Summer Faculty Consensus Group Meeting

Chancellor’s Office Long Beach August 5, 2012

Agenda Highlights

•  Elect Deputy Chair

•  Review 2012-2015 Strategic Plan

•  Two Invited Talks: –  Bart Weimer (UC Davis), BGI@UC Davis (DNA Sequencing Center) –  Nirav Merchant (U. Arizona), iPlant’s Atmosphere – cloud computing application

•  Preview 25th Annual CSU Symposium

•  Review Grant & Award Programs –  Discuss tweaks to upcoming Requests for Proposals (RFPs)

•  Taskforce Reports

FCG Service Requirements

•  Committee / Taskforce / Peer Review participation •  Work with campus FCG team to communicate with and mentor

colleagues on campus •  Stay informed (www.calstate.edu/csuperb, www.csuperb.org/blog,

Facebook, LinkedIn, www.csubiocompass.org, 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.

New Strategic Plan Overview

•  Approved by Presidents’ Commission and Chancellor Reed this spring

•  AY 12-13 Budget Approved

•  This meeting is first chance we’ve had to put new ideas into action

2011-2012 Implementation Plans

2012 – 2015 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)

•  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 “trans-disciplinary” efforts to address pre-med reform

•  Strengthen industry partnerships, via PC Scholarship program

•  Work with partners (SBDC?) to pilot entrepreneurial education activities

•  Broaden communications (www.csuperb.org/blog)

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.

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 12-13 budget to continue the program

•  As part of AY 12-13 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

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)

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

0%!

10%!

20%!

30%!

40%!

50%!

60%!

70%!

80%!

90%!

100%!

06/07! 07/08! 08/09! 09/10! 10/11! 11/12!

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f G

ran

ts A

ward

ed!

Academic Year CSUPERB Grant Awarded!

# 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)!

Proposal Writing Mentors

•  Partnering is the “CSU way” •  BRAINSTORM: How might we craft this program?

Concept-Based Education •  Vision & Change Report – now the PULSE community (www.pulsecommunity.org,

367 members as of 8/5/12)

•  MCAT 2015 (https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/admins/263164/intro.html)

•  CSUPERB Winter Workshop (Jan. 2012): http://www.csuperb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Enriching-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)

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?

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

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)

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!

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 (email sbaxter@mail.sdsu.edu) by September 28!

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

•  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

Upcoming Proposal Deadlines

This year we saw a spike in applications for travel grants and a very good start for summer research program

!"

#!"

$!"

%!"

&!"

'!!"

'#!"

'$!"

'%!"

()"!%*!+" ()"!+*!&" ()"!&*!," ()"!,*'!" ()'!*''" ()''*'#"

!"#

$%&'())

*+,-.

/01'

(,-2%#+,'3%-&'

-./012345206782"9:11.;:<.=>7"?7@7.</A"B?CD"EFD"5776G" H:I82"J7820<7"

K<:L<.MM.=/" N<.>71"B5206782".86"-./0123"/:M;I876G""

O:P711" K<7@I6782@Q"9:MMI@@I:8"5/A:1.<@"

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.

Averaged Campus Participation Across CSUPERB Programs (2006-2012)

!"

#"

$!"

$#"

%!"

FS! JV! PR! Travel! Howell! PCS! Eden! Nagel! Pauling! I2P! Andreoli! Fac Res! Symposium!

Ave

rage

Cam

pu

s P

art

icip

atio

n p

er

year!

CSUPERB Program!

Percentage of first-time faculty applicants averages 36% (2006-2012); win rates similar ���CSUPERB is continually ‘renewing’ applicant pool and increasing biotech researchers system-wide

0%!5%!

10%!15%!20%!25%!30%!35%!40%!45%!

AY 06/07! AY 07/08! AY 08/09! AY 09/10! AY 10/11! AY 11/12!

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f F

irst

-Tim

e

Ap

pli

can

ts!

Academic Year!

Applicant/Awardee Pool Analysis������Conclusion: Research Development program impacted assistant/associate professor distribution

0%! 10%! 20%! 30%! 40%! 50%! 60%! 70%! 80%! 90%! 100%!

AY 06/07 Applied!

AY 06/07 Funded!

AY 07/08 Applied!

AY 07/08 Funded!

AY 08/09 Applied!

AY 08/09 Funded!

AY 09/10 Applied!

AY 09/10 Funded!

AY 10/11 Applied!

AY 10/11 Funded!

AY 11/12 Applied!

AY 11/12 Funded!

Percentage of Applicant and Funded Pools!

Assistant! Associate! Full!

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.

Success Rates are converging (30-36% this year) as recommended by FCG and budget allows ���

!"#

!$#

""#

"$#

%"#

%$#

&"#

&$#

'"#

'$#

()#*+,*$# ()#*$,*-# ()#*-,*.# ()#*.,!*# ()#!*,!!# ()#!!,!"#

!"##$%%&'(

)$&*+

,-&&

."/0

$0&12343

%(5%6744

58#(9

3/%&'$

#$8:$0

&

7#(0$;8#&<$(2&

/0123405678190:#;<997=<>7?@3#A3B37>8C# D<E40#F3401>3# G><H>7II7?8# J>7@39#K/012340#742#678190:L# M<N399#

Success rates for major grants only ���(FS, JV, PR)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

AY 06/07 AY 07/08 AY 08/09 AY 09/10 AY10/11 AY11/12

Proposals Not Funded

Awards

Success Rates (%)

0.0%!

2.0%!

4.0%!

6.0%!

8.0%!

10.0%!

12.0%!

Maritim

e Aca

demy!

Chann

el Isl

ands!

Monter

ey B

ay!

Stanis

laus!

Bake

rsfield!

Humbo

ldt!

San M

arcos!

Sono

ma!

Doming

uez H

ills!

East

Bay!

San B

erna

rdino!

Chico!

San L

uis O

bispo!

Los A

ngele

s!

Pomon

a!

Fres

no!

San J

ose!

Sacr

amen

to!

San F

ranc

isco!

North

ridge!

San D

iego!

Fulle

rton!

Long

Bea

ch!

No

rmal

ize

d P

erc

en

tage

of

To

tal

Am

ou

nts!

Acr

oss

All

CS

U C

am

pu

ses!

% Overall CSU Student Target Enrollment (AY 11/12)!

% CSUPERB Funding (3 yr. average 09/10 to 11/12)!

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)

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.

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.

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���������

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.).

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)?

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.

Taskforce Reports

•  Genomic Analysis and Technology Committee (Sandy Sharp, CSU Los Angeles)

•  Industry-Responsive Curriculum (Susan Baxter, CSUPERB)

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)

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

•  www.csubiocompass.org –  updates needed – Career Centers, Campus programs –  Content focus on areas where there is a current workforce need

•  BIOCOM Immersion program kicked off (www.biocollaborative.com) – 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).

Taskforce Reports

•  New Taskforces? Discuss!