Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24

S.07-2

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

TO: Senate ?

FROM:

John Waterhouse

Chair, SCUP

Vice President, Academic

RE: Department of Biological Sciences

DATE: ?

December 19, 2006

External Review

The Senate Committee on University priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External

Review Report on the Department of Biological Sciences, together with responses from

the Department and Faculty, and input from the Associate Vice-President, Academic.

Motion:

That Senate approve the recommendations from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Biological Sciences and

the Dean of the Faculty of Science on priority items resulting from the external

5 ?

review.

The report of the External Review Committee for the Department of Biological Sciences

was submitted in May, 2006 following the review team's site visit, which took place

March 22-24, 2006. The response of the Department was received on June 6, 2006

and the response from the Dean on July 6, 2006.

The External Review was in general, very positive and the Committee found the

Department to be 'an active and stimulating enterprise that operates in an open and

collegial fashion'. The Committee congratulated the Chair on doing an excellent job.

The Committee also made a number of recommendations and there is general

agreement on these recommendations from the Faculty.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Biological Sciences and the Dean

of Science are advised to pursue the following as priority items.

1. WQB Requirements

Complete the modification of existing courses to 'W course status.

• Assess the effectiveness of the 'W courses over the next few years once

5 ?

more experience has been gained in this area.

Collaboration

• Review the possibility of increasing collaboration between Departments

and Faculties with regard to the utilization of research facilities.

• Continue to seek opportunities with other Faculties to embark on joint

initiatives, including programmes and joint appointments.

Undergraduate Curriculum

• Undertake a review of the undergraduate curriculum with particular

reference to seeking cooperation with other Departments, increasing the

students' exposure to statistics, and possibly reducing the number of lab

courses.

• Ensure the Co-op Coordinator is invited to Department meetings to ensure

that the Department increases the profile of Co-op education within the

Department.

Graduate Programme

• Continue to seek ways of recruiting good graduate students and providing

them with competitive financial support.

• Reconsider the requirements that may be inhibiting the ease of transfer

from the M Sc to a PhD by deserving students.

• Consider the establishment of a mentoring programme for new faculty,

staff and students.

• Review, with the Dean, the issue of 'stacking' and the process that maybe

required to motivate for a change in SFU policy on the subject.

('Stacking'

is the scheduling of a faculty member's annual formal teaching into a

single semester.)

CC Mike Plischke. Dean of the Faculty of Science

Tony Williams. Chair, Department of Biological Sciences

• ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Dean of Science

MEMORANDUM

TO: W.R. Krane, Associate Vice-

FROM:

Dr. Michael Plischke, Dean

President Academic

Faculty of Science

RE:

External Review, Department of

DATE: July 6, 2006

Biological Sciences

I am writing to you with regard to the external review of the Department of Biological

Sciences and the department's response to the Review Committee's report. The report

is a positive, constructive document that indicates that the Department has made

excellent progress toward a collegial cooperative environment since its last review. I

believe that the last two Chairs, Norbert Haunerland and Tony Williams deserve much

of the credit for that. The report contains twelve formal recommendations and a number

of suggestions in the text of the document. The Department has largely either accepted

these or committed to further deliberation. I will therefore be quite selective in my

commentary. The recommendations are in three categories: for the University, for the

Dean and for the Department and I will follow that format.

For the University

(i)

The Review Committee (ERC) questions SFU's policy on stacking" and the

counting of study-leave credits. By stacking they mean scheduling a faculty

member's annual formal teaching into a single semester. The Faculty of Science

has long had an informal policy prohibiting this except in special circumstances.

The reason, as I remember it, is to prevent those faculty members whose

research program is centered at TRIUMF from being absent from campus eight

months of the year. This would not be an issue in Biological Sciences and I have

some sympathy for stacking. However, the study-leave policy (A31.02) that is

negotiated between SFUFA and the administration explicitly requires formal

classroom teaching in order to accumulate credit for a given semester. This

policy would have to be revisited if any changes in the scheduling of teaching

were to be made.

(ii)

I take issue with the Review Committee's comment that "the environmental

science program appears to be sound in curricular design". It is anything but

sound.

(iii)

Recommendation #1 concerns the new WOB requirements. It is clear that we will

have to assess the effectiveness of our W courses over the next few years. I

agree with the Department's statement that it has responded in a "timely and

constructive way' and that nothing further needs to be done until we have more

experience with this initiative.

For the Dean

(i)

The ERC expresses some concern regarding the lack of large CFI grants

involving faculty in Biological Sciences. I should first mention that several of

the recent hires in Biological Sciences were given access to CFI through the

Leaders Opportunity Fund. Others, whose needs were more modest, had

their startup package entirely funded by the University. As acknowledged

elsewhere in the Report, our startup packages have erred on the side of

generosity. As far as the large awards (IRMACS, CREM, HPC and others)

are concerned, success in this competition requires a good deal of grassroots

leadership and spadework. No such leadership has emerged in Biological

Sciences to date although I note that Harald Hutter is taking a lead role in an

application to CFI for confocal microscopy.

(ii)

"The Dean should express very clearly to individuals recruited into or

currently residing in Biology that changing departments is not a viable option."

The impression left by this sentence is that there is an epidemic of

department hopping. I'm aware of four cases in the Faculty of Science during

the last thirty years (Boal, Hell, Verheyen and Quarmby) except at the time of

formation of new departments in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and

Statistics and Actuarial Sciences. The most recent case of switching has

clearly irritated some members of the Department, probably because it

involved the loss of some high-quality lab space. There was, however, neither

encouragement on my part nor any 'poaching" on the part of MBB. I think that

all requests by faculty members to switch to another department have to be

considered on their merits. Having said that, I would not support a request

from a recently arrived faculty member to change home departments.

(iii)

"It is crucial for both Health and Safety and productivity reasons to ensure

that graduate students have desk space outside the laboratories in which

they work." I agree with this. We will be renovating and reallocating a

considerable amount of space as a result of the move to TASC II. Graduate

student seating space will have to be a priority.

(iv)

Recommendation #2 concerns shared facilities. I agree with the spirit of this

recommendation. I have recently succeeded in obtaining $200K from the

remaining CFI Leader's Opportunity Fund for an application for a confocal

microscopy facility that will be shared principally by faculty in Biological

Sciences and MBB.

(v)

Recommendation #3: "The Dean and the University could better define the

appointments

processes for embarking

formulating a potential joint initiative is for two or more faculty members from

different units to talk to each other. Such discussions do take place but don't

seem to have, for whatever reason, involved faculty in Biological Sciences at

least to this point in time. I have every confidence that the program in

Quantitative Epidemiology, jointly developed by Statistics and Actuarial

Science and the Faculty of Health Science, will be successfully mounted.

Such opportunities exist for Biological Sciences as well but someone has to

take the lead.

For the Department

Undergraduate Curriculum

(i)

The principal recommendation here is a complete reexamination of the

undergraduate curriculum and the Department has accepted this. On the

other hand, the more specific recommendation to reduce the required

number of lab courses has not been accepted. I agree with the Department

that pedagogical considerations are more important than what the current

Canadian norm is. However, I would urge them not to dismiss this

recommendation without further consideration. Lab space is in short supply.

Graduate Proaram

• (I) Recommendation #6: This essentially calls attention to the perceived

difference in support for Ph.D. students at UBC as compared to SFU. I agree

with the Department's response that the only feasible method of bridging the

gap is more extensive use of research dollars but it may be difficult to obtain

consensus in the Department if the cost to researchers turns out to be too

high.

(ii)

Recommendation #8: The substantive part of this recommendation is a

suggestion that the Master in Environmental Toxicology Program be

converted to a research based M.Sc. rather than a coursework program. The

Department does not agree with this proposal. Since the Department has

recently conducted a comprehensive review of the program I am comfortable

with their decision to retain the current format.

(iii)

Recommendation #9: The heart of this recommendation is a suggestion to

lower the barrier for students wishing to transfer from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D.

program. I support this. I believe that a conscientious supervisory committee

is able to judge whether or not a student has the ability to complete a Ph.D.

relatively early in that student's M.Sc. program. The Department seems

receptive to this suggestion.

All in all, this review was a positive and useful exercise and I congratulate the

Department on an excellent review.

EXTERNAL REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE ?

JUNE 6 2006

The Department of Biological Sciences was reviewed on March 22-242006. The written report

of the external reviewers was received by the Chair, and circulated to all facult

, staff, graduate

students and representatives of the undergraduate student caucus students, on April 26 2006. A

draft Department response was discussed and approved ata Departmental meeting on 30 May

2006. This report is the official response by the Department that comments on the external

review in general and the specific recommendations in the external review report.

Overview

The Department was pleased with the overall tenor of the External Review report: the review

panel found that Biosciences "is an active and stimulating enterprise that operates in an open and

colle g ial fashion.... is working well, making effective use of available space and taking a

business-like approach to planning and renovation ... has been very well served b

its

recruitment operations ... is well organized with respect to planning of course offerings [and has

responded] in a timely and constructive way to University initiatives such as the Surre

operation

and the emerging Faculty of Health Sciences".

We were particularly encouraged that the External Review panel endorsed our current

hirin

g plan through 2010 (approved with 94% support by the Department in January 2006) which

the

described as "well thou g

ht out" with positions in microbiology and toxicolog

y , in

particular.representin g

"key additions to the Department

and to the broader programs at SFU'

(our italics).

Below we outline some initial responses to specific recommendations in the report, although we

note that some of these recommendations would take several years to implement and will require

more detailed discussion and planning at the Department level.

Recommendations "for the University"

The review panel expressed concern over an increase in "downloading" of routine administrative

and financial tasks to the Department level citing the implementation of Peoplesoft® as an

example. The Department appreciates the need to upgrade and improve the Student Information

Management System (SIMS),and other financial and academic management systems but has also

routinely expressed concern about the increased workload being expected of DAs and

Undergraduate Advisors in particular, the office staff in general, and the increase in "non-

academic" tasks being required of faculty (examples being use of the new FAST and Purchase

Requisition s

stems which still work less than smoothly). Although we have taken steps within

the Department to deal with this issue (e.g. reor

anising the main office, hiring a financial clerk)

this has had to be done without additional resources to meet the burden of the increased

workload.

Recommendation

#l:The University irnist ensure that its move to writing initiatives can

accommodate the realities of writing in science (for example) as well as in other disciplines. The

Universit y

must ensure that the standards for the initiative are comparable across unitsand that

there are adequate resources to support this approach. The Department appears enthusiastic

about providing its students with more experience in writing. At this stage, however, it is not

clear that Biology ('and perhaps other areas of science) is well served by the template that

appears to have been adopted and the apparent mismatch of resources to the envisioned

programme. For example. at the University of Western Ontario we have hired a science editor

to support the writing component of a required second year lab course.

As the review panel concluded in their summary, Biosciences believes that it has

responded in a "timely and constructive way" to the WQB curriculum reforms, within the

constraints of the resources available to meet these changes. Twice we have forwarded a proposal

jointlY with MBB for a Writing Lecturer to UCITF to recruit someone with expertise in science

writing to develop and offer a dedicated upper division writing course in the life sciences. This

proposal was viewed as "too expensive" and was not funded. Nevertheless, we have continued to

work with the Vice President's office and will go ahead with a revised plan to modi.' existing

courses to W courses. This does work well for some of our upper-divisionlaboratory courses, but

with considerable increase in the workload for instructors, and for larger courses this approach is

not desirable. While this might well provide sufficient W seats for Biology majors we are not

convinced that this approach fulfils the "vision" of radical curriculum reform that was discussed

at the outset of this process. In addition the "TA model" that many Departments have reverted to

almost by default, where TAs provide much of the additional \V instruction and feedback. will

continue to be problematic simply due to a shortage of experienced TAs (indeed this was one of

the main reasons why we didn't pursue BISC 102 as a lower division \V course: it would have

required an additional 10 lAs and these are not available in Biosciences).

Recommendations "for the Dean of Science"

"We were unclear about why the Department of Biological Sciences was not involved in

any major applications to CFI."

Biosciences is certainly interested in participating in major CFI funding applications,

especially for existing faculty following the changeswith the Leader Opportunity Fund.

However, major applications are strategic decisions of the University, due to the need for

matching contributions from non-government funds; we would appreciate increased support

andtransparency in this process.

"The Dean should express very clearly to individuals recruited into or currently residing

in Biology (or MBB) that changing departments is a not viable option. Neither department

should he supported in any attempt at 'poaching"."

The Chair has argued ver y

forcefully for this in. the past and we fulls' endorse the external

review panel's comments. It will be especially important to consider this issue carefully in any

future facult y

- or department-level reorganistions, such as the proposals arising from the

Environmental Science external review.

"It is crucial for both Health and Safety and productivit

reaso7sto ensure that graduate

students have desk space outside the laboratories in which they work. Regulatory agencies are

moving to ban the presence

student desks in laboratories and

it would he prudent to take this

into account as plans for new space unfold. This will be achievable in Science only with the

provision of additional space an&or renovation mone y

. The ejfort will require longterm

planning as new space becomes available in the new science buildings.

The issue of graduate student desk space could become a critical issue for Biosciences.

and other Departments such as MBB and Chemistry, if future Health and Safety regulations

prohibit students having desks in analytical labs. Biosciences currently has

30+

graduate

students at least 65% of whom have desk space in analytical labs. Conservativel

y this would

require

320

of additional office space (at 4 rn

2 per student) to accommodate these 80— .

graduate students. Again, we have tried to respond to this issue in. the Department, e.g.

convertin g

an underutilised computer teaching laborator y,

to graduate desk space, and further

renovation of B7217 (109 m 2

) could increase desk space in this room, assuming renovation

monies were forthcoming. However, given the potential scale of the problem we would require

the provision of substantial new space to deal with this recommendation.

Recommendation

2:The Department should be encouraged to make better use oJ

shared communal research facilities. On campus it would appear that colleagues in several

departments and faculties would benefit ,

from communal facilities, but the move has to begin

somewhere. Microscopy may be a good place to start as excellent facilities would enhance the

research

facult

in Biology, MBB, Kinesiology and Psychology(so we were told). Clearly

moving in this direction will involve collaboration across faculties but the am-rival

of so

many

new faculty may make it easier to access funds and disconnect from the past. Administrators

should keep in mind that, inevitably, some research operations will require exclusive access to

some equipment; communal facilities can reduce the need for space in individual labs, but not

replace it.

With the advent of Tr-council IDC funding, in particular,we have attempted to build up

communal research facilities" and equipment in Biosciences. We have encouraged facult

submit joint applications for NSERC equipment grants, and we have encouraged the rational

'communal" use of start-up funds to avoid unnecessary duplication of new equipment. We have

also pursued several joint initiatives with MBB for major equipment items for shared use

between Departments, some of which were funded (e.g. ultracentrifuge) and some of which have

not vet been funded (e.g. confocal microscope). One problem that we face is the lack of

•

appropriate space in a central location to house communal equipment. For example, we have set

up some shared equipment in B7207 but this is not high-quality lab space and this location is

quite distant from Biosciences users who have labs in SSB.

Recommendation

# 3:

The Dean and the University could better define the processes for

embarking onjoint initiatives, including programmes and faculty appointments supporting more

than one unit. We got the impression that administrators were wondering why more such

proposals aren't brought forward, while Departments were wondering how

route a proposal

and wh y

administrators were unreceptive to proposals brought. We suspect that a simple lack of

communication is behind this mismatch.

Generall y

, we feel that such opportunities are handled in an "ad hoc" fashion, through the

normal University chain of command. If indeed there is the desire for strategic joint

appointments between different faculties beyond those currently discussed, we would certainly

welcome any suggestions and some clarification of the decision-making process and mechanism

by which joint- or cross-appointments can be achieved.

Recommendations for the Department

a) Undergraduate Curriculum

Recommendation # 4:

The Department should undertake a serious and extensive

revision oJ'the undergraduate curriculum. We agree that the existing streams are realistic and

appropriate for students of modern biology. This revision should include efforts to cooperate

across units. For example, Kinesiolog-

could provide the breadth as well as depth in the

Integrative Biology (Physiology) program that is currently not possible in Biological Sciences

because of a lack of academic staff This could be achieved by shared, reciprocal access to

courses or could even extend to a joint programme. The cell biology programme is well

established. Students benefit from access to courses in MBB and reciprocal access to courses by

students in the two Departments must be maintained and strengthened. The department is about

to launch a cell bioloy lab course that will strengthen the stream and has made a strong effort

to recruit new faculty into this area. The ecology and evolution stream is strong and reflects the

concentration of high achieving professors in this area.

We would encourage the department to strengthen the students' exposure to statistics

and re-consider their requirements for courses outside biology (mathematics, physics. and

chemistry) to make room for more courses in statistics. In deciding about these requirements, it

usettil

to remember that not all areas of biology (all streams) require the same depth in these

other disciplines.

While we believe that offering some taxonomically-based courses is important in bioloy,

it is not feasible to deliver every "ology" course. As a result, we do not recommend basing

hiring decisions of apparent gaps in taxonomically-based offerings. In deciding about which

specific courses to offer, the department must achieve a blend of diversity (based on faculty

expertise) and fundamentals of the discipline that can be covered, in available

taxonomy/syslematicS courses.

The Department continually revises and updates the curriculum, taking into account the

requirements of our streams and the input of new faculty. That said, the Department agrees that

it is timel

to consider the curriculum with a fresh eye: startin

from what we expect graduating

students to know within each stream, and workin

back to the lower division requirements

(including service' courses offered by other departments). This would allow for an assessment

of our lower division requirements in light of the needs dictated b individual streams. Several of

the comments made b

the External Review Committee are alread

works in progress. For

example, we have just passed a motion in the Department (at our April 25 2006 meeting) to

increase students' exposure to Statistics by adding an upper division statistics course to the

mathematics choices. In addition, students in the Integrative (Physiology) Stream are already

allowed to apply Kinesiology courses towards their major program. We agree that it would be

desirable to increase accessibility to Kinesiology electives that are relevant to our students, but

this is often constrained b

an abundance of KN prerequisites, and the School of Kinesiologv

policy of restricting access for students outside their program. With the advent of additional

programs related to the life sciences (especially Health), discussions have started to evaluate

course prerequisites and perhaps consider alternatives. Perhaps this restriction can be addressed

at the Faculty level?

The Department strongly believes that our lab requirements are a ver

positive aspect of our

program. There is no expectation that we will be hiring specifically to increase the number of

'olog

' courses available to students. There is also currently no move to encourage new faculty

to develop new taxonomicall

-based lab offerings, although there is some expectation that

existing courses will be updated. Several courses have been removed from the curriculum during

the past several years and we expect this to continue as the field, and the Department, evolve, so

that the curriculum reflects the strengths of our Department.

It also is appropriate to revisit questions of how material is covered in courses and which

ones are supported by laboratories. A new curriculumcould generate more synergy between

faculty (and areas of biology) while achieving better use

resources (space, equipment, people).

The arrival of so many new colleagues into the Department makes it timely to undertake this

initiative. Currentl

, fewstudents are able to finish a regular degree (not including Co-op) in 4

years because

of the challenge

taking so many lab courses in the upper levels and the inability

fit them into their timetables. We worry that new staff will introduce more lab courses rather

than inodip;ing and streamlining existing ones. It is important to identify the crucial capstone

course(s) for each programme and ensure that adequate lab training is available. The

Department is rightfully proud

of its tradition

having lab-intensive programs but they should

examine whether they are overdoing a good thing. In undertaking this endeavor, consider how

long it takes students to graduate and what challenges they face in finishing their programmes of

study.

There are no data available that suggest that our requirement for 5 upper-division lab

courses is the reason for long completion times. Both MBB and Kinesiology require fewer labs,

but have similar degree completion times (16 semesters, on average; data available from E.

Kirkwood). The Department would consider reducing the number of labs required of majors, if

there was a compelling reason to do so, but we do not believe that this is the case at present.

Furthermore, we believe that maintaining a large practical or 'hands-on" component contributes

to making the Bioscience major at SFU different or even unique (e.

. compared to UBC),

something that is becoming increasingly important as competition over enrollment intensifies.

We also believe that the more extensive "hands-on" trainin

that Bioscience majors receive

makes them in demand and very competitive for Co-op positions, one of SFU's strengths. While

small laboratory courses are more expensive than large lecture courses, it should be noted that

facult y

involvement offsets thereal costs: our faculty often spend many hours working with

students in multiple lab sections in excess of the actual course contact hours. This provides an

individualized teaching environment normall y

seen only in smaller institutions without a research

mandate, and these courses also prepare our students better for independent research, and in turn

give our department access to better trained undergraduate or graduate research students.

We were not convinced that the open laboratory structure, however traditional, is giving

students the high quality experience they require or that it is an efficient use of resources (space.

technical). Undergraduates admitted to us that it was easy to skip labs or knock them oil in

short order without giving them the experience needed for future studies. Considering the huge

effort the support staff put into catering to the students as well as the expense of the labs, the

Department should ensure that the students are fulL

engaged. Ifrhe numbers become too large to

handle, alternating labs should be considered.

Regarding the perception by the External Review Committee that our 'open lab'format is

inefficient, the Committee ma

not have understood the distinction between true open labs,

where students go and complete experiments on their own time (currently only available in BISC

10 1), and more formal labs where the students perform experiments during scheduled lab hours

under the supervision of lAs/laboratory instructors and occasionally need to return to the lab

(also on their own time) to carry out additional procedures (e.g. BISC

303).

We feel that it is

extremely importantthat students experience this reality of the scientific method. Students in the

formal lab courses are not permitted to "skip labs or knock them off in short order". If that is

occulTing, it must be only in BISC 101. We will certainly investigate this claim and if true,

discuss whether we wish to switch BISC 101 to the sort of timed labs that currently occur in

BISC 102. Currently, there is no indication that the numbers are too large to handle'.

Recommendation

# 5:

The Co-op person assigned to Biology should be encouraged to

attend department meetings to

give

him and the programme more profile.

In the past the Co-op coordinator for Biological Sciences has been invited to

Departmental meetings if they wished to attend. We will ensure that the current coordinator

(Stuart Billings) is aware that this open invitation still stands especially since, in Mr. Billings,

we again have a permanent, full-time coordinator for the Biology Co-op program (as of Summer

2005).

b) Graduate Programme

Recommendation # 6:

The real or perceived inequality in students' standard of living

within the Department. especially compared to UBC. needs to be confronted bind handled

appropriate/v. The department must address concerns about the levels of/mnancial support fur

graduate students. Levels of support are caught between pressures on the grants that pen

student support and everyone 's acknowledgement that current support is very low relative to the

cost

living in Vancouver. We have no easy answers to this tension. However, we strongly

recommend that whatever minimum level

support is adopted, this minimum must he

guaranteed. Make strong efforts to inferm graduate students about the availability of additional

support

(101

instance, availability of TA ships to fellowship szudents). Finally, the DGSC might

want to seek reliable data on Ph.D. funding comparability between SPU and UBC. It might or

might not he desirable to bring funding levels into line between the institutions; but regardless,

the apparently contradictor y

beliels of students and the Graduate School about the freeness" of

UBC 's free tuition seem to he a source of confusion and tension.

We believe that there is a real, and substantial, difference in the

netlevel of

support for PhD

students between UBC and SFU, due primarily to UBC's decision to waive tuition fees for their

PhD students(see Appendix 1).The Departmental Graduate Studies Committee (DGSC) has

considered this issue frequentl

and at length, and certainly appreciates the gravity of this issue.

This is indeed a major problem for our University, but one which Biosciences cannot solve

unilaterally: conservativel

the total cost

paying tuition for our PhD students would amount to

c.5180,000 per annum (approximately

38%

Departmental level, DGSC will consider additional wa

s to guarantee a minimum level of

support, but this mainly requires the willingness and ability

each individual facult

member to

ensure a suitable level

support, and this will increase pressures on research grants (which are

not increasing). However, we also need to be aware of concerns in setting up a two-tier graduate

student system with MSc and PhD students getting markedly different levels of support.

Recommendation

7: The recruitment and retention

top graduate students needs to

be funded imaginativel

by the Department and the University.According to the VP Research, the

Faculty receives 50%

the overhead generated by its research activities with the Department

receiving half or 25% of this amount. The department could use some of these funds to promote

the graduate programme. Two obvious means are recruitment of students (flying in excellent

candidates for interviews and promote their registration in the Ph.D. programme - as is done by

other units on canpus), and support for travel by graduate students to present their work at

conferences.Alternativelv, such programmes could be supported by the Dean of Science, perhaps

l.'v wa

of a modest reduction in startup packages (which off.cet the inability of the institution to

access CFI Leader Opportunit

Funds, but which in our experience are quite generous). The

committee members have experience with new professors, flush with large start-up

g rants, who

lose momentum because

the inabilit y

to attract good students. This is a critical retention issue

fur all Canadian scientists.

We agree that Departments, the Dean

Science and the Dean

Graduate Studies need to work

together to addresssome of the problemswith recruitment of graduate students. However, we

should point out that retention of graduate students is very high in Biosciences and this has not

been a problem for our Department. The SFU Graduate Student Travel Awards(NSERC) were an

excellent, and much appreciated, example of a ver

positive initiative to support graduate

students presentin

their work at conferences (although man

Bioscience faculty prioritise this

with their own research funds) - it is disappointing that this funding could not be maintained.

Individual faculty are largely prevented from paving for travel for visits by prospective graduate

students, as a recruitment tool, since this is not an allowable expense for NSERC grants.

Biosciences can consider providing some support for these types of initiatives though without an

increase in our non-salar

Operating budget this would be at a very modest level, e.g. our

"income" from overhead on contracts in 2005/06 appears to have been only 53,500.

Recommendation 9 8:

The M.Sc. in Pest Management is worth

of continued

support. The MET (Master in Environmental Toxicology) should he more seli

l suffIcient and not

rely on research grants for student funding. The conversion of the MPM (Master in Pest

Management) programme to a research M.Sc in Pest Management is an important positive step

that should increase its reputation. The Finlayson Chair will be central to the long term success

of the ivfPM operation and represents a wonderful opportunity to modernize and broaden the

scope of the program. Any ejfort to hasten the filling of the Finlayson Chair, such as bridge

funding, would he an excellent show of gratitude by SFU for Mrs. Finlayson generosity.

We agree that toxicology

will

he an important subdiscipline for the Department and for

the University, especiall y

with the establishment ofa faculty of health sciences. Furthermore, we

are supportive

the presence of "applied' research in the Department. However, we have

concerns about the appropriateness of

the current MET model. It is not clear why it is

appropriate for a "professional" programme with a minimal research component to use support

from RA (including grant) and TA funds as a source of student stipends. The MET programme

should either follow the metamorphosis that has occurred in MPM or it should emerge as a

fuib' -fledged professional programme supported by differential fees.

The MET program was only recently reviewed internally, by Biosciences'DGSC. Based on input

from students and faculty this review concluded that the MET program provides students with a

very high quality education, and students have been successful at gaining employment after

graduation (virtuall

100%). Overall. DGSC concluded that "we can feel confident that the

program is meeting its objectives. [it] is a credit to those involved, and reflects well on the

Department of Biological Sciences as a whole". Converting the MET program to a research

Masters in Environmental Toxicology, as with the MPM program, would not alleviate the

funding issue since Masters students would be fully reliant on RA funding from faculty grants or

TAships (unless they obtained external scholarships). In addition this would require a radical

rethinking of the aims of the MET program and a shift from a course-based, to a research-based

program. For example, currently MET students are required to take 30 credits or c.10 courses

and we would have to reduce this to perhaps four "core" toxicology courses taken by all "M.Sc

in Environmental Toxicology" students. We doubt that there would be sufficient demand for a

true professional program fully supported by differential fees. The MET coordinator was asked to

provide a formal response to the Department early in 2006 in relation to the DGSC's

recommendations and given the comments of the External Review committee the Department

will

revisit the issue of the MET program once this report has been received.

Recommendation # 9:

There needs to be an expectation that M.Sc students are fully

engaged in research and that they could convert to the Ph.D. program if they have demonstrated

reasonable progress and insight into their research. The Department should require a research

proposal from MSc. Students as it does for Ph. D....and should use the "how to be a scientist

course (likely expanded) as a vehicle Jr doing so. This would provide the students with an

assignment in the course

for marking purposes and give them the opporiuniy to

JOCUS

early in

their careers on their own research goals.

Our DGSC will consider the issue of requiring M.Sc students to complete a formal research

proposal (as we do for PhD students). At present all students are required to form a committee

and develop a research proposal before the end of their fourth semester. However, many faculty

require their students to complete a proposal and have a supervisory committee meetin

much

earlier than this and, in most cases, we believe this s y

stem works well. One problem with

changing this within the context of BISC 800 is that this course is offered once per

y ear in the

Fall but we allow flexibility in starting dates when admitting students (e.g. students can register

Jan. 1 or Ma

1). We have received input from the Graduate Caucus with regard to suggested

revision or development of BISC 800 —to make this course more useful to graduate students - and

DGSC and the Associate Chair will be looking at the waythis course is currently taught.

The Department encourage students and supervisors to discuss the quality and quantity

of work expecied of graduate students. We do not envision a one-size-/Its-all prescription about

such things as the minimum number of chapters in a thesis. Rather, supervisors or research

groups could explore expectations with prospective and current students, perhaps by adopting

the kind of contractavailable from the School of Graduate Studies.

The Department should make the mechanics of transferring from the A'tSc. to the Ph.D.

programme more reasonable and accessible for deserving students.

believe that the

requirement for publishing a paper before the switch is unrealistic, and may he costing the

Department access to excellent Ph.D. students.

The DGSC has alread

been discussing this issue and there is interest in facilitating the transfer

from M.Sc to PhD, and in allowing students to enter directly into a PhD program more easily.

The latter issue is coming up repeatedly with applications for graduate school from international

tudents where it is the norm to go from a BSc directly into a PhD program (e.g. Europe, USA),

but where such students —even with excellent academic records and letters of reference - do not

have "research output" (e.g. published papers) from their Bachelors.

Both students and the Department expressed concern about the availability of sufficient

graduate courses in all subdisciplines to allow students to fulfill the requirements of their

programmes. Rather than increasing offerings, however, we advise reducing the numbers of

courses required in research-focused graduate programmes (currently higher than at

comparable institutions), along with an effort to ensure availability of an appropriate selection

ojeourses.

The I)GSC has discussed the issue of the number of required courses on several occasions and

there seems to be a developing view that we require too man" courses of our graduate students

for research-intensive degrees. We will revisit this issue. We do have a large number of graduate

courses and some of these are taught infrequently, so streamlining the number of re

g ularl

y -

offered courses, and making more use of Special Topics courses for occasional offerings of other

courses could be advantageous to the Department.

c)Othcrrecommendations

Recommendation

910:

The Department should establish mentoring programmes far new

faculty, staff and sessionals. Such programmes should introduce newcomers to the operations of

the department and the university and provide support for people as they arrive and become

established. A survival guide might be an excellent complement to this initiative. The experience

of recendv arrived colleagues could help to guide the establishment of a mentors/lip operation.

In future we will assign a specific "faculty mentor" to each newly arriving faculty

member (although it is unlikely that any single faculty member will have sufficient expertise in

all areas). We have considered a "survival guide" for new faculty and have produced a similar

uide for sessional instructors; we will revisit the idea of expanding this to provide a copy to

newly-hired facult

. We do strongly encourage new faculty to attend the orientation sessions

organised by the VP Academic.

Recommendation 411:

The Department should use 'stacking" of reaching to give

faculty

more flexibilit

in meeting their obligations (in a semester in which ci facult

member

clues not offer aforrnal lecture course, we understand that supervision of research students can

ensure credit for a teaching semester). While the Department should bereceptive to requests for

stacking, it should accommodate them only when doing so does not compromise the curriculum.

In our experience, this is often possible. Further flexibility should be sought by making more

use of ream teaching (which can also bring enhancements in course content).

Stacking of teaching is something that is widely supported, especially by younger

faculty,in Biosciences. The Department will consider implementing a policy of "stacking" of

teaching within our regular course planning process, with caveats in place to make it very clear

that the curriculum cannot be compromised, and that faculty must provide sufficient justification

for stacking. However, since this issue may modifyUniversity policy we willrequest some

further guidance on this issue from the Vice President Academic.

Recommendation

# 12:

Activities of the undergraduate biology club should be

promoted. The Department should assign a colleague to act as a faculty advisor ". should use

sonic tinds to launch initiatives with the students (sponsor and organize a seminar, conduct

career 3ori.) and should encourage them to establish a strong peer mentoring programme.

Direct entry to a Bioscience major will mean that we will he better able to contact

students to make them fully aware of our mentoring program as well as opportunities for Co-op

and research experience (e.g. already this year the Chair has written "welcome" letters to more

than 1 00 students who have received offers from SFU and indicated an interest in Biolo

y, and

this letter highlights our mentoring pro

ram amon g

other things).Emelia Kirkwood

(Undergraduate Advisor) and the Chair of DUCC do liaise directly with the Biolog

Student

Union (BSU) but we will consider the appointment of an additional"facult

advisor' to help

advise on, and develop, activities of the under

g raduate Biology Union. The Department has

provided funding for BSIJ events in the past. we certainly can encourage the BSU to promote a

career event such as those organized b

the students in MBB and Chemistr y

), and we continue

to support this important student group.

Appendix 1: Comparison of UBC and SFU PhD student incomes .

Table I: Basedon a four-

ear prog

ram for a student who does not have NSERC or other major scholarship funding

(i.e. they rely on the minimum yearl

stipend). Both SRi Biolo

and IJBC Zoology state that stipends are a

combination of RAships, TAships and small scholarships. Note that taxes have not been deducted here although the'

are collected each "ear.

518.000 (NOT guaranteed)

Tuition per year

S3161

5 '

Student Fees per year

Yi UBC Zoology guarantees that all PhD students receive this minimum stipend each

ear for four

ears, plus the

amount to cover tuition ($3786 per

ear). SFU Biology does not make a firm commitment to their minimum and

does not make any provision for paying tuition. The guaranteed President's stipend ($6000) from SFU covers one

semester (makin

up part of one year's SI 8,000) and so is not a bonus over and above the stipend to help defray the

tuition for the first 8 semesters (S1446.3) and the "continuin

" rate for the remaining

semesters ($723.20). Avera

ed over the 12 semesters of a four-year degree the total per year is S361 5.81.

*No t

e we have no information about the availabilit

internal, small scholarships, such as the SFU Graduate

Fellowship for UBC Zoology students.

Over 4 years UBC PhD students net $21,904 more than SFU PhD students. This equals

S5476 per year or S1825 per semester.

Table 2:

The same calculations as above except that here the student has received NSERC PGS

D for the first two

y ears of the degree.

NSERC stipend (2 years)

$21,000 ?

521.000

Yearly Stipend (afierNSERC)

$19702 ?

518.000

Tuition per year

$361

Student Fees per year

$600 ?

$758

Net Income per NSERC year

$20.400

17,384

Net Income per stipend year

Over 4 years (2 on NSERC and 2 on stipend) UBC PhD students net $16,984 more than

SFU PhD students. This equals S4246 per year or $1415 per semester.

9 ?

REPORT BASED ON AN EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

SINION FRASER UNIVERSITY

We are pleased to report that the Department of Biolo

y at Simon Fraser Universit

is an

active and stimulating enterprise that operates in an open and collegial fashion. The Department

is working well, makin

effective use of available space and taking a business-like approach to

planning and renovation. The Department has been very well served by its recruitment

operations whether the focus is facult

, staff, or graduate students. The Department is well

organized with respect to planning of course offerin

s, responding in a timely and constructive

way to University initiatives such as the Surre

operation and the emerging Faculty of Health

Sciences.

In man

ways, the Department is a model for collaborations and interactions. BERG and

CWE are established, ground-up operations that are internationall

recognized and a credit to the

Universit

and the countr

. Other emerging groups (for instance, FABLAB) seem to he

followin g

the interactive examples of BERG and CWE. in spite of the recent establishment of

NIBB that occurred at some cost to the Department, the two operations now have more points of

co-operation and collaboration than discord.

Professor Ton

Williams, the Chair of the Department, is doing an excellent job. He is a

leader who works well with others and is highly regarded b

other members of the Department,

from staff to faculty.

The Department has been, and continues to be, well served by the University and the

Facult y

of Science. The operations of the Library have been particularly effective in supporting

• ?

the Department.

Below are some recommendations and suggestions that would/could lead to a further

enhancement of the Department and its operations.

For the University

The Department of Biological Sciences is being pushed and pulled by many forces and is

at a critical point in its evolution. It is feeling space and enrollment pressures that are challenging

its traditions of lab-intensive courses and personal rapport between students and staff. The

introduction of new accounting s

stems, increased regulatory demands by health and safety

a g

encies, and the challenges of recruiting and retaining top staff and students in a very

competitive market are some of the external forces shaping the Department. In addition, the

Faculty of Public Health and the Surrey campus are future projects that offer incredible

opportunity but also enormous challenges for the Department. The presence of related and

sometimes competing units that are orbiting around the Department (Molecular Biology and

Biochemistry (MBB). Kinesiolo

v, Resources Management) offer opportunities for collaboration

but the associated high expectations must be managed realistically.

•

it was obvious that the University has not been well served by the move to Peoplesoft®,

accounting and mana

ement software that has great promise but is a bear to implement. In

addition to leaving units stru

gglin g

to find additional time to complete routine tasks, the system

has left man" convinced that the

are the victims of downloading" by the administration. The

Universit y

must either substantiall

reduce the burden of using Peoplesoft® or must provide

units with additional resources to meet that burden.

The University must take full advantage of the excellence of operations such as BERG

and CWE. These are mature, internationally renowned centers and should serve as models for

interdisciplinaritv and extra-universit

collaborations. In conversations with individuals outside

the department we were repeatedl y

left with the impression that these operations were not much

valued compared to endeavours (even hypothetical ones) more oriented to medicine.

Institutional policies and procedures should he designed to enrich the academic

atmosphere and promote the success of faculty and students. We were bemused by formal

policies about stacking" and teaching credit toward sabbatical leaves that seem to discourage

flexibility for both units and faculty members. In our respective institutions, these matters are

routinely addressed while achieving flexibility without loss of responsibility or due diligence.

We applaud the efforts to stren g

then the Universitys presence in environmental topics.

Our meetings and discussions did not reveal an y

inherent antipathy to this among biologists,

although we would not recommend housing broadl

based environmental programmes in the

Department. The re-organization initiative we were told about is to be commended. We hope

that environmental sciences will be accommodated with other environmentally-focused

programmes such as REM. Setting aside concerns about trends in enrolment expressed by the

Dean of Science (for which we saw no data), the environmental science programme appears to he

sound in curricular design and seems to attract excellent students. The University's final

decisions about environmental programmes will be informed by the external review of

environmental science.

Recommendation

41. The Universit y

must ensure that its move to writing initiatives can

accommodate the realities of writing in science (for example) as well as in other disciplines. The

Universit y

must ensure that the standards for the initiative are comparable across units and that

there are adequate resources to support this approach. The Department appears enthusiastic

about providing its students with more experience in writing. At this stage, however, it is not

clear that Biology (and perhaps other areas of science) is well served by the template that appears

to have been adopted and the apparent mismatch of resources to the envisioned programme. For

example, at the University of Western Ontario we have hired a science editor to support the

writing component of a required second year lab course.

For the Dean of Science

We were unclear about wh

the Department of Biological Sciences was not involved in

any major applications to CFI. In our experience CFI provides the opportunity to obtain

significant support for new research collaborations and the kind of communal facilities we call

for below. In discussing this with Mario Pinto, VP Research, it became apparent that the

matching resources for the Leader Opportunity Fund were meagre and the Faculty is to be

commended for its generous support of its new professors. Still, the lack of evidence of past CFI

applications suggests that SFU has foregone a wonderful opportunity to build the infrastructure

needed for a forward thinking biology department.

It is ver

important to maintain and expand the positive momentum and synergy between

BS and MBB. Lingering personality conflicts and the impacts of real or imagined transgressions

are waning, but are best vanquished b

positive initiatives. The Dean should express ver y

clearly

to individuals recruited into or currently residin

in Biology (or MBB) that changing departments

is a not viable option. Neither department should be supported in an

attempt at poaching".

It is crucial for both Health and Safety and productivity reasons to ensure that graduate

students have desk space outside the laboratories in which they

, work. Re

g ulator y agencies are

moving to ban the presence of student desks in laboratories and it would be prudent to take this

into account as plans for new space unfold. This will be achievable in Science onl

with the

provision of additional space and/or renovation mone

y . The effort will require lon

term

planning as new space becomes available in the new science buildings. Given the presence of a

space audit that we did not see, the Dean must mediate conflicting demands on the limited

available space. He can show leadership b

taking into consideration the requirements of health

and safet y

and effective operation of ongoing laborator

courses.

The department's hiring plan is well thought out. It anticipates the additional pressures

that will come from health sciences students. Specifically, microbiolog

and toxicology will be

key

additions to the department and to broaderprograms at SFU. We were pleased that MBB has

been involved in, and supports, the microbiology position. The Chair's plans for the Surrey

campus are aligned with these recruitments.

Recommendation

# 2. The Department should be encouraged to make better use of shared

communal research facilities. On campus it would appear that colleagues in several departments

and faculties would benefit from communal facilities, but the move has to begin somewhere.

Microscopy may be a good place to start as excellent facilities would enhance the research of

faculty in Biolo gy

. MBB, Kinesiology and Psychology (so we were told). Clearly moving in this

direction will involve collaboration across faculties but the arrival of so many new facult

may

make it easier to access funds and disconnect from the past. Administrators should keep in mind

that, inevitabl

, some research operations will require exclusive access to some equipment;

communal facilities can reduce the need for space in individual labs, but not replace it.

Recommendation

# 3. The Dean and the Universit y

could better define the processes for

embarking on joint initiatives, including programmes and faculty appointments supporting more

than one unit. We got the impression that administrators were wondering why more such

proposals aren't brought forward, while Departments were wondering how to route a proposal

and why administrators were unreceptive to proposals brought. We suspect that a simple lack of

communication is behind this mismatch.

For he Department

Undergraduate Curriculum

Recommendation # 4.

The Department should undertake a serious and extensive revision of the

undergraduate curriculum. We agree that the existing streams are realistic and appropriate for

students of modern biology. This revision should include efforts to cooperate across units. For

example, Kinesiolog

could provide the breadth as well as depth in the Integrative Biology

(Physiology) program that is currently not possible in Biological Sciences because of a lack of

academic staff. This could be achieved by shared, reciprocal access to courses or could even

extend to a joint programme. The cell biology programme is well established. Students benefit

from access to courses in MBB and reciprocal access to courses

students in the two

Departments must be maintained and strengthened. The department is about to launch a cell

biolo

gy lab course that will strengthen the stream and has made a strong effort to recruit new

faculty into this area. The ecology and evolution stream is strong and reflects the concentration

of high achieving professors in this area.

We would encourage the department to strengthen the students' exposure to statistics and

re-consider their requirements for courses outside biolog y

(mathematics, ph

sics, and chemistry)

to make room for more courses in statistics. In deciding about these requirements. it is useful to

remember that not all areas of biology (all streams) require the same depth in these other

disciplines.

While we believe that offering some taxonornically-based courses is important in biology,

it is not feasible to deliver every "ologv" course. Asa result, we do not recommend basing hiring

decisions of apparent gaps in taxonomicall

-based offerings. In deciding about which specific

courses to offer, the department must achieve a blend of diversit

(based on faculty expertise)

and fundamentals of the discipline that can be covered in available taxonomy/systematics

courses.

It also is appropriate to revisit questions of how material is covered in courses and which

ones are supported b

laboratories. A new curriculum could generate more synergy between

faculty (and areas of biology) while achieving better use of resources (space, equipment, people).

The arrival of so many new colleagues into the Department makes it timely to undertake this

initiative. Currentl

. few students are able to finish a regular degree (not including Co-op) in 4

years because of the challenge of taking so many lab courses in the upper levels and the inability

to fit them into their timetables. We worry that new staff will introduce more lab courses rather

than modi1in g

and streamlining existing ones. It is important to identify the crucial capstone

course(s) for each programme and ensure that adequate lab training is available. The Department

is rightfully proud of its tradition of having lab-intensive programs but they should examine

whether the y

are overdoing a good thing. In undertaking this endeavour, consider how long it

takes students to graduate and what challenges they face in finishing their programmes of study.

We were not convinced that the open laboratory structure, however traditional, is giving students

the high quality experience they require or that it is an efficient use of resources (space,

technical). Undergraduates admitted to us that it was easy to skip labs or knock them off in short

order without

iving them the experience needed for future studies. Considering the huge effort

the support staff put into catering to the students as well as the expense of the labs, the

Department should ensure that the students are fully engaged. If the numbers become too large to

handle, alternating labs should be considered.

Recommendation

# 5. The Co-op person assigned to Biology should be encouraged to attend

department meetings to give him and the programme more profile.

Graduate Programme

Recommendation

96. The real or perceived inequality in students' standard of living within the

Department. especially compared to UBC, needs to he confronted and handled appropriately.

The department must address concerns about the levels of financial support for graduate students.

Levels of support are caught between pressures on the grants that pay student support and

ever y

one's acknowledgement that current support is ver

low relative to the cost of living in

Vancouver. We have no eas

answers to this tension. However, we stron g l y recommend that

whatever minimum level of support is adopted. this minimum must be guaranteed. Make strong

efforts to inform graduate students about the availabilit

of additional support (for instance,

availability of TAships to fellowship students). Finally, the DGSC might want to seek reliable

data on Ph.D. funding comparability between SFU and UBC. It might or might not he desirable

to bring funding levels into line between the institutions; but regardless. the apparently

contradictor

beliefs of students and the Graduate School about the "freeness' of UBC's free

tuition seem to be a source of confusion and tension.

Recommendation

#7. The recruitment and retention of top graduate students needs to he funded

ima g inatively b

the Department and the L i niversity.According to the VP Research, the Faculty

receives 50% of the overhead generated by its research activities with the Department receiving

half or

25%

of this amount. The department could use some of these funds to promote the

graduate programme. Two obvious means are recruitment of students (flying in excellent

candidates for interviews and promote their registration in the Ph.D. programme - as is done by

other Units on campus), and support for travel by graduate students to present their work at

conferences. Alternatively, such programmes could be supported by the Dean of Science,

•

perhaps by wa

y of a modest reduction in startup packages (which offset the inability of the

institution to access CFI Leader Opportunity Funds, but which in our experience are quite.

generous). The committee members have experience with new professors, flush with large start-

up grants, who lose momentum because of the inability to attract good students. This is a critical

retention issue for all Canadian scientists.

Recommendation #8.

The

M.Sc.

in Pest Management is worthy of continued support. The MET

(Master in Environmental Toxicology) should be more self-sufficient and not rely on research

grants for student funding. The conversion of the MPM (Master in Pest Management)

programme to a research MSc in Pest Management is an important positive step that should

increase its reputation. The Finla

son Chair will be central to the long term success of the MPM

operation and represents a wonderful opportunity to modernize and broaden the scope of the

program. Any effort to hasten the filling of the Finlayson Chair, such as bridge funding. would be

an excellent show of gratitude by SFU for Mrs. Finlayson's generosity.

We agree that toxicology will be an important subdiscipline for the Department and for

the University, especially with the establishment of a faculty of health sciences. Furthermore, we

are supportive of the presence of "applied" research in the Department. However, we have

concerns about the appropriateness of the current MET model. It is not clear why it is

appropriate for a "professional" programme with a minimal research component to use support

from RA (including grant) and TA funds as a source of student stipends. The MET programme

should either follow the metamorphosis that has occurred in MPM, or it should emerge as a fully-

fledged professional programme supported by differential fees.

Recommendation

49. There needs to be an expectation that MSc students are fully engaged in

research and that the y

could convert to the Ph.D. program if the

have demonstrated reasonable

progress and insight into their research. The Department should require a research proposal from

NLSc. Students as it does for Ph.D.s, and should use the "how to be a scientist" course (likely

expanded) as a vehicle for doing so. This would provide the students with an assignment in the

course for marking purposes and give them the opportunity to focus early in their careers on their

own research goals.

The Department encourage students and supervisors to discuss the quality and quantity of

work expected of graduate students. We do not envision a one-size-fits-all prescription about

such things as the minimum number of chapters in a thesis. Rather, supervisors or research

groups could explore expectations with prospective and current students. perhaps by adopting the

kind of contract available from the School of Graduate Studies.

The Department should make the mechanics of transferring from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D.

programme more reasonable and accessible for deserving students. We believe that the

requirement for publishing a paper before the switch is unrealistic, and may be costing the

Department access to excellent Ph.D. students.

Both students and the Department expressed concern about the availability

, of sufficient

raduate courses in all subdisciplines to allow students to fulfill the requirements of their

programmes. Rather than increasing offerings, however, we advise reducing the numbers of

courses required in research-focused graduate programmes (currently higher than at comparable

institutions), along with an effort to ensure availability of an appropriate selection of courses.

Other

Recommendation

910. The Department should establish mentoring programmes for new

faculty. staff and sessionals. Such programmes should introduce newcomers to the operations of

the department and the university and provide support for people as they arrive and become

established. A survival guide might be an excellent complement to this initiative. The

experience of recently arrived colleagues could help to guide the establishment of a mentorship

operation.

Recommendation 911.

The Department should use "stacking" of teaching to give faculty more

flexibility in meeting their obligations (in a semester in which a faculty member does not offer a

formal lecture course, we understand that supervision of research students can ensure credit for a

teaching semester). While the Department should be receptive to requests for stacking, it should

accommodate them only when doing so does not compromise the curriculum. In our experience,

this is often possible. Further flexibility should be sought by making more use of team teaching

(which can also bring enhancements in course content).

Recommendation

412. Activities of the under

raduate biology club should he promoted. The

Department should assign a colleague to act as a "faculty advisor", should use some funds to

launch initiatives with the students (sponsor and organize a seminar, conduct career sessions) and

should encourage them to establish a strong peer mentoring programme.

-E

........u...•......•.u••s•s••••••••• •.u..u..u...u.u...u.u...ms..u•s•u•u•I•se•I

We thank the members of the Department of Biology and others from Simon Fraser

University, particularl

Charmaine Dean, for their assistance and hospitality.

Respectfully Submitted:

Steve Heard

Department of Biology

University of New Brunswick

Brock Fenton

Chair,

Department of Biolog\

Department of Biological

Sciences

Universit

of Alberta