Fostering Collaborative Research at Mercer University School of Medicine: Recommendation of the Research Committee Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Introduction The Research Committee was charged by Dean Bina to develop a white paper outlining strategies for fostering collaborative research among Mercer University School of Medicine (MUSM) faculty. The nature of the collaborative research to be developed was broadly defined and could include any type of collaborative research in which MUSM faculty are involved. This research could be intradepartmental, interdepartmental, between faculty of different Schools within the Mercer University (regardless of campus) as well as between MUSM faculty and faculty of other organizations. With this in mind, the Research Committee has identified key areas of development and hopes to deliver recommendations that can be broadly applied but are specific to the situation/environment as assessed by the research committee. Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Key factors critical for developing collaborative efforts Enhancing support Providing incentive Overcoming institutional “roadblocks” Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Enhancing support A. Support of Leadership Current Status: A number of MUSM faculty expressed concern over their perception of the importance placed on research as MUSM. Faculty member stated that they did not have adequate time to participate in collaborative research and did not believe that their supervisor/administrator would support their participation in these types of efforts. Teaching and/or clinical responsibilities were seen as more important to their success than research. Recommendations: B. Access to University Resources Current Status: A number of MUSM faculty find it difficult to determine what types of resources are available to them; while others express dissatisfaction in their ability to use various resources at the Mercer University. Many core-facilities and common equipment are either not advertised or are not reasonably (financial or political) accessible to faculty outside the department in which they reside. Recommendations: Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

C. Research Infrastructure (IRB, IACUC, G&C) Current Status: It was pointed out by a number of faculty members that a major hurdle for developing collaborative research projects was difficulty navigating through regulatory compliances and grants and contracts offices at MUSM and coordination between these offices at Mercer and other organizations was extremely burdensome. Furthermore, these offices at Mercer were viewed to understaffed and that high levels of personnel turnover in these groups often led to lack of adequate experience making it difficult for investigators to initiate projects. Recommendations: Enhancing support: continued Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Enhancing support: continued D. Mentorship Current Status: A number of faculty expressed concern over the apparent lack of senior mentorship. Faculty have noted that there are few senior investigators with established research programs at Mercer University and that most programs are relatively new and primarily run by new investigators. Most senior faculty members have transitioned from research to primarily teaching and/or administrative positions. This creates an environment where there is a dearth of individuals who can help mentor, guide, or lead new collaborative efforts. In short, there seems to be little experience in developing collaborative research efforts at Mercer (no one to lead the way). Recommendations: Create environment where research is clearly valued and supported so that investigators are encouraged/allowed to build strong long-lasting research programs. Currently, post-tenure, many faculty members lose protected time to do research in favor of taking on additional teaching and/or administrative responsibilities. Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Incentive A. Career Current status: It is perceived that there is a lack of incentive for faculty members to initiate collaborative research projects. With other responsibilities taking priority, faculty members find it difficult to justify getting involved in research projects which are not likely to advance their careers. Recommendations: B. Financial Support Current status: Mercer University is also perceived as offering little financial incentive/assistance in initiating promising new projects, or to help in publishing results therefore investigators find it difficult to envision starting projects in an environment that offers limited financial incentive/support. Recommendations: Grants specifically geared towards collaborative research. Possibly, the development of a new grant program. In addition, better advertisement of existing programs. Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

Roadblocks A. Website: Current status: A major issue that was communicated by numerous faculty members was an inadequate web presence. Many faculty members stated that is was very difficult to find out who was currently working at Mercer or to find out what types of research were currently being conducted at Mercer. In addition, it was noted that much of the information currently available was out of date or inaccurate. Without significant improvements, the Mercer’s website was seen as a critical hindrance to the creation of both internal and external collaborative efforts. This was deemed to be one of the most important deficiencies at Mercer University. Recommendations: Taskforce to develop and implement improvements to the website. Searchable site with investigators interests expertise etc. Communicate the importance of developing and maintaining a “first class” website. Draft for Discussion 10/11/12

B. Lack of opportunities for formal and informal interactions Current status: Faculty members expressed concern that there were few opportunities for formal and/or informal meetings. These types of interactions are seen as critical components for developing collaborative research efforts. Recommendations: Seminars, Retreats etc Roadblocks Draft for Discussion 10/11/12