# Presentation: 495374

## Panel: New Models of Research 

- Mary Lidstrom
- Associate Dean for New Initiatives in Engineering
- Director, Microscale Life Sciences Center
- University of Washington

## 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

## 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

## 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

## Examples of team research groups

- Small teams
- Centers
- Consortia
- Institutes
- Networks

##  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*

## 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

## 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**

## 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

## Examples from the University of Washington

- College of Engineering
- $80M/yr in funded research
- 10-15% of total is in team projects

## Academic Structure

**Depts:  BS degrees**
**Core disciplines**

**How new departments arise**
**Ex:  Biochemistry**

## 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

## 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

## 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

_**	**__**Issue**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**Solution**_
**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**

## Summary

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