National University of Ireland, Galway An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2008 ­ 2009 REVIEW OF M.SC. BIOTECHNOLOGY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY Final REPORT 23 rd February 2009
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the M.Sc. Biotechnology on 3 rd February, 2009. The Self Assessment Group had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the review team well in advance of the visit. The review team consisted of: Dr. Birgit Helm, Dept. of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield (Chair); Dr. Sean Doyle, Department of Biology, NUI Maynooth; Professor Paul Murphy, School of Chemistry, NUI Galway; Dr. Ann Hunt, Senior Quality Manager, Medtronic Vascular Galway; and Dr. David O’Sullivan, of the Department of Industrial Engineering, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur. The report is structured to address the following topics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Aims and Objectives Organization and Management Programmes and Modes of Instruction Scholarship and Research Summary and Concluding Remarks 1. Aims and Objectives The programme has clear aims and objectives. Reorganisation to a one year programme has boosted student intake and the number of applicants to the programme has also steadily increased in recent years. The programme attracts well qualified applicants and past and present students interviewed during the review are invariably complimentary about most aspects of the programme which is popular and considered to be well designed. Students acquire information about the objectives of the programme through various publications, personal announcements and during the induction sessions. Attraction of international students is an integral part of the recruitment drive and this objective is met and continues to be developed in cooperation with the University’s International Office. The reviewers learned from the staff involved in the design and organisation of the programme that changes to the existing programme structure, which propose a combination of distance and blended learning, are currently under consideration. The reviewers also raised the issue of introducing changes into the allocation of space, duration and level of funding of laboratory projects. Recommendations 1.1. Review how the current budget can be better utilised towards extending the period allocated to laboratory work and to negotiate with the School a mode of changes into the allocation of funds and an increase in work space. 1.2. Continue investigations into how to introduce distance and open learning methods of teaching and engage in collaboration with other University establishments that specialise in distance learning such as the Open Learning Centre and the Atlantic University Alliance.
2 2. Organization and Management The Masters programme in Biotechnology is managed with a high degree of excellence and commitment by a recently appointed programme director who is held in high esteem by colleagues and students. The programme director is supported by a department/discipline based post graduate board that take a broader view of the curriculum offered in this field. Financial and space constraints combined with the limited availability of academic supervisors places restrictions on the number of students that can be recruited to the programme. As a consequence, the effective implementation of the programme depends to a large extent on goodwill from colleagues (lecturers, supervisors, demonstrators, and so on). Although a laudable practice, this may need to be formalised in the future, especially if the School decides to increase student recruitment to the programme. The reorganisation of the programme within the School of Natural Sciences provides an opportunity to formally identify staff involvement in the teaching and research elements of the programme. Recommendations 2.1 Serious consideration should be given as to how industry partners can become actively involved in the design and longer term development of the programme. 2.2 Longer periods for experimental project work should be envisaged. Some proposals from reviewers included (i) industrial placement being considered as a post­ programme activity­ to extend the number of laboratory project offerings; (ii) three months of taught courses followed by 8 months project/placement – this could have an industrial element or placement overseas, providing legal and insurance requirements are met. The Erasmus scheme may provide opportunities here. 2.3 Closer integration may be considered across the College to explore synergies ­ across Masters Programmes leading to, for example, more shared modules/courses, thus increasing the choice or options of courses for students. Such options are likely to benefit from the introduction of distance and blended learning modes, which would avoid timetable clashes. 2.4 Consideration must be given to discussions within the school to the recruitment of an optimum number of students taking into account various constraints including availability of supervisors/projects, laboratory space, class size and employment opportunities. 3. Programmes and Instruction Based on the evidence provided by Feedback evaluation and interviews with current and past students it is evident that the programme is very well received by students who praise the various elements of the programme – courses, lecturers, labs, projects, supervision and direction. The business element of the programme has been perceived as difficult by students although they generally regard this module as a positive addition to the programme­especially preparation of a business plan. Reviewers felt strongly that the business elements should continue to be strengthened since it provides valuable transferable skills to students in the areas of business planning,
3 marketing, intellectual property rights (IPR) and the consideration of ethical issues. Students also welcomed counselling options and information regarding career opportunities which are offered as an integral part of the programme. Students invariably commented favourably on the taught ‘lecture series’ and ‘laboratory based project’ and identified these as highlights of the programme although several students regretted the relative lack of contact with the Biotechnology industry during the programme. Recommendations: 3.1. Carry out a review of courses and pedagogies. Some comments from students included the appropriateness of ‘Pharmacology Module’ where Masters Students are taught in classes with younger undergraduates. 3.2. Extension of ‘lecture series’ to include lecturers from members of industrial companies and other related professions which may address issues such as identification of IPR and so on. According to feedback received by the reviewers, visits to industrial plants to observe the “Biotechnology Industry in Operation” are likely to be popular with students. 3.3 Laboratory ‘demonstrators’ should receive appropriate instruction when delivering demonstrations to students to motivate them to impart excitement and curiosity about the topic to students. 3.4 Project reports would benefit from the inclusion of a final section outlining future research not only in terms of experimental design but should also include a business plan incorporating the cost elements of the project work and an ethical review. 3.5 Look for opportunities to expand course content to embrace medical technology industries as appropriate specifically in the area of gene therapy. 4. Scholarship and Research Academic staff who teach on the programme are research active and reviewers are thoroughly satisfied that research knowledge is transferred to students through individual courses and through the laboratory demonstrations, practical sessions and laboratory based experimental projects. 5. Summary and Concluding Remarks The M.Sc. Biotechnology programme is very well structured, effectively managed and highly regarded among students and academic staff. As evidenced by the quality of the student reports reviewed, the programme attracts well qualified applicants and graduates from the programme were, until the recent economic downturn, successful in finding employment in industry. Key recommendations of the reviewers include the need to develop a greater industrial focus through a number of additional initiatives including invitation of
4 guest lectures, involvement in industrial projects and potential placements in academia and industry in both Ireland and abroad. Other recommendations include the exploration of additional and complementary teaching pedagogies (i.e. distance learning) and collaboration with other Masters programmes to take advantage of synergies and shared resources. Dr. Birgit Helm (Chair) Dr. Sean Doyle Professor Paul Murphy Dr. Ann Hunt Dr. David O’Sullivan (Rapporteur)
5