Скачать презентацию HEAD OF SCHOOL REPORT Some major events Скачать презентацию HEAD OF SCHOOL REPORT Some major events

2134ef9907b95e99bba703ec17e6550a.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 41

HEAD OF SCHOOL REPORT HEAD OF SCHOOL REPORT

Some major events of 2003 -4 • Change of VC, Dean of Medicine, Nursing Some major events of 2003 -4 • Change of VC, Dean of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and DVC-R. – Increased emphasis on research • New Laboratories for Biomedical Sciences • Introduction of Strategic Cost Management – Changes to Faculty and School budget • Faculty Research Retreat – Outcomes focussed effort on a few particular areas • Funding and recognition – Program Grants (Whisstock et al, Rood et al in 2003; 2004 – Coppel, Jenkins & Hearn (DDK Program)) – Where is the next one? – Prime Minister’s Prize Life Science : Jamie Rossjohn • Monash Immunology & Stem Cell Laboratories (MISCL) joins So. BS

Other Major Faculty issues • New Physiotherapy/OT/Social initiative – Diploma of Health Sciences in Other Major Faculty issues • New Physiotherapy/OT/Social initiative – Diploma of Health Sciences in 2005 – New degree streams from 2006 – Mainly out of Peninsula campus • Review of theme 3, MBBS • Review of Bachelor of Biomedical Science • Consideration of Biotechnology Teaching at Monash

Other Major Faculty issues • Increasing Faculty income from fees (all courses, but especially Other Major Faculty issues • Increasing Faculty income from fees (all courses, but especially MBBS) • New Govt policy (if elected) allowing further fees in all courses, including MBBS – New Medical Schools in many Australian Universities

Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Strengths: – Biomedical research Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Strengths: – Biomedical research is hottest area of research in 21 st century – relatively better funded, community support available – Strong research oriented staff – Good students in our major streams – New labs coming, major space opportunities

Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Weaknesses – Struggling to Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Weaknesses – Struggling to fund our core activities (Gov policy), but recent changes, VC $8 M across the University to fund ARC, NHMRC grants – Struggle for some academic staff to maintain research funding – teaching and other pressures – Silo’s

Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Opportunities – STRIP 2/3 Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Opportunities – STRIP 2/3 , biggest building in Vic for medical research • What do we need to do to make the most of it? cooperate, recruit, platforms, money! – VC, Dean, DVC-R – Re-engage with the MBBS – Biotech/synchrotron, other sciences

Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Threats – Ourselves, if Head of School’s assessment of “State of the School” • Threats – Ourselves, if we don’t – Seize opportunities/fear change; don’t get pro-active – Look outwards – Raise additional $’s – leverage for major equipment/platforms – Modernise what we teach – Influence State and Fed governments – Influence Uni/Faculty policy/budget processes – Full time research institutes – now much better funded than Universities (but not actually better!)

Faculty Operational Plan Research • This will be a major influence over the next Faculty Operational Plan Research • This will be a major influence over the next 5 years – Establish place as top 3 Health Research faculties – More high impact articles – Continued broadening of intellectual base – nurturing and recruiting rising, established stars – Continued Capacity building in programs and platforms. At least 5 areas where we are nationally pre-eminent and internationally fully competitive – Ambitious growth of research funding base

Faculty Operational Plan Research • • Research Strategies – Consolidation of institute structure in Faculty Operational Plan Research • • Research Strategies – Consolidation of institute structure in research intensive Schools (MIHR, Biomedicine) – Develop large “super programs’ across the faculty and between Faculties in national research priority areas (health ageing, healthy start, mental health) and in areas of strength (regenerative medicine) – Develop effective links between well established disciplines and newer areas – Supporting commercialisation developments Strategic budgeting – Up to 10 workshops for development of collaborative grants – 3 start up grants of $100, 000 each in 2004 for business planning and infrastructure – $1 M in 2005 to 3 “glue” grants to promote new initiatives (aligned with Strategic (small) Grants Program) – Targeted recruitment of Senior Fellows – Collaborative Centres with other Faculties

Progress on the major issues when School was formed in 2000 ACHIEVED NEXT New Progress on the major issues when School was formed in 2000 ACHIEVED NEXT New Laboratories in view - STRIP 2/3 in sight Plan for occupancy from 2007, fit out, etc Teaching – coordinator, cooperation Provide stronger intellectual leadership to BMS, Biotech, and in the Science Faculty Progress towards breakdown of silo mentality between Departments Micro & B&MB grants, Mouseworks, Anat/Physiol research, etc – but many other opportunities Better and transparent budget model Augment from other sources towards specific goals (e. g. research platforms) Research Growth More! Research platforms; Imaging, Mouseworks, structural biology, Micromon Far to go to increase competitiveness – work together, raise leverage $’s

FACULTY STRUCTURE REVIEW FACULTY STRUCTURE REVIEW

Document circulated to all Departments for comments: SCHOOL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES MONASH UNIVERSITY BIOMEDICINE Document circulated to all Departments for comments: SCHOOL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES MONASH UNIVERSITY BIOMEDICINE KEY ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES

Aim • This document outlines the key principles and operational structure of the proposed Aim • This document outlines the key principles and operational structure of the proposed biomedical institute within the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences. Its aim is to stimulate discussion and feedback from within the School of Biomedical Sciences.

1. Governance The guiding principles are: • The strength of individual disciplines will be 1. Governance The guiding principles are: • The strength of individual disciplines will be maintained while crossdiscipline interactions in both research and teaching will be enhanced. • Teaching at all levels will be an integral and highly-valued part of the institute's activities. • Curiosity-based research will be supported and protected, and will be driven by the individual investigator without top-down direction.

2. The Institute • All staff of the School of Biomedical Sciences will be 2. The Institute • All staff of the School of Biomedical Sciences will be members of the institute. • Teaching and research are blended in discipline-based Units are organised into Divisions. • Grant-based Centres and Programs are formed within or across Units, but would NOT be formalised within the institute structure, so as to allow flexibility as grants wax and wane. • Divisions and their Departments, and the Office of the Head are separate budgetary units. For administrative efficiency, Centres, Programs and companies would operate through a nominated Division. Companies would rent space in the appropriate Division as negotiated by the Office of the Head. • Current Heads of Biomedical Departments would remain Heads. These positions are intrinsic to the institute structure and would remain when the present incumbent leaves or retires.

 • The Head of Division would be one of the Unit Heads (position • The Head of Division would be one of the Unit Heads (position would be rotated under a formally agreed scheme). • New discipline-based Units could be established and built up by the relevant Divisions as warranted. • An institute Education Committee would oversee and rationalise teaching policy and delivery, and report to the Executive. The Committee would be made up of representatives from all Units, and the chair would have a seat on the Executive.

3. The Executive The role of the Executive will be to: • Formulate institute 3. The Executive The role of the Executive will be to: • Formulate institute budgetary policy • Formulate institute policies to enhance research excellence, and monitor performance • Formulate institute policies to enhance teaching, and monitor performance • Formulate institute policies on management and funding of core services and infrastructure by the Head, and monitor performance • Consider and respond to Faculty directives

4. The Head • This person will be a respected academic with excellent communication 4. The Head • This person will be a respected academic with excellent communication skills. The Head cannot simultaneously be a Divisional or Unit Head (see below), but could have a laboratory within the institute. The key roles will be: • Advocacy - be the public face of the institute • Represent the institute at Faculty level and above • Formulate institute budget according to policies defined by the Executive (see below) • Manage commercial links • Identify and pursue additional income streams • Manage and fund core infrastructure and services • Identify and coordinate large research funding applications (eg, STII bids)

5. School administrative and support staff • The School's administrative and support staff will 5. School administrative and support staff • The School's administrative and support staff will mostly be embedded within the divisional/academic framework .

6. Other issues • Staff are encouraged to identify issues of principle that are 6. Other issues • Staff are encouraged to identify issues of principle that are not been addressed above.

EXECUTIVE Head, 3 Division Heads, Chair of Education Committee OFFICE OF THE HEAD MEDIA EXECUTIVE Head, 3 Division Heads, Chair of Education Committee OFFICE OF THE HEAD MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS* ____________ ___ HUMAN RESOURCES* ____________ ___ INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES ____________ ___ ETHICS & GRANT SUPPORT* ____________ ___ TEACHING SUPPORT# ____________ ___ COMMERCIALISATION# DIVISION OF CELL & MOLECULAR SCIENCES DIVISION OF INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY Biochemistry & Molecular Cell Biology Physiology Medical Radiation Science Microbiology Anatomy & Developmental Biology Synchrotron Science* MISCL Pharmacology Industry Structural Biology Metabolics Genomics Mouse. Works Bioinformatics (VBC) RESEARCH AND TEACHING UNITS Medicinal Chemistry Micro Imaging * Proposed Unit # Existing Unit Industry Proteomics PLATFORMS DIVISION OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND INFORMATICS GOVERNANCE Industry CT and MRI BUDGETARY UNIT Centres Some Research Centres will be extra-School and some will be extra-Faculty

Summary of responses to School Structure discussion document and diagram • • Anatomy &CB Summary of responses to School Structure discussion document and diagram • • Anatomy &CB – detailed response; -ve re added layer of admin; “reflects…the status quo rather than a bold new plan for next decade” Biochemistry and MB – “general support” except “department … wants to remain a Department” Microbiology - “prepared to accept the proposed model in that it is a small step towards an integrated institute”, but staff “do not think the proposed structure goes far enough. . ” MISCL: General support, specific issues Radiation Sciences and Medical Imaging: Suggests a stronger third Division incorporating additional areas Pharmacology: Several concerns/issues: too complex/extra layers; nomenclature, maintain disciplines, budgetary Physiology: +ve about potential but not bold enough, too many divisions (need minimum number of structural and budgetary units; maximise academic interactions), no focus on how new structure will expand academic freedom or facilitate initiatives in research and teaching, needs more collegiate approach.

WA’s Q’s on discussion paper • Will it enable us to seize opportunities, or WA’s Q’s on discussion paper • Will it enable us to seize opportunities, or will we remain silo’s/competitive? • Will it provide leadership? • Will it empower ? (People are what matters) • Will it be flexible? • Where in the structure of Monash? School is huge, and added complexity because we are cross- Faculty. Will the cross Faculty nature of basic research remain an impediment? • Traditional Units – or more like Harvard? Where is complex biology? Where is genetics? Where is developmental biology (other than stem cells)? Neuroscience?

PEOPLE!!!!!! • #1 issue -top 5% contribute majority of papers, inventions, other quality outputs PEOPLE!!!!!! • #1 issue -top 5% contribute majority of papers, inventions, other quality outputs – Recruitment – Retention – Provide time and resources • Opportunities: – key appointments, recruit groups – resist proliferation of high teaching/low research degrees • Students • Get the best • Imbue courses in the “gaining of knowledge” • Opportunities: BMS, other non-med degrees B Sc, other faculty degrees

Things – resources and facilities BIOMED/CLINICAL • Imaging: – Confocal workhorse and specialised (Multiphoton). Things – resources and facilities BIOMED/CLINICAL • Imaging: – Confocal workhorse and specialised (Multiphoton). – Cryo EM ($2 M) – MRI – synchrotron • Structural Biology Enhancement - (Towards The Synchrotron - Robotics, Detectors) • Genomics • Microarray • Fish, worms, plants • Proteomics: (eg Linear Ion Trap Mass Spectrophotometer, $1 M), high throughput, large scale protein production, etc • Cell sorting • Large scale cell culture core facilities • Mouse gene manipulation – Mouse works plus (phenotyping (inc functional), mutagenesis, etc) • Primate facilities • How to create these? – Non-traditional funding sources, or ott’’s? – When to purchase services rather than own (and how to coordinate)

Attitudes (second most important factor) • Confidence, ambition, priority • Smarter teaching – Be Attitudes (second most important factor) • Confidence, ambition, priority • Smarter teaching – Be smarter about the “search for income” – Better synergies – ? ? ? New courses need a “research impact statement” • Capacity to “put things together” – Eg a team for the major national research priorities • “Keeping up” – Biomed, clin, Ph, HSR – NIH, NHMRC, ARC strategies – NCG, industry, gov/health/innovation • Need better info flow, and help! How do the best uni’s do this (eg USyd, Duke, U Toronto, Harvard Med School) • Sharing resources, helping each other • ANY UNIVERSITY’S REPUTATION RELIES LARGELY ON ITS RESEARCH REPUTATION

Key opportunities for Monash? • large critical mass – entire spectrum • history of Key opportunities for Monash? • large critical mass – entire spectrum • history of research excellence in some areas • Large Faculty income – priority in spending it? E. g. – can we find $5 M/pa from programs for turbo charging research? • Strategic approaches needed - changing nature of science – collaborative, “high throughput”, public/private partnerships, gov priorities • Senior Uni & Faculty leaders now “research friendly” • BUT, all this counts for little if we don’t have the most talented researchers, enabled to do their best!

STRIP 2/3 BUILDINGS STRIP 2/3 BUILDINGS

NEW LABORATORIES FOR BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES • Much work thru 2003 -4 • Nearing culmination NEW LABORATORIES FOR BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES • Much work thru 2003 -4 • Nearing culmination – DVC-Resources takes to key Council s/c next month – Concepts still being refined – Expensive • STRIP 2 and 3 – buildings to be done sequentially. • First areas due for occupation in 2007

New Plan this week!! New Plan this week!!

BUDGET ISSUES BUDGET ISSUES

Faculty overall revenue • DEST – Undergrad/postgrad – RTS – (IGS) – International fees Faculty overall revenue • DEST – Undergrad/postgrad – RTS – (IGS) – International fees • From VCG - research support (Central support charges - $63. 4 M) $ 47. 6 15. 4 9. 5 13. 5 7. 8

Budget issues • School aggregate: – Teaching, IGS, RIBG (DEST) • Available after Central Budget issues • School aggregate: – Teaching, IGS, RIBG (DEST) • Available after Central support costs, Space charges, Faculty Charges : • $13. 804 M 2 – Research Grant income • $23. 791 M, NHMRC ($9. 9 in 2003, ARC $2. 0) • TOTAL - $37. 595 M • Splits – Salary – Cons – Capital 1 – HECS , Fees . DEST Research grants 79. 4% 61. 0% 15. 3% 30. 6% 5. 3% 8. 4% 2 -Anat 1. 6, Biochem 3. 5, Micro 1. 6, Pharm 1. 0, Rad 0. 8, Physiol 3. 2

School central budget • Funds from Faculty flow to the School, and then are School central budget • Funds from Faculty flow to the School, and then are distributed to Departments as agreed by School Exec • After School “central” expenditure is agreed, remainder is distributed in formula as it arrives from faculty. • Department budgets responsibility of Departments Heads • School central support 2004: – Microimaging $36 K – Mouseworks $230 K – School teaching support $282 K – HOS and admin $469 K – “setting up funds”/matching funds $953 K – Commercialisation $72 K

BUDGET MODEL DEST funding (teaching, IGS) School full infrastructure support from VCG for ARC, BUDGET MODEL DEST funding (teaching, IGS) School full infrastructure support from VCG for ARC, NHMRC grants; (4) Less Central Support Charges RIBG Research grants 3 Less space charges Less Faculty charges (research fund, admin, teaching support) Less redistribution to other schools (capping) 111 Less School wide support charges (HOS, some platforms, setting up grants) – DEPARTMENTS 2 (approx 37. 6 M in 2004) Notes: 1 -proportionally to teaching and IGS income, with any caps in line with Faculty capping, 2 -RIBG component previously held centrally now used for School-wide research support (eg setting up grants); 3 -all activities and employment on research grants incur charges (majority for some Depts); 4 - “top up” fund to fully support costs (see 3), taken for other Faculties.

TEACHING ISSUES TEACHING ISSUES

Teaching issues • Awaiting outcome of BMS review/ Faculty teaching retreat/discussions with Faculty of Teaching issues • Awaiting outcome of BMS review/ Faculty teaching retreat/discussions with Faculty of Science, to – Sharpen up and modernising our offerings in contemporary biomedicine – Reduce convening – support biotech initiatives • Increased interdepartmental cooperation through School Teaching unit • New challenge in Physiotherapy/OT SW etc, new location at Peninsula • Possibility of cooperation with Singapore’s NTU • Main challenge – the School does not have direct influence on the nature, shape or content of any degree, making it very difficult to reshape, target, modernize.

Teaching in the Medical Faculty - Course Intake Numbers 2004 2003 2002 2001 2 Teaching in the Medical Faculty - Course Intake Numbers 2004 2003 2002 2001 2 0 0 0 BBNSc (2341) 49 53 54 66 0 BBiomed. Sci (2230) 166 153 140 141 0 BBiomed. Sci/BEc (3804) 17 0 0 BNutr. Dietet (3404) 44 41 46 34 0 BParamedic. Studies (2813) 33 27 13 92 0 BRad. Med. Imag (1963) 49 40 42 32 0 Course Tota l 358 314 295 365 0

TEACHING IN THE SCIENCE FACULTY – COURSE INTAKE NUMBERS Intake Numbers Course (Course code) TEACHING IN THE SCIENCE FACULTY – COURSE INTAKE NUMBERS Intake Numbers Course (Course code) 2004 2003 2002 2001 200 0 BSc (0050) 617 541 577 BSc Adv with Hons (3520) 11 1 0 0 BSc Science Scholars (1120) 6 11 5 4 B Env Sci (2340) 48 51 53 51 BA/BSc (0530) 115 99 76 139 BCom/BSc (1469) 40 36 20 36 BSc/BComp. Sci (3517) 25 37 23 BSc/BEd (1633) 62 56 34 28 BSc/BEng (0085) 113 111 84 69 BSc/LLB (0086) 13 27 13 34 Total 1050 946 849 938

OTHER BUSINESS? OTHER BUSINESS?