College of Sciences

Dean's Blog

August 6, 2008

I intend to use this space to provide information on College events, policies, personnel, successes and problems.  I will post the front page that I write for the monthly “Science Notes” as well as any additional thoughts or comments on the College of Sciences.

 

Science Notes - May 2009

Excerpted from Comments on the Occasion of his 2009 WSU Eminent Faculty Award at the Showcase Celebration of Excellence

 

After all these years here in faculty and administrative positions, I do have opinions and observations that I feel compelled to relate in this, the only forum I will likely have. I have limited my opinions and observations to three short comments. Those of you that know me well will find these comments consistent with our previous discussions.

 

My first comment concerns WSU’s stated desire to be a major research university, to be more AAU-like. To me, the key to a successful university is very simple. Hire the best people you can find and put them in a situation where they can succeed. The reputation and status of a research university is determined almost exclusively by the quality of the faculty. I believe that we underestimate both the damage that hiring the wrong person causes and the value that hiring the right person can have. Sometimes we don¹t pursue excellence because it seems expensive. Excellence is, in fact, often inexpensive because of the value it brings back to the institution. The most expensive faculty members are those who are unsuccessful or are mediocre over a long career. We need to hire faculty who are scholars and teachers but are also entrepreneurial, aggressive, innovative and ambitious-the demanding type of faculty member who drives Deans crazy. I also hope that the administration will recognize and acknowledge and build on the excellence that already exists here at WSU.

 

My second comment is that perspective is important. It is very easy to get caught up in the immediate emergency of the day when it may not be really important. If you are here for 30 years, you will experience four or five university presidents, numerous provosts, a multitude of strategic plans, and at least a dozen budget crises. You will survive them all and while each of these transient administrators and events will leave a mark on the university, as a faculty member you can have an even bigger impact by simply being excellent and promoting excellence throughout your career. The current budget crisis looms large but we will survive it, and we can begin to build again. The past few weeks I have spent way too much time with Provost Bayly and President Floyd. But I have full confidence in them and great respect for their leadership.

 

My third comment is that we must consider new ideas and try new things. It is amazing to me that my colleagues who have innovative research programs and dream up new ideas every day are the most conservative people in the world when it comes to changing a university structure, a way of teaching, or the content of a course. When I first came to WSU, I heard a lecture by a famous economist, Kenneth Boulding. He talked about resistance to change in a university. He said that you could put a bomb in the middle of a university and blow it into the stratosphere and every piece would come down right where it was before. Our old academic structures aligned with the disciplines have served us well but our future demands the creation of new interdisciplinary structures. As a university we need to find ways to deal with entrenched constituencies and change what isn¹t working or is no longer relevant.

Science Notes - January/February 2009

More Budget Issues:

 

Last issue I outlined the budget problems the university and the college are facing. While nothing is final yet, our starting point is the Governor’s budget that requires a 12% or $31 million annual cut to the state funding for the university in the next biennium.

 

In the next few months we will examine ways to meet that level of reduction. I have asked the chairs and directors to participate in an exercise where they prioritize all aspects of their state budget allocation with the understanding that the bottom 20% of that list may be vulnerable. With the combined information from all budgetary units I will, in consultation with the chairs and directors, present to the Provost a similar prioritized list from the College, knowing that the bottom 12% of the College budget priorities are vulnerable.

 

Since the units are identifying 20% of their budget for possible cuts, I will not have to go across-the-board to achieve the college-wide 12%. Remember that this is an exercise at this point, and the actual reduction to the College could range from 0% to more than 12%.

 

President Floyd has stated that he does not favor across-the-board cuts, and neither do I. However, the size of the reductions may require a combination of across-the-board and strategic cuts. The administration has made it clear that protecting our workforce is a priority, but the size of the reductions and the high percentage of our budget invested in wages and salaries make this very challenging.

 

The administration has also indicated that graduate education and research are priorities for WSU even with these budget cuts. From a university perspective, budget reductions of this magnitude can provide an opportunity for restructuring that actually strengthens the institution in the long run. The small annual cuts we received in the past were often passed down across-the-board and weakened the entire institution. This practice has been termed "death by paper cuts." A $31 million reduction forces a re-examination of priorities and goals.

 

Since there are still many unknowns in this process, it is important that personal angst does not lead to premature assumptions about what will or will not happen. When complete information is available later this spring, the process and the decisions will be made available to everyone.

 

I remain optimistic about WSU and the College of Sciences and our ability to emerge from this process in a strong, focused position. We have faced budget cuts in the past, yet grown into the high caliber institution we are today. I am confident we will meet these challenges effectively in the coming year.

 

Science Notes - November/December 2008

 

As part of our planning for what we may soon be dealing with, we have been surveying the changes in our work force in the College of Sciences over the past 5 years. Some of the results have been surprising. Since 2003 we have hired 50 new faculty into tenured or tenure track (T/TT) positions. This represents a 40% turnover of our T/TT faculty. Startup costs for these 50 faculty members have averaged about $340,000 each. If we remove the new mathematics faculty from this equation because their startup costs are relatively low, we have averaged about $390,000 each. Our total commitment to startup in the past 5 years has been about $17 million. Of the 50 new faculty members, three have left the university for another position, 14 came as senior, tenured faculty members, 27 came as assistant professors and six were hired on the urban campuses.

 

Our hirings filled some positions that were new to the College and other positions that resulted from retirements or from individuals moving to other universities. The total number of our T/TT positions has remained relatively constant over this time period as gains were offset by losses due to budget cuts. One disappointment in these numbers is that only about 13% of our T/TT faculty is female. That’s up from 11% in 2003, but still not where I’d like it to be. College staff numbers increased from 94 in 2003 to 111. The appointments moved from one third exempt to more than half exempt. We have also seen an increase in our non-tenure track instructional faculty in the past 5 years. The clinical instructional faculty positions in COS have gone from two in 2003 to nearly 20 today. This increase probably reflects the shift in some undergraduate teaching from T/TT faculty to clinical faculty and instructors.

 

If we were to look at these numbers five years from now, what would we see? We have another pulse of retirements coming up in the next five years, and we will probably turn over another 40% of our T/TT faculty. The startup costs per faculty member will likely average at least $500,000. The total number of our T/TT faculty is not likely to change much in Pullman, but it will grow on the urban campuses.

 

The non-T/TT instructional faculty positions will likely continue to grow over the next five years, and instructional faculty will assume a larger share of the burden of undergraduate teaching. The university is currently committed to large classes of entering freshmen. In part because the proportion of entering freshmen who want to major in the sciences is strong, the College will be responsible for teaching more and more student credit hours. With the current budget structure, our College’s allocation from Central is not tied to student credit hours. Therefore, to teach more students with the same dollars we need more temporary instructional faculty. This represents a major paradigm shift in the university, but WSU is not alone in going this route. Indeed, the shift toward non-T/TT instructional faculty is a national trend. The long-term consequences of this shift are yet to be determined.

 

Science Notes - October 2008

The Sky is Not Falling!

 

The international financial system is in turmoil. Closer to home, the State of Washington budget has a large deficit and WSU is planning for major budget cuts. It certainly can seem as if the sky is falling on our own part of the world. However, I feel that the College of Sciences is well positioned to meet the challenges of the near future.

 

The data for the past 5 years shows that we have hired 45 new tenure track/tenured (TT/T) faculty members. There’s been a 35% turnover of our TT/T faculty members during this time due to retirements, resignations, etc. We now have an active and balanced mix of junior and senior teachers and research scientists.

 

The number of undergraduates interested in the sciences has increased dramatically during this same time period. It is likely that there will continue to be State programs and funding dedicated to the "high demand" areas of science and engineering. Our research expenditures from grants and contracts have continued to increase, and that’s been the case even in the face of Federal cutbacks. Our expenditures on grants and contracts are up about 20% to nearly $25 million.

 

All of these factors – new productive faculty, student interest and research expenditures – are signs that the college is in a healthy position for the future. In the next couple of years we are going to experience limitations on hiring new faculty and constraints on many other types of expenditures. We are likely to undergo a period of limited downsizing through attrition. I view this as an opportunity to focus our efforts on our current faculty, staff and students and to catch up on the major commitments we have made on startup over the past 5 years. Some level of resource reallocation may be necessary with the goal of sharpening our focus and increasing our commitment to excellence.

 

I have been through many cycles of financial boom and bust at WSU. Neither part of the cycle tends to last very long. The key is to adjust our behaviors to match the situation. If we do it right we can continue to improve the quality of College of Sciences programs and be ready to take advantage of new conditions when the financial landscape changes.

Science Notes August/September 2008

 

Once again we are about to start a new academic year that will be filled with changes and challenges. Although the general funding picture isn’t good, prospects for the College of Sciences are better than they might first appear.

 

The economic conditions of the state portend a difficult budgetary future for WSU. The Federal budget is tight, and external research funding is difficult for everyone. The next state budget is unlikely to yield much new funding and may result in substantial cuts. The College surrendered a 2.5% budget cut for FY 09 (totaling $519,000) from permanent State funds.

 

Despite this generally bleak financial outlook, the College of Sciences begins the year in a strong position. We have hired some outstanding new faculty and staff. A large entering class of freshman has many new and bright potential science majors, and our Federal research funding has continued to grow despite tight Federal budgets. We will institute policies that will keep us moving forward but will allow more flexibility in the event of additional State or Federal cuts.

 

Over the past academic year the Academic Affairs Program Prioritization (A2P2) was instituted and recommendations for change were issued. The major recommendations affecting COS included having an outside review of statistics research and teaching across the campus and a continuance of the effort to merge the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (SEES) with Departments in CAHNRS to form an inter-college School focused on the environment. We will redouble our efforts on both recommendations over the next year.

 

A significant casualty of the budget cuts this year was the fledgling integrated science course for non-majors. This course was designed as a GER to satisfy the science requirements for non-science majors. It has been offered to honors students for the past two years and to the general student population during the past academic year. We are still teaching this course for the honors curriculum, but we cancelled our offerings to the general student body for lack of funding. I have become convinced that the revitalization of this course is essential in order to complete our mission of educating non-scientists about science.

 

Currently, non-science majors are required to take science courses with a laboratory to satisfy their university requirements. Students may opt for astronomy, geology or biology or the more adventurous may take chemistry or physics. These courses provide a snapshot of a small part of the science curriculum and often require detailed knowledge about a scientific niche.

 

The Integrated Science course provided a broad discussion about scientific issues facing the students of tomorrow. The goal was to teach about how scientific inquiry is done, how it is evaluated, and how it can impact our future. Discussions in class included science policy and scientific controversies. I feel that the content of this course was an important part of our mission and my goal in the next year will be to revitalize our efforts towards making this a necessary and continuing part of our curriculum. 

 

WSU is one of the two public research academic institutions in this State.  That means that a unique part of our mission is to do research that will ultimately benefit the citizens of the State, Nation and world.  I went on the internet to find the first definition of research that showed up.  This definition stated that:" research can be defined as an organized and systematic way of finding answers to questions and solving problems.  The questions and problems are important because without either one, the answer is of no use,"  

 

SYSTEMATIC because there is a definite set of procedures and steps which you will follow. There are certain things in the research process which are always done in order to get the most accurate results. 

 

ORGANIZED in that there is a structure or method in going about doing research. It is a planned procedure, not a spontaneous one. It is focused and limited to a specific scope. 

 

FINDING ANSWERS is the end of all research. Whether it is the answer to a hypothesis or even a simple question, research is successful when we find answers. Sometimes the answer is no, but it is still an answer. 

 

QUESTIONS are central to research. If there is no question, then the answer is of no use. Research is focused on relevant, useful, and important questions. Without a question, research has no focus, drive, or purpose.

The central administration of the University is using data from peer institutions to examine benchmarks (i.e. points of reference) for WSU.  From the benchmark data on issues such as student quality, faculty salaries, diversity, research funding, and graduate programs the University can compare and contrast with our peers and set goals to improve areas of weakness. 

 

The expectation is that this benchmarking will proceed to the College and unit level.  Tom Martin in the dean’s office has the primary responsibility to obtain and provide data on benchmarking for the College of Sciences. 

 

One of the initial difficulties we encountered in this process was that none of our peer institutions are organized like the COS at WSU.  To avoid trying to compare apples with oranges we decided to obtain comparative data at the department level where similarities between us and our peers was apparent.  Data was obtained from 7 other institutions with some difficulty and bribery (cougar gold).  Tom obtained data on a per faculty member basis on a number of potentially interesting benchmarks including number of undergraduate majors, number of graduate students, student credit hours taught, grant expenditures, staff FTE, number of graduate teaching assistants, degrees granted and base budget allocations.  Summaries of the results for each unit have been distributed to the chairs and all of the data is available. 

 

At this point the data must be interpreted with caution and we intend to continue the data gathering process until we feel more confident of the results. Each unit can identify their strengths and weaknesses relative to the 7 other institutions and we can use the data to argue for more resources and to address weaknesses.  We measure up very well in all of the categories we have benchmarked with one exception. The number of undergraduate degrees awarded and the number of graduate students per faculty FTE in COS is below the average of that number in these 7 institutions.  We have some level of data from Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Purdue, Texas A & M, Oregon State, Colorado State, and Tennessee.

Science Notes – October 2007

 

In the last issue of "Science Notes" I pointed out that in the next few years WSU will focus on improvements in graduate training and research and I commented on the benefits of this goal to the university and the state.  

 

A research university as small as WSU has limited resources and one of our tasks is to decide what we want to emphasize and to selectively fund our priorities.  The Council of Deans has identified six areas of university-wide research excellence and they include;

 

1. Chromosome Biology and the Science of Reproduction

2. Advanced Materials Technology

3. Molecular Plant Science and Genetics

4.Infectious Disease at the Human-Animal Interface

5. Clean Energy Technologies

6. Linking the Brain to Behavior and Performance. 

 

These are areas of research excellence because they include outstanding faculty in sufficient numbers and expertise to provide national and international recognition to WSU.  It is solely the quality and character of the faculty that define these areas. 

 

A misconception among some administrators is that we can plan for quality or create defined areas of excellence.  In fact we generally hire unproven assistant professors and while we hope every one of them will become an internationally known research scientist, only a few achieve real distinction.  Therefore, the best an administrator can do is to provide opportunities for excellence to develop and to recognize "areas of excellence" as they do develop. The identification of these “areas of excellence” will allow the university and the college to focus limited resources where the impact is most significant. 

 

It also follows that the definition of "areas of excellence" is dynamic and changes as faculty are hired, move on to other universities, or retire.  The definition of these areas of excellence may not include some outstanding individual research scientists.  Those individuals also require support and the opportunity to expand a quality program into an "area of excellence".  However, few research areas will not be able align themselves with one or more of the six areas of excellence at WSU. 

 

The faculty in the College of Sciences are major participants in most of these areas of excellence.   The College intends to make these areas a priority for any new funding or positions.  Everyone in the College should be aware of our strengths, our future directions and our funding priorities. 

 

In upcoming issues of "Science Notes" I will ask some of our best research faculty in these areas of excellence to use this space to comment on: defining the area of excellence, describing why it is considered as such and what kinds or research are being done, and finally, explaining why emphasis in this area is of benefit to the university and the state.

Science Notes  September 2007 

 

What do you teach?   

This is often the first question offered up by a new acquaintance when someone is introduced as a WSU faculty member.  In many ways this question reveals the perception that most people have of a state university i.e. it is where I send my kids to get their college degree so that they can get a job.  In the past few years WSU has worked hard to improve the quality of the undergraduate experience that is highly valued by the citizens of the state.

 

However, WSU is one of two research universities partially supported by the State of Washington and it has aspirations to be one of the top research universities in the United States.   Thus, President Floyd has stated that in the next few years WSU will focus on improvements in graduate training and research. 

 

I believe that sponsored research at high quality universities is a major force behind the economic engine of our state and country.  Some research has immediate and important applications that directly benefit our economy and our society while some basic studies are done solely to explore, to create, or to learn. 

 

The cumulative effect of these applied and basic studies is to place the investigators at the forefront of new knowledge. Research efforts of outstanding research faculty support graduate and postgraduate education and greatly enrich the undergraduate experience.  Research investigators not only teach what is known but they create new knowledge from the unknown.  Tomorrow they will teach what is unknown today.   

 

Many types of studies that may not have an obvious economic or health benefit can only be done within the context of a university.  As an example, research done at universities in the 1960's and 1970's on some strange enzymes in bacteria led unknowingly to the biotechnology revolution we are now experiencing.  The research done at major universities in the USA is the envy of the rest of the world who send us their best students for training.

 

 Therefore, it is appropriate that WSU aspires to be among the best research universities and it is important that we communicate to the people of the State of Washington that achieving that goal will add significantly to our society, our economy, and our quality of life. 

 

Science Notes April 2007 

 

Once again we are approaching the end of an academic year and it is usually helpful to look back on the year and note any accomplishments or concerns.  Overall, it has been another excellent year for the College of Sciences.  Highlights of the year include:

The addition of outstanding new faculty members in several units.

The continued growth in the numbers and quality of our undergraduate science majors (39% increase since 2002).

Our external research funding continued to grow despite Federal cutbacks (over $22 million in FY06).

The School of Earth and Environmental Science (SEES) had a successful debut.

The College development office raised our annual goal for fundraising from $1.6M to $2.3M and has already met that goal.

Our faculty, staff and students won a number of National honors and many WSU honors including: Sahlin Research Award (Wang), Sahlin Teaching Award (DeTemple), and Emminent Faculty Award (Dickinson).

Environmental Science major Kyle Smith was named student Regent.

The Lane Lecture sponsored by SEES and the College featured a successful visit by Dr. Jane Goodall.

 

In the next academic year we hope to continue and build on the excellence of this year.  Notable areas of emphasis in the upcoming year will include:

The recruiting and retention of high quality undergraduate and graduate students into the College.

A continued growth in endowments for the World Class Fund and for scholarships, fellowships and professorships.

 The growth of the introductory interdisciplinary science courses (Sci 101/102) to include a major fraction of non-science majors.

The planning and development of degree programs in interdisciplinary sciences, computational science, and physical biosciences and expansion of our entrepreneurship and innovation program.

Provision of a meaningful research opportunity to all of our undergraduates.

Reinforcing and upgrading COS infrastructure with an emphasis on IT support.

In general, the College of Sciences is healthy but the academic world is changing.  There is more competition for the attention of our students, more of an emphasis on multidisciplinary teaching and learning, and fewer students who have the interest in and the background for a career in the sciences or mathematics.  Success is a moving target and we must be innovative and adaptable or we will miss the mark.

Science Notes - January/February 2007

 

Just before the holiday break the board of Regents announced that the next President of WSU would be Dr. Elson Floyd, currently the President of the University of Missouri system.  This is a big change and change brings concerns, especially in an academic environment. 

 

Dr. Floyd will be the fourth president while I have been at WSU.  Each president moved the institution forward and each had unique attributes, President Lane Rawlins has set a standard that will be difficult to exceed. 

 

At the time when President Rawlins took on this job, the morale and esteem of the faculty and staff were very low.  Years of budget cuts while universities in other states were reaping the benefits of the economic expansion of the Clinton years had succeeded in reducing our expectations of WSU and of ourselves.  The most significant change that occurred during the years of President Rawlins was that he raised the image of WSU in the minds of the citizens of the State and more importantly, in the minds of the faculty and staff at WSU. 

 

It is now very easy to be proud of our institution and our accomplishments and a great amount of credit for that must go to President Rawlins.  So the shoes will be hard for Dr. Floyd to fill.  It is important for all of us that Dr. Floyd not only fills the shoes but continues to move this institution to the next highest level. 

 

We expect that he will be successful and it is important that the faculty and staff of the College of Sciences are partners with Dr. Floyd in his efforts. Dr. Rawlins deserves all of the accolades he will receive as he steps into retirement and we will prepare to enter the future at WSU with Dr. Elson Floyd .

Science Notes  November/December 2006 

 

How did you become interested in science/mathematics? 

 

The recent visit to campus by Norm Augustine, retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation, was another wake-up call to those who are concerned about science education. 

 

Augustine headed the National Academies’ Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century that prepared a report entitled, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future."  This document describes the challenges facing the United States in a rapidly changing global economy.  A copy of Norm Augustine's testimony to Congress about the finding of this committee can be found at the web site shown below. 

 

There are many challenges listed in this document that the College of Sciences will emerge.  The most immediate and visible problem is the lack of interest in science by our young people. 

 

After reading the testimony I found myself reviewing the reasons I chose to be a scientist.  When I was in the K-12 system there was a national interest in the sciences because of the "sputnik" scare and the fear of a nuclear holocaust.  Later there was the fascination with the United States astronauts landing on the moon. 

 

In school, I had teachers trained in science or math and capable of teaching the wonders of science.  They would stay after school and open their laboratories for supervised "tinkering".  A huge influence was that I lived near the University of Wisconsin and I did science projects with a variety of faculty members.  By the time I got to College it was only a question of which science discipline I would major in. 

 

Excellence in science and technology was in the national interest and as a result there was support at many levels from the federal government.  The "Storm" document calls for a renewed investment by the federal government in the funding of training for 10,000 new teachers, 25,000 undergraduate fellowships, 5000 graduate fellowships, and increased funding for research.  Certainly this level of commitment at the federal level is needed and it will be costly.  But we also need the personal interaction with students. This can be done now! Spending time with a student to open their minds to science is "priceless". 

 

Click Here to read: Rising Above The Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Science Notes for Sept. 2006 

 

As we start this new academic year in the College of Sciences we can look back on some important successes and forward to some major challenges. 

 

Despite the difficult Federal research funding situation the faculty in the College continued to increase research funding over the past year.  COS faculty comprise approximately 10% of the total tenured or tenure track faculty (T/TT) at WSU but generated nearly 1/3 of the total F & A funds (indirect costs) for the university in FY 2006.  This record speaks to the quality of the faculty and staff in the College and underscores the challenges in the next year. 

 

During FY07, the academic units in COS will seek to fill 13 open faculty positions.  This number of open positions constitutes approximately 10% of our T/TT track positions.  The reasons for the large number of open positions are varied but a major factor is the aging of our faculty and the first wave of a projected upsurge in retirements.

 

We have had a measure of success in recruiting new outstanding faculty to the college and we have learned some general tenets we can apply to the process.  First, it takes a committed faculty that is active in the entire process and is excited about working at WSU.  Few outstanding candidates are attracted by an advertisement in a journal but most are solicited by colleagues.  Second, WSU is a unique institution in a unique environment.  These features are special to us but may not be for all job candidates.  We have to attract and hire individuals that really want to be here because of these unique aspects.  Third, we should be pursuing only the most highly qualified candidates.  The most expensive hires are those that don't succeed.  We can make the case that the least expensive hires are senior faculty with a record of success.  These investigators may require more startup funding but return the investment to the university in a few years. 

 

Clearly, replacing 10% of our faculty in one year presents an opportunity for positive change and financial challenges to cover startup costs.  Working together we can attract the appropriate candidates and ensure the continued success of the College and its graduates.

Science Notes – March 2006 

 

A recent editorial in the journal, "Science" written by Thomas Cech and Donald Kennedy concerned the teaching of science to undergraduates.  The authors described the case of Kate who has a growing interest in science coming out of high school and had taken advanced placement courses in biology and chemistry.  Kate took 1 year of science classes at a major research university and changed her major to business.  What were the problems? 

 

Her general chemistry textbook was similar to the one she had in high school and her classes were very large.  Her laboratories were taught by teaching assistants struggling to learn English and the laboratory experiments were uninteresting.  She felt pressure to memorize as opposed to understand. 

 

Young adults today come out of an environment that is alien to most of us who teach the courses.  They have dealt with computers and a visual culture i.e. TV, movies, internet for their entire lives and science as it has been traditionally taught turns them off. 

 

The journal "Science" is going to continue to publish papers in the next year about ways to revitalize science education.  In the College we are experimenting with a novel way to teach science to undergraduate non-majors.  The course designated Sci198/199 is currently limited to honors students but we anticipate removing limitations in the future. 

 

This current academic year and the next are being used to establish what works in this course and what doesn't.  The objective is to provide students with a broad view of how science works and what the important scientific problems are in an interdisciplinary environment.  The first semester of this course has now finished and some objectives were met and some need more work. 

 

 In general, the students and the instructors are enthusiastic. We clearly do not have answers to all of the problems but I hope that very soon Kate could enroll at WSU and find enthusiastic instructors and a supportive learning environment that  launched her career as a Nobel prize winning scientist.

Science notes – August/September 2005 

 

The continuous cycle of a new academic year is beginning once again.  President Rawlins likes to evaluate the year that has passed with the top 5 or 10 events at WSU.  I will take this opportunity to list my opinion about the top 5 developments in the College of Sciences.

 

To provide a balanced view it should be noted that we also had a few setbacks and disappointments.  The major setback was the unexpected and tragic death of Prof. Vincent Franceschi.  Vince was the director of the School of Biological Sciences, a distinguished and productive research scientist, and an extensive scientific collaborator across the campus and elsewhere. 

 

Top 5 accomplishments for FY2005 

 

5. The Lane lecture hosted by ESRP and given by Dr. David Suzuki.  This needs no explanation to those who were there. 

 

4.  The number of undergraduate science majors continued to increase and we continued to attract the best undergraduate students.  The Undergraduate Research Poster Competition continued to grow in its second year to over 50 posters.  This event highlighted the enthusiasm, the exceptional abilities and the scientific acuity of our undergraduate science majors.  Our undergraduate program was also honored by grants from NSF and from Boeing to start initiatives in interdisciplinary computational science. 

 

3. Research expenditures in the College approached $22 million - more than 4 million over our previous high.  Many units contributed but a big gain has been made by the Department of Chemistry and went from $1.3 M in 2000 to 3.7 M in 2005. 

 

2.  We had a successful recruiting year hiring senior faculty in SMB and junior faculty members in physics and chemistry and some of our current senior faculty members received high university honors.  Prof. Yogi Gupta (physics and ISP) was honored with the Eminent Faculty Award and promotion to Regents Professor while Mark Kuzyk (physics) presented the distinguished faculty address. 

 

1. The major positive development in the College was that because of the State appropriations and decisions made by the central administration there were no across the board cuts to academic units and faculty/staff raises that averaged 5% were distributed.  

To me the secret of success is to find good people and work to remove any roadblocks for them.  All of the faculty and staff in the College have contributed to the success of our area and we look forward to an even more successful academic year.

Building on strengths- May 2005 

 

Universities at the end of this century will need to be different from what they are today. The changing interests of students, the emerging concerns of society, the need for increased multi-disciplinary expertise, and the lack of required funding will demand a dynamic learning community that is able to prioritize and respond in a timely manner.  However, the ability to make and accept changes continues to be a major challenge facing WSU, the College of Sciences, and academia in general. 

 

The structure of major public research universities including tenured faculty organized in department and college units with limited budgets works against change and promotes stability.  For the College, the end result of this structure is a limitation on our flexibility to meet new challenges and new priorities. 

 

Several years ago a noted economist Kenneth Bolding commenting on the difficulty of instituting change in a university stated that universities could be blown into the stratosphere by a bomb and every piece would come down exactly where it was before.  His point was that universities could be very resistant to real change.  In my experience it is relatively easy to start new programs at WSU but it difficult to reduce or eliminate existing programs. 

 

 Resistance comes in many forms.  It can be seen when the teaching goal of faculty members is to “clone” themselves i.e., produce students trained in the same subject matter in the same way that the professor was trained.  It occurs when departmental structures become the silos that surround and defend a discipline and try to perpetuate it against reason. It can occur when alumni or outside financial interests have undue influence on decision-making.

 

Our strengths are units with nationally recognized faculty, with research programs capable of attracting external funding and with strong undergraduate and graduate student interest.  Our future will be determined by our strengths, how we build on them, and how we can adapt our strengths to a changing world.  Adaptation to changing student and research demands with limited resources will be the key to our success.  Thus far, we have used limited departmental reorganization and directed budget allocations to address some of these concerns but dynamic adaptation will require innovative approaches and a global vision of the university and the college.  It may require basic changes in the academic structure of the university.

Science Notes - 2005 

 

On October 4, 1957 the USSR announced that Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, was placed in orbit.  The US government and citizens were shocked by the developing science and technology advantage that the USSR demonstrated that day.  Subsequently, a variety of federal administrations emphasized increased funding for training students in science and for carrying out research in science.  I was always interested in science and I was 13 when the news of Sputnik frightened us all.  

 

I benefited from the resulting federal response in many ways.  I borrowed money at 3% interest to fund my undergraduate degree.  As a graduate student I received a National Defense Education Act (NDEA) fellowship.  As a postdoctoral fellow I received a National Institutes of Health (NIH) postdoctoral fellowship and the NIH has funded my research at WSU for 28 consecutive years.  It is safe to say that my choice of career and a level of success in that career are due to support from the federal government for scientific training and research.

 

The US global leadership in science is a result of the training of US scientists, the "brain drain" of top foreign scientists into the US and the government support for basic and applied research.  Currently, a diminishing fraction of 18-24 year old US born students are choosing careers in science.  This problem is especially true for science Ph.Ds.  The US has filled the need for science Ph.Ds and postdoctoral research scientists with foreign-born researchers. Students from around the world desire training in US scientific laboratories and research institutions. Our scientists and the available financial support for research have been the envy of other countries.  Many of the foreign-born scientists stay in this country working in universities or biotechnology companies largely because of the opportunities. In 2001, foreign-born students earned more than half of the PhDs in science and engineering in this country.

 

As the economies of China and India and other developing countries continue to expand in the global market place, they are improving their own scientific training and research funding and soon we won’t be able to attract the foreign-born elite scholars. At the same time, the economy of the US has been over-burdened with the war in Iraq, the reconstruction of New Orleans, and a no tax mentality.  Support for scientific research and training is declining. There is increasing evidence that the US is facing a severe challenge to our global leadership in science and engineering. The reasons for this outlook are many and varied. We face the challenges now but we won’t see the ultimate consequences of inaction for several years.  The specter of “Sputnik” could reappear.  This time "“Sputnik"” could be stem cell technology or a new method of generating power but it could signal a decline of our global leadership.  We must work as a community to encourage our bright young people to opt for careers in science and we must support enlightened politicians willing to invest in our future.  

State of the College of Sciences  - January/February 2005 

 

For the first newsletter of the calendar year I thought it would be appropriate to give you my perspective on the state of the College.  We are also entering a legislative period that will determine the higher education budget for the next two years and it is important that we are well positioned for the outcome.   

 

In general, my outlook for the College is quite optimistic. Over the past year we have refined and aligned our goals with the strategic plan of the University and we have done a measure of bench-marking to see how we compare in a number of crucial parameters with some of our peer institutions.   This planning process has helped us to understand who we are and where we are going and the bench-marking has permitted us to more clearly visualize our current strengths and weaknesses.  

 

The increased academic ability of the undergraduates enrolling at WSU has resulted in rapid increases in the number of undergraduate science majors.  However, this increase coupled with the larger number of students taking our service courses has stressed the resources needed to serve the needs of all of our students.  Many of our courses, especially those at the introductory level, are filled up and closed out very early.   

 

External research funding continues to grow so that in FY 2004 our research expenditures topped $18 million.  At the current time we generate externally $1 for every $1 of State money allocated to the College. 

 

We have been able to hire the top candidates in most of our faculty searches for the past 2 years.  We currently have a faculty that is small in number but is very high in quality.   

 

The biggest problem facing the College in the near future is the need for high cost start-up packages required to hire the best faculty members.  In the next 5 to 10 years about 35% of our faculty members are expected to retire and replacing them will cost millions of dollars in startup.  Thus far, we have met the start-up needs in a number of creative ways, but as yet, there is no College level or University level solution to this problem.

Science Notes – April 2004 

 

It is time!  

 

We are all aware of the important role science plays in many aspects of our everyday lives.  Therefore, it is difficult for those of us in academic science to comprehend the lack of scientific understanding of many Americans.  Scientific illiteracy can lead to poor decision making with regard to personal health, safety and public policy.  Without a grasp of fundamental scientific principles, decisions may be made based on groundless misconceptions and beliefs. 

 

Students at WSU who are not majoring in science take introductory classes in one or perhaps two scientific disciplines.  Thus, a WSU graduate becomes a State legislator may have an appreciation of what causes earthquakes because of an undergraduate course in geology.  However, this same legislator may be unable to make informed decisions about nuclear power plants since chemistry and physics were avoided.  Our introductory science courses for both science majors and non-majors are most often taught as separate silos of information.  The walls between the disciplines are strengthened by a history that dictates how we do things. 

 

I am proposing that, similar to some other major institutions, we develop an interdisciplinary introductory science curriculum for non-science majors.  In general, the responses of the Chairs and Directors and the Provost to this suggestion have been very positive.  There are a number of difficulties in the implementation of a new curriculum and I will work with a select committee this summer with the goal of having something in place by Fall 2005. 

 

While the benefit of interdisciplinary science courses for non-majors is fairly easy to comprehend the advantage of extending this concept to introductory courses for science majors is more controversial.  Many of the major funding agencies are now promoting interdisciplinary programs in both teaching and research.  The future of science is in both interdisciplinary expertise and the more conventional training within disciplines.  Currently, we lack many effective mechanisms for interdisciplinary training and it is time we seriously visit this issue.

Science Notes – March 2004 

 

President Rawlins has benchmarking data that shows that WSU has proportionately fewer full professors and more junior faculty members than our peer institutions.   When this data is broken down by College the results show that the distribution of faculty in the College of Sciences is an exception.  The College of Sciences has a relatively larger number of full professors and more clearly mirrors the distribution of faculty in our peer institutions.  This gives our College a lot of senior leadership and many well-developed and stable research programs.   

 

This office has looked more deeply into this data and I would like to briefly discuss the results of our analysis.  These results have important implications to everyone in the College of Sciences.   We have examined the age distribution of the faculty in the College and 36 out of 105 of our tenured faculty members are 60 years old or older.  It is likely that over the next 6 years many of these productive faculty members will retire.  Replacement of these faculty members will require start-up funds at a level that will exceed anything we have experienced in the past.  A reasonable projection is that we will have 6 retirements per year over the next 6 years.  In general, startup costs run from $50,000 to $500,000 per new faculty member with an overall average of about $300,000. 

 

Because of an increased number of undergraduate students and science majors it is possible that in addition to the retirement positions we will also get several new faculty positions.  So, a conservative estimate is that we will need $12 to $15 million dollars over the next 6 years for new faculty startup.   It is essential that the College and the Central Administration work together to come up with a solution to this looming problem. I believe that it is essential to include funds for new faculty startup in the biennial budget request.  Planning for these new faculty startup needs will ensure a continued quality faculty in the College of Sciences.

Science notes  

The hiring of high quality scientists and teachers is fundamental to the future of Washington State University and the College of Sciences.  In the past year we ran national searches to fill 7 open tenure track positions in the College.  In 6 of those searches we hired the top candidate from long lists of applicants.  In the seventh search when the top candidate went somewhere else we terminated the search to begin again. 

 

It is essential that we hire only the best and it is possible to achieve this goal because WSU and the College have become attractive destinations for academic professionals.  The attraction is clearly not a result of high salaries or operating budgets but is a consequence of a number of other factors.  First, we have solid leadership at the top of this institution and when candidates visit they can sense the enthusiasm and passion of the faculty and they can see the increased quality of the students.  Second, living in a small town no longer presents difficulties of communication or travel and offers preferred alternatives to modern urban areas.  Third, we have a core of outstanding faculty that attracts other outstanding candidates much as a crystal grows on a nucleation center.  T

 

his coming year we will be searching to fill several open positions and while we have had great success, we will also face some questions and concerns. The philosophy we adopt in hiring faculty will largely determine the future for the College.  Do we search for someone in a narrowly defined area because they will fill a perceived need or do we search more broadly and hire the best possible individual?  This is a similar question to that faced by NFL teams on college draft day- do we draft the player because we need a running back or do we seize an opportunity and draft an outstanding athlete?  We probably need to do some of both but taking advantage of opportunities is more likely to be transformational.  The major limitation we face is finding the startup funds necessary to hire top faculty.   The startup costs for new faculty can range from $50,000 to $1 million dollars or more.  

 

An outstanding faculty member in the College will repay that amount to the university many times over the course of a career.  Quality truly is, “priceless”.

Science notes 

 

The undergraduate experience          

 

Over the course of the next 2 years I want the College of Sciences to re-examine our undergraduate course offerings.  One of the main tenets of the WSU strategic plan is to provide the best undergraduate experience in a research university.  Over the years I have been here I think that we have continually improved our undergraduate offerings.  I believe that our undergraduate majors include some of the best students at WSU and we have a major service teaching obligation to non-science majors. 

 

During discussions with the central administration, it has been pointed out to me several times that the number of undergraduate science majors is low relative to the overall number of students enrolled at WSU.  We have blamed the low number of majors on the general low qualifications of the in-coming students.  Poor student preparation could also contribute to our very low retention rate of incoming students that initially express an interest in science as a major.  However, it is clear that the quality of students accepted for admission is increasing dramatically and the old excuses are more difficult to defend.  The decrease in undergraduate science majors is a national trend that must be a concern to all of us.         

 

In my presentations this Fall to the Central budget committee I included the following goals with regard to our undergraduate program.1. Increase the number of undergraduate majors.

2. Modernize and increase the quality of laboratory offerings.

3. Ensure undergraduates the opportunity for research experiences in all fields.

I would appreciate feedback and helpful ideas on how to implement on these goals over the next few years.  I think it is very important that we continue to question and to improve our approach to undergraduate education in the sciences.

Michael Griswold came to WSU as an assistant professor of biochemistry in 1976.  He received tenure in 1981 and became a full professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics in 1984.  From 1986 to 1994 he served as department chair and became the first director of the newly formed School of Molecular Biosciences in 1999.  He became dean of the College of Sciences in 2002, while still maintaining a full research program in SMB and receiving promotion to Regents' Professor in 2008.
  
Dr. Griswold received both his B.S in Chemistry and his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Wyoming.  He has published more than 200 papers in the area of reproductive biology.

 

College of Sciences, PO Box 643520, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164-3520, 509-335-5548, Contact Us