Introduction

Specific Concerns

    1. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 1)

    2. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 2)

    3. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 3) 

    4. Risk of Funding Lapse

    5. Teaching Loads

    6. Additional Doctoral Programming

    7. Faculty Credentials

    8. Institutional Funding

    9. A Doctoral Institution

Summary

Executive Summary

Visiting Scholars

Graduates from the Biomedical Science Program

The Biomedical Sciences (BMS) Program at Marshall University has grown by a series of significant steps. The initial step was taken in 1977 when the Program was created as a cooperative venture with West Virginia University. The next step came in 1992, when it was granted independent status and graduated the University's first Ph.D. student. A year later, the Program was designated a Marshall University Center of Excellence and, in 1996, the University System of West Virginia Board of Trustees named it a Program of Excellence for the State. In the midst of these accomplishments, a 1995 North Central Association (NCA) review of the Program expressed two broad concerns. The principal problem was the level of institutional support. A second and related issue was faculty scholarship. This report will address nine specific issues raised about these two concerns. In each case, it will define the issue as it existed at the time of the site visit and detail the relevant changes to date.

1. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 1). At MU adequate funding for the Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences has been integrally linked to the existence of the NSF-EPSCoR grant and its associated "match". Continuation of the special state matching allocation of $550,000 per year after the grant expires is unclear. (page 19)

The NSF EPSCoR award in question was to end July 1996. This was a matching grant with the NSF and the state each providing $550,000/year to the BMS Program. Unlike most EPSCoR states, the WV legislature placed the state-match in the base budget of the School of Medicine to provide sustained infrastructure support for the BMS Program. As such, the "state-match" became an "institutional-match". Allocation of this money was the responsibility of Marshall University and not the WV EPSCoR Committee as it is in most other EPSCoR states.

As the end of the EPSCoR grant approached, disposition of this match became a major issue. We had been advised by the NSF that no other EPSCoR proposal would be awarded BMS investigators until the College of Science was stronger. (An earlier attempt to secure NSF EPSCoR funding through a joint research proposal with the College of Science had been rejected.) The question before the School of Medicine was whether to dedicate this match to the BMS Program or use it to help build the College of Science.

By the time the 1995 NCA team arrived, the BMS leadership had concluded that it was in the best long-term interest of the Program to offer the non-salary portion of the EPSCoR match to the College of Science. This was to be a one time, two-year commitment of approximately $350,000/year for instrumentation and technical support. While this decision reduced direct BMS support for the short term, we believed the NSF assessment was correct and that a stronger College of Science would ultimately bring the Program better graduate students and more opportunities for research funding. The Marshall proposal to support infrastructure development in the College of Science was subsequently approved by WV EPSCoR Committee and the NSF. The NCA concern about continuation of the "special state matching allocation" after 1996 has been answered.

The two-year investment in the College of Science has paid major dividends. One of the more important purchases was a confocal microscope. This one instrument has served, at least, seven investigators. Dr. Sasha Zill (a BMS neurobiologist with a 5-year, $1.9 million DoD grant) no longer has to travel to Ohio University bimonthly to use their instrument. In addition, the confocal microscope linked investigators from the College of Science and the BMS Program in research and graduate education. Through shared mentorship, one Ph.D. student graduated in May 1998, a second is well underway, and a third began this fall. In every case, the combination of basic and biomedical scientists enriched the interdisciplinary nature of the BMS Program and the competitiveness of its graduates.

2. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 2). It is also unclear whether this match will remain in the medical school or be transferred to the new program if it is funded by NSF. (page 19)

The match remained in the School of Medicine, but was administered by Dr. Tom Storch, Dean of the College of Science (the principal investigator) in consultation with Dr. Gary Wright, chair of the physiology department in the School of Medicine and previous EPSCoR director. Upon completion of the two-year transfer of funds in July 1998, the Dean of the School of Medicine consigned the non-salary portion of this budget line (approximately $350,000) to the BMS Program for the exclusive purpose of infrastructure support for research and graduate education. He pointed out that long term research infrastructure was the original intent of the authorizing legislation, and that this money was designed to supplement, not replace, other state expenditures. This budget is managed by the associate dean for research and graduate education in the School of Medicine. A major portion is being allocated for an upgrade of graduate assistantships (from $10,000 to $16,000/year plus tuition wavier). The remainder will be used for research equipment and faculty development.

3. Disposition of the EPSCoR Match (Part 3). There is also considerable uncertainty about the source for the rest of the required match for the new proposal. (page 19

The 1996 award was structured as follows. For two years, $350,000 of the $550,000 institutional match in the School of Medicine was allocated to the College of Science for equipment and technical support. The other $200,000 continued to support faculty salaries and graduate stipends in the School of Medicine. The NSF added $100,000/year for the College of Science infrastructure development. The remainder of the NSF match ($450,000) went to match activities at West Virginia University. The primary purpose of this grant is to prepare the institution to effectively compete for the full NSF match.

4. Risk of Funding Lapse. In any case, the processing period required by NSF will result in a lapse in funding between the termination of the current grant and the funding of the new grant. This will at least temporarily reduce funding for the existing Ph.D. program and place it in jeopardy. (pages 19 and 20)

The transfer of EPSCoR funds from the School of Medicine to the College of Science did reduce funding for the BMS Program for two years. The most notable impact was the reduction in funds available for stipends and the associated decline in graduate student numbers. In the 1995-96 academic year 30 Ph.D. students were enrolled as compared to 23 in 1997-98. The return of this money and the establishment of a more competitive stipend will promote rapid recovery. There are currently 22 Ph.D. Ph.D. students enrolled. The goal is to support about 25 Ph.D. students.

5. Teaching Loads. Faculty associated with the program indicate teaching loads which are relatively high for those with substantial involvement in doctoral education. (page 2)

Thirty BMS faculty teach medical students. Twenty-four currently have graduate faculty status and teach/advise graduate students. Some have additional lectures in the Forensic Science Program, as well as in a limited number of undergraduate and graduate courses in the College of Science. In a recent survey, the average BMS faculty person has 32.5 + 13 (mean + S.D.) lecture contact hours per year and 23 + 40 laboratory contact hours per year. Laboratory hours are for formal courses only, and do not include time spent in research training of individual graduate students. These are relatively heavy teaching loads for a research-intensive faculty, but the size and mission of the School of Medicine dictate balanced research and teaching commitments from all BMS faculty.

6. Additional Doctoral Programming. In addition, institutional funds and external grants are clearly not adequate for expanding doctoral programming into chemistry and biology areas. (page 20)

Throughout the 1995 site visit, the issue of additional doctoral programs continued to be raised. The source of that concern remains unknown. One can only surmise that the focus on the College of Science triggered speculation about the long-term goals of this development.

Marshall University has a vision for further graduate science development. In September 1996, President Gilley established a Commission for Biomedical Research and Biotechnology and asked it to describe how Marshall University should advance scientific research and graduate education. The goals were to increase the national competitiveness and regional relevance of science at MU. The commission consisted of faculty from the College of Science and the BMS Program as well as representatives from state government, the chemical industry and the medical community. The report (submitted to the President in January 1997) concluded that Marshall was not large enough to sustain two separate scientific communities, and that the most efficient, cost effective approach to further science development was to ". . . create an interdisciplinary scientific environment and focus its expertise and technology on regional biotechnology development." (Attachment 1) The commission made the following recommendations:

• select new faculty in the College of Science on the basis of their capacity to improve research collaboration with BMS faculty;
• reduce teaching loads of nationally competitive faculty in the College of Science;
• improve functional critical mass by moving BMS faculty downtown next to the College of Science;
• promote faculty development and retention through competitive salaries and endowed positions ;
• increase graduate stipends; and
• seek to increase community involvement in support of biotechnology development.

7. Faculty Credentials. A review of faculty credentials for those associated with the new NSF proposal indicates that several of them have credentials which are marginal for core faculty in the Ph.D. program. (page 20)

This comment is difficult to address because it is not clear which faculty is described. There are several reasons to believe it is directed more at the College of Science than the BMS Program. This comment comes immediately after a question about capacity for doctoral programs in biology and chemistry (issue 6, above). In the next sentence, the reviewer clearly describes College of Science when he/she writes, "These faculty indicate they have heavy teaching loads ranging up to twelve credit hours each semester." In the one clear reference to BMS faculty scholarship, the reviewer states, "Progress in the Biomedical Sciences Ph.D. program has been very good and the faculty associated with the program have clearly been improving in their ability to compete for external funds to help fund the Ph.D. program." (page 20) Ultimately, this concern for faculty credentials in the College of Science is consistent with the NSF assessment and served as the basis for the institutional commitments previously described.

The infrastructure investments in the College of Science have strengthened faculty credentials. For example, in their first year at MU, the newly appointed faculty were awarded the largest grant ever received by the College of Science (a 3-year, $2.1 million infrastructure development grant from NSF EPSCoR). Most of the grant will be used to create a state-of-the-art molecular identification and characterization facility, but there is money to hire a Ph.D. toxicologist and a laboratory manager, as well as to increase graduate stipends in chemistry. The analytical equipment to be purchased will provide immediate, exponential increases in research and educational capabilities of the College of Science and the BMS Program. The toxicologist will have a joint appointment in the Forensic Science Program in the School of Medicine. An outline of BMS faculty scholarship over the last three years is appears in the following table.

Current External Service

    Chair, Grant Review Panel II, American Institute for Cancer Research
    Member, Executive Board, American Institute for Cancer Research
    Grant reviewer, NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program
    Grant reviewer, Ohio-WV American Heart Association
    Chair, NIH ALTOX 4 Special Review Committee
    Member, NIH Predoctoral Fellowship Review
    Member of Editorial Board, Toxicology
    Associate Editor, Toxicology and Applied Toxicology
    Councilor, Society of Toxicology, In Vitro Specialty Section
    Member of West Virginia EPSCoR Committee
    Member of West Virginia Science and Technology Council
    Director, West Virginia DNA CODIS Project
    Director, West Virginia Environmental Microbiology Project

BMS faculty scholarship reflects the following changes since the 1995 NCA site visit.

• A shift in graduate faculty status. The BMS Graduate Studies Committee raised requirements for full doctoral and associate graduate faculty status. Where the original criteria were an active grant (or the submission of a grant proposal), and/or a publication in the last six years, full doctoral status now requires evidence of grant activity (or grant submission) and publications in the last three years.
• Shifts in numbers of graduate students. The decrease in Ph.D. students is considered temporary because it reflects a two-year loss of the EPSCoR institutional-match. The Program just admitted 12 more master's students in a new medical sciences area of emphasis. This non-thesis degree is designed for students seeking admission into medical school or careers in other health sciences and want an advanced, general biomedical curriculum. It (a) meets major regional needs, (b) requires little additional teaching (only one new course), and (c) generates additional revenue for the Program.
• A shift in number of graduate courses. The increase in graduate courses reflect new offerings in molecular mechanisms in growth and differentiation, communication skills, molecular signal transduction, biostatistics, physiology of the cell, neuroscience literature review, and neuroscience research techniques.
• A shift in extramural funding. While the number of faculty with extramural funding and the number of grants held by BMS faculty have increased slightly, the total grant award is lower. This reflects the loss of the 3-year NSF EPSCoR grant, but 60% of this award ($550,000/yr) remains in the Program for infrastructure support.
• A shift in number of publications. The apparent decrease in publications is principally the result of an exceptional year in 1995 (45 as compared to 25 in 1993, 32 in 1994, 34 in 1996, and 38 in 1997). With four months remaining in the calendar year, the BMS faculty has published 24 papers and 17 more have been submitted or are in revision.

8. Institutional Funding. Doctoral education at MU is reaching the point where a critical decision must be made by the university. There has been good progress on the Biomedical Sciences Ph.D., but it has been dependent on the NSF EPSCoR grant which is terminating. For the survival of the program MU must commit a sizable amount of institutional funds. (pages 20-21)

The following is a list of the extra institutional funding of the doctoral program since the 1995 NCA review.

    1. The institutional EPSCoR match             $550,000/yr

    2. The Visiting Scholars Program                $ 18,000/yr

    3. The Medical Sciences fee revenue          $ 48,000/yr

    4. Increased faculty salaries                        $50-60,000/yr
 

In addition, Marshall University has committed another $350,000/yr as a new institutional-match for the three-year NSF EPSCoR grant in the College of Science. The new faculty, equipment and graduate students derived from this grant will strengthen the BMS Program.

Finally, in a review of the 1997-1998 academic year, President Gilley listed a $26 million project for the BMS Program in the long-range plans for the University. He said this money would be used for the construction of a BMS building across the street from the College of Science. This new building would be designed to complement existing facilities in a way that further enhances both medical and graduate education, and increases clinical and basic research productivity. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of current funding and potential long-term investments indicate that Marshall University and the School of Medicine support the BMS Program.

9. A Doctoral Institution. MU needs to determine whether it wishes to make the philosophical and financial commitment to be a "doctoral institution". (page 21)

Marshall University has a strategic vision to advance doctoral science education. By design, this is a focused vision that is based on complementing the existing strengths in the BMS Program rather than creating multiple new and diverse doctoral options. It is, after all, this kind of selective focus that distinguishes good Doctoral III institutions and the more comprehensive Doctoral I universities. This is the Marshall philosophical stance on doctoral education. The BMS Program is its first choice, and it is committing significant financial resources to its infrastructure.

This report emphasizes three main points. They are:

1. The Biomedical Sciences Program is an excellent doctoral program. In less than twenty years, it established its independence from West Virginia University, and then was recognized for excellence by Marshall University and the State. The faculty provides a sound basic biomedical education for both medical and graduate students. The medical students secure residencies of their choice and Ph.D. graduates are selected for competitive postdoctoral positions. New graduate programs have been developed to meet regional needs. In 1995, the BMS Program made a visionary decision to invest matching funds in the College of Science. This investment has proven to be of significant benefit to the research and educational missions of Marshall University. These institutional advances would not have occurred without bold BMS leadership.

2. The Biomedical Sciences Program has good support from the School of Medicine and other parts of the University. The School of Medicine dedicated its EPSCoR match funding to the BMS Program and this clearly helped stabilize the program's financial position. Money is now available for competitive BMS stipends, new equipment and faculty development. As well, significant NSF EPSCoR and institutional investments in the College of Science have strengthened graduate science education and the research competitiveness of basic and biomedical scientists. The College of Science captured a major EPSCoR grant that will bring additional state-of-the-art equipment and faculty expertise to the institution and BMS Program. In addition, the dean of the Graduate College extends all the services of his office to the BMS program. Clearly, Marshall University understands and is committed to high quality doctoral research and education.

3. A bold and ambitious long-range plan is unfolding for the Biomedical Sciences Program. Marshall University has articulated a strategic vision for research and doctoral education. This vision builds on established strengths in the BMS Program and features a focused partnership with the College of Science. Long range planing to construct a new biomedical sciences building has begun. The School of Medicine is working with the VA Medical Center to improve research and teaching capabilities of the current Medical Education Building. In this way, the new building will be designed to complement and expand existing facilities and programs.
 

Marshall University's College of Science (COS) and the Biomedical Sciences (BMS) Program of the School of Medicine currently offer parallel science programs on separate and distinct academic tracks. Recent factors including national trends in scientific research, legislative directives, competition for limited resources, and accrediting agency recommendations have pointed out the urgent need to consider integrating these two separate scientific communities.

To evaluate opportunities for strengthening scientific research and graduate education through enhanced collaboration between the COS and the BMS Program, Marshall University President Dr. J. Wade Gilley established the Commission for Biomedical Research and Biotechnology, an interdisciplinary panel made up of COS and BMS faculty and community leaders.

The Commission has reached consensus on the need for the COS and BMS Program to create an interdisciplinary scientific environment focussed on biotechnology. This is a significant accomplishment, for it illustrates a basic, underlying unanimity among a diverse group of academic scientists that have historically had to compete for limited resources. Absent this agreement, further action by the Commission would have been futile.

The Commission has prepared a general blueprint identifying important steps necessary for an integrated biotechnology program. It identifies several important goals, i.e., eliminate geographic and other barriers between the COS and BMS Program, achieve a focussed critical mass, build on current strengths, share research technologies, and foster regional economic development.

This report, The Next Step For Graduate Science At Marshall University, describes the work of the Commission, the internal and external forces at work necessitating change, a specific description of the COS and BMS vision for an integrated scientific community, and key considerations for reaching this goal. Many details regarding implementation remain, but all members of the Commission endorse the concept of integrating Marshall University's scientific strengths in a way that stimulates collaborative research, strengthens graduate and undergraduate education and promotes regional biobusiness development.

"Biotechnology is going to change the world and probably change the nature of mankind itself . . . One thousand years from now it may be the only thing that mankind will remember from our era." Lester Thurow¹

The Commission for Biomedical Research and Biotechnology was created by President J. Wade Gilley and charged to describe how Marshall University should advance scientific research and graduate education. The Commission consisted of faculty from the College of Science and the Biomedical Sciences (BMS) Program of the School of Medicine as well as representatives of state government, the chemical industry, and the medical profession.² The Commission reviewed documents that defined (a) national trends in scientific research and graduate education, (b) state mandates for strategic change in higher education, and (c) external assessments of the BMS Program at Marshall University.

Universal Call for Review

Currently, there is an extensive call for review of academic research and graduate education across the country. Federal funding has fueled much of the dramatic growth in the past, but this is beginning to plateau and may decline in the near future. In addition, the annual production of Ph.D.s in science and engineering in the United States exceeds the number of available jobs beyond the postdoctoral level. This is particularly true in academe where downsizing is a dominant theme. As federal dollars become scarce, more of the cost of research and graduate education in public universities is transferred to the states. One analyst points out the dilemma inherent in this development: ". . . elementary and secondary education, health care, and prisons are all functions that seem to be getting higher priority than postsecondary education in state budgets."³

In West Virginia, Senate Bill 547 (a product of the 1995 Legislative Session) directed colleges and universities to prepare strategies ". . . to further develop programs of strength (especially those which have the potential to directly contribute to the overall development of the state and its people), to change in areas where higher education needs to respond to new challenges, and to seek maximum productivity and efficiency in the delivery of programs and services."

As an interactive institution, Marshall University is committed to graduate education, the enhancement of knowledge through research, and the use of both for economic development of this region. Recently, Senate Bill 591 established a "coordinate affiliation" between Marshall University and the West Virginia Graduate College and a special taskforce was created to develop a strategic plan for graduate education in "Advantage Valley" (Cabell, Putnam, Kanawha and contiguous counties). One of the long range goals of this affiliation is to support the development of a Charleston-Huntington-Ashland high technology corridor featuring manufacturing, biotechnology and educational excellence. Currently, there are 50 graduate programs with 450 graduate faculty and 5,000 students in these two schools. Both institutions have already developed joint master's of science programs in environmental science, environmental engineering and technology management. At Marshall University, the College of Science offers masters' degrees in biological science, chemistry, mathematics and physical science, and the School of Medicine has masters' degrees in forensic science and biomedical sciences, and a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences. The BMS Program has been designated a Marshall University Center of Excellence and a Program of Excellence by the University of West Virginia Board of Trustees. Conversely, two accrediting agencies (North Central Association and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education) concluded just last year that the BMS Program was at risk without increased institutional support. The North Central Association report summarized by stating "MU needs to determine whether it wishes to make the philosophical and financial commitment to be a 'doctoral institution'."

The task before the Commission is to define how Marshall University is to respond to national, state and institutional mandates for strengthening scientific research and graduate education. The overarching goals are to increase both national competitiveness and regional relevance of science at Marshall University. National competitiveness is measured by the capacity to secure extramural funding and attract talented faculty and graduate students. Regional relevance is determined by the ability to promote economic development. It is equally clear that both of these goals must be achieved through improved efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Statement of the Problem

Marshall University is a quality undergraduate institution, but its scientific competitiveness and associated capacity for regional economic development are limited. The basic problem is that the institution is not large enough to sustain two separate scientific communities. Largely the result of geographic separation, basic scientists in the College of Science and School of Medicine work independently with little opportunity for effective collaboration. This parallel approach to science is extremely inefficient because it fosters territorial imperatives and competition for institutional resources. In addition, it perpetuates classic barriers between disciplines which oppose the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary science. Ultimately, the cultivation of two independent science tracks limits Marshall University's capacity to educate, to create new knowledge through research, and to provide economic opportunities for its community.

The College of Science has an excellent faculty with extensive organismal expertise, but its cell and molecular science is limited and lacks sufficient technological infrastructure for teaching or research. The BMS Program has considerable molecular science capabilities, but lacks critical mass and the strong chemistry, physics, computer science and math underpinnings so important to molecular science development. The obvious solution is to integrate and focus these two separate scientific communities.

A Biotechnology Focus

The Commission recommends that Marshall University create an interdisciplinary scientific environment and focus its expertise and technology on regional biotechnology development. A biotechnology focus is recommended for several reasons.

First, biotechnology is the most inclusive use of science today. Understanding cellular mechanisms begins in the basic sciences and evolves into the more applied medical, computer, and engineering specialties. Nowhere is this more apparent than at Marshall University where engineers from other institutions have come seeking neurobiologists to help them design more efficient machines. Ultimately, this broad spectrum science coalesces to create new products for an extensive market - medical, environmental, criminal justice, agriculture/forestry, and robotics.

The second reason is that a biotechnology focus clearly builds on the strengths of the institution. R.E. Geiger, in a book entitled Competitiveness in Academic Research, stressed that universities must use resources to build "steeples of excellence" rather than spend money evenly across the institution according to a "level up" philosophy.⁴ Senate Bill 547 directed colleges and universities to do the same thing when it asked for a plan ". . . to further develop programs of strength." The BMS Program is a Marshall University and a West Virginia Board of Trustees Program of Excellence. Last year, BMS investigators were awarded more than $2.9 million in extramural funding. This was more than any other individual school or college in the University. In addition, no other college or program received as many grants last year as either the College of Science (n=30) or the School of Medicine (n=30). Combining these strengths will improve the capacity of the BMS faculty for National Science Foundation funding and offer the College of Science faculty access to the National Institutes of Health. In addition, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund allocated $10 million in 1995 to a new program entitled Interfaces Between the Physical/Chemical/Computational Sciences and the Biological Sciences because it believed ". . . some of the most promising recent discoveries in biomedicine have resulted from insights and discoveries of investigators with strong backgrounds in physics, chemistry, and mathematics."

Thirdly, regional biotechnology development is one of the most effective ways Marshall University can respond to Senate Bill 547 mandate to focus resources ". . . on programs and courses which offer the greatest opportunities for students and the greatest opportunity for job creation and retention in the state." Currently, public and private companies, multinational corporations, governments, and private investors spend approximately $30 billion on biotechnology annually.⁵ West Virginia is essentially not invested and can neither profit from this industry nor keep its graduates from leaving the state to find such employment elsewhere.

The fourth reason is that biotechnology industry retains strong ties with academe and both profit from a symbiotic relationship. Biobusiness draws strength from the expertise and creativity of the university science faculty. The institution gains by being able to call on an enriched scientific community for both research collaboration and unique teaching opportunities.

Can Marshall University and Huntington craft a biotechnology industry? This was a question asked M.G. Pappas, a biotechnology consultant and author of the book entitled The Biobusiness Handbook⁶. After a two-day, fact-finding visit in 1994, Dr. Pappas concluded that Huntington ". . . has all of the attributes and is well positioned to capture a share of the biotechnology market."

The modern biotechnology industry is relatively young, and there remains much to be learned by the university and its community partners. The commercialization of science is still a foreign idea to most academic scientists, and there are some well defined problems with scientific entrepreurship in universities. Therefore, before biotechnology can be a legitimate focus of the University, its scientists must first understand what this means to their current education and research missions. Second, the institution must be able to construct this research-intensive focus in a way that strengthens its primary educational mission. Third, the community must be a full partner with the university.
 

Definition and Scope

This biotechnology initiative resides primarily with the graduate science faculty, because a significant portion of their mission is the research so critical to this industry. The common thread is cell and molecular biology, but there are natural extensions into whole animal and plant systems. The goal is not to increase the number of science graduate students produced by the institution, but to create graduate research opportunities that do three things. First, they will stimulate collaborative research initiatives between basic and biomedical scientists. Second, they will add flexibility to existing graduate science programs. New interdisciplinary graduate tracks will develop through the natural formation of productive research clusters. Third, they will increase the competitiveness of our graduates.

This interdisciplinary graduate program will strengthen undergraduate science education in numerous ways. It will introduce new biomedical elements into the undergraduate curriculum. Enhanced research interactions will bring new and updated concepts and state-of-the-art, molecular technologies to the classroom. Finally, this unique combination of scientists will afford increased opportunities for undergraduate research as students now can choose from a greater variety of "capstone" projects.

Creation of Biotechnology Focus

Many steps will be involved in the creation of a biotechnology focus, and their order and timing will be critical to the development process. This process should begin without delay, because it will take time to develop and there must be demonstrable evidence of institutional commitment to the BMS Program when the North Central accreditation team returns in two years.

Step 1: Faculty Replacement Strategy. The first step in the development of this focus is to demonstrate institutional commitment. In an era of downsizing, Marshall University must create a science faculty replacement schedule that specifically supports biotechnology development. The place to begin is a very purposeful strengthening of the cell and molecular capabilities of the College of Science. The replacement of three retiring faculty in the Chemistry Department is an excellent start. These new chemists must not only have promising research records, but, more important, their research must have some biotechnology potential. The principal factor in selection is whether the introduction of this new expertise improves the capacity for interdisciplinary research collaboration. This does not mean that undergraduate education is to be sacrificed, but it does indicate that Marshall University will hire competitive investigators who can teach undergraduate courses. (There is an abundance of highly qualified scientists seeking employment in academia, so finding the right combination of research and teaching skills will not be a problem.) Subsequent growth of this focus will require a similar replacement strategy in other basic science and biomedical science departments. The important point is that it is a complementary strategy that expands institutional research capacity while maintaining the distinctive educational goals of the College of Science and the School of Medicine. Ultimately, this focus should grow over the next five to ten years to include roughly 20% of the College of Science faculty and possibly as much as 50% of the BMS faculty.

Step 2: Time for Research. The second step is to provide enough time for faculty to conduct competitive research projects. This is a critical issue and will take creative leadership (from the departmental chair through the President) to achieve a more appropriate balance between research and teaching. Nevertheless, unless the teaching load of competitive investigators can be "capped" at no more than six semester hours, there is no chance the College of Science can play a major role in biotechnology development. The goal is to achieve a small but a solid core of competitive research in the College of Science, not simply more research. There should be at least five years protected time for each faculty person actively seeking an interdisciplinary competitive stance. A three-year extension would be available for any investigator attempting to get refunded after loss of a competitive grant.

Remaining primarily an undergraduate teaching institution with the preponderance of faculty carrying major teaching loads is appropriate for Marshall University. That this should preclude competitive research by a select group of scientists does not follow. There is a misconception that good teachers are unappreciated. This is not true at Marshall University where good teachers abound and are promoted and tenured. What is true is that competitive scientists leave this institution to find opportunities (appreciation) for research elsewhere. Marshall University must reduce the teaching load of a small, very select core of competitive investigators to meet its commitments to improved science education and regional economic development.

Step 3: Critical Mass Through Unification. Step three in the creation of a biotechnology focus must be the assembly of a critical mass. This was stressed at a recent meeting of the West Virginia Science and Technology Council. Dr. P.A. McKee, Scientific Director of the William K. Warren Medical Research Institute at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, described how that state and institution created a successful biotechnology industry in Oklahoma City. After discussing many important points, he was asked which one was the most important. His answer was "Critical mass, critical mass, critical mass!"

Marshall University can achieve critical scientific mass, without significantly increasing mass, by moving the BMS faculty downtown next to the College of Science. This will require either the renovation of existing space on the main campus or the construction of a new science building. While costly in the short term, this one step clearly defines the role of science in Marshall's interactive future. This new facility will be designed to complement and extend the research and education facilities in the College of Science and the School of Medicine. New teaching space will be crafted for multimedia and distance learning and shared by both science programs. Core laboratories will be constructed to enhance the molecular capabilities of both faculties, thereby reducing unnecessary duplication of and competition for new research technologies.

This new facility will house the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Biotechnology with office and laboratory space for basic and biomedical research scientists. It will also contain rental laboratory space to serve as an incubator for start up companies emanating from within or outside the University. Finally, the Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development and the associated administrative support should also be located in this center.

Step 4: Faculty Development and Retention. One of the most significant scientific contributions Marshall University has made to the state in recent years was the development of a Forensic Science Program and the resultant CODIS (Combined DNA Identification System) legislation. This all began when one professor became interested in molecular biology and went off for two summers to learn more. The institution must stress continued faculty development if biotechnology is to flourish at Marshall University. Deans and departmental chairs must encourage and provide opportunities for scientists to strengthen molecular skills through workshops and sabbaticals.

Retention of competitive scientists is equally important, because it is only through their sustained leadership that graduate research and education have any chance to succeed. The institution must, therefore, discard the prevalent attitude that Marshall University, at its very best, is only a stepping stone for productive scientists. This is not only wrong, but it is one of the most self defeating prophesies ever espoused. What is true today is that there are outstanding investigators who are seeking the quality of life afforded by this institution and its community. Faculty retention will be improved by the State mandate to make salaries competitive for rank and discipline. The institution must find the way to achieve this without reducing its critical scientific mass. Research institutions take additional steps to retain scientific leadership through the creation of endowed professorships. The demonstrated accomplishments of the BMS Program strongly indicate that the leadership for the biotechnology focus currently resides in this Marshall University Center of Excellence.

Step 5: Graduate Stipends. Graduate students will be major contributors to this biotechnology focus, because they provide willing hands to do much of the work and critical minds that challenge entrenched ideas. Marshall University must find ways to provide competitive graduate stipends to attract only the best students. Once again, the intent is not to increase the number of doctoral graduates, but to attract the kind of student that will contribute to the quality of research conducted at this institution. Doctoral students on the main campus will not only support the research mission of the University but a select group will also serve as teaching assistants; a role not played by current BMS students.

Step 6: Community Involvement. Ultimately, the establishment of a regional biotechnology industry is dependent on the creation of a shared vision with state and local economic developers. In the past, the University has been a leader in bringing informational technology to the region. Now it must exercise this same leadership in biotechnology development. The University must say quite clearly that its time to develop human and technology resources to create new science-based businesses. This way the institution is choosing to play an active role in the generation of new information, rather than simply serving as a conduit for information generated elsewhere.

Summary

After an extensive review of the related literature and hours of healthy deliberation and exchange, the Commission respectfully submits its recommendation. The proposed creation of an interdisciplinary science focus on biotechnology is considered by each of the undersigned to be the best way to increase scientific productivity of the institution and to serve the State.

Daniel K. Evans, Ph.D.                                                James E. Douglass, Ph.D.
Professor of Biological Sciences                                   Professor of Chemistry

Michael L. Norton, Ph.D.                                            Terry W. Fenger, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry                                                Professor/Chair of Microbiology

Richard M. Niles, Ph.D.                                               Gary L. Wright, Ph.D.
Professor/Chair of Biochemistry                                   Professor/Chair of Physiology

The Honorable Evan Jenkins                                        Daniel Lacy
West Virginia House of Delegates                                VP, Corporate Communications, Ashland Inc.

David Porter, M.D.                                                      Thomas A. Storch, Ph.D.
Medical Director of Laboratories                                 Dean, College of Science
Cabell Huntington Hospital                                           ex officio

Louis H. Aulick, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, School of Medicine
ex officio
 

REFERENCES

1. Thurow, L.C. (1996) The Future of Capitalism, William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y., p. 291.
2. Members of the Commission for Biomedical Research and Biotechnology:
    Dr. James E. Douglass, Professor of Chemistry
    Dr. Daniel K. Evans, Professor of Biological Sciences
    Dr. Michael L. Norton, Professor of Chemistry
    Dr. Terry W. Fenger, Professor/Chair Microbiology and Director of the Forensic Science Program
    Dr. Richard M. Niles, Professor/Chair of Biochemistry
    Dr. Gary L. Wright, Professor/Chair of Physiology
    The Honorable Evan Jenkins, member of the 16th District of the West Virginia House of Delegates and
         general counsel for the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce
    Mr. Daniel Lacy, Vice President for Corporate Communication, Ashland Inc.
    Dr. David Porter, Medical Director of Laboratories and member of the Board of Directors of Cabell
        Huntington Hospital
    Dr. Louis H. Aulick, Professor/Associate Dean for Research and Graduate
        Education, Marshall University School of Medicine, ex officio
    Dr. Thomas A. Storch, Professor/Dean of the College of Science, ex officio
3. Hauptmann, A.M. (1993) Higher Education Finance Issues in the Early 1990s, CPRE Research Report Series RR-027 (New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education), p. 14.
4. Geiger, R.L. (1996) Making the Grade: Institutional Enhancement of Research Competitiveness, In: Competitiveness in Academic Research, A.H. Teich, editor, (Committee of Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.), p. 125.
5. Hodgson, J. (1996) Companies earn $10 billion of biotech's $30 billion, Nature Biotechnology 14:560.
6. Pappas, M.G. (1994) The Biobusiness Handbook. Humana Press, Inc., Totowa, N.J.
 

Christine Biron                                                 David S. Rivlin
Biomedicine Cornell                                        Veterinary Medicine
Brown University                                             Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.

Robert Highsmith                                             James L. Stevens
Physiology                                                       W.A. Jones Cell Science Ctr.
University of Cincinnati
College of Medicine

Thomas Spelsberg                                           Reuben Lotan
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology                Tumor Biology
Mayo Clnic                                                     University of Texas
                                                         M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr.

Chris J. Garland                                               Judith Campisi
Pharmacology                                                  Cell & Molecular Biology
University of Bristol                                         Lawerence Berkeley Lab.

Denise Cooper                                                 Elaine Jacobson
Biochemistry                                                     Clinical Science
University of South Florida                               University of Kentucky
                                                                       College of Medicine

James Vaughn                                                  Nicholas Chiaia
Microbiology                                                    Anatomy & Cell Biology
University New England                                   Medical College of Ohio
College of Osteopathic Medicine

Barbara Smith                                                  Louis Ignarro
Biochemistry                                                    Pharmacology
Boston University                                             UCLA School of Medicine
School of Medicine

Susan Kiley                                                      Phyllis C. Pugh
W.A. Jones Cell Science Center                       Neuroscience
                                                                       University of Pittsburgh

Gerald Grunwald                                              Raghu Kalluri
Pathology, Anatomy & Cell Biology                 Medicine
Thomas Jefferson University                             University of Pennsylvania

Andrew Yen                                                     John Harkema
Pathology                                                         Pathology
Cornell University                                             Michigan State University
School of Medicine                                          School of Veterinary Med.

Jeanine Strobel                                                Gary Meadows
Pharmacology & Toxicology                           College of Pharmacy
West Virginia University                                  Washington State University
School of Medicine

Serrine Lau                                                     Richard Maurer
Pharmacology                                                 Cell Biology
College of Pharmacy                                      University of Oregon
University of Texas Health Science Ctr.

Sam Kacew                                                    Tony Norman
Pharmacology                                                 Biochemistry
University of Ottawa                                       UC-Riverside

Ross Hardison                                                Allen Hacker
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology                  Pharmacology
Pennsylvania State University                          University of Kentucky
                                                                     College of Medicine

Nevin Lambert                                               Leroy Klein
Pharmacology & Toxiology                            Orthopedic Surgery
Medical College of Georgia                            Case Western Reserve
                                                                     School of Medicine

Diana Beattie                                                  Marion Anders
Biochemistry                                                   Pharmacology & Physiology
West Virginia University                                 University of Rochester
School of Medicine                                        School of Medicine/Denistry

Ph.D. Graduates

1986 T. Crisp
Pharmacology Faculty, Northeastern Ohio University, College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH

1986 R. Hagley
Biology Faculty, Viterbo College, LaCross, WI

1986 M. Spector
Microbiology Faculty, University of South Alabama,College of Medicine, Mobile, AL

1986 R. Mehl
Radiologist, Meridian Radiology Inc., Indianapolis, IN

1987 Z. Aliabadi
Biochemistry Faculty, University of South Alabama,College of Medicine, Mobile, AL

1987 E. Holly
Research Analyst, Linberger Cancer Research Institute, Chapel Hill, NC

1987 D. Kinney
R&D Scientist, Propper Manufacturing Co., Long Island City, NY

1988 J. Lynch
Pediatrician, Marshall University, School of Medicine, Huntington, WV

1989 H. Lo
Research Coordinator, University of Texas, Austin, TX

1989 L. Scott
Toxicologist, Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH

1989 E. Hoffman
Biology Faculty, Ashland Community College, Ashland, KY

1990 M. Shubair
Pharmacy Faculty, Islamic University, Gaza, Israel

1992 D. Cheng
Postdoctoral Fellow, Tulane University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA

1992 D. Shaw
Pathology Faculty, Marshall University, School of Medicine, Huntington, WV

1993 T. Mathis
Postdoctoral Fellow, Brown University, Providence, RI

1993 D. Todd
Veterinary Student, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

1994 D. Bradshaw
Science Teacher, Wayne High School, Wayne, WV

1994 T. Seaman
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

1994 D. Ye
Postdoctoral Fellow, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

1995 G. Larsen
Medical Student, Marshall University, School of Medicine, Huntington, WV

1995 G. Mutema
Pathology Resident, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH

1995 J. Terry
Research Coordinator, VA Medical Center, Huntington, WV

1996 T. Soltesz
Anatomy Instructor, MU School of Medicine, Huntington, WV

1996 S. Desai
Staff Scientist, Clontech Corporation, Palo Alto, CA

1996 H. Malingham
Staff Scientist, Unilever Company, Colworth, England

1996 L. Quinn
Biology Faculty, Wheeling Jesuit College, Wheeling, WV

1996 D. DeMoss
Biology Faculty, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY

1997 G. Wright
Postdoctoral Fellow, Kumamoto University, School of Medicine, Japan

1998 A. Patterson
Postdoctoral Fellow, Penn State University, State College, PA

1998 K. Blankenship
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY

1998 G. Kamphaus
Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University, Boston, MA

M.S. Graduates - 1990 to Present

1990 S. Mansoor
Pathology Resident, Metropolitan Group Hospital, Cleveland, OH

1991 J. Huffman
Pharmacy Student, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA

1994 X. Chen
Medicine Resident, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Gaithersburg, MD

1995 S. Knox
Medicine Resident, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD

1995 K. Sole
Law Student, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

1997 P. Spangler
Medical Student, Marshall University, School of Medicine, Huntington, WV

M.S./M.D. Graduates - 1990 to Present

1991 G. Procop
Clinical Laboratory Director, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH