FOR INFORMATION
?
S.91-9
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Senate
RE: External Review Report -
Department of Biological Sciences
FROM:
?
J. Munro, Chair
Senate Committee on
Academic Planning
DATE: ?
December 18, 1990
?
- -
The external review report of the Department of Biological Sciences was received by
the Senate Committee on Academic Planning for information. The report and the
departmental response was discussed with the Chair of the Department, Dr. Brian
McKeown. Under the procedures established for consideration of external reviews,
the report is now forwarded to Senate for information.
0
••,;( ?
iJ.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
Office of the Vice-President, Academic
Memorandum
To: Members of SCAP
?
From: ?
Alison J. Watt
Subject: Biological Sciences Review Date:
?
29 November 1990
Attached is the external review of Biological Sciences which was
conducted in March 19ff9TTffedpartmenta1response is-being-for-warded -
by Dr. Brian McKeown, chair of the department.
The members of the review committee were:
Dr. Ford Doolittle, Director, Evolution Institute, Dalhousie
University
• ?
Dr. J.E. Phillips, Department of Zoology, UBC
Dr. John Thompson, Head, Department of Horticulture, Guelph
Dr. William Leggett, Dean of Science, McGill
Dr. R.F. Frindt, Department of Physics, SFU
Dr. Thompson chaired the committee.
I,
Enclosure
See Appendix A for the response of the Department of Biological Sciences
and the response of the Dean, Faculty of Science
.
/
REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MARCH, 1989
?
1.
?
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AT SIMON FRASER
The Department of Biological Sciences at S.F.U. commands
respect throughout the scientific community in Canada. A few
members of the Department have gained international stature
and have developed strong research programs that are well
funded by external granting agencies. Other faculty members
have more modest grant support and run research programs that
are on a par with average research performance across Canada.
A significant number of faculty (20% of the Department based
on the list of faculty in Table 1 of the Planning Document)
have no grant support and do little or no research. It is
noteworthy, however, that in 1988/89 the average NSERC grant
in Biological Sciences at S.F.U. was 18.7% above the NSERC
national average. This is mainly due to the large group (11
faculty) in Population Biology for whom the average grant in
88/89 was 36.6% greater than the NSERC average in Population
Biology, and to the Plant Biology group (5 faculty) for whom
the average grant in 88/89 was 24% above the NSERC national
average for Plat Biology. [It is a point of concern, though,
that if the number of faculty without NSERC grants is factored
into this calculation, the average NSERC grant in Biological
Sciences at S.F.U. drops below the NSERC average.] Several
faculty have been successful in acquiring substantial support
for research of a more applied nature. As well, the quality
of teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level, is
deemed, on average, to be high.
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 The stature of the Department would be well served by
recruiting additional faculty who are, or are likely to
become, world renowned researchers. As this objective is less
likely to be achieved if the scope of selection is
simultaneously constrained to meet the needs of more than one
sub-discipline (eg. recruiting a molecular biologist or a
biochemist who would also fulfil a perceived need in Pest
Management), the Department should advertise positions without
multiple restrictions and select the best candidate for the
designated area irrespective of whether he/she has expertise
in other areas deemed to be important.
1 ]
0
2 ?
?
92.
?
UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING
The undergraduate students who met with the Review Committee
were impressive. Granted the assumption that the views held
by this small group are representative, the students are
pleased with the programs offered. In particular, the
tutorials, the research courses and the co-op program are
viewed very positively.
RECONXENDATIONS
2.1 Core courses in the first three years of the undergraduate
program must be staffed with regular faculty members, not
sessional lecturers or lab instructors. It is essential that
top priority
- he
-
givento-staf--f-1ng_the_CellbiolQ
g
Y course with
a qualified faculty member. Sessional lecturers should Only_
----
be used intermittently as sabbatical replacements.
?
2.2 ?
There are too many specialty courses in the third and fourth
years of the undergraduate program. This appears to be a
result of allowing faculty to mount courses in their areas of
specialization without first ensuring that teaching needs in
the core courses are met.
?
The number of specialty courses
• ?
should be reduced, and attention should be given to mounting a
rational progression of core courses. This would: (1)
eliminate the need for so many sessional lecturers; (2) reduce
the undergraduate teaching loads; (3) reduce the pressure on
undergraduate teaching laboratories; (4) allow the Department
to run laboratory and tutorial sessions with a lower
student/TA ratio; and (5) reduce the work load for lab
instructors (some of whom currently lecture in undergraduate
courses) and give them more time for upgrading student
laboratories. The need to hire sessional lecturers for core
undergraduate courses is a reflection of the number of courses
taught rather than the recent increase in enrolment. This
contention is substantiated by the fact that the FTE
students/ faculty ratio for biology at S.F.U. is significantly
lower than that at many other Canadian institutions. For
example, the values for this ratio are 20 for the University
of Victoria, 15 for the University of British Columbia, 16 for
the University of Toronto, 15 for McGill, 18 for the
University of Saskatchewan and only 13 for S.F.U.
2.3 Student evaluations should be compulsory for every course.
This and other sources of inforina
'
tion (eg. peer assessment Of
lecturing) should be considered in promotion and tenure
deliberations and in deliberations on merit increments in
faculty salaries.
0
3
?
is
?
2.4 ?
Courses that are not offered should not be listed in the
calendar. As well, it became obvious that there is more
flexibility in selecting courses for the various
specializations and programs (particularly the co-op program)
than is apparent from reading the calendar; this needs to be
corrected.
2.5
The Review Committee is distressed that there are not more
than two required non-science electives in the curriculum.
This is exacerbated by the fact that many students apparently
take computer science as one of these electives. The
Department should consider increasing the requirement for
courses offered by the Faculty of Arts. These could be taken
on a pass/fail basis so as not to impact on
?
grade point
averages.
?
2.6 ?
The Review Committee endorses the intention to implement a
first year course for students who have had no previous
training in biology.
?
This would allow upgrading of the
?
existing set of first year courses.
?
2.7
?
The Department needs to give higher priority to ensuring that
student laboratories remain current.
?
Lab instructors and
?
technical staff should have time for course development.
I
2.8
The Review Committee deems the needs for new equipment and
additional undergraduate laboratory space identified in the
Planning Document to be genuine and recommends that the
University give high priority to rectifying these
deficiencies. The Department should contribute to this
objective by using the major proportion of its equipment
budget for teaching equipment rather than for research
equipment as now appears to be the case (see also
recommendation
3.11).
2.9
The morale of the technical staff is low. There is a need for
more regular communication with staff members concerning job
expectations and performance. A real effort should be made to
make the technical staff feel more a part of the Department.
Release time should be provided to allow technicians to
upgrade their skills. The Department should also establish a
Technical Services Committee, and the membership of this
committee' should include representatives from the technical
staff and from the lab instructors.
2.10 We endorse the Departmental Chairman's intention to reduce the
teaching load from 3 to 2 (undergraduate plus graduate)
semester courses per year for faculty members who have active
research programs. This can be achieved, in part, by reducing
the number of specialized undergraduate courses (particularly
those with low enrolments) offered in the third and fourth
years (see also recommendation 2.2) and by giving faculty with
weak research programs (or no research program) higher
teaching loads.
GRADUATE TEACHING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The Review Committee supports the concept of establishing
nationally (and hopefully internationally) recognized areas of
research excellence within the Department. We caution,
however, that: (1) the number of such areas that can be
sustained is limited. [We believe this to be three and
certainly not more than four]; and (2) the proposed
proliferation of professional Masters Degree programs with
--the-i-r—a-ttendant-hi-
gh
teaching requirements is likely to dilute
efforts to achieve
?
-
Based on current strengths, we see viable areas of excellence
in Pest Management, Behavioural Ecology and Molecular Biology.
In our opinion, Behavioural Ecology and Pest Management have,
or will soon achieve, recognition at the
national/
international
level.
?
The Molecular Biology Group is as yet
too new and small to have achieved such recognition, but
appears to be developing in the right direction. Achieving
distinction in this domain will not, however, be a trivial
task given the resources being directed to this area by other
institutions in North America.
The graduate program appears, on the whole, to be strong, and
N.P.M., M.Sc. and Ph.D graduates are well placed. However, in
comparison with a number of other Departments in Canada, the
number of graduate students holding prestigious awards (eg.
NSERC scholarships) is low. In addition, the median time for
completion of graduate degrees is seen to be excessive. This
is particularly true of the M.P.N. and M.Sc. degrees.
The Departmental and research-group seminar programs appear to
be of high quality.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Review Committee recognizes that new appointments can be
seen either as opportunities to build on established strength
or as a means of ensuring breadth of coverage at the
undergraduate level. In any Department, these goals may
conflict -- here the conflict seems magnified by departmental
political divisiveness. The Committee feels that criteria for
new appointments should be: (1) excellence in research; (2)
ability to contribute to a balanced (but not necessarily fully
comprehensive) B.Sc. program; and (3) co
i nplemefltarity Of
• ?
interest to those of existing faculty -- in this order of
priority. Areas of excellence should neither have, nor
expect, any fixed manpower complement. Faculty lost need not
necessarily be replaced with new ones in precisely the same
3.
.
/
3
5 ?
.
field. ?
In short, areas of excellence should have the
opportunity to survive, not the right.
?
It should also be ?
noted that excellence depends heavily upon the particular nix
of individuals at a given time. Sustained excellence in an
area is the exception rather than the rule. The Department
and the University should be alert to this reality and be
prepared to reallocate resources if well-defined standards of
excellence are not maintained.
3.2 The requirements for a balanced B.Sc. program should not be
made secondary to the interests or needs of designated areas
of research excellence when recruiting new faculty. There is
considerable evidence that in the recent past the perceived
requirements of these research groups have been given priority
over undergraduate teaching requirements to the detriment of
the undergraduate program. For example, the need to have a
regular faculty member (rather than a sessional lecturer)
teaching cell biology was not met in the most recent round of
hiring.
?
3.3 ?
No additional professional Masters Degree Programs should be
instituted unless: (1) the resources required to sustain
these programs are fully met (ie. manpower, space,
facilities); and (2) it is clear that these new programs will
not dilute the quality of the research degrees (M.Sc. and
Ph.D). The Review Committee recognizes that the M.P.M.
program has been very successful and that by offering this
type of training, the Department occupies a unique niche in
Canada. However, we see the creation of additional
professional Masters Degree programs as a potential drain on
resources that could impact unfavourably on the excellence of
both basic and applied research and their further development.
?
3.4
?
The distinction between the M.P.N. degree and the M.Sc. degree
must be clearly defined and rigorously maintained. At
present, there is a growing tendency for M.P.M. students to
undertake research that is tantamount to the thesis research
of an M.Sc. student. This unduly lengthens the time required
to complete the M.P.M. and blurs the distinction between the
M.Sc. and M.P.M. degrees. The course work basis for the
M.P.M. degree should be restored and the research component
reduced to allow completion of all degree requirements in a
maximum of two years (six semesters) from initial
registration.
?
Students wanting a research-based degree in
?
Pest Management should be required to register in the M.Sc.
program. In the event of a transfer from the M.P.M. program
to the M.Sc. program, transfer of course credits should be
limited to no more than 50% of the formal course requirements
for the M.Sc.
1
3.5 The M.P.M. program should be administered in a mariner similar
to the administration of professional degrees elsewhere.
specifically, with the exception of scholarships inherent to
the program, there should be no salary support for M.P.N.
students. This would reduce the demands on limited T.A. funds
and help to ensure that all M.Sc. and Ph.D. students receive a
minimum guaranteed salary (see also recommendation 3.6).
?
3.6 ?
The Department should implement mandatory, minimum financial
support in the amount of $10,000/year for every full-time
student registered in the 11.Sc. and Ph.D. programs. This
support should be guaranteed for two years (six semesters) for
M.Sc. students and for four years (12 semesters) for Ph.D.
studeiIt - GuaranteedSa-larleS -would improveth quality of
applicants to the graduate program, encourage students to
complete their degree requirements on time and eliminate the
current problem of low morale among students who are either
not being paid or have only partial support.
and the preparation time specified
more in line with norms in other
institutions, a full teaching
re than 10 hours per week (contact
for two semesters.
3.3 The number of graduate students currently registered is, at
face value, impressive. However, this is tempered by the fact
that students in all programs, but particularly in the M.Sc.
and M.P.M. programs, are taking far too long to complete their
degree requirements. If students were graduating within time
frames considered the norm in most institutions, the number of
registrants would be significantly lower. As a target against
which to operate, maximum times to complete all requirements
should be 2.5 years for the M.Sc. degree and 4.5 years for the
Ph.D. degree. In addition, a statutory limit should be placed
on the time allowed to complete M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees. We
suggest four years (twelve semesters) for the M.Sc. and six
years (eighteen semesters) for the Ph.D. Students exceeding
these limits should be required to withdraw and apply for
readmission. ?
Specific guidelines should be established for
?
reaching a decision on readmission.
3.9
?
The number and diversity of graduate courses should be
reduced. Biological Sciences at S.F.U. offers 1.4 graduate
courses per faculty member compared with an average of 0.8 for
Biology Departments in ten Canadian Universities (including
S.F.U.) We recognize that this is, in part, a consequence of
the additional courses required for the M.P.M. program.
. Nonetheless, it constitutes an inordinate encumbrance against
faculty time and should be brought more in line with the norm
at other Universities. This could be achieved by placing more
.
S
3.7 ?
The number of contact hours
for T.A. units should be
Universities. In many
assistantship entails no m
time plus preparation time)
'1
7 ?
.
emphasis on independent study at the Ph.D. level.
Specifically, the Department should consider eliminating
prescribed courses for Ph.D. students, introducing a seminar
course in which Ph.D. students would present the results of
their own research and introducing a qualifying examination
early in the Ph.D. program. The qualifying examination would
ensure that Ph.D. students have sufficient depth and breadth
in their research areas. Deficiencies in a Ph.D. student's
background could be rectified by directed reading. Finally,
graduate courses that are not being offered should be removed
from the calendar.
3.10 In view of the shortage of research space, the Department
should re-evaluate the allocation of space to ensure that it
is distributed according to real need.
?
3.11
?
The Department has come to expect more research funds from the
University than is usual. In particular, faculty members
should be much more aggressive in seeking funds for research
equipment from competitive granting agencies. Replacement of
obsolete teaching equipment and, as necessary, start-up funds
for new faculty should be the top priorities against internal
equipment funds.
3.12 Some of the graduate students (eg. those in Plant Biology and
Environmental Toxicology) are not happy because they feel they
do not have the resources (eg. numbers of faculty in their
research area, numbers of graduate courses in their research
area, equipment) that their fellow students in other areas
(eg. Pest Management, Behavioural Ecology) have.
?
This
perception is unnecessary and must be corrected.
?
It is
?
undoubtedly a reflection of the mood of balkanization that
currently pervades the Department. Faculty, students and
staff should view their allegiance as being to the Department
first and only secondarily to research groups (see also
recommendation 4.1). If this were practiced and encouraged,
the 'second-class citizen' mentality that currently assails a
number of graduate students would probably disappear.
Students should also be actively encouraged to see the
Department and the University, not just their research group,
as resources to be tapped.
?
4.
?
DEPARTMENTAL STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
The level of tension and friction among faculty and,
particularly, among research groups is too high, on the verge
of being destructive and must be quelled. We sense that as
the Department has grown and the research groups have become
stronger, these tensions have become increasingly manifested.
However, we reject the contention that the tensions have
arisen because the Department is too large and diversified to
rai
• ?
8
be effectively managed and integrated. We see this size and
diversity as a strength that would be lost if the Department
were subdivided. It is also noteworthy that virtually
everyone whom we met favours being in a Department of
Biological Sciences rather than in a subset of the Department.
We offer the following recommendations as a possible means of
restoring a sense of camaraderie, cohesiveness and mutual
trust within the Department.
4.1 The Department should not be subdivided. Faculty members
clearly prefer that the Department remain intact and view sub-
division as a last (and undesirable) resort to solving their
-
--current_pr les
?
Moreover, with the possible exception of
?
Pest Management, the groups äe -toosinal-1 -to--be -_viable_
independent entities.
?
The Department has a proclivity to
?
undertake applied research and to mount applied programs in
response to economic and industrial needs. This is
exemplified by the Pest Management program, and we acknowledge
that this applied predisposition is one of the strengths of
the Department. However, the Pest Management program has
been successful largely because it has been established within
a Biology Department. We fear that its separation from basic
• research and the teaching of basic biology through the
formation of one or more new Departments could in the long run
lead to weakness. One way to maintain a high profile in the
applied arena without endangering the basic research programs
would be to expand the co-op undergraduate program.
?
4.2 ?
The Department has too many chiefs, and their numbers appear
?
to be proliferating. This is promulgating balkanization and
mixed allegiances. We see this as undesirable from the
perspective of both the research groups and the Department.
The title 'Director' for the leaders of research groups (eg.
Behavioural Ecology, Pest Management) may be desirable as a
means of bringing external recognition to the groups and can
be supported on these grounds. However, the internal meaning
of the title should be severely circumscribed. The title 'Co-
ordinator' would, in our view, more accurately reflect the
responsibilities and internal mandates of these positions. We
sense that the present tendency to balkanize would diminish if
all responsibility for budget, manpower assignment and other
duties normally assumed by a Departmental chairman were
reserved for that office. [The Institute of Molecular Biology
and Biochemistry is probably an exception inasmuch as it was
specifically created to bridge disciplines and Departments.
Its director likely requires limited budgetary authority for
such items as technical requirements and a seminar program.
• We believe, however, that the concept of faculty appointments
and teaching assignments being in line Departments is
appropriate and wise].
9
?
.
4.3 We do not recommend the establishment or recognition of
research groups beyond those already formalized. This would
lead to further balkanization and probably result in eventual
dismantling of the existing Department. Moreover, we deem the
grouping of Plant Biologists, Marine Biologists, Environmental
Toxicologists and Animal Physiologists identified in the
Planning Document to be largely artificial. We presume it is
mainly a response by other members of faculty to the perceived
growing autonomy and political strength of the formalized
research groups. Every effort should be made to de-emphasize
the autonomy of the existing groups. They should operate as,
and be viewed as, loose amalgams of faculty with common
research interests. This is the only way to avoid a 'second-
class citizen' mentality among faculty who are not members of
groups and a 'special status mentality' among those who are.
4.4 All appointments should be made to the Department, not to
research groups. If new appointees have a natural affinity to
established groups, it should be made clear at the outset that
their primary allegiance must be to the Department.
4.5 In our view, the greatest gains could be achieved by hiring
initially in the area of Cell Biology and then in Behavioral
Ecology. Given the present constraint on resources, we submit
that the aspirations of those promoting new professional
programs in Environmental Toxicology and Aguaculture should be
accommodated through research degrees. Formalized structures
such as the professional masters programs are a heavy drain on
resources (especially faculty time) and build in unnecessary
inflexibility that could inhibit response to future needs.
4.6 It became obvious during our interviews that there has been a
growing tendency for some faculty members to indulge in
destructive rhetoric in a public forum. We deem this to be
inappropriate and self-defeating, and recommend that senior
administrators take vigorous steps to curb it.
4.7 Given the present level of dissension within the Department,
we sense that it will be very difficult to find an inside
candidate for the position of Chairman when Dr. Srivastava
steps down. We recommend, therefore, that the next Chairman
be appointed from outside the Department.
W.F. Doolittle
R.F. Frindt
W.C. Leggett
J.E. Phillips
J.E. Thompson ?
/0
I
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY?
Office of the Vice-President, Academic
Memorandum
To: Members of SCAP
?
From:
?
Alison J
.
Watt
Subject Biological Sciences Review Date:
?
30 November 1990
Departmental Response
—A-ttached-is-the-Biolog-ica-l-Sciences-response to the External Review
conducted last year. This document has been co-ordinated blifeT
chair of the department, Dr. Brian McKeown.
S
?
Enclosure
0
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES EXTERNAL REVIEW?
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
I.
INTRODUCTION
In January 1989, the Department prepared a Planning
Document which highlighted the Mission and Goals of the
Department, and described the faculty and staff complement,
Departmental organization, Undergraduate and Graduate
programs, strengths and weaknesses of the areas represented in
the Department and aspirations of the various constituent
groups in terms of their future development.
This Planning Document provided the framework for an
External Review which occurred in April 1989.
The present document incorporates the Department's?
response to the various points raised by the External Review.
i ?
/VO
?
fA
L'
fQq.
\
.
/
2
. ?
II. RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) REPORT
The Department considers the Report objective and fair,
despite some inaccuracies, and contains many constructive
suggestions. In this section the major points raised by the
ERC are addressed. Cross references to the ERC Report are
provided as necessary.
1. General
1.1 We are pleased at the assessment that our Department
commands respect throughout the scientific community in
Canada, that some members have gained international
stature, and that in 1988/89 the average NSERC grant in
our Department was 18.7% above the NSERC national average
with significantly higher averages in Population Biology
and ItBiolgy ERC-#-l)
?
----
?
- - -
Regretfully in the opening paragraph of the ERC there are
some factual errors which cast a negative image and must
be corrected:
a.
line 8-10. the reviewers stated that ". . .20% of the
Department based on the list of faculty in Table 1.. .have
no grant support and do little or no research." This
. ?
statement is incorrect. Of 35 faculty listed in Table 1
at the time of review, six held no NSERC grants (17%).
One of these, a new appointee, has since received a'3
year NSERC grant. Three others have viable research
programs and other substantial research monies. Dr.
Geen, though very active in the past, had been disabled
for some time and was on long term disability. Only one
faculty had neither research funding nor research
program.The Department would like to point out that
NSERC is only one measure of research activity. Many
faculty members have substantial grant support from other
sources (eg. Science Council of B.C., Federal Drug
Administration, B.C. Health Care, Forestry Canada,
Fisheries and Ocean, Agriculture Canada, etc.)
Since the review and including the results of the last
NSERC grants competition our average NSERC grant for all
committees are 23.8% above the national average. With
respect to specific NSERC grant selection committees our
Department NSERC grants, as a percentage of the national
average, are now as follows: Animal Biology (108.8%),
Cell Biology and Genetics (134.4%), Earth Sciences
(108.4%), Plant Biology (115.3%) and Population Biology
(135.2%).
b.
line 19. It is not correct to compare the
. ?
Departmental average (based on the total number of
faculty) with the NSERC average (based only on the number
of successful applicants). There is no complete
information available from other Canadian universities
?
1.3
3
indicating the percentage of faculty in Biological
Science departments that have no NSERC grants. Thus, no
valid comparison can be made without this statistic.
C. ?
Our Department was encouraged to learn that the ERC
rated the quality of our undergraduate teaching as high.
The Department points out that our graduate program is
also outstanding.
1.2 The Department accepts the principle stated in ERC 1.1 to
select the best candidate for new faculty positions and
not try to find applicants from multiple sub-disciplines.
Our last three searches in Cell Biology, Microbiology and
Developmental Genetics and the present search for an
Evolutionary Biologist follow this principle. However,
in the past this was not always the case and so the
potential pool size of applicants was smaller and the
chances of attracting an excellent candidate were
reduced.
However, it would be naive to think that in a multi-
disciplinary Department such as ours, any appointment can
or should be made without regard to teaching needs in
peripheral areas and complementarity to existing faculty
research strengths. The trimester system and the need to
offer some courses 2 or 3 times per year dictate that we
have some overlap in faculty teaching expertise, and
strong research groups are built by interaction among
faculty.
[1
LI
2.
Undergraduate Program
2.1 Program Evaluation
We are pleased at the Review Committee's assessment that
students like the programme offered and that the
tutorials, undergraduate research and Co-op are all
viewed positively. We consider these aspects of our
programme as major strengths and, in a large measure,
responsible for the steady increase in our undergraduate
enrollment and quality of instruction.
2.2 Teaching of Core Courses
The Department subscribes to the view that core courses
in the first 3 years of the undergraduate program be
taught by regular faculty and that sessional instructors
(or lab instructors) be used only intermittently (ERC
#2.1). In the last few years several factors contributed
to a greater than normal use of sessional or lab
instructors for core undergraduate teaching: a)
increased number of courses offered in summer semesters
commensurate with an increase in the Co-op program; b)
four replacement positions that were vacant for 1 to 2
LI
14
years; c) our long-standing need for more faculty with
expertise in Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, Animal
Physiology, Evolutionary Biology and Microbiology; d)
assignment of a large number of our regular faculty - 8
to 10 at any one time - to serve on various
University/Faculty/Department initiatives and offices
with attendant teaching relief; e) sabbatical leaves.
The Department has now hired a Cell Biologist,
Microbiologist and Developmental Geneticist and is
currently advertising for an Evolutionary Biologist.
With these new positions and with the four replacement
positions now completed as well as the appointment of Dr.
Brandhorst, a Developmental Biologist, the pressure to
use sessional and lab instructors has been reduced. The
Department hopes to further reduce the use of sessionals
by -adhering to-the- phi-losophy_ that each facuity member - -
will normally be expected to teach one of our core or
required courses each year. Also, faculty with small or
no research programs are expected to teach more than an
average load. These facts notwithstanding, the
exigencies of the trimester operation, offering some
courses more than once a year (due to Co-op program and
lack of large lecture halls), involvement of a quarter of
our regular faculty in various initiatives and increased
undergraduate student enrollment, may still require the
. ?
occasional use of sessional and lab instructors. For
some lab instructors who wish to do so for professional
reasons, the Department encourages the practice of
assigning them to teach a lecture course occasionally.
However, unless the lab instructors and teaching
technicians increase in number, this objective will be
very difficult to accomplish.
2.3 Changes in the Undergraduate Program
a.
?
Specialty Courses - The Departmental Undergraduate
Curriculum Committee (DUCC) and the Departmental Graduate
Studies Committee (DGSC) are examining the specialty
courses at the 300/400 level and graduate courses at the
800 level with a view to rationalizing these courses and
reducing their overall number. Several courses have
already been eliminated (ERC #2.2, 2.4, 3.9, 3.12).
The overall student/faculty ratio in our Department
appears low (ERC #2.2). However, it should be mentioned
that this statistic includes graduate courses and lab
courses. Furthermore, our Department's lab courses are a
heavy workload as they include full lecture and full
laboratory components. Also contributing to this low
ratio is the fact that our department has many
• ?
specialized courses, many of which have low enrolments.
In addition, a number of courses are offered frequently.
Therefore,in order to change this ratio, in addition to
,50
5
dropping some specialized upper levels courses, some
courses will be offered less frequently.
b.
?
Introductory Biology - An ad hoc committee under the
supervision of the DUCC has developed a detailed outline
of BISC 100 (ERC *2.6) and upgrading of BISC 101 and 102,
with implementation of these changes in 91-2.
C. ?
Arts Courses - The Department and Faculty of Science
agree with the ERC *2.5) that more non-science electives
be included in our curriculum.
?
To this end, the Faculty
of Science has passed a motion to double the non-science
requirements (12 semester hours credit) for Science
majors.
?
Science students can take non-science courses on
a pass/fail basis if the courses are so described in the
calendar and all students take the course on the same
basis.
The Department also supports the idea that Arts majors be
required to take an equivalent number of credit hours in
the Faculty of Science.
?
Current calendar lists no such
requirement.
?
It only specifies that 30 semester hours be
taken in five departments outside the Arts major or
honors Department. ?
In theory these five departments need
not include any in Science or Applied Sciences.
Flexibility in course selection - the ERC felt that the
calendar did not reflect the actual degree of flexibility
in selecting courses for the various specializations and
programs (ERC #2.4).
?
This misconception will hopefully
disappear with the increased efforts of our Departmental
Academic Advisor.
2.4 Technical Support
The Department recognizes the need for improving the
morale of the technical staff and providing release time
for both technicians and lab instructors for upgrading
lab exercises, provision of lab materials and supplies,
and improving the skills of the technical staff (ERC #2.7
and 2.9).
A Technical Services Advisory Committee, with
representation from faculty, lab instructors, technical
staff (both teaching and research) and the Lab
Coordinator was set up in July 1989. The Committee is
advisory to the Chairman. It does not consider matters
that are covered in the Collective Agreement between AUCE
and the University.
The Committee has been very active and has suggested some
specific recommendations for improving the morale of the
technical staff, greater interaction among faculty and
staff and fostering of team spirit with regard to lab-
"9
6
related courses, and technician assignments to various
courses.
The provision of relief time for technical staff and lab
instructors on a more or less regular basis, say one
relief semester/9 semesters and associated costs is being
examined and has now been implemented in a number of
cases. Nevertheless, such a policy creates a problem of
replacement for the lab instructors or technicians while
they are on a relief semester. The university would have
to budget extra funding for these replacements.
2.5 Student Evaluation (ERC #2.3)
The Department currently has in place a student
questionnaire which is conducted for most undergraduate
?
-
?
- -courses .-- --However-,- this-questionnaire isyountary. Most
?
faculty members use it regularly, others sporadically,
and still others have chosen not to use it. For faculty
members not wishing to use the questionnaire the
Department is considering alternative ways for teaching
evaluation, such as visits by faculty colleagues. The
Department is of the opinion that, although evaluation of
teaching effectiveness is a University requirement, the
responsibility for the type of evaluation of teaching
effectiveness rests with the individual faculty member.
S2.6 Space and Equipment
The Department considers the needs for additional space,
including undergraduate laboratory space (see also ERC
#2.8), and funds to replace old and obsolete equipment as
its most urgent requirements. This year's Departmental
capital budget was allocated 28% solely to teaching and
29% to a teaching as well as research function. The
Department unanimously passed a resolution that it
"agrees strongly with ERC #2.8 that additional funds
should be provided for the purchase of equipment for
undergraduate and graduate teaching." Office space for
faculty, PDFS, Sessionals and Graduate Students is in
extreme need.
3. Graduate Program
3.1 Areas of Excellence
a. ?
The Department is pleased to note that the ERC feels
?
that the graduate program appears to be strong. Biology
is a vast field which in many universities is spread over
several Departments and Faculties. The Department has
?
•
?
achieved national and international recognition in
Entomology and Pest Management and, more recently, in
Behavioural Ecology. With the establishment of the
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry such
.
/ I
recognition is also present and should continue to
increase rapidly. The
ERC
notes that areas of excellence
change over time. The Department also recognizes this
and as specific areas of excellence change, they will
experience appropriate growth or reduction as the case
may be. Since these areas are always in a state of
fluctuation, the Department would be well served to be
flexible and thus be in a position to react to possible
new opportunities as they may arise.
b.
?
We think that the present level of excellence can be
maintained only by adhering to a broad-based
Undergraduate program and maintaining the current
complement of faculty in the core areas of animal biology
and plant biology. The
ERC
also recognized the need for
a balanced B.Sc. program
(ERC #3.2).
3.2
Quality of Graduate Students and Degree Completion Time
The
ERC
noted that the graduate program, on the whole, is
strong and the M.P.M., M.Sc. and Ph.D. graduates are well
placed. However, the
ERC
felt that in comparison with
many other Departments in Canada the number of graduate
students holding prestigious awards (e.g.,
NSERC
scholarships) appeared low and median time for completion
of graduate degrees, especially M.P.M. and M.Sc. degrees
was excessive
(ERC #3, 3.8).
The first statement ignores
that our Department is relatively young and that we
should be compared to other Canadian Universities of
comparable size and age. This situation should improve
as the reputation of the Department spreads and will get
better as a result of commitment to attaining excellence
and other initiatives concerning the graduate program
that are outlined below.
The second judgement is probably incorrect. According to
the data compiled by the Senate Committee on Graduate
Studies, Biology students, as a rule, do not take any
more time to complete M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees than their
counterparts in other departments. The graduate student
completion times are all within senate guidelines even
though several graduate students hold full or part-time
jobs. As to quality of our graduate students it is worth
pointing out that-of the 9 Ph.D. students that the
Department recommended for
NSERC
Postdoctoral Fellowships
last year, 5 were awarded these Fellowships.
The Department nonetheless would like to strive for even
greater excellence and has taken the following measures:
1. ?
To attract a larger number of outstanding graduate
students:
?
0
8
a)
an attractive graduate studies brochure describing
thevarious programs and faculty strengths has been
prepared for distribution across Canadian and
American universities as well as to those enquiring
as potential graduate students; and
b)
steps have been taken to provide quaranteed support
to students for two semesters in the first year by a
combination of Teaching Assistantships and
University GRFs.
2. ?
Statutory time limits for completion of M.Sc. and
Ph.D. degrees are set by the University Senate.
Within these limits but to more carefully monitor
and, if indicated, reduce the average residence
time:
a)
The Annual Pr gr s eit(f
?
chstidetit)wth
now contain a statement of the progress in required
course work, research accomplished, a projected
completion date for the program, and an assessment
by the Supervisory Committee of the progress of the
student in order to identify any potential problems.
b)
For students still enrolled, the accumulated
progress reports of Master's degree students in
0
??
theirseventh semester of study, and Ph.D. students
in their thirteenth semester of study will be
reviewed by the DGSC in order to counsel the
graduate student and supervisory committee as to
potential means of expediting completion of the
degree program.
3.3 Graduate Courses and Course Requirements for Ph.D.
The following steps have been taken:
a.
A rationalization of graduate courses and specialty
undergraduate courses at the senior level with the intent
to reduce the total number of these courses and the
frequency of offerings.
b.
Provision of eight Special Topics graduate courses
in each of the major areas of research in the Department.
Approximately two of these courses are offered each
semester.
C. ?
An umbrella course, Directed Studies, has been
approved for students with specific deficiencies.
NOTE: The ERC recommendation #3.9 that course
requirements for Ph.D. degree be eliminated is in
conflict with the Faculty of Science course requirements
for the Ph.D. degree.
9
d.
Graduate courses that are not offered are removed
from the Calendar.
e.
ERC recommendation (#3.9) that Ph.D. students
undergo a qualifying examination early in their Ph.D.
program has now been acted upon. The DGSC has drawn up a
recommended format for a candidacy examination which will
be taken to the Department in due course.
3.4 Professional Masters Programs
a.
The Department notes the concerns of the ERC about
1. proliferation of professional Masters degree programs
and 2. their possibly having an adverse effect on the
quality of the research degrees M.Sc. and Ph.D. (ERC
#3.3, also Introductory paragraph in #3).
The Department does not fully agree with these concerns
and recognizes that professional Masters programs, if
appropriately balanced, can be a major asset to a
Department, especially in a University such as ours where
there are no professional Faculties of Agriculture,
Forestry, Medicine, etc. They provide employment
opportunities for graduands and valuable contacts with
industry and government, promote a balance between basic
and applied research, and permit access to research
dollars from industry as well as provincial and federal
agencies which otherwise would not be available.
The reference by ERC that the needs of the Pest
Management program having been given priority over
undergraduate teaching requirements in recent
appointments (ERC #3.2) is not accurate. The last three
appointments to the Department (Cell Biology,
Microbiology and Developmental Genetics) as well as the
three present searches (Evolutionary Biology,
Environmental Toxicology and Animal Physiology) have all
been advertised broadly and without multiple
restrictions. The Department has been searching and will
continue to search for the best qualified scientist and
continue to fill positions where the greatest need is in
the teaching core or required courses in our
undergraduate program. Even though some appointments
have been made in specific research areas, teaching
contributions have been made to the general Biology
program.
b.
Additional Programs - In the above spirit the
Department has reaffirmed its support in principle for
additional professional programs and specifically
reaffirmed its support for the Master in Aquaculture
program, with the proviso that the resources required to
sustain this program, i.e., manpower, space, facilities,
will be fully met by the University (see also ERC #3.3).
If these additional resources are not forthcoming, this,
c20
10
or additional professional programs, will likely be
dropped.
3.5 MPM Program
a. ?
Degree requirements - The ERC while acknowledging
that the Pest Management program has been a success and
is recognized nationally and internationally (ERC #3.3),
nonetheless was critical of the program because the
distinction between M.Sc., a research degree, and M.P.M.
a professional degree is based more on prescribed course
work, and has been changing over the years (ERC #3.4).
The Department recognizes the need to redefine the MPM
program and steps are being taken by the DGSC in concert
with the Director, Centre for Pest Management, to do
this.
FinaniaIsupporttoMPM students TheERCnoted
that M.P.M. students are eligible for and receive support
from TAships to the possible detriment of M.Sc. and Ph.D.
students (ERC #3.5). The Department has examined this
issue and found no evidence that M.Sc. and Ph.D. students
with suitable qualifications and who wanted Teaching
Assistantships were deprived of one because it was given
to an M.P.M. student. Moreover, M.P.M. students have
proven to be good Teaching Assistants and they have
. ?
similar financial needs to the M.Sc. and Ph.D.. students.
Since the review the undergraduate student/Teaching
Assistant ratio has been reduced. This, in combination
with increased undergraduate enrolments, has created many
more Teaching Assistant positions. If there are more
Teaching Assistant applications than positions available,
the question of M.P.M. students taking Teaching
Assistantships will have to be addressed by the
Department. It should be noted that the Department
considers it more appropriate to consider the academic
qualifications of a potential Teaching Assistant rather
than degree program.
3.6 Financial Support and Teaching Assistant Work Load
Financial support for graduate students comes from 1.
Teaching Assistantships, 2. scholarships and fellowships
from various sources, national (NSERC, MRC) and
international (ICOD, World Student Service), provincial
(GREAT), University (e.g., GRF), 3. research
assistantships from faculty research grants and
contracts.
Of our present graduate student population, some 24% do
.
?
not have any funding. However, these students are either
on leave or have taken employment outside the University
before completing degree requirements. Those that
receive teaching Assistantships comprise 40% of the
C ^ I
1].
funded graduate student population. Some of the Teaching
Assistants also receive Scholarship or Fellowship funds.
The average salary for the funded graduate students is
approximately $13,500/year. None of these students
receive less than $10,000/year.
?
The ERC recommended
that we implement a minimum financial support for
graduate students of $10,000/year (ERC #3.6). The DGSC
has now guaranteed support during the first year for new
graduate students by providing two semesters of Teaching
Assistantship and Graduate Research Fellowship support.
Since all other funded students are already above this
amount, the Departments needs to advertise this fact more
broadly to prospective new graduate students.
Our Teaching Assistants work far too many hours/week than
do their counterparts in many comparable departments
across Canada. The ERC recognized this and recommended
that the Teaching Assistants' work load be reduced to
10h/week (contact hours plus preparation time) as opposed
to our current load of approximately 18h/week for a full
TAship (ERC #3.7)
.
The Department strongly urges that
the University take steps to reduce the TA work load by
at least 25% to about 14-15h/week. It is recommended
that a graduate student Teaching Assistant should receive
the average annual remuneration of $13,500, if the
student holds a full Teaching Assistantship for two
semesters.
Since the review, the University has increased the
Teaching Assistant budget by almost 27% and at the same
time reduced tutorial and lab student numbers required
for a full Teaching Assistantship. How much these class
size reductions decrease the work load of Teaching
Assistants remains to be seen. In order to reduce the
time graduate students spend as Teaching Assistants, the
Department recommends that the University increase this
number of Graduate Research Fellowships at least by 25%.
3.7 ERC Recommendation #3.10 that research space be allocated
according to real need is done as far as possible.
Since the review the research space of a number of
faculty has been reduced so as to provide more space for
faculty with an increased research program.
3.8 The ERC recommended that faculty should be more
aggressive in seeking funds for research equipment from
competitive granting agencies. They also recommend that
internal equipment funds first be used to replace
obsolete teaching equipment and to provide start-up funds
for new faculty (ERC #3.11). To encourage more equipment
grant applications, the Department now guarantees partial
funds for equipment as leverage to granting agencies.
Since the review, replacement equipment for teaching has
been purchased. However, more University funding for
cc
12
teaching equipment is still required in order to meet the
• ?
recommendation of the ERC. The last three faculty
appointments have received substantial start-up funds
from
internal
Capital Budgets. The Department hopes to
be able to continue this practice with its next faculty
appointments.
3.9 The ERC felt that 'there were
significantly
high levels of
negative feelings amongst graduate students with respect
to disparity of resources and polarization between groups
(ERC #3.12). Either the ERC did not poll a large enough
group of graduate students or such feelings have changed
since the review because a recent meeting with the
graduate students did not indicate these feelings.
4. Departmental Structure and Administration
4.1 The ERC made some general observations about perceived
friction among the
constituent
groups and proliferation
of Directorships of professional degrees and/or research
groups, with the attendant danger of the Department
breaking up into several units (ERC #4 preamble).
The Department has considered these points.
•
?
a. Ours is a large and diversified Department which
could be split into several administrative units but for
efficiency of undergraduate teaching, an appropriate
balance between basic and applied research, and ease of
interdisciplinary research collaboration, it is highly
desirable that it stay as a unified Biological Sciences
Department (see also ERC #4.1).
To
maintain
this unity it is essential that:
1. the legitimate research and teaching interests of
the
constituent
groups be recognized and fulfilled,
2.
the senior
administration
recognizes the diversity
of the Department and respect it by not putting
undue impediments or directives from above
supporting or impeding the growth of one group or
another,
3. in Departmental matters, the Dean and the Vice-
Presidents deal through the Chair of the Department
and not directly with individual faculty or program
Directors reporting to the Chair.
b. ?
The ERC noted (#4.2) that there are "...too many
chiefs. . . ' in the Department with obvious reference to
Directors of CPM, IMBE, BERG, CERG, IAR, etc.
0?3
13
First, there is some confusion here.
?
Behavioural Ecology
Research Group (BERG), Chemical Ecology Research Group
(CERG), Institute of Aguaculture Research (IAR), are
interdisciplinary associations of research groups which
report to the Vice-President, Research, and which have
little direct role in Departmental policy, administration
or graduate programs.
?
Centre for Pest Management, by
contrast, is another research group within Biological
Sciences that is charged also with responsibility for the
MPM program and has a limited budget for purposes of
instruction and field trips.
?
Institute of Molecular
Biology & Biochemistry is an interdisciplinary institute
between Biological Sciences and Chemistry with membership
from both departments and is charged with promoting
graduate instruction and research in the areas of
molecular biology and biochemistry.
?
While the Director
of CPM reports to the Chair of Biological Sciences, the
Director of IMBB reports to the Dean of Science.
?
Both
CPM and IMBB have some graduate teaching responsibilities
which separate them from the purely research associations
such as BERG, CERG, IAR.
?
The recently established Master
of Aquaculture program is housed in Biological Sciences,
the Acting Director reports to the Chair of Biological
Sciences and there is a limited budget to initiate the M.
Aquaculture program.
?
Faculty involved in this program
are a loose amalgam of faculty in Biological Sciences,
Business, Economics, Natural Resource Management and
belong to IAR, but otherwise have no formal association.
Second, the presence of these Directorships is not a
problem per se. They could be called Coordinators, but
some of the positions are essential for teaching
programs, for promotion of graduate training, and for the
application for and administration of large collaborative
research grants or contracts.
Third, the responsibility for budget, manpower
assignments, and other duties referred to in ERC *4.2
rests with the Chair, Biological Sciences for MPM and M.
Aquaculture programs. The IMBB, however, has special
funds for faculty recruitment (faculty which are hired
either in Biological Sciences or Chemistry) and a small
operating budget, but the graduate admissions and
manpower assignments rest with the Departmental Graduate
Studies Committee and Chair, respectively.
4.2 Appointments in all subunits are made to the Department
(ERC #4.4). However, in the case of IMBB certain faculty
positions that have been assigned IMBB are tenured in
Biological Sciences or Chemistry.
With such a large and diverse Department, officially
identified and appropriately managed subunits within it
lessen the burden to the Chair and enable the Department
0%,
14
to operate overall more efficiently. As long as
cooperation and mutual respect prevail, the present
departmental structure will work.
4.3 The Department had identified the following positions as
priority: 1. Cell Biology, 2. Microbiology, 3. Environ-
mental Toxicology, 4. Evolutionary Biology. The first
two positions have been filled. The last two positions
have been authorized and are being filled. The
Environmental Toxicology position is urgently needed for
the existing post baccalaureate diploma and Minor
programs in Environmental Toxicology, not for a new
professional program as the ERC misunderstood. A
replacement position due to the untimely death of Dr.
G.H. Geen has been authorized. The Department feels that
this position should be in the area of Animal Physiology.
The- ERC-recommeflded- thatthe-next-ehai-rmafl be--appointed-
from outside the Department (ERC 44.7). A search was
initiated which included external, as well as internal,
candidates. However in the final analysis, an internal
candidate was recommended by the Search Committee and was
ratified by the Department.
5. Plans and Directions for the Future
IThe Department of Biological Sciences thanks the ERC for
its analysis of our Department. We also appreciated this
opportunity to respond to the many comments and
recommendations. After having responded to the External
Review, our Department will now embark on developing the
next Five-Year Plan. Included in this Five-Year Plan
will be the finalization of many issues raised by the
ERC. Although the Department has discussed all of the
External Review Report, a number of recommendations have
not yet been fully implemented or fully evaluated in the
light of the prevailing circumstances. There are
multiple reasons for this, including: change of
chairman, delay in committee or group reports, timely
departmental discussions, etc. Over the next few months
the Department specifically will be addressing the
outstanding issues.
/
c23
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM ?
DEAN OF SCIENCE
To:
J. M. Munro,
?
From: C.H.W. Jones
V.P. Academic ?
Dean of Science
Re:
External Review
?
Date: December 13, 1990
Biosciences - the Department's Response
The response by the Department of Biosciences to the External Review
appears to adequately cover the major points, I would make the following
additional comments:
1.
The delay between the review itself (April 1989) and the Department's
response (November 1990) arose in part because the incumbent Chair, Dr.
Srivastava, was nearing the end of his term as Chair. With the initiation of
the Chair search process, the Department could not be encouraged to
respond more quickly to the Review.
2.
The Chair search included external candidates, as. recommended in the
review. However, in the final analysis an internal candidate, Dr. Brian
McKeown, was appointed as Chair. His appointment was strongly endorsed
by the Search Committee and the Department.
3.
The Report referred to "destructive rhetoric" and "dissension" within the
Department. I am pleased to report that the friction which existed between
individuals and groups within the Department has greatly diminished over
the last 18 months and there is now a greater sense of collegiality and
common purpose.
4.
The Department in its response has requested that the senior administration
"not support or impede the growth of one group or another within the
Department". I would hope that the Department would recognize the
benefits to the Department and the University as a whole of the initiatives
taken by Dr. George Ivany in establishing the Institute of Molecular Biology
and Biochemistry, and in securing funding for the Institute and funding for a
major, new building. Without Dr. Ivany's leadership this very major
development would never have come to pass.
5.
The Department's response refers to a new.senior faculty position in
Environmental Toxicology. I believe that the position which has been
approved is the senior position in Environmental Science.
CA .'
CHWJ:rh
?
C.H.W. Jones
cc: ?
B.A. McKeown
r
L
.
Ll
OKI
