1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.archivedOER Public Archive Home Page

2. Panel: New Models of Research Mary Lidstrom Associate Dean for New Initiatives in Engineering Director, Microscale Life Sciences Center University of Washington

3. Research Paradigms Single investigator –Focused problem –Small lab technology Highly successful, still the mainstay of science and technology research Team -Complexity -Urgency -Shared need/interest

4. Characteristics of scientific problems that require a team approach Urgency and complexity of scientific problems today often dictate the need for a team-based approach –Different disciplines/expertise required to solve a problem; impetus is shared need project-oriented product-oriented –Different approaches required to solve a problem; impetus is shared system or set of problems –Common facility/instrumentation/database required to solve different problems; impetus is shared approach –Grand challenges for which a critical mass does not exist; impetus is intellectual challenge and potential high pay-off –Combinations of the above

5. Guiding principles for team research Individual creativity should be preserved while taking advantage of the synergy of team approaches Leadership, management structure, and communication are essential elements of team research Integrity, trust, and respect lay the groundwork for effective team research All teams need an impetus, a motivation that brings the team together and encourages collaboration

6. Examples of team research groups Small teams Centers Consortia Institutes Networks

7. Models or paradigms for team research Variables: Size: number of investigators and participants Location of participants: co-located or distributed Goals: project-oriented, product-oriented Structure: Director(s), advisory boards, staff, budgetary allocation Issues vary depending on the specific set of variables

8. Common needs Administrative support –Small teams: may be provided by unit administrative staff –Larger teams: need full-time, dedicated, and skilled staff Support structure for young faculty –Mechanism for individual publication –Seed funds –Access to special resources –Mentoring Administrative plan: take care of problems Evaluation/assessment plan: set goals, measure success IP management plan Phase-in and phase-out mechanisms: ramp-up period; finite lifetime

9. Factors that make team research paradigms succeed or fail Leadership: vision, enthusiasm, commitment, true team spirit Communication: time, effort, technology, training Management structure: integrate leadership and communication Team-friendly environment: integrity, trust, respect, sharing Institutional commitment: space, administrative support, faculty investment Common to all models

10. Issues of concern for team science Young investigators and career development Intellectual property management Metrics for success/failure Training environment –richness vs. negative impact on graduate student and post- doctoral training Phase-in and phase-out Longer lead time to develop team and become productive Cultural differences, including differences between academia and industry Administrative burden to highly productive faculty

11. Examples from the University of Washington College of Engineering –$80M/yr in funded research –10-15% of total is in team projects

12. Academic Structure Depts: BS degrees Core disciplines Interdisc. Teams: connections Other units How new departments arise Ex: Biochemistry

13. Administrative Strategies Fiscal Policy: individual subaccounts –Credit to each investigator –Indirect cost return to each department Fiscal Policy: partial indirect cost return to center from “core” budget; partial to administering department Promotion and Tenure Policy: value collaborative efforts –Balance between individual and team research Dean’s Office Policy: reward structure for team efforts –Revenue stream from center activities directed back to team research activities

14. Administrative Strategies Problem: visionary faculty often not good managers Workshops for Center Directors –Support group for standing Directors and faculty interested in developing centers –Topics Administrative structures Time management People management Resource reallocation Advisory boards Senior administrative staff

15. Microscale Life Sciences Center Center of Excellence in Genomic Sciences (NHGRI) Involves 15 faculty, 40 total participants, 3 colleges, 7 departments Goal: develop and apply technology to carry out functional genomics in single cells IssueSolution Young investigators/credit individual projects (fiscal and intellectual) balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary Training environment small team approach/richness Metrics milestones, quarterly reports Longer lead time 5-yr grant; first review after 3 yr Cultural differences communication, communication Phase-in built into the budget; seed projects Phase-out one renewal possible; new opportunities Administrative burden 2 directors, split responsibilities outstanding Project Coordinator M. Lidstrom, D. Meldrum, Directors

16. Summary Team research can build bridges, connect units, add richness to training environment Real issues must be addressed upfront Involves agencies, investigators, universities