An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 - 2006
Review of
The National Centre For Biomedical Engineering Science
FINAL REPORT
7 February 2006
2
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a Quality Review Team to the National Centre for
Biomedical Engineering Science (NCBES) on 16 - 18th January, 2006. The NCBES
had already prepared and submitted a ‘Self Assessment Report’ that, with other
documentation, was made available to the Review Team in advance of the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Professor Peter F. Davies (Chair), Director,
Institute for Medicine & Engineering, University of Pennsylvania; Professor Alan K.
Keenan, Conway Institute, University College Dublin; Dr Finbar Dolan, Medtronic
Vascular, Galway; Dr Aidan Kane, Director, Centre for Innovation & Structural
Change, NUI Galway acting as Cognate; and Dr Catherine Emerson, Department of
French, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
Following a Preamble, the report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Aims and Strategic Objectives
Organisation and Management
Education and Training
Scholarship and Research
Industry Linkages
Community Service
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Preamble
This Quality Review is timely in view of the rapid evolution of NCBES since its
establishment in 1999 and the opportunities provided by greatly expanded national
and European research funding. Since 2001, the Centre has been under the direction of
Professor Terry Smith who has ably led the transition of its infrastructure into a
customised state-of-the-art new facility, the Orbsen Building.
The key objective of the NCBES is the establishment of a world-class centre of
excellence in multidisciplinary biomedical research. NCBES is a priority in the
University’s long-term plans; the importance of the research areas it embraces is
recognised worldwide. Thus the value of the Centre’s work to regional, national and
European development is self evident. Establishment of this prominent inter-Faculty
research centre has changed the academic landscape at NUI Galway in very positive,
but challenging ways:

It represents a commitment to high level multidisciplinary research, training
and education both within and outside of the traditional departmental
structures.

It is a most effective mechanism in attracting outstanding new senior academic
positions to the University (both to NCBES itself and jointly with
departments).

It is an excellent infrastructure to attract large-scale external funding and to
develop industry interactions related to the economy of the region.

Its educational value extends through senior undergraduate to Postdoctoral
training.
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
3
The new building and its facilities are impressive. The infrastructure is matched in
quality by the professionalism and commitment of NCBES members. The Review
Group was particularly impressed by the high degree of collegiality in evidence.
There has been outstanding success in building on the original PRTLI funding and
securing further substantial infrastructural support and there has also been a steady
increase in project funding. Seven significant research clusters (defined by objective,
rather than discipline) have been nurtured of which several are at critical mass and one
(REMEDI), arising out of a gene and cell therapy cluster, is substantially developed
towards an autonomous unit. The rapid establishment, housing, and growth of the
complex NCBES represents a major commitment of the University’s priorities
towards multi-disciplinary efforts; however, it faces significant challenges. The selfassessment document provided to the Quality Review team, while recognising the
accomplishments to date and the exciting projections for the near future, identified a
number of key issues that face the NCBES, specifically: management; infrastructural
financial support; research output and career paths for senior researchers. The Review
Group recognises the legitimacy of these concerns, particularly with regard to the area
of management of NCBES, and will address them and several other issues in this
document. We also note that a number of the recommendations re-state those put
forward by the External Review Group for Institutional Review and Planning of
Research at NUI Galway in February 2002.
1.
Aims and Strategic Objectives
NCBES exists as an umbrella organisation which facilitates various multidisciplinary
projects across faculties, fosters collaborative work, and provides a coherent platform
for the University to develop its biomedical research strategy. It achieves these
objectives by nurturing a limited number of research clusters that are defined by
objectives rather than disciplines. The research is supported by an extensive series of
infrastructural support cores and special facilities that are well organised and
accessible to diverse disciplinary constituencies. The research and specialised
facilities are also available to interests outside of NUI Galway, including elements of
the regional economy.
The Review Group notes that NCBES is in the process of drawing up a strategic plan
2006-2011 and has refined its mission:
To develop innovative diagnostic and therapeutic solutions to current medical
challenges through an interdisciplinary approach to research.
The successful development of the Regenerative Medicine Institute (REMEDI) is
directly attributable to the facilitation and support of NCBES and the continuing
integration of research activities within NCBES. Other ongoing initiatives within
NCBES may also lead to the development of discrete identities and the Review Group
recommends that, in developing its strategic plan, NCBES should consider and plan
for potential changes in these relationships with advice and assistance from the
highest scientific management levels available. The Quality Review Group therefore
recommends as a high priority the formation of a Strategic Review Group to draft
a long term plan. The Strategic Review Group should be representative of all
members of the NCBES and act in consultation with external organisations (other
universities, institutes and centres). The NCBES may wish to consider the use of a
commercial/external consultant to facilitate this process.
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
2.
4
Organisation and Management
The NCBES is characterised by very good informal interactions, fostered by the
collegiality of the Centre. A particular formal management structure was envisaged
when the NCBES was conceived but has only been partially implemented to date. The
existence of an Executive Committee and the recent establishment of Laboratory
Management Groups are encouraging signs of a developing organisational structure,
but this nascent organisational structure needs to be completed, in particular by
the establishment of a Board of Management and the full activation of the
Scientific Advisory Board.
Many discussions with the Review Group stressed the urgent need to codify NCBES
policy and practices. We are concerned that the absence of such documentation
exposes NCBES and its personnel to unnecessary risk. Furthermore, we are convinced
that there needs to be a clearer separation between high level strategic functions and
Centre operations in order to relieve the Director of many micromanagement
decisions. The formation of Laboratory Management Groups is an encouraging
development in this direction, but a greater degree of separation must be built into the
management structure. We recommend that consideration be given to the creation
of a high level post of Operations Manager, reporting to the Director, who would
co-ordinate the systems and operations of the NCBES. This Operations Manager
would have a key rôle to play in formalising reporting structures and internal
communications structures at all levels. The position is key to resolving many of the
specific operational concerns reported to the Review Group. They include defined
targets and objectives, Health and Safety compliance, animal facility management, the
Good Manufacturing Facility (GMP), Information Technology support, induction and
internal procedural communications materials, adequate supervision of student
research by PIs, and Good Laboratory Practices including a weekly sign-off of
laboratory notebooks.
Amongst the key practical operational relationships which the Centre should address
through a revised management structure are:

the relationship
Administration

the relationship between the NCBES and University Departments and
Faculties

relationships within the NCBES
between
the
NCBES
and
the
Central
University
During the Review process, a number of representations were made with regard to the
increasing pressures on space within the NCBES. International norms for research
space allocation are based on well-defined outcome measures. These include: funding
levels from external sources, the quality and quantity of peer-reviewed publications,
national and international recognition of the work, conference presentations,
generation of intellectual property, etc. Our recommendation is that the NCBES
management should develop a system of research performance indicators
appropriate to the Centre’s objectives of scholarly excellence. The indicators
should also be used in internal resource allocation, including that of space. Such
measures permit the Centre to benchmark its quality against other similar centres both
nationally and internationally.
An organisational issue of some importance is the current juxtaposition of the GMP
facility, used primarily for the generation of viral vectors, and the Small Animal
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
5
Facility. It would be prudent to consider relocation of the latter facility as a
matter of urgency. We strongly support the initiative of the University to
centralise animal facilities.
Deficiencies in the University’s accounting systems impose a significant
administrative overhead on the NCBES. Inefficiencies in central University account
management are compromising essential research functions. The lack of transparency
and accessibility in the Agresso system were identified during discussions as an
obstacle to efficient logistical management. The Review Group recognises that the
NCBES has developed strategies that mitigate some of the shortcomings of this
system. However, this inevitably impacts on the efficiency of the Centre’s operations.
We recommend that accountancy reform be addressed at a University level.
3.
Education and Training
PhD
A particular challenge facing a complex multidisciplinary research centre is the
accommodation of students from diverse academic backgrounds. At present, such
situations are managed (on a case by case basis) in an informal manner under
traditional supervision and with variable outcomes. The NCBES has the opportunity
to provide the model for best practice in PhD programmes, in the light of recent
guidelines produced by the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB). We recommend
the implementation of a structured PhD programme within the NCBES that
would provide a framework within which students could receive the mentorship
appropriate to their research needs. Such a programme would aim to clarify
expectations, monitor progress, and meet the training and career development needs of
each student consistent with the research programme of the Centre. Elements might
include an induction programme, supervision by committees that provide mentorship
within the Centre as well as the department, coursework that may include a pre-PhD
Masters, and annual formal reviews of progress.
We recognise that this rôle has traditionally been undertaken by Departments and
recommend that the NCBES lead an exploration of these issues with Faculties. We
would also encourage the Centre to examine the extent to which induction
programmes for PhD students could include participation in elements of the taught
MSc course.
MSc (Research)
The limited information communicated concerning the MSc (research) suggested that
the programme is performing satisfactorily. Nevertheless, concerns regarding
induction that were expressed with respect to the PhD programme (above) are relevant
here.
MSc (Taught)
As the flagship Masters programme within the NCBES, the MSc in Biomedical
Science is a valuable measure of the Centre’s activities. The Course Coordinator is to
be commended for excellent implementation and thoughtful development of the
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
6
programme. Maintenance of a quality course is important to the educational mission
of the centre.
Efficiencies in the use of laboratory resources can be realised by the provision of
dedicated facilities for students of this programme and those of the BSc and for
summer students.
4.
Scholarship and Research
The bedrock of any academic centre is the quality of its scholarship and research. We
applaud the organisation within the NCBES whereby clusters are formed by objective
rather than discipline — an approach that is particularly appropriate, indeed essential,
to a centre such as the NCBES. The Review Group recognises that certain research
clusters will flourish while others may not, a natural dynamic process and to be
encouraged. In this respect it is important that the NCBES leadership be empowered
to make decisions regarding space utilization (both increases and decreases) consistent
with the development or atrophy of clusters.
Facilities within the Orbsen building for the conduct of high level multidisciplinary
research are excellent. The potential for further growth includes the construction of
new buildings (under consideration), which will allow further diversification of the
NCBES itself and of NCBES-related activities. These include accommodation for
expansion of the NCBES/REMEDI partnership, a proposed Comprehensive Cancer
facility, and a Clinical Research Centre. While supporting a high degree of
autonomy for such spin-offs, we recommend that much will be gained by
continued association under the umbrella of NCBES activities by sharing a
common multi-disciplinary approach to research and training.
NCBES has the potential to become a world class multidisciplinary research and
training centre. In order to rise to this level, we recommend the implementation of
explicit measurements of performance in scholarship and research. In addition to
the criteria for evaluation of performance listed under section 2, particular recognition
must be accorded to successful multidisciplinary outcomes. We anticipate a
progressive improvement in both the quality and quantity of research publications as a
result; this is the criterion against which NCBES’s ambition of becoming a world
class research centre will be judged.
The recommendations for improved management structure described in section 2 will
also reinforce the opportunities for excellence in scholarship and research.
Career structure for researchers
A national challenge consequent upon the rapid expansion of research funding is the
provision of career pathways for academic researchers. As repeatedly expressed to the
Review Group, this is of great concern to many Centre members, and of particular
importance to the success of the NCBES. While we appreciate that resolution of these
issues requires further complex discussions in the academic community and with
policy makers, a solution must be found. We are aware that provision for a limited
number of competitive tenured research appointments is under consideration by
the University. We strongly encourage the NCBES and its members to contribute
to and inform this debate.
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
5.
7
Industry Linkages
The links with industry are significant, functional and strategic. Maintaining these is
vital to the Centre in the long-term, in order to sustain itself and grow. Discussions
suggest a great deal of scope exists to do more to develop these links further in the
areas of funding, research and education. The development of these may be best
achieved through a specific staff position in the Centre. We recommend the reestablishment of a Business Development Manager position in order to promote
and foster these activities. Some considerations for the Centre Leadership and any
future Business Development Manager are now outlined.
o Opportunities have been identified in consultancy and contract research and testing
for multinational and indigenous companies. There is a strong history of
successfully undertaking such work that was perhaps the foundation for the
development of the centre but has now become difficult due to space limitations
imposed by rapid expansion. It is therefore recommended that relationships be
cultivated though provision of services to corporations to 1) serve as a source
of funding to the Centre as well as 2) provide a strategic basis for bringing
about larger collaborative research initiatives.
o There is a strong interest on the part of the Centre’s executive to develop
significant research collaborations with industry. However it would seem that
without a significant reassignment of space, it is not possible to accommodate more
than a handful of additional researchers, a limitation that constrains the growth of
the Centre’s research portfolio and its income from industry-related research. The
limitation on space and resources also limits company incubation within the
Centre. A lack of dedicated resources makes it difficult to focus on research
commercialisation except where provision for such is made explicitly, as in
REMEDI. It is recommended that this matter of managing the allocation of
space be considered urgently and that dedicated resources be allocated to
focus on fostering technology transfer to Industry.
o The Centre’s Executive considers the potential of receiving endowments from the
private sector as modest. However, it was acknowledged that the potential has not
been explored fully. Consequently it is recommended that this be investigated
further in view of the community of sizeable corporations associated with the
Medical Technology Industry in the region.
o There may be scope for providing accredited education and training to meet
emerging demands for corporate training and education in Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) and Lifelong Learning in a highly knowledge intensive sector.
It is recommended that the potential of this be explored and provision made
for monitoring it in the longer term.
o Enquiries were made from undergraduates for visits to industrial facilities and
lectures from professionals working in industry, in order to allow them to develop
real understanding of the types of careers routes they can look forward to on
graduation. It is recommended that this be facilitated regularly for appropriate
students over the course of their studies and not left until the last year of their
degree.
It is concluded that a great deal can be done to advance the interests of the Centre
through the sensible management of external relations with the industrial community
and ensuring that strategic activities/initiatives are undertaken wisely.
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
6.
8
Community Service
Outreach to Schools and the Community is exemplary. The application of scholarship
to practical problem-solving is an attractive and accessible concept to the lay-person.
The existing appointment of a Communications and Outreach Manager is a major
benefit to the NCBES and REMEDI Community Service efforts.
7.
Report Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Review Group assessed a complex Centre that is ‘breaking the mould’ at NUI
Galway by developing research, scholarship, and training in multidisciplinary
biological, physical, and engineering sciences with the intent to foster innovation
directed to the solution of medical challenges. It is an exciting and timely
development that is common to many leading universities in Europe and the United
States, and is appropriately prioritised by this university. It is also a rapidly moving
and demanding environment at all levels of participation and consequently needs
special accommodation within the traditional university structure. Most challenges
noted by the Review Group revolve around 2 elements: (i) the competition for
resources between University budgetary units, and (ii) the optimal management of a
non-traditional Centre to maintain the highest academic standards.
There is strong commitment by the NUI leadership to the success of the NCBES. We
also noted cooperation and support for the Centre from the leaderships of Physical
Sciences, Chemical Sciences, Medical School, and Engineering School. These
Faculties include Departments whose cooperation is essential for the success of the
NCBES and from which monies are redirected to the Centre for part of its annual
operating budget. The incentives for such cooperation, despite competition for
resources, is self-evident and when handled correctly creates a ‘win-win’ for the
Centre, Department, and the University as a whole. Realistically, however, the Central
Administration will need in the short term to continue to provide additional funds for
the annual operating budget of the NCBES. While their use should be carefully
monitored, they are necessary until greater self-sufficiency is attained and essentially
are the costs for the rapid development of the Centre. Part of the financial equation in
department-Centre affairs is the buy-out of teaching time for those department staff
members who invest considerable effort in the activities of the Centre. For example, a
promising program in biomechanics and biomaterials will thrive only if Central
Administration commitments to reduce departmental teaching are honoured.
The speed at which opportunities have surfaced for Centre funding from National and
European sources poses a particular challenge to the Centre management. Immediate
responses to such opportunities must be generated even as mechanisms to ensure the
success of a team-based and problem-centred approach to research undergoes
evolution. This appears to have challenged the day to day management of NCBES.
Recommendations
The Review Team makes the following summary recommendations:
1. We recommend as a high priority, the formation of a Strategic Review Group to
draft a long term plan for the NCBES.
2. We recommend the completion of a formalised but flexible organisational
structure with the assistance provided by the establishment of a Board of
Management and the full activation of the Scientific Advisory Board
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
9
3. We recommend that consideration be given to the creation of a high level post
of Operations Manager, reporting to the Director, who would co-ordinate the
systems and operations of the NCBES. This Operations Manager would have a
key rôle to play in formalising reporting and internal communications structures
at all levels.
4. We recommend that the NCBES management develop a system of research
performance indicators appropriate to the Centre’s objectives of research and
scholarship excellence. These should serve to guide internal resource allocation,
including that of space.
5. We recommend relocation of the small animal facility and strongly support the
initiative of the University to centralise animal facilities.
6. We recommend that accountancy reform be addressed at a University level. The
current system appears to slow the best efforts of the Centre.
7. We recommend the implementation of a structured PhD programme within the
NCBES that would provide a framework within which students could receive
the inter/multi-disciplinary mentorship appropriate to their research needs.
8. While supporting a high degree of autonomy for spin-offs emerging from the
successful research clusters, we recommend that much will be gained by
continued association under the umbrella of NCBES activities by sharing a
common multi-disciplinary approach to research and training. The sum is much
greater than its parts when viewed from outside the university.
9. We recommend the implementation of explicit measurements of performance in
scholarship and research.
10. We are aware that provision for a limited number of competitive tenured
research appointments is under consideration by the University. We strongly
encourage the NCBES and its members to contribute to and inform this debate
because of its particular importance to this Centre.
11. We recommend the re-establishment of a position of Business Development
Manager and provide a set of related sub-recommendations for consideration
regarding interactions with industry.
Comments on The Methodology of the Review Process
The Methodology of the Review Process is thorough. Its sheer comprehensiveness
ensures transparency because all major issues inevitably emerge from discussions with
such a wide set of constituencies. The self-assessment document in this particular
review was well prepared and inclusive (and an essential pre-visit educational tool for
the Review Group). The other background documents provided were excellent.
However, the structure of the template for both self-assessment and the Review
Report is better suited to an academic department than a research centre and some retitling of sections in an alternative template for Centres might be useful. This is a
minor issue since the Group did not hesitate to make small modifications to the
Report template.
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science: Review Report 2006
10
There was some discussion as to whether the dinner on the first evening is necessary
with such a large group of people. Some members of the Review Group found it of
limited utility while for others it provided an opportunity to informally pursue specific
issues. We also suppose that the dinner group size reflected the unusual diversity of
the Centre and is perhaps usually smaller for a department.
The organisation of each day and the overall process was intense but manageable and
the Group felt comfortable that most major issues were aired and examined.
Finally, the Group greatly appreciated the quality and efficiency of the hospitality
accorded it during the 3 days, both in accommodations for outside reviewers and
throughout each day. We commend Professor Gosling and the Quality Office.
Respectfully submitted by:
Professor Peter F. Davies (Chair)
Professor Alan K. Keenan
Dr. Finbar Dolan
Dr. Aidan Kane (Cognate)
Dr. Catherine Emerson (Rapporteur)
25th January 2006
File name, Print date
NcbesFinalReport
09/05/2008