strictly for research. He also provides teaching support for faculty and systems
support for the MBB computer teaching lab and. MBB staff. He presents or arranges for
lectures for faculty and graduate students on computational topics and may become more
involved in teaching appropriate parts of courses and workshosp. As stated in the SSD,
MBB already has a partial or full cost recovery system in place for nearly all of its
equipment and facilities. For many tasks performed by the computer systems consultant,
this would not be practical and is not the practice in other departments in the Faculty.
6. Recommendation"
present, the equipment maintenance technician is a graduate
student, who performs the technical task part-time. This is an inappropriate job for a
graduate student, and the student's progress through the program is clearly being
negatively impacted by holding this job. Technicians and graduate students have very
different duties and responsibilities, and the same person cannot hold both positions.
Response:
The person in question was a research technician having this role before she
became a graduate student. While the job slightly delayed her progress in the Ph.D.
program, she pointed out to the ERC that only by holding the job was she able to enter
the MBB graduate program as the main bread winner for her family, complete a Ph.D.
thesis, and find employment as an SFU faculty member (starting in September as a
Lecturer in Biosciences).
MBB agrees such
ad hoc
arrangements are not always in the best interests of the
student/employee, but we are proud of this one. In many departments at SFU, students
holding Research Assistantships are expected to perform services that are not directly
0
/9. ?
4
related to their thesis research; this is not the norm in MBB. MBB wants base budgeted
• ?
Faculty salary support for this kind of research technical support. In the interim, we have
resorted to use of hourly appointments to fund temporary positions filled with applicants
having the appropriate skill set. Using funds from the non-salary base budget, a
technician working a research lab has been hired part-time on a temporary basis to
perform some of these essential services, including maintenance -of the autoclaves,
dishwasher, film developer, water polishers, and gel documentation systems; instruction
for new users in the safe and proper use of some kinds of equipment; and managing
equipment maintenance and repairs. More time is needed to provide oversight of the use
of more sophisticated equipment such as spectrometers and imagers.
7
Recommendation
Ensure that administrative staff positions are base-funded through
thelong-term Department funding agreement recommended above.
Response:
MBB-fully,agrees, but the positions in question need to be clarified. Of the
three clerical positions in the Department office (Chairs Secretary, Graduate Secretary,
and Undergraduate Secretary/receptionist), only 1.5 positions are base budget funded but
all are essential. MBB has recently received a written commitment from the Dean to
fund these (CUPE) clerical positions, but the salaries would continue to be recovered
from the Department until the fiscal year 2006-7. In response, the Department passed a
motion asking that the salaries be covered beginning this year so that the funds recovered
from faculty salaries can be used more effectively and appropriately (for teaching
replacement and enhancement of research activities).
?
-
As in - comparable departments in the Faculty, the computer
systems/instrumentation consultant position (APSA) is essential for the teaching and
research operations of the Department and must be base budget funded before the faculty
salary recovery income disappears. The Dean has refused to commit to doing this. As
noted in
5,
MBB
also requires on-going funding for a part-time technician to perform
oversight and basic maintenance of its wide array of common use equipment (much of it
used by many members of the SFU research community not affiliated with MBB).
8 Recommendation
Eliminate overlap between administrative and academic positions,
- and ensure that the administrative positions have clearly-defined duties and fall under the
supervision of the Departmental Administrator.
Response:
This recommendation apparently concerns the half-time Undergraduate
Advisor/Program Coordinator who is also a half-time Lecturer, roles created at different
?
-
times. The role of Undergraduate Advisor was previously performed by a tenure track
faculty member in addition his normal teaching duties. The fact that the
1/2
time advisor
?
-
position (APSA) is filled by a person who is also a
Y2
time lecturer only creates problems
?
-
when the work load in both positions is especially heavy (during registration periods near
the end of the semester); this was exacerbated by the implementation of SIMS. It is most
convenient for the incumbent to report to a single person, in this case the Chair because
she is also a faculty member. In some other SFU departments (e.g., Biosciences) the
?
-
5
Advisor ?
does ?
not ?
report ?
directly ?
to ?
the ?
DA ?
or ?
the ?
Chair.
9.ecóiñmendation:
The teaching labs are the focus of one of a number of long-
standing disputes between DMBB and Biological Sciences, and to a lesser extent
Chemistry. These disputes appear to us to be rooted in the history of the Departmental
splits that led to the creation of DMBB, and are fueled by interpersonal rivalries. Our
estimation is that both Departments contribute to this problem, and also that they are
unable to resolve it among themselves. We propose that the Faculty of Science
commission an independent space audit to examine research and teaching space
utilization in Biological Sciences, DMBB, and Chemistry, and make binding
recommendations as to how the available space might be better utilized.
Response:
MBB agrees that the allocation of space(1aoratory and office) in the entire;.
Faculty of .Science should be examined and reallocated pn the basis
:0
agreed priorities,,
and current requirements MBB is confident that any examination will conclude that the
current allocation to Biosciences of 4 times more teaching lab space per major or upper
division student is an inequity that must be rectified. Reallocation of teaching space and
other resources should have occurred when MBB was formed as a new department.
MBB has repeatedly proposed the transfer of control of one teaching lab from
Biosciences to MBB (e.g., SSB 8121), which would still leave Biosciences with 60%
more teaching lab space in SSB to service fewer students. MBB is not prepared to wait
for the completion of the
TASCI
2 building (in Fall of 2006 or later) to be confident that
it can mount its teaching program. MBB requires assurances that a second teaching lab
will be available at least three days a week in
all
semesters in 2005 dnd beyond. The
Dean of Science recently facilitated an arrangement whereby a second teaching
laboratory will be available to MBB each semester through the summer of 2006, when
the TASC 2 building is scheduled for completion, releasing some space in SSB that may
now be used for MBB teaching. In return, MBB will no longer give priority for entrance
into MBB 308 to its majors and minors when using space "loaned" by Biosciences.
MBB would be happy to see the Dean of Science office allocate teaching lab space on the
basis of proven needs, rather than perpetuating the current "ownership" system based on
history and resistance to change.
MBB does not believe that space reallocation requires an expensive external
consultant. An effective Faculty of Science space committee having clearly defined
priorities for use of space should be able to create an equitable plan to reallocate space
among departments and plan for use of new space. MBB insists that any audit of
laboratory space should involve the entire Faculty, and preferably Applied Sciences as
well. Moreover, the audit must include the allocation of office space, for which the
highest priority use should be for faculty members. New faculty in particular must be
provided with an office upon arrival, something that has not happened in MBB in the
recent past.
07/1
?
6
S
2.
What faculty complement is necessary to maintain the three core areas?
S10. R ommendation:
The most serious problem in the faculty that could be addressed
by recruitment is the lack of mid-career professors; there is an extremely biphasic age
distribution within the Department. This also leads to concerns about the Department's
ability to find people to assume leadership positions in the short to intermediate term. In
addition to considering specific research specialties for new faculty positions, the
Department might also consider hiring a productive, mid-career scientist with leadership
ability, perhaps through a Tier I CRC. This would help to bridge the gap between junior
and senior faculty within the Department.
Response:
We assume the ERC is referring the paucity of Associate. Professors inMBB,
since there is not a biphasic
age
distribution for MBB faculty. This situation is quickly
changing as Assistant Professors are promoted, and Associate Professor Lynne Quarmby
joined the Department in September, 2004. MBB would be happy to have a CRC Tier I
to fill. MBB would welcome the opportunity to advertise to fill aP4 openings at the AP
level when appropriate, and has permission to do so for the Bioinformatics position. SFU
will submit an LOl for a BC Leadership Chair in Pharmaceutical Genomics and
Bioinformatics that would be held in MBB by an identified senior scientist.
MBB believes the most serious faculty staffing issue facing it is the..large and
growing numbers of FTEs and majors per.tenure.track faculty mm,ber in the Department.
This issue can be addressed by providing the opportunity to hire more MBB faculty (with
attendant space and other resources) or by limiting enrollments.
3.. What are the trade-offs between offering a high-quality major program and
expanding undergraduate enrollments at the lower division?
11 Recommendations
There does appear to be the need for additional
secretarial/advisory support for the majors. It is important to recognize that the role of
the Department in this capacity must be distinct from that of student advisory and
counseling services that are better handled by at the University or Faculty level. Non-
tenure track faculty may be devoting too much effort to advising.
Response:
We agree that there should be more supc• .for. the Advisor; -
,
preferably in
the form of increased secretarial support. The Undergraduate Advisor performs program
advising, oversight of graduands, recruitment functions, assessment of scholarship
applications, course scheduling, articulation of BC courses, waivers of course
requirements, etc. Some of the Advisor's duties, especially those related to data entry,
can be and are performed by secretarial staff, but this is done on
ad hoc
basis when there
is time available. The Advisor does not do personal counseling, but does refer students in
need to the appropriate university services. She may sometimes be overly attentive to
students having problems, but that is because she cares about the students and they
respond to this. All students when declaring a major discuss with the Advisor their career
goals in relation to their academic program. That is an essential but time consuming role
of the Advisor that she performs well.
7
12. Reconiniénthtioñs.
Establish a combined BS/MS program that would allow honors
undergraduates to take courses that are specially designed for and largely restricted to
graduate students (in contrast to the current 400/800 courses, which are large and attempt
to teach both groups). This would provide an excellent training opportunity for students;
and it would also provide faculty with an incentive to teach excellent graduate courses, in
the hope of enticing these students to work in their laboratories. This combined program
could include an opportunity for laboratory rotations in year five.
Response:
While it is not entirely clear what is being proposed, MBB will consider the
creation of M.Sc program for MBB honors students based courses and research rotations.
It seems likely that the B.Sc. would presumably be conferred upon completion of the
degree requirement, not at the same time as the M.Sc. Thereis little enthusiasth:inMBB
for a course-based M.Sc.. program and. the Department already has a very active Honors
Programinvolving a l5•credit Independent
Studies Semester. It is not clear if the
proposed program would generate substantial increases in enrollment demand for
graduate level courses, but it would likely increase the number of SFU graduands doing
graduate work at SFU (already about
2/3
of the graduate students, which we consider
undesirably high).
13.:Recànthendatións.
Within MBB, the numbers of laboratory courses required and
their content need to be carefully re-examined. Can laboratory course requirements be
better-tailored to individual students? Can the experimental design be modified so that
labs do not require so many teaching hours, and finish on time? Most institutions just do
not provide the level or extent of laboratory instruction found in MBB. Comparison with
peer institutions could provide a useful guide for realistic changes in the curriculum. It
might also be necessary to set the bar higher for admission to the laboratory, or to the
major. In addition, MBB should consider separating their 400-level courses from
graduate offerings, ideally by offering new courses for graduate students and honors
undergraduates.
MBB and Biological Sciences need to work together to develop second- and
third-year courses in which faculty members from both Departments
share
teaching, and
to work out some short-term plan for use of teaching laboratory space. It is likely that the
administration will need to guide or mediate this planning. In the long run, it would he
very appropriate for SFU to examine the question of whether more teaching space is
necessary or useful, or whether existing space might be adequate if used realistically by
all Departments involved. This might best be done by employing an external consultant
to examine current space use.
Response:
The ERC did not examine course syllabi nor did it ask many questions about
course content, especially when it met with the MBB Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee. The MBB laboratory courses have been carefully designed and are almost
brand new courses, of which we are quite proud. These were developed after much
consideration of lab courses at many other universities. Another 400 laboratory course in
physical biochemistry is being planned, but implementation is awaiting arrival of new
is
c3. ?
8
faculty members to replace 3 recently departed biochemists who taught earlier versions of
• this course, as well as the availability of teaching lab space and equipment. MBB majors
are required to take 3 upper division lab courses:
308,
309, and a choice of 1 400-level
lab course (with presently very limited choice that will hopefully be improved with the
implementation of the physical biochemistry lab course, and some possible new lab
courses in Biosciences). In a revised curriculum, the Biosciences Department plans to
require
5
upper division lab courses of its Cell and Molecular stream majors, so the lab
course requirement for MBB is modest in comparison with Biosciences, or several other
Canadian Biochemistry/Molecular Biology departments.
We believe that most of the MBB lab exercises are well designed and can be
easily completed by prepared students in the allotted time. The exercises are assessed and
revised on a continuing basis, and some have been shortened. Unfortunately, some
students do not come well prepared, causing staff to work overtime and interferin
g
with
other students. So that its majors are not delayed in completing graduation requirements
due to enrollment limitations, MBB will reluctantly consider the implied
recommendation to drop the requirement for a 400 level lab course (or allowing broader
substitution). However, the popularity and strong student reviews of MBB 432 suggest
that there will continue to be considerable enrollment pressure for MBB 432. MBB
believes that it is important for its majors to have the opportunity to take at least one
sophisticated 400 level lab course that emulates current research programs. However, it
may be that some students do not need or want it.
. We know that the group of undergraduates who met with the ERC echoed our
Conviction that the MBB laboratory courses are excellent and form a crucial part of the
MBB majors program, but they may have complained about required lab courses in other
departments. While many universities have reduced or eliminated laboratory courses to
reduce operating costs, there is much evidence that their students have not been well
served by these decisions, and some departments are restoring lab courses. We believe
that MBB has a program requiring an appropriate number of well designed, affordable
lab courses that serve our students well. Based on a recent survey, we know that
employers of Co-op students have high praise for MBB 308 and 309 because they
provide students with useful research skills.
Many MBB students and faculty (and Co-op employers) believe that a 200 level
MBB lab course would be very useful, but space and other resources are presently not
available, nor would it fit into the currently busy second year program.
MBB is concerned that some innovative aspects of our curriculum in addition to
the lab courses were not mentioned by the ERC. For example, its joint majors programs
with Business and Computer Science are unique in Canada and are attracting high quality
applicants.
MBB and Biosciences already share teaching responsibilities for MBB 221, BISC
202, and BISC 333. They also allow cross substitution of courses toward dezree
requirements, sometimes on an
ad hoc
basis. The programs are virtually identical in the
a4'. ?
9
first 2 years (allowing easy change of intended major, which is normally not declared
until the third year). TA appointments are shared between the two Departments in an
effort to have .the best qualified TAs for each course. We agree there should be more
cooperation in curriculum development and planning, as well as planning for faculty
recruitment. An equitable allocation of teaching lab space and equipment would promote
better cooperation. An agreement on long term teaching responsibilities would also be
helpfiul, though this is now cooperatively planned on a two year cycle with few problems.
Both Departments realize that the growth in numbers MBB majors has not been at
the expense of Bioscience majors in its Cell and Molecular Biology Stream, which has
seen only a slight decline in numbers. This provides even more incentive for cooperation
and equitable allocation of resources to allow both of the largest majors programs in the
Faculty of Science to flourish. Neither Department is interested in competing with the
other to maximize its FTEs. On the contrary, both Departments are faced with
difficulties in managing their enrollments, Biosciences primarily at the first year level
and MBB at the upper division level.
MBB has a strong record of reaching out to cooperate with faculty holding
appointments in other departments. It has many Associate Members, who often supervise
graduate students in the MBB program. MBB provides access to its equipment and
facilities to all SFU faculty and their students willing to participate in the program of
hands on training and partial cost recovery.
MBB intends to offer more courses strictly for graduate students as faculty
become available to teach them, but MBB graduate students will still enroll in
appropriate 400/800 courses that provide sophisticated background work.
MBB shares the concern of the ERC about whether new teaching lab space in the
Faculty of Science is really required. We think that efficient use of existing teaching lab
space would provide sufficient space for all departments having wet teaching labs.
Limiting access to lab courses should not be necessary, at least for MBB majors. See
Appendix, Section 16 for an explanation of teaching lab use by MBB.
4. Proposed strategies for developing the DMBB graduate program,
including possible diploma programs.
14 Recommendations
If a Handbook for Graduate Students in MBB exists, it should
be advertised better; if not, it should be created. If there are SFU rules which constitute a
default position for Departments which do not write their own rules, then those should be
provided to each student on entry into the program and explicitly applied. Require each
advisor to monitor and report on the progress of each student in an annual written report
that discusses progress to date and goals for the future. This report would be provided to
the student and all members of the research committee after each committee meeting. By
the end of year 2 (M.Sc.) or year 4 (Ph.D.), the progress report would document agreed-
upon goals for completion of the degree, and set a timetable for completion. Both goals
and timetable would become more specific the closer a student gets to completion. The
0
10
0?
time to degree in each laboratory should be public information, provided to a Graduate
. Education Committee and available to all prospective students. Research committees
should be made aware of laboratories that deviate consistently from an optimal tirnescale,
to provide extra aid for students who might find that their advisors have unusual
expectations. Conversely, MBB should adopt rules governing the amount of time a
student may ordinarily be supported during pursuit of a graduate degree. These rules
should be designed to protect both students and faculty from unrealistic expectations,
while taking into account unusual situations (childbirth, family emergencies, change of
laboratory, etc.).
The proposed Diploma program had a very low profile within the Department.
Many faculty seemed unaware of it, and essentially none considered it to be a high
priority. Given the rapid growth of the Department, its need to consolidate a great deal of
change, its present difficulties with graduate courses, and its priority for high-quality
research, we do not consider that a Diploma program is consistent with the goals of the
Department.
Response:
MBB agrees with the sentiments of this recommendation, but notes that many
of the comments are based on inaccurate or erroneous information. MBB has a
handbook for graduate students (prepared with considerable help from the MBB
Graduate Caucus). It is distributed to all new students, along with the SFU Graduate
Handbook. Graduate students are provided with ample verbal feedback during and after
their supervisory committee meetings that occur soon after their arrival and at least
annually thereafter. Students always see the assessment forms filled out and signed by
• all members of the supervisory committee and can request clarification; they will now
sign the form acknowledging having read the comments and can provide written
commentary. Not all of this feedback is in written form unless there are serious concerns
that must be addressed by the student or supervisor.
comments should be .more....
expl.icit;jn.,someJnstances;
::
and will s.
:
encoura
?
this
• improvement. As students near the end of their program (usually about a year in advance
of the anticipated defense date), there is always a consideration of what needs to be
completed prior to producing the thesis and a reasonable time frame. MBB 806 is also
very useful in focusing on what constitutes a feasible Ph.D. thesis project having
achievable goals.
By the standards of SFU and Canada, the Department has a good record with regard
to time to completion of degree (especially for the Ph.D.: average completion time: 16.68
semesters), and especially the fraction of entering students who complete their degree
programs. As noted in the SSD, MBB has already implemented mechanisms to reduce
completion times for the M.Sc. (average completion time:
9.53),
though it is too soon to
assess their success. The times required for degree completion in individual labs can be
obtained from the Graduate Secretary upon request by a student or applicant. This
information will not be posted in a public place to protect privacy of students. While a
few students have taken very long times to complete theses, an examination of the data
on completion times provides no indication that some faculty members consistently
require longer completion times, though the sample size of students is very small for
11
most faculty. The Chairs of the Department and the Graduate Studies committee have
never received a complaint from a graduate student that a faculty member is standing in
the way of their completing a thesis, though members of the Graduate Caucus have been
told that students should report such problems to the GSC or Dept Chair (or to the Dean
of Graduate Studies).
MBB opposes imposition of arbitrary time limits for financial support of graduate
students, preferring its present policy of providing full financial support for all students
making acceptable progress (with warning following a meeting with the supervisory
committee to those who may not be). Members of the Graduate Caucus also oppose
imposing time limits for financial support of students. As explained in the SSD, the
policy with regard to financial support of students is explicit and is rigorously enforced.
The level of financial support received by students is somewhat variable due to
differences in maximum stipends allowed by different agencies and variable levels of
scholarship support, but
all
graduate students receive at least the departmental minimum
stipend (the maximum yearly stipend allowed by NSERC), contrary to rumors among
some graduate students. Unfortunately, NSERC has not sufficiently adjusted for the large
increases in tuition at most Canadian Universities, including SFU, so many graduate
students are worse off financially than they were a few years ago. The TSSU and
Department have clear guidelines for assigning TAships. There is usually an insufficient
number of applications from MBB graduate students, who have appointment priority.
Graduate students will not be offered TAships in courses for which they are not properly
qualified in the opinion of the course instructor.
?
-
The diploma program being considered by MBB is similar to the B.Sc./M.Sc.
program proposed by the ERC. We agree that the M.Sc. credential is likely to be more
appealing to students, but it should include a prominent research component. On the
other hand, the diploma program might be more effective as a tool for recruiting students
from other universities to the M.Sc./Ph.D. program. For now, MBB is not planning to
implement a diploma program except for students in the Bioinformatics training program.
.J5.
,
Recommendations
More small-enrollment, intensive graduate courses with
enrollment restricted to graduate students! If a few honors undergraduates are admitted
to these courses (e.g., in a BS/MS program), this would create a real incentive to teach. If
these courses focus on primary literature and are taught by a team of faculty members,
they would be fun for both faculty and students. Create a formal evaluation system for
graduate teaching. Make evaluations public (not just numbers, but all comments ft to
print), so that students may choose among courses based upon evaluation. Use teaching
evaluations as at least one of the determinants for promotion and for recommendations
for external recognition of faculty.
Response:
As noted in its SSD, MBB agrees that a high priority should be to offer more
courses strictly for graduate students (plus honors students, as proposed by ERC). As
new faculty arrive and others assume full teaching duties such courses will increase in
number.
MBB
is enthusiastic about the suggestion by the ERC that some graduate
t-'
courses be team taught. The 800 level component of double numbered courses always has
C2.7.
?
12
distinctive features oriented toward graduate students. Some double numbered courses
S
are already taught mostly or completely separately. MBB believes that the existing
4xxf8xx courses, most of which are focused on primary literature, serve graduate
students well in providing sophisticated background course work recommended by their
supervisory committees.
All MBB graduate courses are formally evaluated, except for the 3 student
seminar courses (MBB 801/802/806), for which the standard evaluation forms are not
appropriate. MBB will allow the Graduate Caucus to use an evaluation questionnaire it
has designed for these courses, using the internet to avoid privacy issues related to
written responses from a small group. Teaching evaluations provide useful feedback to
course instructors, and are an important part of consideration for promotion and merit
reviews. However, by agreement with the Dean of Science, these evaluations will not be
distributed to students or posted because of privacy issues. We are confident that
graduate students are aware of which courses and faculty are highly regarded without
needing to publish evaluations. Members of the ERC also indicated they felt that too
many course credits are required for the graduate degrees, but were informed this could
not be changed by the Department. The MBB Graduate Studies Committee and Graduate
Caucus have agreed to consider increasing the credit value of MBB 801 and 802 (the
student seminar courses worth two credits) to better reflect the current work load for
students and allow for inclusion of some topics related to professional education (this is
being implemented this year).
S ?
16 Recomme
ndaons
ti ?
appeared to be no seminar committee
comittee charged with the
iiinar program, and organizing an excellent program is a huge responsibility to devolve
upon a single faculty member. If there is reorganization of the committee structure in
MBB, the seminar program should be added to the list. This committee could then
ensure that seminars occur regularly, and institute a mechanism to ensure that all students
can learn something from each seminar. Students suggested food as a lure. At some
schools, there is a pre-seminar session at which graduate students and a local faculty
member (often the host) meet to discuss one or two important papers from the speaker's
laboratory. This brings students to a level where they can understand enough so that
going to a seminar is worthwhile. The pre-seminar program could be constructed as a
course with credit for attendance.
Response:
MBB agrees that the- seminar program has recently'not benas'active as in
the past and should be improved. Coffee, tea, and cookies are already provided prior to
seminars. Speakers are asked to speak to a mixed audience of molecular biology and
biochemistry faculty and graduate students; most speakers comply in an effective way.
Graduate students in the program are expected to have, or quickly obtain, the sufficient
breadth of background to understand and appreciate the full range of departmental
seminars, at least in large measure. MBB 801 and 802 are designed to facilitate this, as
does the use of 4xxl8xx courses recommended by the Supervisory Committee to rectify
deficiencies in breadth of course work. As stated in the Calendar, all MBB graduate
students are expected to attend all departmental seminars.
13
An MBB Seminar Committee, having a graduate representative, has been created.
A seminar course like that proposed, including a writing component, was offered in the
past, but was replaced with the student seminar courses (MBB 801, 802), requiring a
broader range of student activity and involvement. It may be possible to combine the
best elements of both approaches. The Graduate Caucus will continue to be encouraged
to invite and host seminar speakers using funds provided by the Department.
17.Reirnéiidafión
Clarify procedures. Adding students to Departmental email
lists may be one simple mechanism to improve the lines of communication. In addition,
there should be more inclusion of graduate students in planning and decision-making.
particularly in areas that affect them directly such as courses, curriculum, and
requirements for students. This participation will enhance their ability to function
effectively when they themselves become faculty members.
Response:
Written procedures are in place and are already quite clear for normal
graduate student issues (preparing for an external review is not a normal issue).
Graduate, undergraduate, and Department-wide email lists exist and are used for
communications. Graduate students were informed about the external review well in
advance of the visit of the ERC (by email to the Caucus and at the annual departmental
colloquium), but many remained unaware of it until a few days before it took place. The
Caucus then did a very useful survey of graduate student opinion. Unfortunately, the
Department did not have an opportunity to see and respond to the results prior to the visit
of the ERC. The departmental administration will attempt to be more pro-active in
seeking a graduate student response on issues of common concerh. It already
communicates with the MBB Graduate Caucus on issues related to graduate students, and
regular (once a semester) meetings between the caucus and Graduate Studies Committee
are now planned. A graduate representative of the Caucus is a member of the MBB
Graduate Studies Committee, and is involved as a full voting member in all of its
activities: acceptance of students, ranking of scholarship applicants, and policy and
curriculum issues. A graduate student serves on all MBB faculty search committees and
has full voting rights (a reversal of a policy implemented last year, but this remains a
controversial issue among faculty). All job candidates meet with the members of the
Graduate Caucus, which provides written input to the search committee on the
candidates. The graduate representatives on committees are expected to liaise between
the caucus and the faculty and can request meetings between the departmental faculty and
the caucus when desired. In comparison with many on other departments at SFU and
elsewhere, we are confident that MBB graduate students already have an unusually high
level of oppOrtunity for involvement in departmental affairs and planning for its future.
Many students do not take advantage of this opportunity, but fortunately some do in a
very effective way.
5.
Strategies for the Department to engage in cooperative research and teaching
programs with the new Faculty of Health Sciences.
18 Recommendations
DMBB already faces numerous organizational and structural
challenges consequent to its rapid growth and to its transition from an Institute into a
2q. ?
14
Department. At this time, another major reorganization or realignment involving DMBB
. ?
and a new Faculty would appear to us to be ill advised. However, the Faculty of Health
Sciences potentially will provide many new opportunities for individual DMBB
researchers to establish research and teaching links, and DMBB will provide the Faculty
with a proximate, dynamic group of biomedical scientists that will help enable its
recruiting and program development activities.
Response:
MBB plans to take await-and-see approach to'-its role in the new
:.Facu1ty
of
Health -Sciences, except for.•hiring of -two new facWtythethbèr related
th
Jàthié Scott's
CRC Tier I position. If FHS were to commit to developing a strong program in
biomedical research and teaching, there would be substantial interest in MBB in moving
to that Faculty. MBB faculty do not believe the Department "faces numerous
organizational and structural challenges" besides those of a rapidly growing new
Department having inadequate hard money resources and space to sustain its current and
future operations.
B.
"Other areas to be considered"
2. Faculty.
3. Administration.
19. Recommendation:
Clear lines of command need to be established within the
Department, aild substdntial delegation of responsibilities
from
the Chair to the
• Departmental Administrator, and to faculty committees, needs to be achieved. Faculty
committees, at least for important matters such as graduate training, curriculum
development and review, and technical/space resource allocation, need to be provided
with a real role in Departmental governance. Communication has to be improved so that
all Departmental stakeholders(students, staff; teaching, tenure-track, and tenured faculty)
know what is going on, and feel that they have a say.
Response:
The Department aleady.:;has:vexy
:
active andeffective brnm
j ttees for
curriculum development, graduate training, and promotion/tenure The committees bring
motions to MBB faculty meetings for debate and approval. MBB creates
ad hoc
committees for hiring and temporary issues such as space allocation. For example, a
major reallocation of space within the Department was done last year, and space will
continue to be reallocated from time to time based on changing needs. The Department is
creating a Research and Resources Committee to plan and supervise research technical
services, acquisition and use of equipment and facilities, and to consider hiring priorities
for faculty and staff. Though he would like to have a reduced workload, the Chair of
MBB will resist delegating responsibilities for supervision of technical/administrative
staff to anyone lacking appropriate expertise. MBB does not at this time propose to
convert the position of Departmental Assistant to Departmental Administrator or create a
Laboratory Coordinator position having expertise and authority to supervise technical
staff.
.
30. ?
15
MBB challen g
es the implication that there are poor communications within the
Department, which is generally open and operates mostly by consensus. We are certain
that the ERG
.
encountered mostly happy faculty, students, and staff proud of the
Department and united in their main concerns about the future of the Department.
Faculty, students, and staff who met with the ERC were concerned about its lines of
questioning and commentary, which often did not seem to be focused on the major issues
of
concern to the Department. In some cases the focus appeared to be on issues more
specific to other institutions.
1
Future Directions.
"DMBB is a strong Department. As the new faculty members gain experience
and their programs mature, it is likely to continue to improve and gain stature. DMBB
has the clear potential to be one of the top two or three Faculty of Science-based
molecular biology units in Canada.
We believe the challenges this Department faces can be overcome, and we have
made several recommendations in the material above which suggest future directions the
Department may wish to consider, and which we intend to be constructive in helpin
g the
Department to achieve its full potential."
Response
\kTe agree with the overall assessment, except that we believe MBB is
afready among the top 2 or
3
departments in Canada, especially among those doing
biochemistry as well as molecular biology. MBB has found the exercise and the report of
the ERC to be useful and will adopt the spirit of most of the recommendations with
enthusiasm. We hope that the higher administration will move quickly and decisively as
well.
Appendix:•
Response to other comments
(quoted in sequence from the ERC's report):
1. Because they hold salary awards "a significant proportion of the faculty members
consider themselves to be essentially "research faculty". On one hand, this is a very
positive development in that it allows new Faculty members to establish solid research
careers. On the other hand, however, it reduces the involvement of these faculty members
in
other aspects of Departmental life, and has created some tensions between (mostly)
more senior-staff who lack salary awards and more junior staff who have them. There
does not seem to be a clear vision of how the faculty members with salary awards will
integrate into the teaching and administrative life of the Department once their awards
have expired."
Response.
The presence of several MBB faculty holding salary awards and having
reduced teaching roles has created some serious problems for managing the Department's
teaching program. However, these faculty members take their remaining teaching roles
very seriously, sometimes volunteering to do more than is required of them. In most
cases, they are teaching courses having large enrollments placing substantial burdens on
3/. ?
16
their time. The supposed tensions have not surfaced in the Department, which has been
S
careful not to overload other facult
y
because of the reduced duties of those holding salary
awards. All faculty in the Department recognize that the recovered salary income has
been used in ways that benefit the entire Department, not just the faculty holding salary
awards (as often happens elsewhere): salary support for clerical and technical support
staff, bridging new faculty to retirements, and support for seminars, equipment
acquisition and maintenance. In most instances, we do not know for sure when the
(mostly renewable) faculty fellowships will end, but all of the faculty holding salary
awards will ultimately assume full teaching responsibilities, allowing for an increase in
numbers and frequencies of course offerings. Counteracting this will be the departure of
Faculty to whom appointments have been bridged (Smith, Baillie, and Brandhorst).
2.
"This raises a concern about having a two-tier faculty system. It is not clear that the
goals of these faculty harmonize with those of the researchers. Preferably, university
teaching and research activities cross-fertilize one another. As DMBB has evolved a
system that includes a large number of specialists in either teaching or research, this type
of cross-fertilization is minimal."
Response:
.
As noted before, MBB has very few "teaching" faculty (Lecturers) in
comparison with other departments at SFU and in Canada, and they are mainly
temporary, paid with faculty salary recovery funds. The Lecturers are well integrated
into the life of the Department, and all faculty members have important teaching and
S ?
service roles.
?
-
3.
"While in the case of DMBB a vibrant new entity resulted, in general, we think that
the fluidity of Department affiliation contributes to instability in all Departments and
fuels interdepartmental rivalries."
Response: DMBB
does not promote faculty jumping ship to other departments.
However, we believe that a rational realignment of life scientists at SFU is desirable and
overdue. The creation of the Faculty of Health Sciences may lead to that realignment.
The overall success of MBB is illustrative of the gains that can follow realignment of
faculty. ?
-
4.
"The technicians for the teaching labs noted that their greatest difficulty was in
scheduling their time, especially when the large undergraduate labs are running
concurrently. They often have to work long hours, and we were uncertain whether their
scheduling and compensation arrangements are in consonance with relevant collective
bargaining agreements. If they are not, this is a matter that requires urgent resolution."
Response,
The main problem for teaching technicians has been the non-uniformity of
their work load due to the uneven availability of teaching lab space during the year.
Although extra TA help was hired this past semester (04-2) to address this issue,
considerable overtime was still generated by one of the teaching technicians (who will be
compensated in accord with collective agreements). MBB considers this arrangement to
he a poor use of resources, but it is necessary when morning lab sections are offered. In
32
?
17
the slow period during the Fall (when MBB has had only its single teaching lab
available), the technicians do some advanced preparation of materials to be used in MBB
432
over the next two semesters, and take time off in compensation for overtime
accrued. MBB prefers to spread its lab course teaching more evenly over three
semesters, better serving the students and technical staff. Based on a recent but
temporary agreement to share teaching lab space with Biosciences in. all three semesters,
the work loads for the teaching technicians will be more uniform during the year and
more students will be accommodated, including Biosciences majors wanting to enroll in
MBB 308.
5. "Looking to the future, one can imagine that there may be less work in the area of
computer set-up but that virtually all research equipment will involve some sophisticated
microelectronics. Based on this, the University might consider creating a single regular
technical staff position to service all of the Departmental equipment."
Response.
The computer/instrumentation consultant's job description already includes
responsibilities for some types of sophisticated equipment and the incumbent has become
very involved in the operation of the new X-ray diffraction facility. The role of
computation in the Life Sciences is expanding rapidly and is becoming more complex,
requiring the on-going support provided by this essential position. The consultant is
keeping very busy with his defined roles and does not have time to assume more roles.
His role is certainly not confined to setting up and maintaining departmental computers.
There remains a need for another crucial research support role looking after
autoclaves, dishwashers, centrifuges, film . developer, gel documentation system,
spectrophotometers, fluorimeters, phosphorimagers, French Press, water polishers, etc.,
and providing instruction in the effective and safe use of basic equipment used by many
researchers in MBB and the other departments and schools of SFU.
6. "The level of administrative staff appears to be adequate, but its effectiveness suffers
from poorly-defined duties and unclear lines of supervision. One of the administrators is
also a part-time faculty member responsible for one of the teaching labs; this seems to be
an excessive and perhaps conflicting set of responsibilities. This individual also seems to
assume extensive student counseling duties that lie beyond the responsibility of the
Department."
Response:
The Advisor/Program Coordinator in question teaches some lecture courses,
not lab courses, though she was previously involved in developing the content of two of
the lab courses. These are independent half-time positions filled by one highly dedicated
and qualified individual who needs a full time income. She does not perform the role of a
counselor. All of the Administrative/Professional (APSA) staff have recent job
descriptions that are an accurate representation of what they do and to whom they report;
these descriptions were written in consultation with the staff members. The same applies
to CUPE staff.
L-1
33.
?
18
7. "Research space: In general the research space is adequate, and the researchers appear
• ?
to be reasonably content with it. More space will need to be made available, however, to
cope with future expansion of the faculty. New space seems to be found on an ad hoc
basis when new positions become available to the Department. A longer-term plan
would relieve anxiety and improve the effectiveness of Departmental recruiting."
Response: MBB
agrees that new space will need to be found to cope with its almost
certain growth in response to student demand and research opportunities. These
pressures are likely to continue to be stronger in MBB than in most other departments of
the Faculty. MBB also agrees with the assessment that space in the Faculty of Science is
found and allocated on an
ad hoc
basis (even when new space is being created, such as in
TASC 2). MBB agrees that the Faculty of Science (and SFU) should have a longer term
plan and transparent mechanisms to allocate and reallocate space (and faculty positions)
among departments as needs and opportunities change.
MBB performed an analysis of its research space utilization, and carried out an
extensive reallocation of its research space last year, including a plan for the known
number of new faculty recruits. Unless its research activities and numbers of active
researchers (students, postdocs, technicians, faculty, etc) declines it will require more
research space. Within a growing Department having a fixed amount of space, planning
is always
in
a sense reactive, since levels of research activity vary and change with time
for individual faculty and unanticipated new opportunities arise. The Department cannot
simply provide more space to any researcher wanting to expand. operations (even if
. capable of generating the salary support via grants and contracts), but it does try to
respond sensibly to different and changing levels of research activity. While there will
continue to be reallocation of research lab space within MBB from time to time, the
Department will certainly need new lab space if it hires new faculty planning to do wet
lab research. The ERC explicitly acknowledged this in its report and expects the
Department to expand at a moderate rate. MBB agrees, though it expects enrollment
pressures to continue to increase. MBB will create a Research and Resources
Committee to facilitate planning for expansion, identifying hiring priorities and attendant
space requirements.
8. "The Review Committee felt that an inordinate amount of energy was being devoted
to arguments about teaching space."
Response:
This is an issue of grave concern and frustration for MBB because the
associated uncertainty threatens our capacity to accommodate the numbers of students
admitted as majors. In accepting these students the Department made a tacit agreement
to accommodate their course work . requirements. It anticipated that the Faculty of
Science would quickly make appropriate adjustments of space allocation after the
Department documented its needs (as proposed by the previous Dean), but this has not
happened. The teaching space issue has been resolved on a temporary basis without
causing undue hardship to Biosciences. The issue undoubtedly came up many times in
front of the ERC because it is a frustrating example of the failure of the Faculty of
Science to insure that MBB has an equitable allocation of resources required to meet its
19
obligations to its majors. However, it is not an issue over which considerable time has
been spent in the Faculty or the Department, though it tends to impact negatively on
otherwise harmonious relations between MBB and Biosciences. An issue facing both
Departments concerns how to renovate space reassigned for new uses and the need
for
new space to accommodate anticipated growth in enrollments requiring more faculty.
9.
"Administrative space: The administrative space appears to quite limited - although no
complaints were voiced in this regard. Again, an objective space audit would identify any
possible problems in this area."
Response:
The SSD pointed out that a secure work space is required for the Chair's
secretary and there is an inadequacy of meeting room space (precluding conversion of the
small meeting room SSB 8178 to this use). But DMBB considers its most pressing space
issues to be the long term provision of adequate teaching lab space, offices for its new
faculty, and research space for future expansion.
10.
"While the Department's recent recruiting has been superb, we do not think it is
feasible or advisable for it to continue growing at the same rapid pace in the next few
years, although a small number of additional hires may be justified."
Response: MBB
is pleased with the assessment of its recruitment efforts and would like
them to continue. MBB is not interested in undergoing rapid growth. Its recent "growth"
is somewhat illusory because it involved replacing departed faculty, bridging to future
retirements, and temporary replacement of faculty holding salary awards
-
. Growth of the
faculty complement will need to continue at least slowly in order to accommodate
anticipated increases in demand for enrollment in MBB courses and mandated expansion
of enrollment of the Faculty. If faculty growth does not occur with appropriate allocation
of resources, MBB will need to implement a more selective system for admitting students
into its majors programs and courses. Having more faculty members would allow MBB
to more effectively implement the recommendations of the ERC that more upper division
and graduate courses be offered.
There is much interest among MBB faculty in having highly selective majors
programs, but that may not be the appropriate priority for the Faculty or University. The
ERC seemed sympathetic to this approach. Based on experience in other
departments/schools at SF0, selectivity seems likely to increase demand for entrance.
11.
"The overall quality of the undergraduate program is excellent.
The undergraduates
we spoke to seemed content with most aspects of the coursework and interactions with
the faculty and department. ... The numbers of majors is high, but seems to have leveled
off. To accommodate the numbers of students without adding courses or course sections,
many classes are large. Nonetheless, most students (at least through the third year) are
being served reasonably well at the current time, despite the large class size."
Response:
We appreciate the positive assessment of the quality of the undergraduate
program. It is premature to conclude that demand for entry into the majors programs has
20
• ?
leveled
off.
As noted in the SSD, the Department recently raised its GPA requirements
• (to 2.50) for admittance into the majors program and has imposed other filters. It will
continue to make adjustments based on projected availability of resources, teaching lab
space in particular. MBB would prefer to be offering more upper division courses to help
reduce the problem of high enrollments. This could be facilitated by using more of the
faculty salary recoveries to hire more limited term teaching faculty to teach lower
division courses, rather than continuing to use the funds to pay for clerical and technical
services that should be provided through base budgeted salaries as in other departments
of the Faculty.
12. "Because of the quality and accomplishments of its faculty, MBB should be the
perfect home for this sort of undergraduate [those planning independent careers in
science]. Training these students becomes particularly important in year four, when they
typically seek challenging courses and interesting and independent laboratory research,
distinct from large teaching laboratories with set protocols. However, there are relatively
few fourth year course offerings, and many have very large enrollments."
Response:
(See also the previous response to 11). Many MBB majors find opportunities
to do independent studies and get research experience, but they would surely benefit from
having more 400 level courses with smaller enrollments. The same issue applies to
graduate students. MBB believes that its faculty complement should be increased to
reflect the fact that it has far more declared majors per faculty member (by 2-lOx) than
other departments in the Faculty. MBB faculty members supervise many independent
• studies and research courses. We believe that more faculty and resources per FTE are
required to handle the upper division teaching in a Department having so many majors
and graduate students. The situation for course offerings is obviously exacerbated by the
many MBB faculty having reduced teaching loads, since it is difficult or impossible to
replace their upper division/graduate teaching roles.
13. "The increase in numbers of faculty has not been accompanied by a proportional
increase in the amount of teaching done by the Department, even when the high numbers
of teaching buyouts are taken into account. The scope of the course offerings is
reasonable, but could be expanded with the additional faculty on board."
Response:
This false conclusion was based on some erroneous data provided by
Analytical Studies to the ERC for the early years of MBB. The correct raw data was
included in the SSD, showing the teaching roles of every MBB faculty member since
before the Department began. The correct data were then summarized in writing for the
ERC near the end of its visit, but were ignored. In 98/99 there were 13 tenure track
faculty members in MBB (counting as '/: Thewalt and Brandhorst who held joint
appointments and taught primarily in other departments) and one instructor/lecturer. In
02/03 there were 18 tenure track faculty members and one Lecturer (as well as 1
.5
lecturers hired with soft funds as teaching replacements). During that period, the total
number of MBB courses taught per faculty member
increased
by 9%. This increase was
in spite of the many faculty holding salary awards, the reduced teaching loads for new
faculty in their first year (three in 02/03), the absence of any teaching duties for former
3d,.
?
21
Dean of Science Davidson, the half-time teaching role for the new Chair of the
Department (previously not available to the Director of IMBB), the half teachin
g
buyout
for Brandhorst in his role as Associate Director of IL-IRE, study leaves, and teaching
reductions to allow time for development of the new lab courses.
During this period the number of MBB FTEs and majors increased dramatically.
with MBB faculty now handling more weighted FTEs per capita than any other
laboratory science department in the Faculty (see Table
3.5
in the SSD). Thus, the
teaching workload for MBB faculty increased substantially during this period. To date,
as documented in the SSD, there has been little adjustment to the MBB base budget as a
consequence of the greatly increased numbers of students and attendant operatin
g
costs.
As more MBB faculty join the Department as scheduled, or become available for full
time teaching, the numbers of MBB courses taught per year will increase, hopefully
accompanied by declines in enrollment per course (provided enrollment pressures to do
not continue to increase).
14.
"Many courses are large, and include both undergrads and graduate students despite•
their different educational needs."
Response.
It is common at other institutions to allow 400 level (advanced
undergraduate) courses to be used for credit toward a graduate degree when deemed
appropriate by the supervisory committee. This is effectively impossible at SFU, so
double numbered (4xxI8xx) courses have arisen at SFU with various de
g
rees of
differentiation. We do not believe that graduate students are badly served by these
courses when recommended by their supervisory committees, but strongly agree that
there should be more courses that are designed for grad students. In this Response, MBB
has suggested mechanisms for helping to achieve this. [Note: in a recent poll, MBB
graduate students consider themselves badly served by these 4xx/8xx courses, though
they rate most such courses very favorably when taking them].
15. 'There was relatively little faculty "ownership" of courses evident, and a strong
teaching culture was not being developed among most junior faculty. This was blamed
on the numbers of buyouts, but this does not fully explain either the quantity of teaching,
or the attitude toward teaching. In the long run, the lack of commitment to teaching may
present a real threat to the mission of SFU."
Response:
MBB takes considerable exception to these statements, for which no
documentation was provided. Moreover, this issue was not discussed by the ERC with
the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee nor with the MBB Chair. If the charge were
true it would seem to contradict the assessment by the ERC of the teaching program as
"excellent", one that the students like. Each faculty member is filly responsible for at
least one upper division course that in most instances he/she either created or extensively
revised; they feel a strong sense of "ownership" for these courses, which usually gamer
high praise in student evaluations. There is less sense of ownership for the core courses
taught by various faculty two or three times per year, but we doubt that usin
g
the
3T ?
22
suggested team teaching approach to these courses would increase the sense of ownership
• (on the contrary). The 'junior faculty" have made the quality of their teaching a priority
and recognize that the Department is attracting many students because of the perceived
quality of its teaching programs (and the students it attracts), as well as interest in the
subject matter. Student evaluations indicate that nearly all of the faculty, the newer
faculty and those holding salary awards in particular, go about their teaching in a
thoughtful, enthusiastic, and responsible way, in spite of the frustrations of large
enrollments and a broad range of student quality and engagement. MBB faculty do
indeed attract many undergraduates and graduate students into their labs based on the
appeal of the courses they teach.
In terms of quantity of teaching, the MBB FTE per CFL load is similar to, or
higher than, other science departments at SFU and many other Canadian universities.
The numbers of courses and students taught per faculty member is in accord with
disciplinary norms. But the teaching load is much heavier than in departments of
molecular biology and biochemistry based in medical schools, which represent the main
competition for grants. Moreover, most MBB faculty teach large numbers of
independent studies, independent research, and directed readings courses as "overload".
They do not even receive departmental grants to partially cover lab supplies for such
courses, so research grants are effectively subsidizing the undergraduate teaching
program. All of this "voluntary" teaching activity is indicative of a strong commitment
to teaching quality and a desire to provide a good research experience to motivated
students, who respond favorably.
16. "There were many discussions of the need for more teaching space and new teaching
space. However, the reviewers just did not perceive this as a real problem. The walk-
through showed that the undergraduate laboratory space is absolutely superb. The
numbers of students accommodated per session seemed low. There seemed to have been
little attempt to get "out-of-the-box" to find solutions to issues presented to the reviewers
as major and intractable problems. One simple example. Apparently, despite the
advertised space crunch, labs are given only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This
leaves Monday for prep time, which is realistic; but there was no good rationale for not
teaching labs on Friday, even recognizing that this might mean a TA would need to come
in on the weekend to remove plates from an incubator or finish up other details of an
experiment."
Response:
The ERC is quite wrong in its assessment that allocation of teaching lab
space is not real problem. It failed to get the facts on which to base a conclusion. The
availability of "borrowed" space is the primary determinant of the frequency of weekly
lab sections. MB
309
is taught twice per year on 4 or
5
days of the week in the MBB
teaching lab. That means the room is available in only one semester for the other two
laboratory courses, MBB 308 and 432, which are also effectively required of all majors
and also taught twice a year. MBB 308 and
432
also have large enrollments, though
more students can be accommodated per section in these courses, reducing the number of
sections required. There is also unmet demand for entry into these courses, especially
MBB 308, by students from other departments, notably Biosciences. MBB 308 and 432
3s ?
23
had eleven sections in space "borrowed"
from
Biosciences in the 2003-4 academic year,
yet turned away students. The only way
for
each of the MBB lab courses to he taught
twice per year is to "borrow" teaching lab space (and some equipment), but MBB has
only year-to-year assurances of access to borrowed space, making planning precarious.
The borrowed lab was available only three days per week in the Spring, 2004, when
demand was highest.
The nature of the exercises and enrollment demands vs. section sizes are other
issues. MBB
432
requires substantial setup for each exercise and requires students to
perform operations on the next day, making Friday labs impractical without hiring extra
staff to supervise the students on Saturdays. Similar issues with regard to MBB 308 are
being rectified by attempting to modify the exercises. MBB 309 does not require students
to do work in the lab the next day, so it is taught
5
days per week when the demand is
there.
MBB must be able to run at least two lab courses each semester four or five days
a week to accommodate the enrollment demands of its majors and other students, and it
cannot do that with the one teaching lab under its control, especially one designed for
biochemistry rather than molecular biology (i.e., having lots of fume hoods reducing
useful bench space). To make more efficient use of the space available, we have
experimented with offering lab sections in the morning (including two in 04-2), but most
students have conflicts with other courses and this approach results in an extremely long
work day for the teaching technicians and lab instructors dealing with two labs each day.
The number of students accommodated per lab section depends on the nature of
the course and has already been substantially increased to a practical maximum related to
amount of appropriate bench space and equipment. The only way to increase throughput
per session would be to increase the size of working groups. We have tried that (using
groups of three instead of pairs), but the quality of the hands-on experience was
undermined. The
quality
of the space has never been an issue (except for lack of some
limiting equipment), nor has MBB made any demand for the creation of new teaching lab
space. We are confident that there is sufficient teaching lab space of good quality in SSB
for all MBB and Biosciences upper division teaching on the SFU main campus in the
foreseeable future. As documented in the SSD, MBB is considerably more efficient in its
use of teaching lab space than is Biosciences, so the criticism by the ERC seems
misdirected.
Had the ERC asked the appropriate questions they would have discovered that
MBB has already done considerable thinking "out of the box" about its lab courses, as
well as a doing a huge amount of development of these courses so that they integrate with
its curriculum, rather than buying canned lab exercises. The goal of MBB in its lab
courses is to teach a range of currently useful technical skills, experimental design, data
analysis, and proper reporting of experimental results, while conveying a sense of how
contemporary research is actually performed. MBB does not want its lab courses to
become "Mickey Mouse" demonstration labs or optional courses that have become
common elsewhere to save money and space while shortchanging students.
?
0
3q
.
?
24
• During its planning of these new lab courses, MBB did not anticipate having such
high enrollment demands from unanticipated numbers of majors and students from other
departments. 8ut we always knew and always stated that more than the single teaching
lab would be required in order to mount MBB
432.
which effectively replaced BISC
431 (now defunct) that had been taught by faculty transferring to M
.
1313. Even without
MBB 432, the single biochemistry teaching lab cannot accommodate the large increase iii
numbers of majors who must take MBB 308 and 309. MBB expected that teaching lab
space and other resources would be transferred along with the transfer of faculty into the
new Department, but that has not yet happened. It must happen now.
We regard the high demand for enrollment in MBB courses as a sign of the
success of our programs, and we believe it is due in large measure to the quality of our
courses, especially our lab courses, as well as the excitement of our disciplines and the
virtues of our faculty members. MBB will strive to maintain and improve that quality,
but we require the essential resources to do so.
Summary
MBB believes that expeditious action is required concerning the hard funding of
salaries for core clerical and technical support services for the department that now
depend on soft money. Faculty salary recoveries should be used primarily for
replacement of their teaching function. This would help alleviate a major problem
• identified in the SSD and emphasized by the ERC: the large enrollments in 400 level
courses and paucity of courses strictly for graduate students. Hiring priorities and
resource allocation in the Faculty of Science should be consider the unique situation
faced by MBB in having the largest numbers of majors in the Faculty while teaching no
first year courses. MBB strongly endorses the recommendation to perform an inventory
of space utilization in the Faculty of Science (preferably including Applied Sciences).
We hope that this would result in equitable reallocation of research and teaching
laboratories and offices based on current requirements rather than past history. MBB
must be able to plan with confidence that its large and increasing number of majors can
be accommodated in their required course work, particularly in the laboratory courses
that are considered by faculty and students alike to be a fundamental part of the MBB
program considered to by the ERC to be of high quality.
6'0.
?
25
• ?
Deañ'sComments
External Review of the Department of Molecular Biology and
Biochemistry
?
October 12, 2004
I have in hand the report of the external review committee on the Department of
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry (MBB) as well as the response of the Department,
dated September 25, 2004. I note in passing that the Departmental response is more than
twice as long as the review committee's report and will attempt to keep my own
comments somewhat more limited.
During the course of two face-to-face meetings with the external review
committee (ERC) I formed the opinion that they had a good grasp of the Department's
activities and, perhaps equally important, of the general atmosphere in the Department.
Since the Department itself suggested the composition of the ERC one must assume that
the members of the committee had the confidence of the Department. It is therefore
remarkable and somewhat discouraging to read the rather negative departmental
response.
Below I will comment on some of the recommendations and the departmental response.
Recommendation:
The senior administration and the Department should
develop a writtentràfisitionT plan
to deal with the issue of salary grant
expiration and provide for permanent funding of the Department's central
activities. Conclusion of a satisfactory agreement would go a long way
toward alleviating present concerns.
The ERC did not define what it meant by "central activities". I have taken it to mean the
office support staff and have assured the Department that their salaries- will be transferred
tathe base budget in fiscal year 200S/06.
2.
Recommendation:
All courses should benefit from at least some
involvement from faculty with active research programs. More use of team-
teaching (see below) would allow this recommendation to be implemented
without compromising the constraints of the salary grant programs, and would
enable better integration of grant holders into the pedagogical activities of the
Department.
The Department disagrees with the perception of the ERC that at least some of the
Faculty on external salary awards are not sufficiently committed to the undergraduate
program. I have no independent information on this point and cannot comment.
fl,
ffi.
.
3.
Recommendation:
A committee of tenure-track and tenured faculty should
be formed to 'work with the teaching faculty to carefully examine the content
of the laboratory courses with the goal of reducing the duration of the
laboratories. Our impression was that this could be accomplished without
compromising course quality, perhaps by more utilization of commercially
prepared reagents, etc.
The ERC concluded, inter
alia,
that MBB requires more undergraduate laboratory work
than comparable programs elsewhere in Canada and the US and asked that the
Department consider reducing this requirement. The':Department declines to do:so,
4.
Recommendation:
The Departmental Administrator needs to be placed
clearly in charge of the time management of the technical staff. She must
ensure that collective agreements are respected and the workload of support
staff remains manageable.
The administrative model recommended by the ERC is in effect in, e.g., Physics and
seems to work quite well in that Department. However, if the Chair of MBB, wishes., to
continüeto dirébtl supervise the 'technicalstaff; he has that option.
5.
Recommendation:
"The university might consider creating a single regular
technical staff position to service all of the Departmental equipment." A
technical services committee, consisting of several faculty members and the
Departmental Administrator, should be formed to
.
define the duties of
Departmental research support staff and to devise a system for equitable
management of their time. Consideration should be given to instituting at
least a partial cost-recovery system for these services.
This.office.will carefuily
.,
consider a request .for;additional'technical:support. It maybe
possible to find an individual capable of maintaining departmental facilities and looking
after the Department's computer needs.
6.
Recommendation:
At present, the equipment maintenance technician is a
graduate student, who performs the technical task part-time. This is an
inappropriate job for a graduate student, and the student's progress through
the program is clearly being negatively impacted by holding this job.
Technicians and graduate students have very different duties and
responsibilities, and the same person cannot hold both positions.
I don't anticipate that it will be necessary to hire
g
tD
raduate students as part-time
technicians in the future. However, in this instance I agree' with
:
the :Department's
response.
Lf ?
2
7.
Recommendation:
Ensure that administrative
staff
positions are base-funded
through the long-term Department funding agreement recommended above.
This recommendationhas been:acceptcdà tàffis6nciñed. With
regard to the computer systems/instrumentation consultant, I note that at least four
departments (Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics and Actuarial Sciences)
in the Faculty of Science do not have a base-funded APSA position of this kind. If the
Department wishes to add this individual to its base-funded complement, it is free to
convert a future CFL position.
I note also that there is no mention in the response of the two instrumentation consultants
hired by the Faculty of Health Sciences and made available, according to the Dean of that
Faculty, to researchers in MBB. My sense is that the opening statement of the ERC report
which reads, in part, "... DMBB is a well-resourced Department" is quite accurate.
8.
Recommendation:
Eliminate overlap between administrative and academic
positions, and ensure that the administrative positions have clearly-defined
duties and fall under the supervision of the Departmental Administrator.
I agree with the Department's response that it is not: necessary for the undergraduate
advisor to-'report to the Departmental Assistant.
9.
Recommendation:
The teaching labs are the focus of one of a number of
long-standing disputes between DMBB and Biological Sciences, and to a
lesser extent Chemistry. These disputes appear to us to be rooted in the
history of the Departmental splits that led to the creation of DMBB, and are
fueled by interpersonal rivalries. Our estimation is that both Departments
• contribute to this problem, and also that they are unable to resolve it among
themselves. We propose that the Faculty of Science commission an
independent space audit to examine research and teaching space utilization in
Biological Sciences, DMBB, and Chemistry, and make binding
recommendations as to how the available space might be better utilized.
There is, indeed, considerable friction between MBB and Biological Sciences over the
use and "ownership" of certain teaching laboratories as well as, more recently, some
high-quality research space. In a period of overall shortage of space, it is unlikely that all
units will be satisfied all the time. Recently, a meeting between the two Chairs and
myself resulted in an agreement for use of space that will see us through the period until
the next significant building opens.
The Department's suggestion that an internal committee to evaluate space allocation be
struck isa reasonable one and we will strike such a 'committee once some preliminary
'
data have been assembled. I 'did explore the possibility of hiring an outside consultant but
that proved to be prohibitively expensive.
3
10.
Recommendation:
The most serious problem in the faculty that could be
addressed by recruitment is the lack of mid-career professors; there is an
extremely biphasic age distribution within the Department. This also leads to
concerns about the Department's ability to find people to assume leadership
positions in the short to intermediate term. In addition to considering specific
research specialties for new faculty positions, the Department might also
consider hiring a productive, mid-career scientist with leadership ability,
perhaps through a Tier I CRC. This would help to bridge the gap between
junior and senior faculty within the Department.
As mentioned in the Department's response, the situation has been :somewhat improved
with the transfer ofAssociate :ProfessorLynne Quarmby from Biosciences to MBB and I
have also apprc
yed
a search for -a bioinformatics faculty member at the -Associate
Professor. level.
11.
Recommendation:
There does appear to be the need for additional
secretarial/advisory support for the majors. It is important to recognize that
the role of the Department in this capacity must be distinct from that of
student advisory and counseling services that are better handled by at the
University or Faculty level. Non-tenure track faculty may be devoting too
much effort to advising.
I am not familiar enough with the day-to-day operations of the advisor to comment.
12.
Recommendation:
Establish a combined BS/MS program that would allow
honors undergraduates to take courses that are specially designed for and
largely restricted to graduate students (in contrast to the current 400/800
courses, which are large and attempt to teach both groups). This would
provide an excellent training opportunity for students; and it would also
provide faculty with an incentive to teach excellent graduate courses, in the
hope of enticing these students to work in their laboratories. This combined
program could include an opportunity for laboratory rotations in year five.
I agree that graduate students are almost inevitably short-changed by combined 400/800
courses and that there should be 8O0 level courses speciflcally. intended ;for: graduate.,
students. In some of the better North American universities, it is not unusual for some of
the stronger undergraduates to take graduate courses for credit but it is made clear to
them that there will be no compromises in the course content. I thinkthat this could work
well here.
.
ALL
?
4
•
13. Recommendations.
Within MBB, the numbers of laboratory courses required
and their content need to be carefully re-examined. Can laboratory course
requirements be better-tailored to individual students? Can the experimental
design be modified so that labs do not require so many teaching hours, and
finish on time? Most institutions just do not provide the level or extent of
laboratory instruction found in MBB. Comparison with peer institutions
could provide a useful guide for realistic changes in the curriculum. It might
also be necessary to set the bar higher for admission to the laboratory, or to
the major. In addition, MBB should consider separating their 400-level
courses from graduate offerings, ideally by offering new courses for graduate
students and honors undergraduates.
MBB and Biological Sciences need to work together to develop second- and
third-year courses in which faculty members from both Departments
share
teaching, and to work out some short-term plan for use of teaching laboratory
space. It is likely that the administration will need to guide or mediate this
planning. In the long run, it would be very appropriate for SFU to examine
the question of whether more teaching space is necessary or useful, or whether
existing space might be adequate if used realistically by all Departments
involved. This might best be done by employing an external consultant to
examine current space use.
Isupport this recóththendâtion. Unfortunately, the Department seems to be unwilling to
consider changes to its program.
?
-
W
14. Recommendations:
If a Handbook for Graduate Students in MBB exists, it
should be advertised better; if not, it should be created. If there are SFU rules
which constitute a default position for Departments which do not write their
own rules, then those should be provided to each student on entry into the
program and explicitly applied. Require each advisor to monitor and report on
the progress of each student in an annual written report that discusses progress
to date and goals for the future. This report would be provided to the student
and all members of the research committee after each committee meeting. By
the end of year 2 (M.Sc.) or year 4 (Ph.D.), the progress report would
document agreed-upon goals for completion of the degree, and set a timetable
for completion. Both goals and timetable would become more specific the
closer a student gets to completion. The time to degree in each laboratory
should be public information, provided to a Graduate Education Committee
and available to all prospective students. Research committees should be
made aware of laboratories that deviate consistently from an optimal
timescale, to provide extra aid for students who might find that their advisors
have unusual expectations. Conversely, MBB should adopt rules governing
the amount of time a student may ordinarily be supported during pursuit of a
graduate degree. These rules should be designed to protect both students and
faculty from unrealistic expectations, while taking into account unusual
situations (childbirth, family emergencies, change of laboratory, etc.).
C5
?
5
The proposed Diploma program had a very low profile within the Department.
Many faculty seemed unaware of it, and essentially none considered it to be a
high priority. Given the rapid growth of the Department, its need to
consolidate a great deal of change, its present difficulties with graduate
courses, and its priority for high-quality research, we do not consider that a
Diploma program is consistent with the goals of the Department.
The: Department's respônseis àdequàte.
15.
Recommendations:
More small-enrollment, intensive graduate courses with
enrollment restricted to graduate students! If a few honors undergraduates are
admitted to these courses (e.g., in a BS/MS program), this would create a real
incentive to teach. If these courses focus on primary literature and are taught
by a team of faculty members, they would be fun for both faculty and
students. Create a formal evaluation system for graduate teaching. Make
evaluations public (not just numbers, but all comments fit to print), so that
students may choose among courses based upon evaluation. Use teaching
evaluations as at least one of the determinants for promotion and for
recommendations for external recognition of faculty.
Jagree with the recommendatjonsof-the .ERC. I., do not agree with the Department's
contention that 4xxl8xx courses serve graduate students well.
16.
Recommendations.
There appeared to be no seminar committee charged with
the seminar program, and organizing an excellent program is a huge
responsibility to devolve upon a single faculty member. If there is
reorganization of the committee structure in MBB, the seminar program
should be added to the list. This committee could then ensure that seminars
occur regularly, and institute a mechanism to ensure that all students can learn
something from each seminar. Students suggested food as a lure. At some
schools, there is a pre-seminar session at which graduate students and a local
faculty member (often the host) meet to discuss one or two important papers
from the speaker's laboratory. This brings students to a level where they can
understand enough so that going to a seminar is worthwhile. The pre-seminar
program could be constructed as a course with credit for attendance.
I agree with this and the Department seems to agree at least in part:
fl
6
•
17. Recommendations.
Clarify procedures. Adding students to Departmental email
lists may be one simple mechanism to improve the lines of communication. In
addition, there should be more inclusion of graduate students in planning and
decision-making, particularly in areas that affect them directly such as courses,
curriculum, and requirements for students. This participation will enhance their
ability to function effectively when they themselves become faculty members.
The Department seems to have accepted this recommendation: In their response, they
state in part that a member of the Graduate Student Caucus is involved in decisions on
"acceptance of students, ranking of scholarship applicants...". In myopinion this is not
appropriate. There is a clear potential conflict of interest.
18.
Recommendations: DMBB
already faces numerous organizational and structural
challenges consequent to its rapid growth and to its transition from an Institute
into a Department. At this time, another major reorganization or realignment
involving DMBB and a new Faculty would appear to us to be ill advised.
However, the Faculty of Health Sciences potentially will provide many new
opportunities for individual DMBB researchers to establish research and teaching
links, and DMBB will provide the Faculty with a proximate, dynamic group. of
biomedical scientists that will help enable its recruiting and program development
activities.
• ?
I ag éèèntirely with this staterñent.
19.
Recommendation:
Clear lines of command need to be established within the
Department, and substantial delegation of responsibilities from the Chair to the
Departmental Administrator, and to faculty committees, needs to be achieved.
Faculty committees, at least for important matters such as graduate training,
curriculum development and review, and technical/space resource allocation,
need to be provided with a real role in Departmental governance.
Communication has to be improved so that all Departmental stakeholders
(students, staff, teaching, tenure-track, and tenured faculty) know what is going
on, and feel that they have a say.
There are a number of possible administrative styles. -Jpersonal1
y
..a
g re e
with.,the
recommendation of the ERC but the Department seems in large part to reject it.
.
7
SCUP-FHS.MBB
From dean@cs.sfu.ca
Thu Feb 10 19:23:09 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:36:25 -0800 (PST)
From: charmaine Dean <dean@cs.sfu.ca >
To: brandhor@sfu.ca
, scdean@sfu.ca
Cc: krane@sfu.ca , jhw@sfu.ca
, FHS David MacLean <dmaclean@sfu.ca >,
FHS Colin Jones <colin_jones@sfu.ca
>
Subject: SCUP - FHS & MBB
Dear Bruce,
The SCUP meeting papers for the meeting on February 9, 2005 includes a
recommendation that MBB consider the opportunities afforded by the
establishment of the new FHS.
This is a memo in response to that recommendation to indicate interest and
support for pursuing this development.
In particular, we are currently working with Jamie Scott to develop a
proposal for a graduate program in Infectious Disease and Toxicology.
Professor scott gave a presentation to our Faculty Graduate Studies
Committee outlining ideas for such a proposal on January 24th. we
will be forwarding comments to her tomorrow on the ideas presented, after
discussion at today's FHS graduate studies meeting.
We expect strong connections with MBB and I would be happy to meet to
pursue ideas you may have.
All the best,
Charmaine
C.B. Dean
?
-
Associate Director, Institute for Health Research and Education
Statistics and Actuarial Science
?
Direct Line: ?
604-291-4919
Simon Fraser University ?
Messages: ?
604-291-3803
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada
?
Main office FAX: 604-291-4368
http://www.stat.sfu.ca/- . dean/ ?
http://ihre.sfu.ca/
Page 1
