1 / 45

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL. CONFIDENTIAL. niversity of Utah. School of Medicine Research Strategic Plan FY 2008 - 2010. Confidential. Plan Contents. i. Overview Vision and Goals Strategies and Tactics Approach Towards Plan Implementation Appendix

libitha
Download Presentation

CONFIDENTIAL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL niversity of Utah School of Medicine Research Strategic Plan FY 2008 - 2010 - 0 - Confidential

  2. Plan Contents • i. Overview • Vision and Goals • Strategies and Tactics • Approach Towards Plan Implementation • Appendix • Phase I – Planning Research Highlights • Phase III – Strategy Working Groups Page 2 5 8 23 25 - 1 -

  3. i. Overview - 2 -

  4. Member Department John Hoidal, Chair Internal Medicine John Zone, Vice-Chair Dermatology & MBMAC Chair Mary Beckerle Oncological Sciences/HCI Lisa Cannon-Albright Biomedical Informatics Ed Clark Pediatrics Norman Foster Neurology Peter Jensen Pathology Jerry Kaplan SOM Associate Dean, Research Larry Kraiss Surgery James Kushner Director, General Clinical Research Center Mark Leppert Human Genetics Dean Li Internal Medicine Mike Magill DFPM Donald McClain Internal Medicine Joyce Mitchell Biomedical Informatics Anne Moon Pediatrics Ingrid Nygaard SOM Assistant Dean, Clinical Research Tom Parks Neurobiology & Anatomy Charlie Saltzman Orthopaedics Matt Samore Internal Medicine Mike Varner OB/GYN David Virshup Pediatrics Jay Graves Dean, College of Health Maureen Keefe Dean, College of Nursing John Mauger Dean, College of Pharmacy Ex-officio: David Bjorkman SOM Dean Cathy Anderson SOM Associate Dean, Finance Jim Bardsley Associate VP, Finance and Planning Cynthia Best MBM Director Larry Dew Assistant VP, Finance Research Strategic Planning Steering Committee In July 2006, the University of Utah School of Medicine launched a process to create a strategic plan that would establish the vision and direction for its research enterprise. The strategic planning process, led by a Steering Committee, involved faculty and administration throughout the initiative. - 3 -

  5. Research Strategic Planning Process The process utilized a four-phased approach with specific tasks assigned to each phase. The conclusions drawn from each phase established the foundation of planning for each of the subsequent phases. The contents of this Strategic Plan are presented throughout this report in the sequence of the planning phases. PHASE I Planning Research * PHASE II Define Global Direction PHASE III Strategy Development ** PHASE IV Finalize Plan • Environmental Assessment • Summary of Planning Interviews • Identification of Key Implications • Supporting Strategies and Tactics (Working Group assignments) • Preliminary Resources Required to Implement the Plan • Finalize Strategic Plan • Develop Implementation Tools • Link to Ongoing Management Planning Processes for Implementation • Vision Statement • Measurable Goals * Refer to Appendix A – Highlights of the Planning Research ** Refer to Appendix B – Strategy Working Group Assignments and Rosters - 4 -

  6. I. Vision and Goals - 5 -

  7. Research Vision Statement The University of Utah School of Medicine will provide a supportive research environment with a rich infrastructure, where scientists and clinicians can work collaboratively, building upon the existing strengths and the unique resources of the University and the State of Utah. In doing so, the School of Medicine will secure a position among the nation’s most highly respected biomedical research institutions. - 6 -

  8. Research Goals Create a research infrastructure that supports collaborative research through the bi-directional continuum of: bench bedside and bedside community. GOAL A: Develop research programs that build upon current strengths and that are derived from the infrastructure created in Goal A. GOAL B: GOAL C: Generate robust funding to support and grow the research enterprise. GOAL D: Recruit, retain, nurture and develop scientists. - 7 -

  9. II. Strategies & Tactics - 8 -

  10. Summary of Goals & Supporting Strategies SUPPORTING STRATEGIES Create a research infrastructure that supports collaborative research through the continuum of: bench to bedside, and bedside to community. • Develop an enabling infrastructure through the CCTS. • Create a Center for Molecular Medicine. GOAL A: Develop research programs that build upon current strengths and that are derived from the infrastructure created in Goal A. • Develop a Program in Personalized Medicine. • Develop a Program in Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine. GOAL B: Personalized Medicine GOAL B - Programs Molecular Medicine CCTS Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine GOAL A – Infrastructure - 9 -

  11. Summary of Goals & Supporting Strategies SUPPORTING STRATEGIES • Encourage departmental funding aligned with research strategies. • Identify sustainable funding for critical infrastructure identified in Goal A. • Diversify the research funding portfolio. • Reassess organizational program support and consider reallocation. • For major investments, conduct business plans to assess the financial feasibility of the investment. • Provide incentives for research programs. Generate robust funding to support and grow the research enterprise. GOAL C: • Recruit new investigators. • Offer existing faculty opportunities to strengthen or develop research skills. • Recruit top-quality graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to assist with research agenda and to groom as junior faculty. • Strengthen financial support for physician-scientists. Recruit, retain, nurture and develop scientists. GOAL D: - 10 -

  12. Create a research infrastructure that supports collaborative research through the bi-directional continuum of: bench bedside and bedside community. GOAL A: SUPPORTING STRATEGIES: • STRATEGY 1: • Develop an enabling infrastructure through the Center for Clinical & Translational Sciences (CCTS). • Consider the Following Tactics: • Receive the Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA*) from the NIH. • Ensure that the CCTS provides the necessary cores as part of the School of Medicine infrastructure. • Biomedical Informatics Core • Access/entry portal to UPDB and other databases • Virtual and physical access to informatics resources • Demonstration projects of translational research from bench to community • Support for grant activities • Education Core • K-30/Masters in Clinical Investigation • K-12 awards • T-32 award • Focused educational programs • Integration with existing programs (e.g., biomedical Informatics and public health) • Patient Interaction Core • Similar to some current GCRC functions • Resources more widely available (Continued on next page) - 11 - * The School of Medicine’s CTSA is called the CCTS.

  13. STRATEGY 1: • Develop an enabling infrastructure through the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS). CONT’D Consider the Following Tactics: • b. Ensure that the CCTS provides the necessary cores as part of the School of Medicine infrastructure. (cont’d) • Community Engagement Core • Participatory research (clinical trials) • Care process measurement, analysis and intervention • Community outreach education and intervention • Distributed infrastructure support • Clinical and operational research • Practice-based research networks and external partnerships • Biostatistics Core • General biostatistician • Roster of specialized statisticians (5-7) • Integration of statistical support into projects based on need • Educational link to M.Stat. program • Regulatory Core • Compliance assistance • IRB • OSP • HIPPA • Other regulatory issues • Coordination with Biomedical Informatics • Support will vary with needs of project • New Technologies Core • Stem cell preparations • Metabolomics Novel Clinical Translational Methods Pilot Project Core - 12 - * The School of Medicine’s CTSA is called the CCTS.

  14. STRATEGY 1: • Develop an enabling infrastructure through the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS). CONT’D Consider the Following Tactics: • c. Strengthen research administrative support. • Distribute space on the basis of programmatic needs that allow similar interest groups to be together rather than based on traditional departmental or divisional lines. • Continue to address administrative barriers to research (e.g., OSP, IRB, financial management, compliance, accounting). • Coordinate and improve awareness of resources and grant opportunities. • Assess the provision of support staff to maximize the efficiency of investigators, as part of programmatic development. • Streamline and facilitate research administrative support from the Hospitals and Clinics (billing and compliance, records for clinical trials, hospital accounting). • Build centralized office for clinical trials. • d. Build collaboration with University Health Care. - 13 -

  15. STRATEGY 2: Create a Center for Molecular Medicine. Consider the Following Tactics: • Use research disciplines to focus on mechanism-based research into human disease. • Focus on recruitment/retention; identify physician-scientists who are able to collaborate with and educate basic scientists who aspire to do translational research. • Physically embed clinicians in a rich environment of high-achieving scientists. • Provide collaborative opportunities for clinical investigators and their clinical research programs. • Identify new sources of ongoing support for a critical mass of MDs and MD/PhDs pursuing laboratory-based translational research. • Pursue new drugs, targets, technology and small startups in biomedical research that naturally spin off from translational research. - 14 -

  16. Develop research programs that build upon current strengths and that are derived from the infrastructure created in Goal A. GOAL B: SUPPORTING STRATEGIES: • STRATEGY 1: Develop a Program in Personalized Medicine. Recommended Tactics: • Capitalize on and fully develop the unique competitive advantages that the School of Medicine has in Personalized Medicine: • Extensive state and institutional databases (electronic demographic records on over 7 million people) • Pre-eminent in genetics and genomics • Worldwide leadership in use of model systems to study development and disease predisposition • World-class pharmacotherapy and outcomes program • Internationally recognized strengths in informatics • Constituency interested in wellness and participatory research • Outstanding proprietary genetic and drug discovery platform (BRCA 1 & 2, APC, Long QT) • Integrated clinical delivery system • Biomedical informatics • Tap into USTAR funding which has already identified Personalized Healthcare as a target. • Develop bio-repositories linked to data resources. - 15 -

  17. Biomedical Informatics & Computation Database Integration UPDB Modeling Disease Outcomes Treatment Integrated Healthcare Susceptibility Diagnosis Prognosis Treatment Model Systems Mechanism and Pathways of Disease Genetic Manipulation Mouse Fish Fly Worm Yeast Human Genetics Gene Discovery UGDB Population Genomics Pharmacogenomics Infrastructure Genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, informatics, tissue banking • STRATEGY 1: Develop a Program in Personalized Medicine. Program in Personalized Medicine Translational Research Applied Genomics Specialty Clinics Clinical Trials Biomarkers and Diagnostics Drug Discovery Imaging Drug Delivery Patient Outcomes Environment - 16 -

  18. STRATEGY 2: Develop a Program in Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine. Recommended Tactics: • Build on current strengths in: • Human and animal stem cell biology • Tissue engineering • Imaging • Infrastructure for clinical trials • Cancer • Neuroscience • Biomedical Informatics • Build on USTAR priorities. • Personalized Medicine • Imaging Technology • Brain • Strengthen collaboration between clinicians and basic scientists. - 17 -

  19. Basic Science Developmental Biology & Tissue Regeneration Planaria Newts Zebra fish Yeast Rodents Humans Traditional Research & Clinical Trials Oncology Hematology Cardiology Surgery Nephrology Neurology Ophthalmology Local, State & Federal Initiatives Personalized Medicine Centers of Excellence National Cord Blood Inventory USTAR Cell Therapy Facility Cell Production Cell Therapy R&D FDA Approval GMP Manufacturing Tissue Repository Infrastructure Imaging, Tissue Engineering, Vector Facility • STRATEGY 2: Develop a Program in Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine. • d. Use the framework below to conceptualize the organizational structure. Program in Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine - 18 -

  20. STRATEGY 4: Reassess programmatic resource allocation. • STRATEGY 5: For major investments, conduct business plans to assess the financial feasibility of the investment. • STRATEGY 1: Encourage departmental funding aligned with research strategies. • STRATEGY 2: Identify sustainable funding for critical infrastructure identified in Goal A. • STRATEGY 6: Provide incentives for research programs. • STRATEGY 3: Diversify the research funding portfolio. GOAL C: Generate robust funding to support and grow the research enterprise. SUPPORTING STRATEGIES: - 19 -

  21. GOAL C: Generate robust funding to support and grow the research enterprise. Consider the Following Tactics to Support Goal C: • Obtain funding through the CCTS. • Consider the following in diversifying the research funding portfolio: • Philanthropy • Clinical Revenue • Industry Partnerships • State Funding • Other Community Funding Sources • Leverage the incentive program to ensure it provides the greatest amount of support across researchers. • Develop an incentive formula involving indirects and total directs based on a rolling average. • Develop incentives for interdisciplinary research. • Factor in rewards for collaboration. • Define and communicate the governance structure for funding strategies and decisions. - 20 -

  22. GOAL D: Recruit, retain, nurture and develop scientists. SUPPORTING STRATEGIES: • STRATEGY 1: Recruit new investigators. • Consider the Following Tactics: • Focus recruitment of investigators on meeting the needs identified in Goals A and B. • Leverage the unique features of thematic interdisciplinary research programs to help clinical departments attract physician-scientists. • STRATEGY 2: Offer existing faculty opportunities to strengthen or develop research skills. • Consider the Following Tactics: • Create a culture that rewards investigation by all faculty. • Foster collaboration by common interests. • Provide mentoring both formally and by provision of role models and a community of successful peers. • Include cross training and curriculum/courses to expose basic scientists to clinical medicine and vice versa. • Focus on succession planning. - 21 -

  23. STRATEGY 3: Recruit top-quality graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to assist with research and groom as future faculty. Consider the Following Tactics: • Develop a mechanism for faculty in non-degree granting departments to have access to graduate students. • Aggressively recruit the best students. • Use cores to supplement training of graduate students. • Ensure that all graduate students and post-doctoral fellows have access to a good mentor. • STRATEGY 4: Strengthen financial support for physician-scientists. Consider the Following Tactics: • Develop strategies for eliminating or to reduce the financial disincentives to do research. • Use the K12, T32, MD/PhD, CTSA as sources of support. • Support protected time for young and mid-career faculty. • Continue programs that provide institutional financial support. (Catalyst/Synergy grants) • Provide base-level support for selected programs. • Provide money for base salaries. - 22 -

  24. III. Approach Towards Plan Implementation - 23 -

  25. Implementation Planning - Next Steps The Research Strategic Plan is transitioning to Plan Implementation as indicated by the list of tasks. A key task will be the appointment of implementation groups that will report to the MBMAC. Finalize Strategic Plan Spring 2007 Plan Implementation Summer/Fall 2007 Transition to • Finalize the Research Strategic Plan • • Publish Strategic Plan • • Develop communication plan, including target audiences and approaches towards communication • Establish oversight responsibility; appoint implementation groups this summer that will report to MBMAC • Create timetables for achieving goals and strategies • Establish performance monitoring, measurement, and reporting systems • Allocate funds for priorities - 24 -

  26. Appendix • A. Phase I – Planning Research Highlights • Interview Summary • Environmental Assessment – Executive Summary • B. Phase III - Strategy Working Groups - 25 -

  27. Appendix A: Phase I – Planning Research • Interview Summary • Environmental Assessment Executive Summary - 26 -

  28. Interview Summary - Highlights - 27 -

  29. Interviewees (n = 70) A total of 70 individuals were interviewed as part of Phase I of the School of Medicine research strategic planning process. Dale Abel, M.B.B.S. Cathy Anderson Susan Beck, Ph.D., R.N. Mary Beckerle, Ph.D. Robert Beckstead, Ph.D. A. Lorris Betz, M.D., Ph.D. David Bjorkman, M.D.,M.S.P.H.,S.M. Jeff Botkin, M.D. Jack Brittain, Art Broom, Ph.D. Brent Brown Michael Cahalan, M.D. Lisa Cannon-Albright, Ph.D. Mario Capecchi, Ph.D. Dana Carroll, Ph.D. Ed Clark, M.D. Bill Crowley, Ph.D. William Couldwell, M.D.,Ph.D. J. Michael Dean, M.D.,M.B.A. Ed Dudek, Ph.D. Kevin Flanigan, M.D. Norman Foster, M.D. Julie Fritz, Ph.D.,P.T. Ray Gesteland, Ph.D. Jay Graves, Ph.D. Otto Guedelhoefer Tara Henderson John Hoidal, M.D. Peter Hollenhorst, Ph.D. Chris Johnson, Ph.D. Erik Jorgensen, Ph.D. Jerry Kaplan, Ph.D. Maureen Keefe, R.N., Ph.D. Steve Kern, Ph.D. Susan Krantz James Kushner, M.D. Larry Kraiss, M.D. Mark Leppert, Ph.D. Dean Li, M.D., Ph.D. Louise Luebcke Mark Macbeth, Ph.D. Mike Magill, M.D. Don McClain, M.D., Ph.D. William McMahon, M.D. Larry Meyer, M.D., Ph.D. Joyce Mitchell, Ph.D. Anne Moon, M.D., Ph.D. Sean Mulvihill, M.D. Patricia Murphy, C.N.M., DrPH, FACNM Ingrid Nygaard, M.D.,M.S. Randall Olson, M.D. Laura Palanker Tom Parks, Ph.D. Matt Peterson, M.D. Brent Price Rick Rabbitt, Ph.D. Matt Samore, M.D. Charles Saltzman, M.D. Sue Slechta, Ph.D. Bruce Smith, Ph.D. Ken Spitzer, Ph.D. John Stillman Steve Sutch Wes Sundquist, Ph.D. Mark Supiano, M.D. David Symons, Ph.D. David Virshup, M.D. John H. Weis, Ph.D. Guy Zimmerman, M.D. John Zone, M.D. - 28 -

  30. Planning Interviews – Top Strategic Priorities Recommended* In summary, eight strategic priorities to be addressed in the strategic plan were recommended by those interviewed. • Invest in necessary infrastructure to operate an efficient research enterprise. • Address space and facilities issues. • Invest in state-of-the-art information technology and data systems. • Identify and fund the needed core facilities and services. • 2. Develop research in selected programmatic areas. Consider the following: • Genetics • Molecular biology • UPDB • Personalized medicine • Health services research • 3. Focus on recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty, students and post-doctoral fellows, especially those who can develop multi-disciplinary programs. • Provide greater support for junior faculty and post-docs to keep them in academia. • Address issues related to salary equity in terms of gender and geography. • Develop an integrated work-life strategy to improve satisfaction and morale. • Begin succession planning given aging faculty. • Immunology • Clinical research • Translational research • Informatics - 29 - * Priorities are listed in order of those most frequently mentioned by interviewees; refer to full Interview Summary Report for additional detail.

  31. Planning Interviews – Top Strategic Priorities Recommended (cont.) * • Expand funding mechanisms (e.g., endowments, philanthropy, legislative, foundations, royalties) to provide greater financial support of the research enterprise. • 5. Improve interdisciplinary collaboration across schools, departments, institutes and faculty as well as between basic scientists and clinical researchers. • Ensure strong commitment by the Institution to the research enterprise and to solid research in all departments. • 7. Enhance collaboration with external entities. • Work collaboratively with State Legislature. • Strengthen research collaboration with Intermountain Health Care. • 8. Make interdisciplinary and research-oriented educational programs an institutional priority. * Priorities are listed in order of those most frequently mentioned by interviewees; refer to full Interview Summary Report for additional detail. - 30 -

  32. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary* * Refer to separate Research Environmental Assessment Report for the complete analysis. - 31 -

  33. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary I. Resources Faculty • Between 2002 and 2006, the total University of Utah School of Medicine (UUSOM) full-time faculty head count grew from 874 to 1,069, or 5.2 percent annually. • During this period, the number of faculty in clinical departments increased at more than twice the rate of faculty in basic science departments. There were higher growth rates among clinical and research track faculty compared to tenure track faculty. • Between 2002 and 2006, the proportion of UUSOM faculty aged 50 and older increased from 38 percent to 43 percent. Faculty over the age of 59 was the fastest growing age group during this period. • Compared to national averages, the UUSOM faculty is less diverse both in terms of gender and race/ethnicity. • A comparison of faculty distribution by rank shows UUSOM having a greater percentage of full Professors compared to the national average, and fewer Assistant Professors compared to the national average. - 32 -

  34. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) I. Resources (cont’d) Space • The School of Medicine accounts for 85 percent (602,206 NSF) of total UUHSC research space, with the majority (80%) being housed on the health sciences campus. • Approximately half (46%) of UUSOM research space is allocated to clinical departments. Twenty-seven percent of UUSOM research space is allocated to basic science departments and the remaining space (27%) is allocated to “All Other Units” including the Huntsman Cancer Institute. • Relative to other top public schools of medicine, UUSOM investigators have a high average quantity of research space per investigator. However, UUSOM’s total grant and contract dollars per square foot is in the lower tier compare to public school peers. • UUSOM is considering three new research-related construction projects which could add 580,000 GSF if a funding source can be identified. - 33 -

  35. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment National Research Funding Trends 2 • After several years of growth, universities and colleges reported a slowdown in science and engineering R & D expenditures in 2004. The rate of growth dropped to 7.2 percent from rates of close to ten percent in prior years. • All sources of science and engineering R & D Expenditures grew between 1999 and 2004. However, the federal government contributed between three and a half and thirteen times more than any other source throughout that period. • The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided $15 billion, or 55 percent, of federal science and engineering R & D funds to universities and colleges in 2004. HHS provides the bulk of funding obligations for life sciences, social sciences, psychology and other sciences, while NSF is the largest provider of funds for mathematics, computer sciences, earth sciences and engineering. • The outlook for R & D funding in federal agencies other than the NIH is varied. Department of Defense R & D funding is slowing down after a period of rapid escalation. HHS (excluding NIH) funding has been stagnant the last several years. NSF and NASA funding is projected to grow in 2007 after several years of stagnation. The Department of Energy R & D budget has been relatively flat for several years. • After leveling off for several years, charitable giving in the U.S. is on the rise. Education, human services and health organizations received one-third of the total charitable gift monies in 2005 for a total of $86.9 billion. The largest philanthropic organization, The Gates Foundation, nearly doubled its expenditures for global health in 2005 to $844 million. - 34 -

  36. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment (cont’d) National NIH Funding Trends • Between 1998 and 2003, the NIH budget appropriation grew between 14 and 16 percent, annually. However, beginning in 2004, the rate of growth dropped dramatically and no growth is projected in the 2007 budget which is estimated at $28.6 billion. • Within the NIH, the NCI and NIAID have the largest budgets accounting for approximately 32 percent of the total budget. The top five research topics in the 2007 NIH budget are biotechnology, clinical research, disease prevention, cancer and neuroscience. • Grant application success rates have declined within every institute and every medical school department. In addition to the leveling off of NIH budget appropriations, one of the primary drivers behind declining success rates is a sharp up tick in the number of grant applications. - 35 -

  37. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment (cont’d) UUSOM Research Portfolio Analysis • UUSOM total extramural funding dropped from $165.7 million in FY02 to $153.4 million in FY06. • Clinical department faculty were the principal investigators on nearly 70 percent of all awards in FY06. While nearly half of clinical departments experienced a downturn in awards between FY02 and FY06, Pathology, Ophthalmology, Neurology, Orthopedics and Neurosurgery had double digit growth rates. • Awards to basic science faculty declined by 7.2 percent compounded annually between FY02 and FY06. Among the basic science departments, only Biochemistry and Physiology had an increase in extramural funding between FY02 and FY06. Human Genetics and Biomedical Informatics had particularly steep drops despite growth in faculty in these departments during the same period. • Nearly every department saw a decline in the proportion of faculty with extramural funding. • UUSOM investigators receive approximately $2 million per year from the Veteran’s Administration (VA). The majority of this funding was distributed to the Departments of Internal Medicine (78%) and Orthopedics (15%) in FY06. Biomedical/clinical studies comprised 74 percent of VA funding at UUSOM. - 36 -

  38. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment (cont’d) UUSOM NIH Funding • In 2005, the University of Utah as a whole was awarded $127 million in NIH funding. Sixty-eight percent of the awards were in the School of Medicine. • Between 1996 and 2005, UUSOM’s NIH ranking ranged from a high of 38 to a low of 44. In the last three years, award dollars declined from $95 million to $87 million. Between 2000 and 2005, the “top 20” NIH funded public medical schools had a combined compound annual growth rate of nine percent in NIH awards while UUSOM (ranked 20th) increased by only three percent annually. • In 2005, three clinical departments, Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Ophthalmology ranked among the top 10 NIH-funded departments amongst their peer departments. These departments as well as Anesthesiology, Pediatrics, Pathology and Neurology moved up in the rankings in 2005 compared to 2000. • All UUSOM basic science departments saw a drop in NIH rankings in 2005 compared to 2000. - 37 -

  39. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment (cont’d) Publications and Technology Transfer • The University of Utah ranked 13th among the top 20 NIH-funded public institutions in terms of number of publications. Utah’s average number of citations per paper fell in the lower tier. • In the last 10 years, the number of invention disclosures in U.S. universities, hospitals and research institutes grew from 9,211 in 1995 to 16,871 in 2004 (7% annually). Research patent applications more than doubled but the number of patents issued did not increase at the same rate suggesting a tougher climate for patent approval. • In U.S. universities, hospitals and research institutes, the total number of licenses and options executed has nearly doubled since FY95 (8% CAGR), though the average per academic institution grew at a somewhat slower pace (5%). This decline may be due to the growing number of academic players engaging in technology transfer in recent years. • Although the number of patent filings for UUSOM was fairly stable between FY03 and FY06, the number of patents issued declined from 20 to 6. Foreign patent filings declined by two-thirds. • Licenses and options are the mechanisms by which technologies are transferred for public use and benefit. In FY06, UUSOM had 13 utility licenses and one option. UUSOM income from royalties and licensing more than tripled between FY02 ($3.8M) and FY05 ($13.9M). • UUSOM launched twelve start-up companies between FY02 and FY06. - 38 -

  40. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) II. Research Assessment (cont’d) Industry Trends • Domestic research and development expenditures in the United States by worldwide pharmaceutical companies are projected to reach $31.4 billion in 2005. • Over half of pharmaceutical R&D dollars are spent during the prehuman/preclinical (26%) and Phase III (26%) stages. • In 1990, ninety percent of drug company-funded clinical trials were conducted by academic medical centers (AMCs). By 2004, the figure dropped to 24 percent as trials were shifted to other clinical settings. • The biotechnology industry has grown quickly over the past five years, with revenues increasing 16 percent since 1999. The number of biotechnology patents increased from 2,926 in 1995 to 7,763 in 2002, a compound annual growth rate of 32 percent. - 39 -

  41. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) III. Education Assessment Educational Programs – Graduate Programs • At UUSOM, enrollment in combined interdisciplinary programs dropped from 51 to 32 between 01-02 and 05-06. Applications to both the combined interdisciplinary program and the neurosciences interdisciplinary program declined in the same time frame. • Enrollment in departmental programs more than doubled between 01-02 and 05-06 with the addition of a new program in Family & Preventative Medicine and large expansions in Biochemistry, Biomedical Informatics, Oncological Sciences and Pathology. • Forty-two percent of UUSOM graduate program enrollees are female, one-third are Utah residents and one fourth are foreign students. • The number of PhD postdoctoral fellows at UUSOM increased by 10.3 percent annually between 03-04 and 05-06. Pathology accounted for two-thirds of the increase. Neurobiology and Anatomy and Neurology lost several post-docs. - 40 -

  42. Environmental Assessment Executive Summary (cont’d) III. Education Assessment (cont’d) NIH Training & Career Development Awards • Between 1996 and 2005, NIH Training and Fellowship awards grew by 7.3 percent compounded annually for the U.S. as a whole. This rate of increase was lower than that of total awards and resulted in a decline in the proportion of funding devoted to training and fellowships. • UUSOM training grants rebounded in 2005 after a decline between 2001 and 2004. UUSOM ranked 18th of 20 in NIH training grants to public medical schools in 2005. • UUSOM fellowship awards dropped precipitously between 2002 and 2005. UUSOM ranked 16th of 20 in NIH fellowship awards to public medical schools in 2005. • Nationally, NIH funding for “K Awards,” or career development awards, experienced a significant increase between 2001 and 2005 (13 percent compounded annually). The number of K awards increased at a slower pace (8%) and the average award increased from $128,000 to $151,000. • Although the average size of UUSOM career awards increased from $134,000 to $196,000 between 2001 and 2005, the number of awards dropped from 30 to 23. UUSOM ranked 15th in NIH career (K) awards to “top 20” public medical schools in 2005. - 41 -

  43. Appendix B: Phase III – Strategy Working Groups - 42 -

  44. The Research Strategic Planning Steering Committee convened three “working groups” that were charged with recommending strategies in support of the goals of the strategic plan. WORKING GROUP A: CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH GOAL A: Strengthen clinical and translational research throughout the School of Medicine. GOAL B: Promote collaboration between scientists and clinicians. WORKING GROUP B: RESEARCH PROGRAMMATIC DESIGN GOAL B: Promote collaboration between scientists and clinicians. GOAL C: Develop programmatic strengths in genomic and molecular medicine and related areas. GOAL D: Provide continued support for current strengths and institutional priorities including cancer, neuroscience and the USTAR initiatives. WORKING GROUP C: EXPANDING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE & FUNDING PORTFOLIO GOAL E: Expand the research infrastructure and funding portfolio to support the research enterprise. GOAL F: Recruit, nurture and retain talented young investigators. GOAL G: Develop education and training programs that support the research enterprise. GOAL B: Promote collaboration between scientists and clinicians. - 43 -

  45. Strategy Working Groups: - 44 -

More Related