S.12-165
SFU
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND PROVOS'J
University Drive, Burnaby, BC
TEL: 778.782.3925
Canada V5A 1S6
FAX: 778.782.5876
www.sfu.ca/vpacademic
MEMORANDUM
attention
Senate
date
September 26,2012
/
from
)on Driver, Vice-President, Academic and
pages
1/1
Provost, and Chair, SCUP
RE:
Faculty of Science: External Review of the Department of Molecular Biologj'
Biochemistry (SCUP 12-40)
At its September 19, 2012 meeting SCUP reviewed and approved the Action Plan for the Department of
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry that resulted from its External Review.
Motion:
That Senate approve the Action Plan for the Department of Molecular Biologj' and Biochemistry that
resulted from its External Review.
end.
c: L. Quarmby
C. Cupples
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
ENGAGING THE WORLD
SFU
MEMORANDUM
SCUP 12-40
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND PROVOST
University Drive, Burnaby, BC
TEL:778.782.6702
gnicholl@sfu.ca
Canada V5A 1S6
www.sru.ca/vpacadcmic
ATTENTION
Jon Driver, Chair, SCUP
DATE
September 25,2012
FROM
Gord Myers, Associate Vice-President,
PAGES
1/1
Academic and Associate Provost
\
Faculty of Science: External Review of the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Attached are the External Review Report on the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
and the Action Plan endorsed by the Department and the Dean.
Motion;
That SCUP approve and recommend to Senate the Action Plan for the Department of Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry that resulted from its External Review.
Following the site visit, the Report of the External Review Team* for the Department of Molecular Biology
and Biochemistry was submitted in May 2012.
After the Report was received, a meeting was held with the Dean, Faculty of Science, the Chair of the Department of
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, and the Director of Academic Planning and Budgeting (VPA) to consider the
recommendations. The Department prepared an Action Plan based on the Report and these discussions. The Action
plan was then submitted to the Dean who endorsed it.
The Reviewers commented that:
"MBB is a strong, highlyregardeddepartment in research and in undergraduate Education. "
"The Department's researchfunding is one of the highestperfaculty member at SFU
"
"The MBB Department is strong. For the mostpart, the challengesthat have emergedare due to the Departmental
priorities overthe past tenyears relatedto themanagement ofrapidgrowth andachievement of research success.
As a consequence, our recommendations are mainly organizational. "
The Reviewers made some 20 recommendations covering the agreed Terms of Reference.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry be advised
to pursue the Action Plan.
Attachments:
1. External Review Report - May 2012
2. Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry - Action Plan
* External Review Team:
Dr. Gillian E. Wu (Chair), York University
Dr. William L. Crosby, Windsor University
Dr. George A. Mackie, University
of British Columbia
Dr. Rolf Mathewes (Internal), Simon Fraser University
CC
Claire Cupples, Dean, Faculty of Science
Lynne Quarmby, Chair, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
ENGAGING the world
EXTERNAL REVIEW
Simon Fraser University
The Department Of Molecular Biology And Biochemistry
April 11-13, 2012
Review Team:
Professor William L. Crosby, Windsor University
Professor George A. Mackie, University of British Columbia
Professor Gillian E. Wu, York University
Professor Rolf Mathewes, Simon Fraser University (internal resource)
The review team was grateful for the organization undertaken by the University
and the Department. We were particularly thankful for the work of Ms. Bal Basi in
the VPA'soffice Dr. Bruce Brandhorst, the Chair of MBB and Dr. Rolf Mathewes,
the internal resource faculty member. Their and everyone'sefforts resulted in a
smooth, efficient three days.
MBB is a strong, highly regarded department in research and in undergraduate
eduation. The staff, students and faculty are, as a whole, enthusiastic about the
Department and its activities. Throughout our interviews we met with engaged,
cheerful groups with generally positive messages about
MBB. The high morale is
the result of Dr Bruce Brandhorst's leadership and care over the past ten years;
SFU's support of the growth of
MBB; and the quality of the individuals, faculty
and staff, in the Department.
Since its foundation, MBB has built its research by focusing on model organisms
and genomics. The Department's research funding is one of the highest per
faculty member at SFU, and in spite of the challenges that will come with the
anticipated loss of external salary awards, we found no reason to doubt the
continuance of research at the highest level and standards. SFU'saggregate of
model organism researchers allows them to take advantage of the tools the
model systems' community has in genomics, genetic networking and in
centralized resources (mutantstock centers, databases, plasmid stocks etc.).
This situation puts SFU's and thus MBB's bioinformatics, genomics and protein
researchers in an advantageous position. SFU's MBB researchers have access
to and have developed close contacts with UBC, the Genome Sciences Centre,
the BC Cancer Agency, and colleagues at Trinity Western University.
The undergraduate programs are generally strong and provide an excellent
education in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. The Honours program in
particular provides
an extensive research opportunity, important for students
anticipating a research career.
The Department has done remarkably well since the last review. New faculty
members have been hired and have secured internal and external funding.
Adjunct faculty membership has been expanded with the resulting collaborations
enhancing the research profile of MBB. The undergraduate (UG) program has
grown and the programming extended. A number of the previous review team's
recommendations were implemented successfully. Others were not, and some of
those recommendations we will re-recommend. There is a great deal of potential
energy. Members are engaged in MBB, in the broader University as a whole and
in neighbouring research centres.
We have divided our recommendation and accompanying comments into three
sections:
I Curriculum and Learning; II Governance and Administration;
and
III Strategic Opportunities.
The individuals and groups with whom we met are
listed in Appendix 1.
I. Curriculum and Learning
The review team felt it was presented with a full picture of the curriculum and
learning programs in MBB. The review team was particularly appreciative of the
reports, power point presentations, and results of surveys provided by
the
Undergraduate and Graduate Committees as well as the undergraduate and
graduate students.
Our comments and recommendations are divided into UG and graduate areas
The Undergraduate Program
The review team emerged with positive views of the undergraduate program in
MBB. The program would comply with national norms for breadth of scientific
content, depth of coverage and laboratoryexperience in Biochemistry and
Molecular
Biology. The undergraduate students with whom we met praised the
program and felt it served their needs well. Faculty members were perceived as
open and supportive. The major frustrations centred on the sequencing and/or
availability of critical pre-requisite courses.
The review team considered some of the questions raised for it in the Terms of
Reference. In addition, it identified a few shortcomings in the design and
execution of the UG program. The following paragraphs highlight these issues
and our advice to the Department and Faculty.
A concern of the review team that was also voiced by many is the lack of defined
learning
outcomes for the courses individually and the program as a whole.
Likewise, there was little articulation of an over-arching vision for the program's
outcomes both for graduation and for each of the four years. Clarification of the
expected learning outcomes will allow the UG Curriculum Committee to identify
the program'sstrengths and any gaps (that may exist). In particular it will allow
the fourth year programming to be structured such that UGs will be able to
identify courses needed for their interests and career goals, and allow faculty to
fine tune the fourth year course offerings to the desired program goals and
learning outcomes.
Recommendation 1:
Define an over-arching vision for the MBB UG program
as a whole. Define the key competencies to be attained by the graduates of
MBB
As requested in the Terms of Reference, the review team considered the
possibility of instituting an UG program in "genomics/bioinformatics". The review
team does not believe that a separate undergraduate degree program in this
area is desirable. In fact, a joint program with Computer Science that serves
genomics/bioinformatics is already in place (JMA CS-MBB). Nonetheless, new
courses or refining of current courses for the JMA CS-MBB UG program are
appropriate and should be supported.
Recommendation 2:
Continue to incorporate genomics and systems
biology concepts into MBB course offerings in a way that supports the
greater Departmental vision for its program.
The review team is concerned that an apparently significant number of UG
students are spending more than four years (excluding co-op placements) to
obtain a 120 credit degree. Faculty members and advisory committees offered
some reasons for the time delay: 1. Some students take reduced loads in order
to work to pay for their program; 2. Some students mistakenly believe that twelve
credits per semester constitutes a full load; 3. Some advisors promote partial
loads although it is certainly not official policy; 4. The summer semester does not
necessarily offer the complement of courses needed; 5. The recommended first
year load for prospective MBB students exceeds 30 credits.
Beginning with their first advising session, students should be made aware of the
course load that leads to timely completion of a degree. Although SFU is a full
trimester university, the summer course offerings for MBB students are not
always supportiveof a four-year degree. In particular, MBB 331, a "gateway"
course, is not currently offered in the summer semester. Based on comments by
faculty members and students, the review team believes that MBB 331 could be
offered successfully as an Intersession course. Itcould also be team-taught.
Recommendation 3:
The Faculty of Science and the Department should
ensure the students are
fully advised of the year-by-year course load and
program content required to graduate in fouryears. The Department is
encouraged to consider the sequencing of prerequisites and to offer
Summer term/Intersession courses to enhance student flexibility and
timely completion of UG programs. Finally, team teaching in
summer/intersession would lessen the impact on faculty members'
research programs.
The number of MBB fourth year course offerings surprised the review team.
Although not every course is given regularly, the number of potential courses is
far larger than necessary. The review team was lead to believe that these upper
level courses have come into being
as a result of individual faculty member's
research interests as well as their need to maintain a certain teaching load,
rather than as a concerted attempt to define Departmental program objectives.
While offering the fourth year student many choices in principle, in practice, the
choices are sometimes made for the student by the schedule of course offerings,
rather than by their interests.
Recommendation 4:
Realign the fourth year offerings with the program
competencies and learning outcomes, including consideration ofa fourth
year 'capstone' course. TheDepartment is encouraged to identify two to
three broad theme areas, not formal streams, but nonetheless areas that
coincide with the over-arching program vision for MBB and thus serve to
assist students with their choices.
The Terms of Reference asked the review team to consider whether MBB should
"develop MBB introductory courses" or "work with other Departments in the
Faculty of Science to create and oversee an SFU Life Sciences Core
Curriculum". The context for this request is the concern of MBB (and other
programs, notably those in Health Sciences) that BISC 101 (General Biology4
credits) lacks
some critical subject matter required for MBB majors in their
second year. The review team advises against "silo-ing" first year Biology into
multiple, competing streams. Rather, the review team endorses the concept of a
Life Sciences core curriculum to serve the first two years of multiple programs.
Such a common Life Sciences curriculum would encompass the Life Science
Departments in the Faculty of Science and serve the B.Sc. stream in the Faculty
of Health Sciences, as well as other programs.
Recommendation 5:
MBB should fully engage in the development of a
Life Science Core Curriculum that would encompass the first two years of
the current Life Science programs in the Faculty of Science (Biol, MBB,
BPK). This initiative will require the involvement and support of Faculty
and Departmental governance structures.
A Life Science Degree Program:
The review team understands that there is no
"General Science" degree program that would serve students seeking a broad
biosciences education. The review team believes that the creation of a Life
Sciences Core Curriculum as proposed in the "Terms of Reference" presents
additional opportunities to
MBB, the Faculty of Science and SFU. Specifically, it
would permit students to delay choice of a major until second year. Moreover, it
would facilitate creating a
degree program with greater breadth and less
specialization than MBB. In this context, changes to the MCATexamination
scheduled for 2015 will oblige pre-medical students to obtain grounding in
Sociology and Psychology
as well as in Biochemistry.
The GPA required to remain in the MBB program is 2.5 and there are limited
opportunities for students who fail to achieve this grade. Consequently, the GPA
cut-off is not enforced and
some students continue into the upper years of MBB
where they struggle. The General Science double-minor program (GPA 2.0) is an
alternative program for such students. However, the review team felt that the
"General" and "double-minor" moniker of the program was unlikely to be
attractive to students and potential employers. The review team encourages the
Faculty of Science to consider restructuring the current offerings of the General
Science program into a B.Sc. in the LifeSciences. Given the current broad
course choices in the General Science degree program likely no new courses are
needed, and only some "revamping" of current offerings being necessary. The
review team considered a B.Sc. in the Life Sciences to be attractive to many
undecided secondary school students.
Recommendation 6:
The Department and Faculty are encouraged to
embrace the opportunities presented by a broad-based Life Sciences
degree program as a destination for those students who may be
undecided in their academic direction, and at the same offer an academic
destination for those students whose academic performance falls below
the desired minimums set by MBB. This initiative might be profitably first
piloted at
the Surrey Campus as a way of building upper-year offerings at
that location
Graduate Program and Research Training
There is general awareness that in the sciences, graduate students generate
much of the data that result in the publications and grants of the faculty and
Department. Thus the quality and activities of graduate students is of prime
importance to all. The Department currently enrolls approximately 90 graduate
students, a larger number than at many peer institutions. Although detailed data
were not provided, the review team was told that former graduate students have
been very successful at obtaining external awards and post-doctoral placements.
At the same time, the review team was also led to believe that there is
considerable variability in the quality and achievements of the MBB graduate
students. Worryingly, the review team also sensed tension and disengagement
between the faculty and the graduate students in
MBB.
Thus the review team carefully considered all phases of graduate education in
MBB. The review team concluded that the MBB Department lacks a coherent
strategy to recruit outstanding trainees as a Department. Other aspects of the
graduate program are also sub-optimal. Together, they contribute to variable
quality and longer than desirable times to completion. Indeed, research in the
Department would certainly be better served by somewhat fewer (e.g. ~60)
graduate students of higher quality and more post-doctoral fellows at no greater
cost than at present.
Graduate recruitment in MBB was a stated concern of all faculty members. The
review team learned that potential students must obtain an agreement of
admission and funding from a faculty supervisor before applying to the
Department. We fail to see the value of this arrangement (other than saving
potential students the application fee). International students may not be aware
that this method of admission is in place, and thus some excellent international
students will not apply. Younger, or less well-known faculty are disadvantaged as
most potential graduate students are likely to apply to the prominent faculty
members. Moreover, excellent students who make inquiries may be lost to MBB
if a contacted faculty member's lab is full, or if funding cannot be guaranteed.
Put differently, the current practice for recruiting graduate students into MBB is
highly variable and at worst, approaches anarchy. It has the undesired effect of
making some graduate students feel "indentured" to their faculty supervisors.
The Department could adopt "Strategic Enrolment" practices for its graduate
program (i.e., what kind of student is sought; how many are sought; and what will
be done to ensure a positive outcome). Creative approaches to recruitment could
include videos on the Departmental website; use of social media; and targeting
certain markets/demographics (e.g., peer comprehensive universities in Western
Canada; selected institutions in Latin America, PRC and India). The
Department's graduate students could be a huge asset in this regard but are not
currently as well engaged with the departmental faculty as is desirable. An online
application process is being implemented by SFU, which will certainly impact
MBB's application process. To cope with on line applications as well as to
improve its current practice, MBB should strike a Departmental Graduate
Admissions Committee to
assess all incoming applicants to ensure that minimum
standards are met. Dossiers of eligible applicants would be circulated to all
potential supervisors. Acceptances would be issued by the
Department/University on behalf of faculty members who ultimately would
provide financial support.
A number of initiatives would enhance students' progress through the
Departmental graduate program. A mentoring
program for new graduate
students would improve morale and encourage engagement in departmental
activities. In consultation with its students and the Dean of Graduate Studies, the
Department should develop a set of guidelines for best practices in supervision
and set transparent procedures for assignment of TA or RA positions. Finally,
timelines for
degree completion should be developed, implemented and enforced
Recommendation 7:
A major reform of MBB's graduate program will
improve the quality of its students, will enhance its engagement with its
graduate students, and will ensure that standard benchmarks are regularly
achieved.
The review team was presented with years-to-degree data: the M.Sc, three
years; the PhD, six years. The reasons given for these years-to-degree times
include project expectations, student activities and lack of career paths after
graduation. Spending extra years in graduate school was seen by some as being
useful
and required. However, the only example we could envisage where extra
years might be useful was the situation when an academic- bound PhD student
is completing final papers - although such a student could defend his/her PhD
and then finish the papers as a post doc in the same lab before moving on. For a
M.Sc.
student bound for career path other than academic research, a three-year
M.Sc. is a disadvantage to all concerned.
The review team discussed the year-to-degree issues with faculty, the Chair and
the Dean of Graduate Studies. We encourage the Department to enforce
graduation timelines as a principal tool for reducing the numbers of lower-
echelon of students who are performing below par, at the expense of
Departmental time, attention and effort.
The M.Sc. years-to-degree could benefitfrom clear, written, expectations for the
program
with timelines. Key competencies for degrees should be clearly detailed.
The degree expectations document would be given to every student allowing
him/her to map out their career plans, and to understand fully what is expected in
terms of research activity and program responsibilities. The review team
considered the requirement of a publication for the M.Sc. degree and would like
to suggest that in some fields, a publication may be overly optimistic, and may be
one of the hurdles resulting in the longer time to degree.
For the PhD, an overall "PhD Degree Expectations" document fully describing the
requirements, the expectations, and the timelines for PhD students and
supervisors with key competencies defined would be very helpful. To our eyes,
8
the current documentation could benefit from a revision that would include an
over-arching vision and clear depictions of expected outcomes of courses,
research, and publications.
Recommendation 8:
For both the M.Sc. and PhD degree, revise, expand
and document the Degree Expectations. Models for such a document
exist at other Universities. This Degree Expectations document should
include the over-arching vision of both programs, the time-lines and
accomplishments expected, the key competencies to be achieved, and
clear direction and justification of the course requirements.
Recommendation 9:
Define and enforce PhD candidacy examination
timelines to occur on or before completion of the sixth term of a M.Sc.
registered student, coupled with the administration of agreed-upon
minimal standards for that examination which must be completed
priorto
admission to the PhD program.
Recommendation 10:
Departmental support for graduate student and
faculty social gatherings will enhance faculty and graduate student
engagement. The Department is encouraged to include voting graduate
student representation to the Departmental Council and appropriate
Committees. With rights comes responsibilities, and the
quidpro quo
will
be responsible graduate student participation in appropriate academic and
social activities, including the Seminar Series, and Academic Council.
II. Governance and Administration
The review team appreciated the opportunity to review the Departmental
governance structure and operation, noting that the 'SelfStudy' document
provided in advance of the review painted a somewhat more 'negative'
impression than what the review team observed during the course of its visit and
review.
The Department has benefited from highly dedicated leadership by its past Chair
(Dr. Brandhorst) whose service in this regard spans fully a decade. His
leadership has been one of unwavering commitment and loyalty to a vision of the
best interests of the Department in the midst of considerable growth and
evolution of the broader SFU life sciences program during this time. The review
team also noted that the supporting Staff in the Department are, on the whole,
extremely
happy to work in and be part of the Department'smission and
objectives.
The review team was given full access to information pertaining to past
governance practice in the Department, and was grateful for the frank
discussions engaged with both the Head as well as Senior Administration
officials in this regard. The review team became aware of select aspects of
Departmental administration that presented
some apparent inconsistencies that,
on the whole, may benefit from improvements in practice. Accordingly, the review
team recommends the following adjustments that are anticipated to be of
constructive benefit to the Department.
The review team noted that several positions have evolved (enlarged, for the
most part) in their duties and responsibilities, to which the Staff have responded
admirably and responsibly to help ensure that the objectives of their positions are
fully met. Where appropriate, modifications to job descriptions should be
accompanied by a review of their responsibility profile, so that a fair and
equitable ranking of the positions can likewise be maintained. The reviewteam
points out that annual performance reviews - even in the absence of any
evolution in job descriptions - is a valuable communication tool between the
Departmentand its Stafffor purposes of airing concerns, identifying emerging
needs or implementing educational/training opportunities on the part of Staff, to
name but a few.
The review team learned that grant-supported research staff - some in quite
senior positions - do not qualify for institutional benefitplans. This struck the
review team as inequitable and incompatible with the University'sgoal of
enhancing its reputation and research
profile. There are clearly resource
implications of providing benefits, yet such charges are eligible expenses in most
cases and can be recovered from researchers'grants (e.g., CIHR permits full
benefit packages to be charged to its grants).
Recommendation 11:
The Department initiate a procedure for annual
reviews of Staff work descriptions and their performance in those
positions, in order to ensure that the position descriptions are up-to-date
and fairly reflect the evolution and output of each position in the
10
Department. Policies are established in cooperation with the University
administration, to improve equity in benefits and support for grant-
supported research staff in the Department.
The review team was made aware of issues that would augment the experience
of both UG and graduate students.
Recommendation 12:
TA assignments among the Graduate Student
cadre be undertaken so as to ensure that assignments are well-aligned
with teaching needs - particularly in those large and busy lab sections
where continuous oversight of lab activity is both an instructional as well
as a safety issue.
The review team was made aware that the organization, responsibilities and
decision making of committees within the Department were at times ill-defined
and sometimes inconsistent. Moreover, the review team also perceived that the
Department as an entity was not fully engaged in the governance and policy
implementation initiatives currently operating at the Faculty and the broader
University levels. A number of suggestions in this regard include:
1. Adjustments to Departmental committee content - specifically, the
advisability of striking a Priorities &Strategic Planning Committee, to assist
the Chair and the Department-at-large in identifying strategic issues and
opportunities both within and beyond the Department and its SFU context.
2. Adjust the leadership of the Departmental Undergraduate Committee so
that the Departmental Undergraduate advisor and a Tenured Faculty
member serve as co-chairs.
3. Regularize the schedule and increase the frequency of Departmental
Council meetings (e.g. monthly, on a flexibly identified day/week of the
month) in order that a regularly scheduled forum for emerging issues and
their resolution be in-place and available for the broader Department.
Regular meetings would in no way supplant the need for occasional 'special'
Council meetings where such was required.
4. Include standing
Graduate Student representation on Departmental
Council
(perhaps linked to a specific office and Officer in the Graduate
Student Society).
11
6. Establish a Departmental 'ExecutiveCommittee' comprised of the
Department Chair, Chairs of the Standing Committees of the Department
plus the Chair of the Graduate Student caucus as a useful 'sounding board'
and advisory support to the Chair.
Recommendation 13:
The overall governance of the Department be
reviewed and Departmental Committees be struck to govern the
Department efficiently, and appropriately. Greater emphasis be placed on
the delegation of administrative decision-making among the various
Departmental Committees in cooperation with their itinerant Chairs, in
support of establishing a broad-based institutional memory in key aspects
of Departmental administration. The Department is urged to ensure that,
as much as possible, its operation and policies be consistent with those
operating at other levels of the Institution.
The review team was impressed by the extent of engagement of the adjunct
faculty with MBB. The flow of information from the Department to its associate
and adjunct members appears to occur with variable efficiency. Moreover,
associate members appear to be effectively disenfranchised on the issues, such
as management of the graduate program, that affect them most closely. There is
a risk that this valuable cohort could become alienated from the Department.
Recommendation 14:
The Department involves its Associate members
more closely in graduate education and research. The Department should
identifythe topics/questions/issues and Committees where Associate
Members would have voting privileges.
Committed meeting room space was seen as an issue by all. The Department
has grown to the point where a flexible priority commitment is justified for Room
SSB-8114. Lockable storage space is much needed for undergraduate student
society functions to be effective and ongoing.
Recommendation 15:
The Faculty and University Administration is urged
to allocate some flexible priority to Room SSB-8114 for use by the
Departmentfor both administrative and scientific meeting activities, and to
procure functional, secure storage facilities for undergraduate use
proximal to the Departmental precinct.
12
The review team noted the commendable fundraising initiatives being proposed
and undertaken by the Department. However, the review team believed it unlikely
that the efforts would fully achieve their desired results.
Recommendation 16:
The Department is urged to engage with the
Institutional mechanisms for advancement that include provision for
identifiable gifts to
be directed to the Department.
Departmental governance has worked well in the recent past thanks to the
dedication of the Chair and a small group of individuals. Looking forward, and in
the face of changing Departmental leadership, the review
team suggests that the
time is opportune for the implementation of select structural and procedural
changes as outlined above, in the anticipation that these would be of
demonstrable benefit to the Department.
III. Strategic Opportunities
The convergence of multiple internal and external developments suggests very
strongly that the time is ripe for the MBB Department to rethink some of its
practices and to undertake more strategic approaches to help it address these
changing circumstances. The following section outlines internal and external
challenges and opportunities
as well as potential departmental responses.
Challenges and Changes
The MBB Department has emerged in the past decades from its roots and has
grown very quickly. Faculty members from other departments were recruited into
MBB while numerous new recruitments were made, almost all at a juniorlevel.
All members of the Department, juniorand senior, have enjoyed considerable
success in research. The pace of growth has been remarkable; moreover, the
success with which the Department has evolved is highly praiseworthy. Thus, the
Department has now reached its mature size and can anticipate little if any
further growth. Second, a new Chair will assume leadership ofthe Department
this autumn. Third, major changes have or will alter the practices of the
Department's primary external sources of research funding. How these play out
will affect the type of research that is performed, the number of trainees that can
be supported and how faculty members interact with each other. Fourth,
13
students'expectations and styles of learning, both undergraduate and graduate,
are changing rapidly. Admissions policy, pedagogy and supervisory practices will
have to adapt.
Research Funding
The MBB Department has colonized a research niche focused on largely non-
human, non-mammalian model organisms and this research profile
has thus far
served itwell. However, the CIHR as a major research funding resource to the
Department is faced with constrained resources and a mandate that is more
directly aligned to serving the health of Canadians. Thus, it will increasingly focus
its programs and funding on human health. Moreover, CIHR also intends to
revamp both its funding programs and its system of peer review.
To take advantage of this sharpened focus, MBB will be obliged to adapt along
the following lines. First, applications will require much more attention to
"packaging"; i.e., clearly addressing questions of human health even in
applications employing appropriate model organisms. Second,
"big picture"
thinking and proposals will likely need team approaches to be successful. MBB
members will be obliged to enlist theircolleagues both inside and outside MBB in
order to assemble a team capable of competing at the national level (see the
section on "Strategic
Initiatives" below). Third, funding programs and sources
continue to evolve. A current example is CIHR's revision of its funding programs.
The department must prepare for these changes, identify their exposure and
risks, and develop plans in the event some funding sources are discontinued.
Recommendation 17:
The VP Research should monitor the evolution of
CIHR's planned reforms and ensure timely, accurate communication of
the new programs to Faculties and Departments.
Recommendation 18:
MBB, in cooperation with other units, should
institute internal mentoring and review processes to ensure the
competitiveness of future NSERC team and CIHR applications.
Strategic Initiatives
MBB has an exceptional opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary partnership
programs thatwould produce outstanding research and attract highly motivated
14
trainees. The joint CIHR-supported program in Bioinformatics is an excellent
example of what can be achieved. Such programs share several characteristics:
they often straddle interfaces between existing disciplines and units; the training
requirements may not readily be satisfied by existing courses or styles of
research; consequently, governance of such programs rarely fits a departmental
model and thus requires comes compromise. The reviewers believe that the
Dean of Graduate Studies is best placed to prepare a consistent framework for
governance and standards so that such program opportunities can be readily
identified, initiated and sustained. Some exciting potential training initiatives are
outlined below.
1. Genome Sciences. Over time, MBB has developed expertise in most
aspects of genomics that place it apart from any comparable unit in Western
Canada if not the entire country. By further engaging with the sister
Departments in Science, the Faculty of Health Sciences, BCCA/Genome
Sciences Centre and suitable units at UBC, MBB could become the hub of an
unparalleled Genomics Program that could attract both funding and highly
motivated trainees. The review team understands that the Department is
involved in developing an undergraduate program and a possible certificate
program, yet both seemed stalled for a variety of reasons - perhaps for want
of a determined internal champion. The Reviewers believe that MBB should
take a strategic decision to focus on an interdisciplinary graduate program in
this area.
2. Infectious Diseases and Immunology. Several individuals in MBB
constitute an obvious fit to this area which is currently under the purview of
the Faculty of Health Sciences. Recruitment in Infectious Disease and
Immunology would enhancethe current strong, but small, research group.
3. Engagement with Fraser Health Authority. The FHA provides a source of
clinical material for research, co-op placements for trainees and future
employment for graduates, to name just a few. The Department should
consider appointing an interested faculty member as its liaison, working with
the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences.
15
4. Alternative Degree Programs. The Surrey campus offers an opportunity
for the Faculty of Science, Faculty of Health Sciences and MBBto explore
integrative programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In the
latter instance, there may be student interest in a non-thesis, (i.e., courses
and projects) "applied" Masters-level programs in areas such as bio and
health informatics. Partnerships with other institutions in such initiatives
(UCFV; BCIT; Surrey Memorial Hospital) make sense and would be the
responsibility of the upper administration to initiate.
Recommendation 19:
Members of MBB are encouraged to reach out to
other units, Faculties and Institutions to form interdisciplinary partnerships
serving research and advanced training that will enable them to sustain
excellence as well as enhancing their national/international reputation.
Research Infrastructure
The Department benefits from a strong record in this area that impressed the
review team. With funds from the Dean's Office, MBB currently funds all or part
of four staff positions dedicated to research infrastructure or service, including IT.
MBB has also organized a multi-user imaging facility to house CFI-funded
equipmentwith expert technical support. Thisfacility is also used by research
groups outside the Department and serves as a model for shared infrastructure.
The reviewers encourage the Officeof the VP Research and the Department to
identify similar opportunities, to pursue funding from CFI and NSERC, and most
of all, to think "big" (or at least "bigger")-
Business Plan
The Department is strongly encouraged to develop a business plan for
deployment of current and future financial reserves in support of agreed-upon
Departmental priorities. The incoming Chair would assume the lead role initially
but would engage a working committee to assist the Chair. The year-over-year
accumulation of reserves has not gone unnoticed and is increasinglyvulnerable
in the absence of a plan for its use.
Recommendation 20:
Develop an internal business/strategic plan that
will enable MBB to best deploy its available resources and respond to
opportunities.
16
Concluding Remarks:
The MBB Department is strong. For the most part, the challenges that have
emerged are due to the Departmental priorities over the past ten years related to
the management of rapid growth and achievement of research success. As a
consequence, our recommendations are mainly organizational. They will require
focus and commitment on the part of faculty members, the Faculty of Science
and the University as a whole. We hope these recommendations are constructive
and provide clear direction for the Department. As a team, itwas our pleasure to
recognize the many successes presented by this strong Department, and to
engage with the individuals who have made it possible.
17
EXTERNAL REVIEW-ACTION PLAN
Section 1-To be completed bv the Responsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director
Unit under review
major thrusts ofthe Report should beidentified and some consolidation ofthe recommendations may be possible while
otherrecommendations of lesser importance may be excluded.
Should an additional response from be warranted it should be attached as aseparate document.
1. PROGRAMMING
1.1 Action/s (description what is going to be done!:
1.1.1 Undergraduate:
A. MBB will define an overarching vision for its program. As part of its participation in the SFU-wide effort to define learning
outcomes for itscourses and program, MBB will define keycompetencies for graduates of its program.
B. The MBB program will continue to have asetof required MBB core courses that provide foundational knowledge, while offering
considerable choice and flexibility initsadvanced courses that provide to students the opportunity to specialize and develop skills
incritical reading of the literature, communications, and critical thinking. The appropriate mixand timing of courses will be
assessed and adjusted. Guidance will be provided to students about thematic course selection.
C. MBB will promote efforts to inform itsstudents of the importance of taking a full course load and will make adjustments to its
course schedule to facilitate the timely progression of students through they program.
D. MBB will participate with enthusiasm the creation of a Life Sciences Core Curriculum. MBB will promote the inclusion of
genome sciences at all levels of its program.
E. MBB supports the proposed creation of a Life Sciences B.Sc. program that is flexible andappealing to students as an alternative
to departmental major/honours programs.
1.1.2 Graduate:
A. MBB will create a statement of expectations forgraduate degrees, including anticipated time linesandexpected
accomplishments and competenciesto be achieved. We
will exploremechanisms to insure that students andsupervisors
understand theirmutualresponsibilities andaremaking progress inachieving theirexpectations.
B. MBB agreesthat the averagecompletion time for its MSc students is too longand that the recent upward trend for PhD
studentsistroubling and should be reversed. Mechanisms will be explored and adoptedto reduce completion times, though
1
arbitrary terminationof financial support for students makinggood progress is not contemplated. The MBB self study report
documented the high success rates for MBB graduate degree completion and for post-graduation placements, indicatingthe
success of the program.
C. MBB already has defined and enforced timelines as well as standards for its PhD candidacy exam, but will consider requiring its
completion by MSc students prior to their transferto the PhD program. MBB willreview its standardsfor admittanceto PhD
candidate status.
D. MBBwill develop strategies for improved recruitment of excellent students. It will endeavor to help excellent applicants find
an appropriate supervisorable to providesufficient long-term research assistantship support. MBB will continue to prescreen
potential applicantsto discourageapplicationsfrom those unlikelyto be accepted into the program.
E. MBBwill explore ways to admit excellent applicants into the graduate program without being committed to a specific senior
supervisor,allowing them to rotate through labs before selectinga suitable supervisor.
F. MBBwill continue to have graduate student representation on relevant committees and working groups. It will continue to
invite graduate student representation at MBB faculty meetingswhere graduate student issueswillbe considered. Ifa
Departmental Council is created, it will includegraduate student representatives.
G. MBBwill explore ways to enhance the engagement of graduate students.
1.2 Resource implications (flf anvl:
Negligible costsforthe changes underthe control of MBB. There willbe substantial time involvement for faculty in defining
learning outcomes and developing new programs. A mechanism for fundinga pilot scale rotation-basedgraduate program would
need to be found, presumably involving the department and the Deans of Science and Graduate Studies.
1.3 Expected completion date/s;
Changes underthe control of MBB willbe implemented overthe next 3 years; some cannotbeginuntilafter completion of the
current 2 year planning cycle for teaching.
2. RESEARCH
2.1 Actlon/s (what is going to be done):
A. MBB has initiated a pre-review process for grant applications to help insure thecompetitiveness ofits applicants (the
program is inclusive of Associateand Adjunct faculty)
B. MBB will continue to proactively take advantage of its research strengths
C MBB will explore waysto take better advantage of its partnership with the Genome Sciences Center at the BOCA. Genomics
impacts nearly all of the research inMBB, sohaving thisrelationship with the GSC isclearly beneficial.
D. MBB willconsiderother strategic partnershipopportunities.
E. MBB will develop a Business Plan to more effectively and strategically deploy itsfinancial resources and specialized facilities,
while maintaining and improvingits infrastructure.
F. MBB looks forward to theresults of assessment and equitable re-allocation ofspace and other resources currently ongoing
under the direction of the Dean of Science.
G. MBB agreesthat the VPR should monitor changesat agencies such as NSERC and CIHR and communicate them to
departments for response. MBB would like to seemore transparency about SFU-controiied opportunities such asthe CRC and
CFI programs.
H. MBB agrees withthe ERC aboutchallenges related to research grant funding and will monitor and adjust to changes.
2.2 Resource Implications ((if anv):
For proposed changes by MBB, substantial faculty time will be involved especially for the pre-review of grant applications.
Hopefully, the payoff will be improved successin external grant funding.
2.3 Expected completion date/s:
For changes under the control of MBB, some are being implemented this year, and others should becompleted (or continuing) over
the next three years.
3. ADMINISTRATION
3.1 Action/s(what is going to be done):
A. MBB is blessed with some excellent staff. MBB agrees that its staff should receive regular feedback on their performance and
that job descriptions should be updated to reflect changes.
B. MBB agrees that grant funded research staff have very important roles and should receive SFU benefits. MBB urges SFU to
explore ways to insure that SFU students and research staff receive full benefits allowed by granting agencies.
C. MBBwill continue to base assignment of TA duties on the needs of the courses to which they are assigned, while respecting
the terms of the TSSU agreement and financial commitments to students.
D. The MBB Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has directed instructors of lab courses to insure that safety issues are
included in the lab manual and that students receive appropriate instruction and oversight in the safe use of equipment.
E. MBB will consider creation of some of the several new committees proposed bythe ERC and more authority will be delegated
to committee chairs.
F. MBB will have scheduled monthly faculty meetings starting in the next academic year.
G. Associate members of MBB already serve on committees that oversee facilities located in MBB (e.g., microscopy and cell
sorting). Associate members will be consulted about issues of concern to them, especially graduate studies.
H. MBBstrongly endorses the recommendation that it have priority usage of SSB 8114 as a meeting room and that lockable
space be provided
to the MBB Student Union.
I. MBB will work with advancement officers in the Faculty and at SFU to promote opportunities.
3.2
Resource implicationsflf any):
Costs associated with the recommendations under the control of MBB are negligible but will take time and effort. Provision of
benefits for grant-funded researchstaff have cost implications, most or all of which would presumably be funded by research
grants.
3.3
Expected completion date/s:
Actions will be initiated within the next 3 years, and most will be continuing.
4. WORKING ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Actlon/sfwhat is going to be done):
A. It was gratifying to hear thatthe ERC found amostly happy and cooperative departmental community. We will endeavor to
maintain that harmony.
B. We will build upon theregular social events that already occur (sponsored bythe department or student organizations) and
we will consider initiating a summer social event.
C. New faculty members are welcomed into thedepartment and mentored. They are invited to attend weekly meetings of
newer faculty and participate in monthly luncheon chalk talks. Most MBB faculty are on campus during normal working hours
and have extensive interactions withtheirstudents, staff,and colleagues.
4.2
Resource Implicationsflf anv):
Asmall fraction ofthe MBB non-salary operating budget already supports programs thatenhance theworking environment of
the department. This could be increased modestly forworthy events.
4.3
Expected completion date/s: Over the next three years.
Some increased work burden andpossible small increase inoperating costs to promote improved social interactions.
5
NA
{OTHER)
5.1 Action/s:
5.2 Resource Implicationsflf anv):
5.3
Expected completion date/s:
The above action plan has been considered by the Unit under review and has been discussed and agreed to by the Dean.
Unit Leader (signed)
Back to top
lktpfib*bwy~~~
Name....
Professor and Chair
I lUCtMIMfNtMIMIII
Date
Aug. 2. 2012
Section 2 - Dean's comments and endorsement of the Action Plan :
General:The
report submitted by the External Review Committee Is very complimentary about the quality of the faculty and staff In the
Department ofMolecular Biology and Biochemistry, the overall strength ofthe department's undergraduate and graduate programs, the
excellence of faculty members' research and the environment of the unit. Likewise, the response of MBB tothe report is positive and
constructive. The department accepts most ofcommittee'srecommendations concerning operational issues, and provides reasonable,
cost-effective proposals for making Incremental Improvements in the areas ofundergraduate and graduate programming, research
infrastructure and funding, departmental administration and overall working environment. Both the department and the appraisers agree
on ways inwhich MBB canwork with the Faculty ofScience, the Faculty ofGraduate Studies and the Office of the Vice President Research
to enhance the successof the department as a whole and of its individual members.
Programming:
The Faculty ofScience whole-heartedly accepts therecommendations oftheappraisers around thedevelopment ofa core
life science program in first and second year, and theprovision ofaso-called "General Science" degree program for those students who
either do not meet the GPA requirements for admission into majors in our life science departments orwhose career goals are less focused.
The enthusiastic support of
MBB
for this proposal and Its commitment to participating in the design and implementation of the proposed
programs are most welcome. The development oflearning outcomes forcourses and programs will follow naturally from the inter-unit
collaborations essential to such an initiative, and is aligned with SFU'sgoals for the NCAA accreditation process.
Many in the Faculty ofScience would like to seea rotation option available for entering graduate students who have notyetchosen a
supervisor. Aprogram ofthis typeIs difficult to Implement In the Canadian funding context- i.e. in the absence ofgovernment funded
training programs - butwehave startedto explore the possibility offunding a pilot program through fund-raising.
Research:
The terms ofreference asked the appraisers to consider how MBB might capitalize onits relationship with BC Cancer, given that
three (soon to befour) ofitsfaculty members arecross-appointed with the Agency. The appraisers have chosen to address thatissue only
peripherally, as part ofthesection onStrategic initiatives. MBB has responded in kind, with only passing mention ofBCCA. The Faculty and
the University have putsignificant resources into the BCCA relationship, and the areaofcancer biology/genomics/bioinformatics,
particularly in the context ofpersonalized medicine, is a hotonewith the potential to attract significant funding and prestige to SFU. I
strongly encourage MBB to be proactive in seizing the opportunities that the relationship presents forresearch and training asa strategic
priority.
00
Back to top
