An Coiste FeabhaisAcadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
th

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007
This report arises from a visit by a review group to the Department of Biochemistry on
21 st
/22 nd
March 2007. The Department had already prepared and submitted a 'Self
Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the Group in advance of the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Professor Clive Williams, School of
Biochemistry and Immunology, Trinity College Dublin (Chair); Professor Ten Feizi,
Glycosciences Laboratory, Imperial College London; Dr Liam Donnelly, Director,
Moorepark Dairy Production Reseach Centre, Teagasc; Professor Peter Dockery,
Department of Anatomy, NUI Galway; and Dr. David O’Sullivan of the CFA acting as rapporteur.
2
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Aims and Objectives
2. Organization and management
3. Programmes and Instruction
4. Scholarship and Research
5. Community Service
6. The Wider Context
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
8. Comments on The Methodology of the Review Process
The Department has grown considerably in the period since its last quality review in
March 2001. It has evolved from being largely ‘teaching-focused’ with poor laboratories to becoming largely ‘research-focused’ with greatly upgraded laboratory facilities. The leadership and the strategy of building on one research area as recommended in the previous review report has led to major and positive impact on the quality of research in the Department.. It is recognised that without focusing on this one area it is unlikely that this would have occurred or that the critical investments by SFI and other funding agencies would have been made. The staff as a whole have made significant improvements in both research output and quality not just in the priority area but across the broader biochemistry discipline. This profound change has inevitably raised a number of new challenges in the teaching and staffing dimensions. For example, it is not apparent that change has been translated into improved researchinformed teaching. The enormous expansion has created tensions between research and teaching briefs. It has contributed to a reduction in cohesion and reduced efficiency of the Department to plan and deliver core teaching as expressed by several Staff members.
The reviewers noted the strategic plan for the development of the Department up to 2007 and the absence of any plan for the current period. Planning is made more difficult in the rapidly changing University environment where there is currently a migration towards school structures and significant opportunities to attract new funds through PRTLI and SFI. The reviewers feel however, that the Department must create with urgency an integrated and balanced strategic plan. This plan should engage all staff in the Department in creating a balanced set of objectives for driving change in the coming period. Aspects of the plan should include the Department’s objectives in teaching, research, space, laboratories, staffing, co-ordination and so on. The reviewers would specifically recommend the following:
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007
1. Development of a Strategic Plan for the period 2007-2010.
2. That a high level committee be established for creating the Strategic Plan that is representative of all strands of Department opinion. It should be chaired by the current HOD or another academic who has the experience and overall suitability to play a leadership role in guiding the discipline of biochemistry in a future school structure.
3. Development of a plan for renovations of Biochemistry Department laboratories occupied by research clusters other than the genome stability cluster.
4. Subsequent regular review of the implementation of the Strategic Plan at
Department Management Committee meetings.
3
The Reviewers noted the commitment and enthusiasm of staff to be involved in decision making, organising and management of the Department. There was a general feeling that improved communication could lead to better support from staff for Departmental initiatives. The 2001 quality review recommended the establishment of a strong
Department Management Committee (DMC) with responsibility for Departmental policies and management, with a fair representation and operating in an open and transparent manner. The DMC currently operates as a day-to-day management committee with no involvement in strategy or policy and with a lack of representation from many areas of the Department. Now that the first phase of a major drive to improve research outputs has occurred successfully, attention should be given to other aspects of Departmental contributions to the discipline and to University strategy. The reviewers recommend the following:
1. The DMC should be reconstituted and be fully representative of all
Department constituencies. This should include all academic staff and representation from other staff and students. It may be necessary in some cases to have a ‘reserved business agenda’.
2. The DMC should be responsible for implementation of the new Strategic Plan.
3. All subcommittees of the DMC should operate to a formal agenda and have clear reporting procedures to the DMC
4. Policies and decisions should be communicated clearly and in a timely manner to all Departmental personnel through regular general Department meetings.
5. Recruitment and budget distribution policies should be agreed and clearly communicated
6. A policy of motivation, recognition and engagement of technical officers in the Department needs to be developed.
7. More administrative support for the organisation of teaching activities is essential
8. More attention must be given to Health and Safety issues in the Department in view of the variety and heterogeneity of the population within the laboratories.
Many members of the Department, at different grades, expressed concerns about lack of attention to health and safety issues.
9. Staff should be strongly encouraged to avail themselves of University and external training opportunities in the areas of teaching, research management,
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007 4 etc.
During a period of much change and of emphasis on improvement of research in the
Department, teaching responsibilities have been delegated to co-ordinators and course directors. It is now time to review teaching in a structured way, in order to reap the rewards of the massive investment in research by successful translation into researchinformed teaching. There is very strong collegiality around many teaching issues, but also worries about teaching standards in a rapidly changing environment, fair workloads and the future of Biochemistry as a discipline. There is a teaching development committee (TDC) focused on strategic teaching issues, but there seems to be an absence of clear policies on curriculum development, teaching loads, and use of innovative methods.
Considerable emphasis was placed by many staff on high teaching loads, but this review saw no evidence for this in teaching contact hours data provided. That being said, the high student:staff ratio, and its likely increase if undergraduate numbers/throughput is to be increased without extra staff resourcing, is not conducive to further improvements in research outputs. Rather we conclude that the administrative burden placed on those academic staff who coordinate courses is not conducive to provision of protected research time, and does not allow those staff to feel as valued as staff who are most active in research.
Several related issues were raised by staff and students during this review, namely:

Poor coordination of curriculum changes.

Lack of administrative support for course coordinators.

Poor involvement of most academics in laboratory practical teaching and practical/lecture course linkages leading to lack of research-led teaching and lessening of interest in undergraduates continuing their studies in
Biochemistry.

Challenges for 4 th year Course Work when throughput increased by 50%, mostly with less able students.

Research active staff less involved in teaching.

Need for better involvement of, and training for graduate student demonstrators.

Need to upgrade teaching laboratory and laboratory teaching practises.

Lack of feedback to students on actions taken on student feedback surveys.

Some issues with MCQs for Medical students.

Need for more training in advanced techniques for graduate students.

More training in thesis writing, use of Endnote, poster preparation and presentational skills.

Need for write-up areas.

Need for a structured review process for assessment of postgraduate training.

2 nd year practicals need revision as has occurred for 3 rd

Need for further improved completion times for PhDs..
year practicals.

Some worry expressed by University on low PhD registration rates despite some improvement since last review
We recommend:
1. A more formal review of teaching by the Departmental Teaching Committee
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007
2. Closer supervision of the research programmes of PhD students and postdoctoral fellows
3. A policy of translation of research into research-led teaching through more involvement of all research-active staff in Teaching.
4. Clearer policy development for teaching work-loads
5. More administrative support for teaching administration
6. More authority given for implementation of teaching policies.
5
The Department now has relatively young, focused and dedicated research staff. The main focus of the Department is around cancer biology. The Department has a national and international reputation. It has strong networking and is very successful in generating research income. The Department is mobilised for PRTLI/SFI opportunities, and poised for new EC Framework activity. Research equipment is focused around specific research topics and adequate for purposes. Research is based around individual initiative. Some staff not involved with the main cluster are in danger of being left behind.
The following issues were raised during the review:

Full benefits of the major investments in research resources and facilities are not yet realised

Major scope remains for further research improvement.

No equipment grants have been received from the University since 2002 and the Department does not appear to be aggressive in competing for University equipment funds.

A major space issue will arise from further research development but
University management would welcome engagement with the Department in planning future capital developments.

Improvements are required in management and organisation of technical support staff..

There is a lack of promotional opportunities for senior technical staff

The absence of a University ‘transgenics’ facility is a major hurdle for cancer research.

There is a narrow range of Departmental equipment, less than would be expected of a Department with wide –ranging research interests, although the
Department has access to the NCBES and National large-scale facilities.

Post-doctoral fellows are generally happy with Department but pension uncertainties are keenly felt; poor write-up facilities and teaching duties encroaching on research time are other main issues.
The reviewers would like to recommend the following:
1. The Department should pursue its stated aim of prioritising research areas, encouraging staff to cluster both inside and outside the Department, e.g. on genome stability, developmental biology, programmed cell death (apoptosis) glycobiotechnology and protein biochemistry.
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007
2. The Department should work with the University to maximise space quality and to provide sufficient space in a timely manner to support the next phase of research expansion
3. The University should create a better promotional structure and other incentives to further improve the technical staff supports for teaching and research.
6
The reviewers noted the large contribution to the University and external communities at faculty, school, regional and national levels. The reviewers also note the contribution by the Department to the broader community through conferences, various committees, bodies, etc.
The Department has a very good record in the University for research, teaching and interaction with other units, especially the Library, Research Office, and CELT.
Biochemistry is regarded as a core part of University strategy for funding. The
University does not see participation in a new school structure within the Science
Faculty as being a barrier to more/better Biochemistry/Medicine linkages.
The University is willing to interact with the Department on issues such as administrative resources, in context of a new school structure. However, the University sees the Department as being reluctant to tackle some problems, e.g. space, improved facilities, and has a concern about falling undergraduate and postgraduate numbers. The
University has a concern also that, with the exception of the Head, new senior staff in the Department may not have a high visibility in the University. It is fair to say that the
Department has contributed greatly to improving the profile of NUI Galway perhaps at the expense of some Departmental activities and structures.
The Biochemistry Department has made major improvements since the last review in
2001. These are evident in the scale and quality of research, in academic recruitment and in improvement/upgrading of research facilities and reflect a strong and positive leadership in recent years. Improvements in research have, to some extent, reduced teaching quality — views expressed by some staff and students — by diverting academic time away from teaching duties and by narrowing the focus of academic interest. The highly concentrated nature of the research expansion has meant that not all staff have shared in these improvements. There is a feeling of lack of consultation and collegiality in decision making. Nonetheless, staff are enthusiastic and highly motivated. The challenge for the future is to continue the process of improvement in research quality and output through the strategy of clustering, but from a broader scientific base and using all opportunities, internally and externally to build critical mass. A further challenge is to copper-fasten the discipline of Biochemistry as the core discipline of the new School of Biological Sciences and as a relevant subject for students interested in a wide range of biochemistry-related employments. The
Department has moved a considerable way to establishing its position in competitive science and must set high targets to complete the journey in the immediate years ahead.
It is now extremely timely for the Department to embark, as a matter of urgency, on a
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008

Department of Biochemistry: Review Report 2007 new strategic plan to address these challenges and to grasp the opportunities that are open to it.
7
Summary of major recommendations:

Development of a Strategic Plan for the period 2007-2010

The DMC should be reconstituted and be fully representative of all department constituencies and should be responsible for implementation of the new
Strategic Plan.

More administrative support for organisation of teaching activities is essential

More attention must be given to Health and Safety issues in the department in view of the variety and heterogeneity of the population within the laboratories.

A more formal review of teaching by the departmental teaching Committee and a policy of translation of research into research-led teaching

Department should pursue its stated aim of prioritising research areas, encouraging staff to cluster both inside and outside the Department, e.g. on genome stability, developmental biology, programmed cell death (apoptosis) glyco-biotechnology, protein biochemistry

Department should work with the University to maximise space quality and to provide sufficient space in a timely manner to support the next phase of research expansion

The University should create a better promotional structure and other incentives to further improve the technical staff support for teaching and research.
The reviewers were impressed with the quality of the documentation provided by the
Department, and the openness, enthusiasm, commitment and constructive approach shown by the staff and students interviewed. The documentation identified most of the strengths and weaknesses of the Department, Faculty and University for future developments and stability of Biochemistry in NUI Galway. The late provision of the documents, the absence of a list of staff publications (although this was provided during the review visit) and lack of a set of highlights did cause some difficulties for the reviewers.
Professor Clive Williams (Chair)
Professor Ten Feizi
Dr Liam Donnelly
Dr. David O’Sullivan (Rapporteur)
Professor Peter Dockery (11/06/2007)
Biochemistry 2007 BiochemistryFinalReport07Final 08/05/2008