AUTC Project Team

1. A Review of Biotechnology Education & Industry Needs in Australia: Implications for Content & Pedagogy

2. 1) Australian Universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) -- Review of Biotechnology Skills & University Teaching in Australia 2001-2004 Phase 1 and Phase 2 2) Carrick Institute for Learning & Teaching in Higher Education -- Biotechnology Cross-Disciplinary Scoping Study 2007-2008

3. UNSW Peter Gray Will Rifkin Flinders University Chris Franco Fiona Young University of Queensland Ross Barnard Damian Hine AUTC Project Team

4. UNSW Will Rifkin Wallace Bridge Flinders University Chris Franco Lisa Schmidt University of Queensland Ross Barnard Damian Hine Monash University Phil Mackinnon Carrick Project Team

5. Context of Project 2001 Industry Universities Wills Report (1999) “virtuous cycle”

6. Key features of biotechnology • Trans-disciplinary • Rapidly evolving and emerging fields • Nanotech, proteomics, genomics, bioinformatics, PTGS • A very diverse industry • A large number of small companies

7. Implications for teaching • How should we deliver our teaching, for what seems to be a moving target? • Content? • Teaching methods?

8. Are we delivering what industry needs? • Core content knowledge • Generic skills

9. Our Projects • AUTC phase 1 • Coarse grained • asked industry what they wanted • asked universities what they were delivering • open ended questions first • Likert scales • AUTC phase 2 • Finer grained • focus groups, • open ended questionnaire • interviews • conference, discussion paper feedback, & interactions between university & industry people. • disseminated phase 1 findings

10. Our Projects • The future: a scoping study to • Build on findings of AUTC projects • Focus on pedagogical issues, • Transdisciplinary teaching • Examples of excellent practice • International experience • Enhance Uni-Industry interaction • Funded by Carrick Institute for Learning & Teaching in Higher Education

11. AUTC Phase 1Methods • A gap analysis • Same questionnaire structure for university and industry • 1) Open ended questions • 2) Likert scale questions (last) • Check consistency between open ended and Likert scale responses • *Alignment of responses from Industry and University

12. University Survey • Preliminary questionnaire to all 45 universities in Australia • Asked for summaries of all programs promoted as ‘biotechnology’ • Followed up with full questionnaire

13. Australia: Industry context 2001 • 190 core biotech companies • 460 non-core/support companies • 5,700 employees • +46% fulltime equiv. employees 1999 to 2001 Source: E &Y, 2001

14. Activity of companies in Australia, 2003 43% R&D and technology dev. 10% clinical/ field trial Source: AUTC/DEST review of Biotech teaching

15. Australia: Industry context2006 • 427 core biotech companies • 625 medical device companies • Biotech employment doubled 2005 to 2006 • Now > 12,100 people • Operating in diverse fields • Therapeutics, bioprospecting, livestock genetics, molecular biology, biosensors, diagnostics, plant biotechnology, process technology, vaccines Source:Hopper & Thorburn Innovation Dynamics, 2007

16. Korea • 640 modern biotechnology companies in 2004 • Diverse sectors • Employs approx.12,000 people • 57% R & D • Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy

17. Australia: recruiting challenges * Source: Ernst & Young biotechnology report 2001

18. OECD: recruiting challenges * Source: Ernst & Young biotechnology report 2001

19. Profile of Industry Respondentsin AUTC survey • Responses from > 65 companies(50% response rate) -Respondents: predominantly core. -Employees: 2 – 280 (median 18, mean 38) -Expected employ. growth (ave.): 58%/yr. -Median age of firm: 10 years

20. Result: AUTC survey Single outlier 114 yrs old with 2850 employees Age of company Total number of employees

21. Result: AUTC survey Graduates hired in last financial year (ave.)

22. Result:AUTC survey • Large companies hired a greater proportion of bachelors & masters degree staff • Smaller companies hired a greater proportion of PhD graduates

23. What did we ask?

24. Asked of industry • 1) What 3 attributes / abilities do you look for in graduates when they commence employment with your company?

25. * * *

26. Asked of industry • 2) What 3 attributes / abilities do you look to develop in your graduates once employed in your company?

27. * * *

28. Asked of industry • 3) What 3 areas of technical knowledge do you see as most important amongst your scientists?

29. Technical Knowledge * * *

30. Asked of industry • 4) List the 3 most important technological developments to directly impact your company in the last 2 years.

31. * *

32. Asked of industry • 5) List the 3 most important technological developments to directly impact your company in the next 2 years.

33. *

34. Asked of industry • 6) List skills requirements most affected by these technological developments in your company.

35. *

36. * * * * 2002 2004 n.b. scale

37. * * * 2002 2004 n.b. scale

38. Conclusions: Knowledge & skills demand • ‘Generic’ skills among biotech graduates will remain in consistent high demand • Specific areas of scientific focus will evolve over time and will depend on focus of the company and technology trends • Strong & persistent preference for core skillsin chemistry & molecular biology

39. Gap analysis • aligning university & industry responses

41. Ranking of key skills by Universities & Industry U n i v e r s i t y I n d u s t r y M o l e c u l a r b i o l o g y 1 1 O t h e r c h e m i s t r y 2 2 P r o t e i n c h e m i s t r y 3 3 I m m u n o l o g y 1 1 4 * C e l l a n d t i s s u e c u l t u r e 7 5 M i c r o b i o l o g y 5 6 P r o t e o m i c s * 3 7 * R e g u l a t o r y / Q A 1 5 8 Discordances marked with asterisks

42. Recommendations • Universities should maintain emphasis on core scientific knowledge in chemistry and molecular biology • Core training in chemistry is likely to be required to support emergent areas • Proteomics • Nanotechnology • Drug development and delivery

43. Recommendations • Do not dilute the chemistry

44. Recommendations • Strong demand for certain ‘generic attributes’: • Problem solving • Teamwork • Communication • Creativity • Enthusiasm

45. Recommendations • Implications for pedagogy • More problem based learning ? • More team based activities ? • More hands-on, task based application of core knowledge?

46. Recommendations • Universities could provide students with a core skills and generic attributes profile

47. University Involvement with Industry? • Universities wanted more industry involvement in: • Financial & in-kind support • Case material • Field trips / site visits • Student placements * • Career advice

48. Industry Involvement with Universities? 78% of respondents had one or more forms of involvement with Universities -Staff funded to do postgraduate studies -Hosting undergraduate honours students -Vacation projects / employment -Hosting students on ARC linkage grants

49. Phase 2 AUTC project • Set up university-industry focus groups in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide • Brought together people from industry and teaching programs

50. Phase 2 AUTC - Data • “the amount of management / commercialisation / IP suggested to be included in a Biotech degree is misplaced. Students would do far better working on their scientific skills than diluting their degree with such topics. We teach them barely enough as it is of real science. However, I can see the place for a double degree: Biotech-management, or students should just do an MBA, specialising in Technology Management”.