Summer Faculty Consensus Group Meeting. Chancellor s Office Long Beach August 5, 2012

Transcription

1 Summer Faculty Consensus Group Meeting Chancellor s Office Long Beach August 5, 2012

2 Agenda Highlights Elect Deputy Chair Review Strategic Plan Two Invited Talks: Bart Weimer (UC Davis), Davis (DNA Sequencing Center) Nirav Merchant (U. Arizona), iplant s Atmosphere cloud computing application Preview 25 th Annual CSU Symposium Review Grant & Award Programs Discuss tweaks to upcoming Requests for Proposals (RFPs) Taskforce Reports

3 FCG Service Requirements Committee / Taskforce / Peer Review participation Work with campus FCG team to communicate with and mentor colleagues on campus Stay informed ( Facebook, LinkedIn, FRESCA) pick 2? Recommended Campus Best Practices: send students and faculty to symposium, apply for travel grants, mentor Howell-CSUPERB scholars, nominate students and colleagues for awards, encourage (& mentor!) colleagues to apply to CSUPERB programs.

4 New Strategic Plan Overview Approved by Presidents Commission and Chancellor Reed this spring AY Budget Approved This meeting is first chance we ve had to put new ideas into action

5 Strategic Objectives Expand Research Opportunities across CSU (continue support of student-faculty research, build entrepreneurial culture) Innovate Biotech Education (embed experiential learning, address transdisciplinary and entrepreneurial educational needs, anticipate effects of medical school reform) Anticipate the needs and direction of the life sciences industry (requires two-way communication, two-way partnerships & CRADAs, relationship building, reporting) Implementation Plans Pilot Presidents Commission Scholarships Continue major grant programs Increase disciplinary involvement via mentoring program Plan for research impact data collection Disseminate genomics curriculum (Jan.) Pilot entrepreneurial education (kick off state-wide competition) Establish transdisciplinary efforts to address pre-med reform Strengthen industry partnerships, via PC Scholarship program Work with partners (SBDC?) to pilot entrepreneurial education activities Broaden communications (

6 New Strategic Plan Overview Presidents Commission Scholars (summer research opportunity) another way to increase numbers of biotechnology researchers we support and provides a partnering opportunity (development) Proposal Writing Mentoring Concept idea to increase disciplinary involvement that came out of strategic planning process Concept-based Education based on MCAT 2015 revisions, Vision & Change Report, Enriching Education Workshop (2012 Symposium), etc.

7 Presidents Commission Scholars (PCS) Inaugural cohort = 25 scholars (one has withdrawn already, so 24) on 13 CSU campuses 67 applications from 18 campuses First class funded by Chancellors Office with $220,000; we have ~$110,000 set aside in AY budget to continue the program As part of AY budget talks with Presidents Commission they emphasized they d like an assessment of PCS program Surveys based on SURE assessment (Lopatto) and other survey tools used by REU-type programs

8 Pre-Summer Survey (PCS) 2 freshmen, 9 sophomores, 11 juniors, 3 seniors 14 chemistry/biochemistry, 6 biology/biological sciences, 3 engineering (4 biofuels) 44% caucasian, 32% asian, 8% hispanic/latina/o 76% are first-in-family to work in biotechnology; 44% have no prior research experience; 32% reported they applied because they wanted to see if biotech was a career they d like; 28% thought it might help them get into graduate school 40% want to get (research) doctorate; 40% want to go MD/DVM/PharmD route; 12% want to work in industry; remainder don t know (50% mentors reported students were headed towards research doctorate) 60% report they found mentor on website; not one mentor thought that s how scholar selected them (but 50% reported the student selected them independently) 36% of scholars thought they d be working alone or with mentor alone Even though program is designed to offer full-time summer experience 30% of scholars reported that they planned to work <30 hours per week during summer 60% faculty mentors reported they selected student based on academic accomplishments DISCUSSION QUESTION: Are we engaging same old (high GPA, high achieving) student population with this program? (GPA does not track with persistence in graduate school or medical school; on-ramping at life science companies does not track with GPA)

9 Proposal Writing Mentors ISSUE: Percentage of non-traditional PIs applying and winning CSUPERB grants is not growing so our grant portfolio does not match biotechnology as a whole, nor does it match the NIH/NSF/USDA array of program opportunities, and it represents missed opportunities to grow our community 100%! Percentage of Grants Awarded! 90%! 80%! 70%! 60%! 50%! 40%! 30%! 20%! 10%! # of CSUPERB PIs from non-traditional Biotechnology Disciplines (Animal Science, Computational Sciences, Education, Environmental, Engineering, Forensics, Math, Physics, Nursing, Nutrition, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, Wildlife)! # of CSUPERB PIs from "Traditional" Biotechnology Disciplines (Biology, Chemistry/ Biochemistry, Plant Biology)! 0%! 06/07! 07/08! 08/09! 09/10! 10/11! 11/12! Academic Year CSUPERB Grant Awarded!

10 Proposal Writing Mentors Partnering is the CSU way BRAINSTORM: How might we craft this program?

11 Concept-Based Education Vision & Change Report now the PULSE community ( 367 members as of 8/5/12) MCAT 2015 ( CSUPERB Winter Workshop (Jan. 2012): Undergraduate-Education.pdf Departments and programs should work to embed and repeat concepts throughout curriculum. In other words, teach fewer topics very well. Repeated concepts should be bolstered by deeper exploration and discovery CSUPERB Winter Workshop report (google enriching education CSUPERB and you ll find blog entry with report embedded)

12 Proposal Writing Mentors ISSUES: Vision & Change Report focuses on biology undergraduate education; CSUPERB focuses on biotechnology a wider swath of disciplines CSUPERB programs currently are weighted heavier on the deeper exploration and discovery than on the repeated concepts educational foundation. We organize pedagogically-focused workshops at the symposium, the GATC taskforce developed research-based modules last summer & we make 2-3 programmatic grants/year. BRAINSTORM: How might we promote and adopt Vision & Change concepts across the CSU biotechnology curriculum?

13 AY 11/12 Budget Year End AY 12/13 Budget (handouts)

14 2013 Symposium Preview Costs associated with CSU Symposium Participation (student example): Registration Fee ($50) Lodging at $84/ room night $150 Meals $200 Transportation Reimbursement $150 Total, if Maximum Benefits Used = $500 Please make sure campus colleagues and administrators understand that CSUPERB covers most costs associated with attending the symposium. Some campuses sending only/mostly faculty and so students on those campuses are not benefitting (and that breaks our hearts)

15 2012 Symposium Preview Anaheim Marriott January 3-5, 2013 Thursday noon Saturday evening Theme of Symposium: Celebrating CSUPERB s Faculty and Students Asked Andreoli & Faculty Research Awardees to Recommend Former Students As Speakers OVERWHELMING Response (awesome snapshot of where CSUPERB alums are working!). The recommended list of speakers far exceeds the speaking slots we have. BRAINSTORM: Program usually contains 2-3 plenary sessions featuring 3-4 speakers (max # invited symposium speakers is usually 8-10). Should we have concurrent sessions this year? Is there another way to include more speakers? Keep in mind: 90% of faculty responding to survey like 2.5 day format as it is!

16 CSUPERB-I2P Early-Stage Biotech Commercialization Challenge Last year s pilot involved four campuses This year the competition is system-wide for the first time I2P designed to be a one-term competition Four student teams (2 technical; 2 business) Intellectual Property must be understood Mentorship/campus/alumni/SBDC support can be anything you can build around your teams! It takes a village! (Warren Smith, CSU Sacramento) Campuses must register with me ( sbaxter@mail.sdsu.edu) by September 28!

17 Grants & Awards Program Reporting and Planning Application Rates Success Rates NI/RD Program Review Teleconferenced Review Meetings

18 Upcoming Proposal Deadlines Howell-CSUPERB Research Scholars RFP Release: September, 2012 Proposal Deadline: October 10, 2012 Review: November, 2012 Award Notifications: December, 2012 Faculty and Student Travel Grant Deadlines (Fall & Spring) RFP Release: Fall - September, 2012, Spring - February, 2013 Proposal Deadline: Fall October 15, 2012, Spring - March 11, 2013 Review: Fall November, 2012, Spring - April, 2013 Award Notifications: Fall December, 2012, Spring - May, 2013 New Investigator, Research Development, Joint Venture and Programmatic Grant Deadlines RFP Release: September, 2012 Proposal Deadline: February 4, 2013 Review Meeting: April 13, 2013 Award Notifications: May 2013 Presidents Commission Scholars Program RFP Release: October, 2012 Proposal Deadline: February 13, 2013 Review: March, 2013 Award Notifications: April, 2013

19 This year we saw a spike in applications for travel grants and a very good start for summer research program -./ "9:11.;:<.=>7"?7@7.</A"B?CD"EFD"5776G" K<:L<.MM.=/" O:P711" H:I82"J7820<7" N<.>71"B ".86"-./0123"/:M;I876G"" K<7@I6782@Q"9:MMI@@I:8"5/A:1.<@" '%!" '$!" '#!"!"#$%&'())*+,-./01' '!!" &!" %!" $!" #!"!" ()"!%*!+" ()"!+*!&" ()"!&*!," ()"!,*'!" ()'!*''" ()''*'#" (,-2%#+,'3%-&'

20 Retrospective analysis shows the number of travel grant applications fluctuates over both rounds and years but is trending towards an increase. It may now be impacted by the increase of maximum award to $1,500 in Fall of 2011.

21 Averaged Campus Participation Across CSUPERB Programs ( ) Average Campus Participation per year! %!" $#" $!" #"!" FS! JV! PR! Travel! Howell! PCS! Eden! Nagel! Pauling! I2P! Andreoli! Fac Res! Symposium! CSUPERB Program!

22 Percentage of first-time faculty applicants averages 36% ( ); win rates similar CSUPERB is continually renewing applicant pool and increasing biotech researchers system-wide Percentage of First-Time Applicants! 45%! 40%! 35%! 30%! 25%! 20%! 15%! 10%! 5%! 0%! AY 06/07! AY 07/08! AY 08/09! AY 09/10! AY 10/11! AY 11/12! Academic Year!

23 Applicant/Awardee Pool Analysis Conclusion: Research Development program impacted assistant/associate professor distribution AY 11/12 Funded! AY 11/12 Applied! AY 10/11 Funded! AY 10/11 Applied! AY 09/10 Funded! AY 09/10 Applied! AY 08/09 Funded! AY 08/09 Applied! AY 07/08 Funded! AY 07/08 Applied! AY 06/07 Funded! AY 06/07 Applied! Assistant! Associate! Full! 0%! 10%! 20%! 30%! 40%! 50%! 60%! 70%! 80%! 90%! 100%! Percentage of Applicant and Funded Pools!

24 Demographics of CSU faculty attending symposium 60% have external grant support for research program. 50% have $10-100k/year in external grant support; 28% have <$10k/year; 16% have >$100,000/year. 64% brought 1-4 students with them to the symposium; 10% brought 5-10; 3% brought >10. 25% brought none. 33% were assistant profs; 30% were associate profs; 29% were full profs. 22% were attending the symposium for the first time.

25 Success Rates are converging (30-36% this year) as recommended by FCG and budget allows D<E40#F3401>3# G><H>7II7?8# M<N399# '$#!"##$%%&'()$&*+,-&&."/0$0&12343%(5%674458#(93/%&'$#$8:$0& '"# &$# &"# %$# %"# "$# ""#!$#!"# ()#*+,*$# ()#*$,*-# ()#*-,*.# ()#*.,!*# ()#!*,!!# ()#!!,!"# 7#(0$;8#&<$(2&

26 Success rates for major grants only (FS, JV, PR) Proposals Not Funded Awards Success Rates (%) 0 AY 06/07 AY 07/08 AY 08/09 AY 09/10 AY10/11 AY11/12

27 Orange bar greater than blue bar? = Fierce campuses! (Based on 3 year CSUPERB funding averages: Channel Islands, Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, Pomona, San José, San Francisco, Northridge, San Diego, Long Beach) 12.0%! Normalized Percentage of Total Amounts! Across All CSU Campuses! 10.0%! 8.0%! 6.0%! 4.0%! 2.0%! % Overall CSU Student Target Enrollment (AY 11/12)! % CSUPERB Funding (3 yr. average 09/10 to 11/12)! 0.0%! Maritime Academy! Channel Islands! Monterey Bay! Stanislaus! Bakersfield! Humboldt! San Marcos! Sonoma! Dominguez Hills! East Bay! San Bernardino! Chico! San Luis Obispo! Los Angeles! Pomona! Fresno! San Jose! Sacramento! San Francisco! Northridge! San Diego! Fullerton! Long Beach!

28 New Investigator/ Research Development Program Review Two years ago, New Investigators (no external grant support) were reviewed differently than other applicants for the first time Total number of research seed applications is similar to previous years, that is the application rate is FLAT Last year s RFP language change tightened eligibility criteria for Research Development: limited program to PIs facing a gap in external funding or PIs branching into new project but faced difficulty in getting funding. PIs had to provide evidence they had applied for renewal or funding and failed. This eligibility criteria did not reduce the number of applications as feared. The review committees continued to favor applicants who had applied elsewhere over PIs who did some hand-waving on that point. Program office recommends continuation of these two programs.

29 Teleconferenced Review Panels We used a real-time, teleconferenced/webinar-linked committee to review Programmatic and JV grants this spring. 100% of reviewers involved reported a very good or good experience and would do it again. It is questionable whether CSUPERB was able to save money overall as a result. Program office recommends using format for programs with very small applicant pools (<5?) going forward. Format requires significant technical support from the program office. We noted that reviewers were less likely to get reviews in on time or attend entire review meeting.

30 Discussions to inform AY 12/13 RFPs Item 1: Discuss focusing Programmatic Grants to support participatory learning, high-impact practices and other innovations in lower-level biotechnology-relevant courses Discussion Points: 1. CSUPERB should provide leadership in the adoption of Vision & Change concepts? 2. Lower-level courses are often gateway courses and are seen as chokepoint in STEM graduation rates (Bayer Report) 3. Lower-level courses may include general education, pre-med and STEM students mixed together 4. Lower-division courses may have relatively large enrollments, requiring creative, innovative pedagogies 5. Faculty and instructors in lower-division courses may need professional teaching and learning development

31 Discussions to inform AY 12/13 RFPs Item 2: Discuss restricting eligibility for Presidents Commission Scholars to rising sophomores and juniors only Discussion Points: 1. Applicant and award pools were still enriched (>50%) with juniors and seniors (definition wishy-washy in RFP) 2. Education research on undergraduate research suggests early engagement is crucial for at-risk populations underrepresented in STEM/biomedical fields 3. Faculty mentors were not as creative in reaching out to B/C population of students in this first round. RFP barred applicants who were previously involved in training programs (MARC, REU, etc.).

32 Discussions to inform AY 12/13 RFPs Item 3: Discuss restricting eligibility for Glenn Nagel Undergraduate Research Award and Don Eden Graduate Research Award Discussion Points: 1. Issue raised at last FCG meeting regarding CIRM Bridges supported Eden and Nagel nominees because they were full-time researchers 2. 33% CSUPERB-supported (Howell) students report that they work >30 hours per week in lab (preliminary reporting from grant-supported students indicate the same). 3. Past Eden and Nagel competitors have worked both in CSU labs and in R1 university, industry- or government- labs Can we restrict eligibility for Eden or Nagel awards by time spent in lab? Should we restrict eligibility for Eden or Nagel awards by where they have worked (CSU, Other University, Industry Internship/Coop)?

33 Discussions to inform AY 12/13 RFPs Item 4 (Breaking News): Howell Foundation Board voted to increase amount of award ($3000 to $3500), but that all award should go to students Discussion Points: 1. Howell Board is concerned about rising tuition costs for students 2. This program is a partnership with an external philanthropic organization 3. Previous RFPs allowed 50% of the award to go to lab to cover supplies, etc.

34 Taskforce Reports Genomic Analysis and Technology Committee (Sandy Sharp, CSU Los Angeles) Industry-Responsive Curriculum (Susan Baxter, CSUPERB)

35 IRC Work Focus based on January taskforce & FCG meetings Keep tabs on workforce needs (supply and demand) Radford data PhD oversupply? Not enough engineers. Reduce gap between CSU learning and industry practice Any attempt to infuse research into the curriculum Any attempt to infuse business fundamentals into curriculum (budgets, SPOs, milestones, global awareness) Faculty development (pilot faculty internships or exchanges?) Sponsor and organize partnering opportunities (summits)

36 IRC Updates Clinical Trials Project Management certificate offered first cohort completed (completed Small Business Administration grant) four online courses will be incorporated into PABS PSM program updates needed Career Centers, Campus programs Content focus on areas where there is a current workforce need BIOCOM Immersion program kicked off ( business fundamentals/online community. > 350 students enrolled. 30% CSU or other university students. 180 have completed; 75% employed. Free tuition (~$1500) for veterans/active duty and San Diego County residents (Department of Labor funding through June 2013).

37 Taskforce Reports New Taskforces? Discuss!