[PDF] CSM BioScience and BioEngineering Strategy Working Group, April

31078_32012.pdf

CSM BioScience and BioEngineering Strategy Working Group, April, 2012 The BioScience and BioEngineering Strategy Working Group has been convened in the Spring Semester of 2012 to examine biosciences at Mines and create a plan to advance the bio-related educational and research goals at CSM. The task force is composed of John Poate, Tom Boyd, Kevin Moore, David Marr, John McCray, Keith Neeves, and John Spear. The primary recommendation of the working group is to recruit 15 tenure track faculty over 3-5 years to build critical mass in areas of prior success and significant expected growth, specifically bioenvironmental engineering and biomedical engineering. While a variety of programs could be considered for pooling very limited available resources, CEE and CBE currently provide the best combination of research emphasis and projected student enrollment to nurture short-term growth of bio (Tables 1 and 2). It must be noted that such focus does not preclude hiring in other areas, and in fact facilitates this by providing a locus of infrastructure and expertise that all departments and programs will be able to take advantage of. Educational Goals • Promote minor programs in Bioenvironmental and Biomedical Engineering • Reach 40% female students in the undergraduate program at CSM • Expand faculty numbers and diversity to deliver an evolved bio curriculum • Expand relationships with the local biotech industry and bio-related institutions School Mission: Because CSM is tuition driven, we must invest in areas of science and technology where there will be future job growth and that will attract the highest quality undergraduate and graduate students. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Table 3) the fastest growing fields in engineering are biomedical (71% growth) and environmental (31% growth). CSM must compete for the best students in Colorado and the U.S. by offering relevant programs along with a strong recruiting base and jobs upon graduation. Targeted investment in bioenvironmental and biomedical engineering will also promote diversity in the student body and faculty. Within the engineering disciplines, only biomedical and environmental engineering have undergraduate national enrollment rates for women higher than 40% (Figure 1). A goal of 40% female students at CSM is achievable in <10 years only with growth in these disciplines. Programmatic Fit: The Bioengineering and Life Sciences (BELS) program has been a bridge from where CSM was 10 years ago - lacking basic biology courses - to our current diverse collection of biology and bioengineering courses. To facilitate focus and locate program organization within responsible units, we recommend replacing BELS with two recognizable minor programs in bioenvironmental and biomedical engineering. In addition and to better integrate classical biology instruction with our engineering emphasis, we recommend replacing BELS 101 with a Studio Bio course modeled after the success of Studio Physics. Research Goals • Reach $10-20 million/year in research awards from the NIH • Increase number of prestigious NSF grants and NSF CAREER awards coming to CSM • Emphasize faculty hiring toward critical mass in a minimum of units. • Via critical mass, obtain research resources available to all faculty across departments • Via critical mass, create partnership opportunities to benefit both research & teaching

Research Mission: Historically CSM has handicapped its potential research volume by not aggressively seeking funding from Health and Human Services (HHS), which accounts for 56% of the $32.6 billion in federal research expenditures. In 2009, CSM ranked 175th in total federal research and 396th in funding from HHS. Peer institutions without medical schools, including Lehigh, Carnegie Mellon, and RPI, receive ~20% of their research support from HHS. CSM received 3.2% of its total research volume in FY11. Furthermore, research expenditures of faculty in biomedical engineering are higher than any other field of engineering (Figure 2). At CSM and with eight faculty spread across CBE, ME, and MME, biomedical PI's compose only 4.4% of the tenure-track total. We expect that with the proper investment in tenure-track hires we can rapidly grow NIH funding and bioscience funding in general at CSM (Table 4). To do so, CSM must form strategic partnerships with local medical institutions to establish a vibrant biomedical engineering research program. Several such partnerships currently exist on an ad hoc basis, but we recommend that the VPRTT work with faculty to formalize these partnerships at an institutional level. The benefits of such partnerships include joint appointments for CSM faculty with medical institutions, access for CSM undergraduates to medical research opportunities, and expanding the research and training opportunities for graduate students. Co-localization of research and teaching laboratories is critical for these programs to flourish and placing current and future hires in biomedical engineering in Alderson Hall satisfies this need. The move of PE to Marquez Hall provides an excellent opportunity to establish a home for bioenvironmental and biomedical engineering with minor modifications of existing infrastructure. Prior to the formation of CSM's new college structure, the Environmental Science and Engineering Division (ESE) was a dominant research department at CSM. Most processes and engineered approaches in the field of environmental engineering rely on biology - at their core. Now part of CEE, the biological related work continues to expand. The CEE department focuses on water and wastewater treatment, hydrologic science, metals and radionuclide contamination and environmental microbiology. Virtually every aspect of CEE's current research portfolio is touched by biology and a proposed program in bioenvironmental engineering would enhance current research with a strong undergraduate and graduate presence. Many environmental processes are understood as working 'black-boxes' and the biological underpinnings of these black-boxes are ripe for both exploration and funding. NSF funding in engineering and geosciences is increasingly going to biology-related projects, and the biosciences division is largely untapped. Potential funding sources could range from industry to USDA, NSF, NIH, NASA and a large number of private foundations that only fund biological-related work (e.g., The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and The Sloan Foundation). Administrative Fit: With the formation of Colleges, now is the time for institutional decisions to be made regarding the future of the biosciences at CSM. This is the third task force/committee/working group formed in the past five years to advise the Administration on the direction of our biosciences effort. In 2006, the Bioscience and Bioengineering Task Force presented a white paper recommending the formation of new department. In 2010, the Bioscience Strategy Committee recommended the formation of a new bioengineering department or division. In the absence of forming a new department or division, we conclude that investment in areas of strength and future growth - bioenvironmental engineering and biomedical engineering - will provide the highest return on investment.

Table 1. CSM faculty in the biosciences. Year Hired CSM Dept. TT Faculty Current research interest 1979 Chem Kent Vorhees Biodefense, biodetection 1981 CBE Annette Bunge Dermal transport 1991 CEE Linda Figueroa Env. biotechnology 1995 CBE David Marr Biomedical microdevices 1996 CEE Junko Munakata Marr Env. microbiology 2001 ME Joel Bach Biomechanics 2002 Physics Jeff Squier Biomedical microdevices 2003 LAIS Tina Gianquitto Evolutionary theory 2004 Chem Steven Boyes Polymers, drug delivery 2005 CEE John Spear Env. mol. microbiology 2006 ME Tony Petrella Comp. biomechanics 2007 MME Reed Ayers Biomaterials 2008 MME Hongjun Liang Biomaterial assembly 2008 CBE Keith Neeves Biomedical microdevices 2008 Chem Matt Posewitz Algal microbiology, biofuels 2009 CEE Josh Sharp Env. microbiology 2009 CEE Christopher Higgins Env. toxicology 2010 CBE Mark Maupin Comp. biochem., biofuels 2011 ME Anne Silverman Amputee biomechanics 2012 CBE Melissa Krebs Tissue engineering Instructional Faculty 2004 CBE John Persichetti Bioprocess engineering 2007 CBE /BELS Paul Ogg PhD cell biology, virology 2007 CBE /BELS Hugh King MD/PhD biology, math, CS 2008 CBE /BELS Cynthia Norrgran MD, biology, biophysics 2011 CBE /BELS Judy Schoonmaker PhD biology Table 2. Departmental research volume in the biosciences Research Area Dept CY11 Awards FY11 Awards Faculty included Biomed - cellular CBE 924,623 1,262,764 Marr, Neeves, Krebs Env. Bio CEE 1,642,188 1,099,563 Figueroa, Sharp, Spear, Higgins, Munakata Marr Biomed - mechanical ME 93,167 60,000 Bach, Petrella, Silverman Biomed - materials MME 52,311 287,070 Ayers, Liang Biochem CH 1,000,313 1,033,228 Posewitz, Vorhees, Boyes Faculty recruitment and critical mass: We define faculty critical mass as the minimum number of faculty required to lead a vibrant education and research program and define prior success faculty recruitment and retention, research volume, and course development. In terms of faculty recruitment, biomedical engineering is the only engineering discipline that awards more than 30% of doctorates to women. Consequently, creating strong programs in the biosciences will lead to greater success at recruiting more women faculty to CSM.

Table 3: Projected employment numbers from the National Employment Matrix (Bureau of Labor Statistics; reproduced from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm). Undergraduate Programs and Employment: The highest need for trained engineers will be in biomedical engineering (with 72% change expected by 2018). The second highest need will be in environmental engineering (at 31% change). Most other engineering disciplines at CSM expected to remain flat. There is a great opportunity for CSM to design programs and curriculum that fill needs in regional biotech industry. Undergraduate minors would consist of 9 credits of basic life sciences courses and 9 credits focused in either medical or environmental applications of biology. Most of these courses already exist and are already being offered on a regular basis.

Figure 1: The highest participation of women in engineering comes from Biological and Environmental Engineering (source: http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/1107D.php.)

Figure 2: The highest research expenditures per faculty member are Biomedical, Nuclear, and Bioengineering (source: http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/1107D.php.)

Table 4. NIH sponsored biomedical engineering areas to target for faculty hires Area Institute Regenerative medicine NIBIB/NIDDK/NCI Tissue engineering NIBIB/NHLBI/NCI Nano and micro technologies NIBIB/NIAID/NCI Cellular and molecular engineering NIBIB/NHLBI/NCI Stem cell engineering NINDS/NIGMS/NCATS Synthetic and system biology NIGMS/NCATS In terms of NIH funding, we need at least three R01 grants (~$2M) to compete for larger program ($10M~$20M) and infrastructure grants. There is currently one R01 grant on campus. We estimate that six research-active biomedical faculty are required to reach the three R01 threshold.