National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust (2004)

Chapter: Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists

« Previous: Appendix D: Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists: Participants
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists." National Research Council. 2004. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10920.
×
Page 108

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Descriptions of Programs Participating in the Workshop on Training Programs in Patient-Oriented Pathobiology for Basic Scientists Programs Ph.D. Program in Molecular Medicine University of Chicago The Harvard-Markey Biomedical Scientist Program Graduate Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine University of California) San Diego Markey Fellowship System Markey Molecular Medicine Graduate Program University of Virginia . Lucille P. Markey Special Emphasis Pathway in Human Pathobiology Washington University 74

APPENDIX E 75 PH.D. PROGRAM IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Overall Program Description The Ph.D. Program in Molecular Medicine at the University of Chi- cago bridges the gap between basic science research and its relevance to human biology and disease processes. It educates students in the practical application of modem biological techniques to problems of human biol- ogy, particularly the etiology of disease. Nancy Schwartz is the program director. The program accepts second-year students from any one of a number of degree-granting departments and committees, and then provides a focus in molecular medicine for these select students with · a specially designed curriculum; · faculty-sponsored research projects in clinically relevant areas; · a forum for interactive seminars, symposia, and the like; · student research presentations or faculty lectures at quarterly lunches; and · a clinical mentor. In 1995-1996 Dr. Louis Philipson served as associate director. Dr. Philipson, who holds a combined M.D./Ph.D. degree, is active in both clinical work and research. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap In consultation with the mentor, students must carefully select a re- search topic that preserves and strengthens the translational aspects of the thesis research. Human biology and relevance to disease are crucial to the Ph.D. Program in Molecular Medicine. The program is unusual in that students also select a second mentor with clinical expertise in areas appropriate to the students' research inter- ests to guide their clinical exposure throughout the research years. In some cases the research mentor and clinical mentor may be the same person. Dr. Louis Philipson assists in finding an appropriate mentor and reviews this aspect of the training with each of the students annually. He or other faculty also periodically provide bench-to-bedside lectures on appropriate topics. The students host an annual seminar speaker in the area of translational research and actively participate in symposia co- sponsored by the Molecular Medicine program. Students may receive their Ph.D. through those departments and com- mittees in the Division of Biological Sciences that concentrate on the cellu-

76 APPENDIX E lar and molecular aspects of biological research and teaching. In the first year, students take a broad core curriculum drawn from the basic science offerings across the division. There are four specific components of the Molecular Medicine pro- gram: coursework, symposia, seminars, and lectures. A description of each component is presented below. Coursework During their first two years students take courses that were specially designed for the Markey Molecular Medicine program and are a major feature of the program. Three courses infection and immunity, cardio- vascular disease, and cancer biology were developed early in the pro- gram. They have evolved such that the first two have been combined into molecular mechanisms of disease, and cancer biology has expanded into a two-part course. These courses concentrate on an understanding of dis- ease processes, such as a focus on atherosclerosis, AIDS, or the wide range of cancer diseases. Students analyze the disease process by studying Me basic biology of the disease as well as its clinical manifestation. This is accomplished through a series of lectures and readings, supplemented by current journal articles, discussions of actual case histories, and patient presentations. Approximately 40 students enroll for these courses each year. Symposia A second component of the Molecular Medicine program is a series of cosponsored symposia. Recent examples include a symposium on neu- rofibromatosis and molecular approaches to the analysis of complex ge- netic traits. Seminars The third component consists of a series of seminars that are cospon- sored by the program on such titles as · In Viva Regulation of Sonic Hedgehog Signaling; · Kazbanian, an ADAM Family Metalloportease that Regulates Notch Signaling in Drosophila and Mouse Development; · Molecular Control of Neuronal Migration: Tales from an Ataxic Mouse; · From One to Four Dimensions: In Vivo Libraries of Large Insert Transgenic Mice for Functional Genomics; · Translation Factors in Control of Gene Expression, Cell Growth, . ~ . . ana ~umorlgenesls;

APPENDIX E · The Cellular and Molecular Basis of Neurofibromatosis, I; and · Human Achondrogenesis: Biochemical and Molecular Aspect. Lectures 77 Dr. Philipson has prepared a series of lectures. His most recent lecture topics include the following: · Cystic Fibrosis A Sticky Problem; · G Protein Mutations and Endocrinopathies; · Short Stature and Dwarfism: Collagen/Connective Tissue Gene Defect; and · A Weighty Disease: Molecular Biology of Obesity. Characteristics of Students Prospective students declare their interest in the Ph.D. in Molecular Medicine program when applying to do graduate work at the University of Chicago. Financial aid has been restructured in the Division of Biologi- cal Sciences and all first-year students are supported by divisional funds. They are considered for entry to the program in their second year, once their research interests have been established. For the Molecular Medicine program the student's program of study must be relevant to human biol- ogy and in a field where we can offer them clinical expertise and expo- sure. The number of applicants has varied each year from three to ten, with a maximum of four students having been accepted in any one year. Appli- cants all have a minimum grade point average of 3.5, excellent letters of reference, and a broad interest in their fields of research, including the clinical applications of their work. Financial Data Thirteen graduate students have been supported, beginning with the 199~1995 academic year, at an average direct cost of $38,000 per year. This amount included an annual stipend, tuition, and health and student fees. Most students were supported for three years. Additional costs com- prise nominal amounts for honoraria for outside speakers; receptions and student and faculty lunches; and part-time administrative staff and pro- gram recruitment. Because funding has been used primarily as a training grant, the program has been able to stretch funding for two more years. The long- range goal is to continue this program by identifying funding from addi-

78 APPENDIX E tional sources. The University of Chicago has taken over programmatic costs so that all funding can be applied directly to student costs. THE HARVARD-MARKEY BIOMEDICAL SCIENTIST PROGRAM Overall Program Description There is a critical shortage of young scientists whose expertise in cell and molecular biology is matched by a sound understanding of the patho- physiology of human diseases. In order to address this need the Harvard Medical School, in 1991, undertook a new initiative, the Harvard-Markey Biomedical Scientist program, supported by a five-year grant from the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust. The program director is Franklin Bunn. This program offered a new pathway of graduate education de- signed to give Ph.D. students a broader knowledge of human biology and disease and to enable them to formulate and carry out original and rigor- ous research that is relevant to clinical medicine. It took advantage of the scientific and clinical resources of Harvard Medical School to provide comprehensive, integrated multidisciplinary training. The curriculum described below enabled these Ph.D. students to work in class sections and tutorials with second-year Harvard medical stu- dents. It was hoped that this close interaction would enable the graduates of the program to be more effective teachers of future medical students and better collaborators with physician investigators. Finally, this train- ing would benefit Ph.D. scientists who choose a career in the biotechnol- ogy or pharmaceutical industry since they will have gained a clear under- standing of the medical relevance of the projects that they are asked to undertake. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap Ph.D. graduate students apply to the program during the fall term of their first year. They are selected on the basis of motivation, perceived ability to fulfill the workload, and perceived value of the program to the students' career goals. The curriculum for Markey scholars is illustrated in Table E.1. The Harvard-Markey curriculum begins in the spring semester with a course in anatomy, which features small group discussions stressing biologically relevant relationships between structure and function with de-emphasis of minutiae and memorization. Liberal use is made of dem- onstration materials, including anatomical images derived from comput- erized tomography and nuclear magnetic resonance. During the summer, students enroll in a biochemistry course designed

APPENDIX E TABLE E.1 Curriculum for Markey Scholars 79 Month riam ~ 11 | 12 | ~ | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | lst~ year ~~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~~ Graduate- casework ~~:~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ : i; ~ ~~ ~ ~^at~y::~: ~~ Biochemistry flab ~~ ~~:~ i: ~ i: ~~ :~: ;~ ~~ glib rotaii£>ns~:: ~ ~~:~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ;~ Physiology ~~:~ ~ ~~ Rotation . _ 2nd year HST pathology HST human systems Lab rotations or Immunology Integrated site visits thesis research ~~ 3rd~:year~ Graduate coursework ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Qualifying examinations ~ ~ ~ : : ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:~ ~~es~s~wsearch~ ~ ~~ : ~ ~ ~~:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i:: ~~ :~ ~~ ~~ :~ ~~ :: ~ ~~ : 4th-6th Thesis research years to supplement material covered in the Division of Medical Sciences core biochemistry and cell biology course. Emphasis is placed on intermediary metabolism and on biochemical pathways that are relevant to specific human diseases. Lectures are interspersed with group discussions and patient-based case-solving problems. The students also take a physiology course that stresses mechanisms underlying the organization and regulation of specific organ systems and interactions between them. Lectures are supplemented with group dis- cussions and problem sets. At the begir~ng of the second year the students enter a pathology course in conjunction with medical students in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. This course has been a particularly valuable experience for the Harvard-Markey students, enabling them to interact with a subset of medical students with strong backgrounds in and aptitude for science. Harvard-Markey students not concentrating in immunology also take a course comprising lectures, discussions, and case problems de- signed to cover the principles of immune defense, again with an empha- sis on human biology and pathology. These courses are sufficiently small so that active student participation is not only encouraged but also readily realized. At the beginIung of the fall term each Harvard-Markey student joins one of the four Harvard Medical School societies and thereby is included in their curricular and extracurricular activities. Each society organizes a program of student advisement, the core of which is a relationship be- tween student and advisor to foster goals of self-assessment and profes- sional development. The societies also plan extracurricular and social

80 APPENDIX E functions that bring faculty and students together. In early November they and the second-year medical students embark on human systems, which is organized according to organ systems: pulmonary, cardiovascu- lar, hematology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, nephrology, and mus- culoskeletal. Before the course begins Dr. Bunn gives a two-hour session on clinical terminology and the principles of clinical history taking and physical examination. The bulk of the human systems course is taught in small interactive classes and in tutorials, both of which are organized by the society. The Harvard-Markey students are distributed among the tu- torials so that each of them is in daily, close contact with a group of six or seven medical students. The collective experience of these groups has shown that the students have gained considerably from such close con- tact with the medical students. During the human systems course the students' experiences are enriched by attending a site visit about once every two to three weeks at one of the nearby teaching hospitals. Here they have the opportunity to interact with an investigator involved in research at the interface between basic science and clinical medicine. At some of these sessions the students talk to patients and observe clinical facilities and procedures. In addition to the curriculum described above the students meet regu- larly with the director and administrator of the program to discuss courses in progress as well as to review those that have been recently completed. A dinner is held bimonthly at which an invited speaker, generally from the faculty at Harvard or MIT, provides an informal presentation or dis- cussion of a topic of special interest to the biomedical community. Characteristics of Students The program is first introduced to our Ph.D. graduate students by a brochure sent to all those accepted by the Division of Medical Sciences at the medical school. Soon after they arrive in September an orientation meeting is held to explain the goals of the program as well as the curricu- lum and the commitment required of them. Most students apply to the program during the fall term of their first year, however six students have entered the program during their second year. A committee consisting of Dr. Bunn, the director of the Division of Medical Sciences, and the Harvard-Markey program administrator interview all applicants. Stu- dents are selected on the basis of motivation, perceived ability to fulfill the workload, and perceived value of the program to the student's career goals. During the program's existence approximately 75 percent of appli- cants have been accepted. To date, 57 students have been accepted into the program. Eighteen students have graduated and entered into a wide range of positions.

APPENDIX E 81 About half of the graduates have entered into postdoctoral positions. Several students have assumed research positions in pharmaceutical com- panies. Other graduates have entered into nontraditional positions, in- cluding consulting and investment banking, and one student has accepted a faculty position in a medical school. One student who had completed all coursework elected to assume an executive position in a biotechnology venture capital firm. Currently 38 graduate students are actively engaged in the program. Financial Data With the cessation of Markey support the overriding problem was the need to obtain continued funding. In 1996, 30 biotechnology and pharma- ceutical companies were approached with proposals for funding our pro- gram, but continuing support was not forthcoming. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute was contacted on two occasions to obtain support for the program. Again this contact was unsuccessful. In 1997 the program submitted a training grant application to the Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The proposal was carefully reviewed and deemed meritorious, but was not funded, primarily be- cause it did not fit the NlH's customary criteria for graduate training programs. Their support is reserved for programs that carry students from matriculation into graduate school through the award of the Ph.D. degree. Without external funding Harvard was not able to offer the pro- gram to this year's incoming graduate students. During five years of the program yearly operating expenses were approximately $740,000 (see Table Em. The largest cost categories pro- vided funding for tuition and stipends. TABLE E.2 Annual Operating Expenses Administration Salaries Student travel ( one scientific meeting per student) Office expenses Harvard Medical School tuition (12 students) Division of Medical Sciences stipend (12 students) Course expenses Human systems Pathology Biochemistry Anatomy Physiology TOTAL $102,000 7,500 51,000 $302,000 $203,000 $26,620 27,040 10,150 5,440 5,900 $740,650

82 APPENDIX E GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Overall Program Description The Graduate Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine is the newest interdepartmental graduate program at the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity School of Medicine. The program was developed in response to the 1991-1992 School of Medicine strategic planning retreat, which fo- cused on preparing the institution for the twenty-first century. During the previous two decades the number of faculty in basic science departments increased only slightly. In contrast the number of faculty doing basic research in clinical departments increased dramatically, although most of these have not had access to graduate students, since the existing gradu- ate programs were restricted to basic science departments (e.g., the Bio- chemistry, Cell, and Molecular Biology program) or were restricted to specialized research teachings (e.g., human genetics, immunology). Most importantly no program existed at Johns Hopkins to train graduate stu- dents to perform basic cellular and molecular research on clinical prob- lems, an area of anticipated need with the emergence of molecular medi- c~ne. An advisory committee was named to evaluate the possible solutions and an application was submitted to the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust for a graduate program in cellular and molecular medicine. This application was funded in 1993 and provided a nonrenewable source of support to initiate the Graduate Program in Cellular and Molecular Medi- cine (CMM). All Johns Hopkins School of Medicine department directors were notified that CMM would consider faculty nominations, and more than 300 faculty were proposed. From this group 50 core CMM faculty were selected after reviewing multiple criteria: scientific prominence and independence; previous record as a mentor; achievement of substantial NIH funding; and direct clinical significance of their research. Although selection was based on overall merit, faculty from clinical departments were given slight preference, since one mission of the CMM was to pro- vide students for outstanding laboratories in clinical departments that have traditionally not received Ph.D. students. The number of core CMM faculty has risen to 61. These individuals represent 11 clinical depart- ments (42 faculty) with the majority coming from medicine, oncology, pathology, comparative medicine, urology, neurology, and pediatrics. Members of eight basic science departments also participate in CMM (19 faculty). Approximately 40 other associate CMM faculty are invited to attend CMM activities but do not have independent access to CMM graduate students.

APPENDIX E 83 A separate CMM Admissions Committee was established to identify and recruit the most qualified students. The first incoming class of six students began in September 1994, and this number has risen in subse- quent years to approximately 10. Each year this group usually includes one student from the Hopkins Medical Scientist Training program (MSTP). Although the Markey funds were not restricted, the majority of students are U.S. citizens or permanent residents (26~. Several of the inter- national students have faculty positions awaiting them when they return to their countries of origin. The program anticipates achieving a steady state of approximately 50 students. CMM students have joined laboratories throughout the medical cam- pus, and this has served to enhance interactions among Hopkins faculty. Current CMM students are pursuing thesis projects in multiple clinical departments: medicine (10 students); oncology (7~; psychiatry, pathology, urology, neurology, and comparative medicine (1 each). A smaller subset is pursuing thesis projects in basic science departments: biological chem- istry (3 students); neuroscience (3~; cell biology, microbiology, molecular biology (1 each). The hallmark of CMM students is their cellular and molecular approach to human disease, and all thesis projects are directly relevant to specific human diseases. Current CMM students are pursuing thesis projects directly related to specific clinical problems, including co- lon and prostate cancer, hematopoiesis and leukemogenesis, brain edema, sudden cardiac death, coronary thrombosis, AIDS, diarrhea! diseases, trypanosomal infections, and slain wound healing. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap Program Directors The CMM program directorship employs a rotating system involving members of the participating departments. The plan is to have most ad- ministrative activities overseen by the director, who will serve three years. To ensure smooth transitions the director is assisted by a codirector, who will subsequently serve the next three years as director. The past director will assist the new director for one to two years, when the CMM Organi- zational Committee and CMM Advisory Board will elect a new codirector. Thomas Pollard, M.D., served as the first director (1993-1996~. Peter Agre, M.D., served as codirector for three years before becoming the sec- ond CMM director in September 1996. Dr. Agre is professor of biological chemistry and medicine, and has been a Hopkins faculty member since 1982. Stephen B. Baylin, M.D., has served as codirector since 1996. Dr. Baylin is Ludwig Professor for Cancer Research and has been a Hopkins faculty member since 1974. John T. Isaacs, Ph.D., has served as codirector

84 APPENDIX E of CMM since July 1998, and he assumed the directorship in July 1999. A Hopkins faculty member since 1980, Dr. Isaacs is professor of oncology, professor of urology, and codirector of the Division of Experimental Therapeutics in the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center. Advisory Board This group of distinguished senior faculty members has been drawn from multiple basic science and clinical departments. The Advisory Board initially oversaw the formulation of CMM, but as the program developed the Organizational Committee took over most details. The Advisory Board meets formally annually to review the director's annual report and to make suggestions. Although the Organizational Committee elects new directors, the Advisory Board must approve them. Members of the Advi- sory Board are available for numerous ad hoc needs of the CMM program and students. Organizational Committee This committee is the functional body that undertakes the various recruiting and teaching activities of the CMM. The Organizational Com- mittee includes representatives of most participating departments as well as chairs of subcommittees. Subsets of members may meet monthly, and the entire Organizational Committee meets quarterly to review the pro- gram and make administrative decisions. Frequent discussions include composition of the subcommittees, potential changes in curriculum, changes in funding policies, admission of new members to the CMM faculty, and review of student academic problems. The Organizational Committee nominates and elects new CMM directors. CMM Faculty The directors, members of the Advisory Board, and members of the Organizational Committee also serve as laboratory mentors for CMM students. Members of the core CMM faculty were nominated by their departmental chairmen and were reviewed by CMM directors and Orga- nizational Committee members. Every effort is made to employ uniform criteria for membership in CMM. Scientific prominence is evaluated by leadership in various societies and programs, chairing of national and international scientific committees, and organization of meetings and con- ferences. Scientific independence is assessed by senior authorships on studies in highly regarded publications. Core CMM faculty must have sufficient laboratory space to accommodate CMM students. It is generally

APPENDIX E 85 required that all faculty will be principal investigators with independent RO1 grants from the NIH. A few exceptions have been made for individu- als who have not yet achieved NIH funding but are considered particu- larly important to the overall program. Faculty members who experience a lapse in RO1 funding will not be allowed to serve as individual labora- tory mentors for students but may serve as co-mentors with another ac- tive core CMM faculty member who assumes joint responsibility for the student. The suitability of nominated faculty members is in part deter- mined by their record for training posidoctorals or students. The clinical significance of the faculty member's laboratory is considered especially important, with some laboratories studying fundamental problems rel- evant to many clinical problems and other laboratories focused on a very specific clinical problem. It is expected that all core CMM faculty members will serve on CMM committees (oral examination committees, admissions committee, or other committees) when asked. Likewise all core CMM faculty are expected to participate in teaching. This may either be as lecturer In the core courses, as faculty preceptor during small group discussions, or as organizer for elective courses. Faculty will be contacted every two years to provide an assessment of participation in CMM activities. Active participation will require docu- mented teaching and participation in recruiting or other activities. Indi- viduals failing to establish sufficient CMM participation may be relegated to associate CMM faculty after review by members of the Organizational Committee. Such individuals are welcome at CMM activities but may not serve as independent laboratory mentors. Reinstatement may be consid- ered when new CMM faculty are under consideration by the Organ~za- tional Committee. The size of the CMM core faculty has been restricted to keep the program at a manageable size (about 60~. It is anticipated that additional faculty may be added in future years when annual nomina- tions from departmental chairs will be sought. First-Year Curriculum The CMM curriculum was designed by the original Advisory Board, which strongly felt that CMM students should take the most rigorous basic courses offered at Hopkins as well as new courses specifically de- signed for CMM students. Note Hat Hopkins graduate program courses are open to all students from all graduate programs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and students from the School of Hygiene and Public Health. First-Year Core Courses. The first-year students take six formal lecture courses in the basic sciences. Faculty from throughout the basic science

86 APPENDIX E departments and clinical departments teaches these courses. CMM core faculty participate in the organization and teaching of several of these courses. Core courses include biophysical chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry and cell biology, fundamentals of genetics, topics in human genetics, and principles of immunology. The above courses are rigorous and demanding. The program direc- tors regularly review the outcome of all major examinations for each course to identify any CMM students experiencing difficulty in any course. CMM students are expected to achieve the grade of B or higher. Students with lower performances will be required to retake the core course. The Organizational Committee will evaluate any student receiv- ing a lower grade in two courses for possible dismissal at the end of Me first year. So far CMM students have performed well and very few have needed to repeat courses. First-Year Discussion Group. Once each week after the morning lec- tures, first-year students participate in a discussion group organized by a CMM faculty with expertise pertinent to the lectures. The faculty member will select a short review and research paper. All students are expected to read the paper, but one student is assigned to lead the discussion. The faculty member will be in attendance to answer questions and provide supplemental information. The sessions are designed to supplement the lectures by providing insight into the lecture topic for the week and they last about one hour. First-Year Tutorial. To enhance the formal presentations the Pollard scholars tutorial was initiated as a study group to help first-year students understand the course materials by teaching one another. These sessions are held once per week during lunch and take about one hour. Upperclass CMM students who have achieved outstanding performances in the core courses and who exhibit strong interest and talent in teaching lead this popular activity. First-Year Seminar Series. To bridge the gap between basic science courses and clinical diseases and to inform students of research opportu- nities, first-year students attend a weelcly one-hour seminar. Two faculty members are invited to speak for 30 minutes; each is introduced by a first- year CMM student, who is assigned to meet with the faculty member in advance. Oral Examination. As required by the Graduate Board of the Johns Hopkins University, CMM graduate students must pass an oral examina- tion of the student's competence in areas covered in the first-year curricu- lum and in other areas of general scientific relevance. After completion of the first year courses CMM students identify a committee of five faculty members from outside the thesis laboratory. Not more than two commit- tee members may be from the student's thesis department. After approval

APPENDIX E 87 by the faculty education coordinator the examination is scheduled to oc- cur during the autumn or winter of the second year. Students generally take a two- to three-week pause in their laboratory work to review for this . , . exammatlon. Second-Year Curriculum Second-year students take two courses specifically designed for CMM students by CMM faculty. These courses introduce students to organ sys- tems and pathobiology. The basic anatomy and physiology of organ sys- tems is taught in a series of 12 two-hour afternoon interactive sessions. (This course will be taught to first year CMM students in the future.) Topics include embryology, central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, endocrine systems, blood, reproductive organs, lymphoid organs, skin, respiratory system, urinary tract, cardiovascular system, and gas- trointestinal tract. Understanding human disease is an essential part of the CMM cur- riculum. An in-depth review of fundamental pathobiologic mechanisms and specific human diseases is team taught to our students by two faculty members. Each week one clinician and one basic researcher will provide a series of papers to the students and lead a discussion pertinent to a fun- damental process and the associated diseases. Topics covered include Alzheimer's, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, acute infectious diseases, chronic infectious diseases, cystic fibrosis, storage diseases, autoimmune diseases, atherosclerosis, heart disease, renal transport disorders, gas- trointestinal diseases, hematopoiesis and leukemia, coagulation, and mo- tor neuron diseases. At the end of the course students identify a research problem, write a short proposal (similar to the individual National Re- search Service Awards fellowship applications), and make an oral presen- tation to the faculty. Subsequent Years CMM students in the third year and beyond are required to take four electives. These may be elective graduate school courses or selected medi- cal school courses. Participation in the seminar series and journal clubs is expected of all CMM students. Even though attendance is not monitored, it is suggested that the students attend at least one faculty seminar and at least one journal club session per week. Laboratory Research CMM students have a variety of laboratories in which to perform research. New CMM students are encouraged to undertake an extra labo- ratory experience in faculty laboratories during the summer preceding

88 APPENDIX E their first year. During the regular academic year CMM students will perform three rotations of 10 weeks duration. Selection of the rotation laboratories involves several steps. Retreat. A half-day retreat is held early in the academic year during which selected faculty present short research talks to describe the re- search activities in their own laboratories and answer questions the new CMM students may have regarding CMM research opportunities. A key- note talk is presented by a longtime Hopkins faculty member whose ca- reer pathway seems especially appealing to CMM students. Following a buffet supper a panel discussion is presented by CMM faculty members and upperclass CMM students who share their experiences and provide suggestions for choosing laboratories. Students also meet with faculty members who present their laboratory programs during the first-year . . seminar series Rotation Assignments. During September of the first year all CMM students are given a list of five CMM faculty with whom to meet to discuss potential laboratory rotations In that faculty member's laboratory. The rotation coordinator compiles this list after consulting with the direc- tor and other CMM faculty. Students are encouraged to contact other CMM faculty members to discuss potential rotations and meet with the first-year advisors or another faculty advisor selected by the student. In early October the students rank their choices, and are matched to labora- tories. So far all have gone to a laboratory of their first or second choice. Program needs or special situations may also be considered in this deci- sion. Because first-year CMM lectures occur in the mornings, the students spend afternoons in faculty laboratories, where they are given research projects under the direct supervision of the host faculty member. Student research efforts may spread into the evenings and weekends, however faculty are aware that the students' coursework is their higher priority during the first year. The goal of lab rotations is to provide the student with the opportunity to learn new techniques and sample the atmosphere and approaches taken in multiple labs before selecting one laboratory for a thesis project. At the end of each 10-week rotation a mini-symposium is held at which each first-year CMM student will present a 10-minute tails with slides or transparencies during which the project is described, findings are presented, and conclusions are stated. All CMM faculty are welcomed and all rotation faculty members are required to attend. Faculty are re- quested to provide short written comments about each student's taLic. Each rotation faculty member is requested to provide a short evaluation of the student, and each student is requested to provide a short evaluation of the lab experience. The rotation coordinator subsequently discusses

APPENDIX E 89 these comments and evaluations in private with each student. If deemed necessary, the program director discusses the evaluations of faculty labs with the rotation faculty. Thesis Projects. By the end of the third rotation most CMM students have a clear idea about the choice of laboratory in which to undertake a thesis project. When students exhibit some lingering doubt, a fourth rota- tion is recommended for the summer after the first year. Each year one or two CMM students request a fourth rotation, and often this laboratory is chosen for the thesis project. The thesis commitment is made after discus- sion by the student and the rotation coordinator and after consultation with the program director. To date, only one student has subsequently requested reassignment to another thesis laboratory, and this occurred because the faculty thesis advisor developed a terminal illness. The second-year CM~I students spend most of their time undertak- ing research projects that will lead to the thesis project. It is generally expected that the students will need close guidance during this time. By the end of Me second academic year the students, after consulting with their thesis advisor, should have undertaken sufficient experimentation to have an idea of potential thesis projects. After consulting with the thesis advisor the student will then draft a short thesis proposal (gener- ally up to five pages) outlining the experimental question, the prelimi- nary data, and the approaches to be taken. Together the student and thesis advisor will identify a group of three to four faculty members from other laboratories to serve on the thesis committee. The thesis proposal is then distributed to Thesis Committee members, who will read it. The student then schedules the first thesis committee meeting at which the student formally proposes the thesis project. The thesis committee will provide the student with specific ad- vice regarding aspects of the project and suggestions for approaches. Thereafter students are expected to hold at least one thesis committee meeting per year, and these meetings are documented by the education coordinator. Usually by the fifth year the student and thesis advisor will schedule the final thesis committee meeting. With approval of the thesis committee the student then writes the thesis and submits it to the thesis advisor and one member of the thesis committee for a detailed reading. Once the document is approved the student will schedule a seminar at which the student will formally present the thesis to members of the Hopkins fac- ulty and will answer questions. The thesis, transcript, and letters are then submitted to the School of Medicine registrar for approval by the M.A./ Ph.D. Committee. Distinguished Lectureships. As part of the celebration of our first year a series of distinguished scientists have been invited to spend a day with

So APPENDIX E the CMM students and faculty and give a lecture that is open to the entire Hopkins medical campus. This tradition has been continued in subse- quent years with the participation of one or two prominent biomedical scientists whose work is particularly relevant to the CMM program. This program is organized by advanced CMM students who select the speaker, invite the individual, and make all of the arrangements. Young Investigators' Day. Each spring the graduate and medical stu- dents from throughout the School of Medicine are invited to submit an abstract and essay describing the research they undertook while students. This event is referred to as "Young Investigators' Day."' Competition for the awards is extremely strong, with more than 50 students submitting their work in competition for seven named prizes. CMM has had a close affiliation with this activity. Responsible Conduct in Research. In compliance with federal guidelines the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine sponsors several activi- ties to ensure that our trainees receive proper instruction in the ethical approach to science. Me Hopkins Graduate Student Association and He dean of graduate student affairs have instituted an honor code to empha- size scientific and academic integrity. All Hopkins graduate students are required to read and sign the document during the first day of orienta- tion. Students noticing behavior inconsistent with the honor code are expected to notify the program director, the CMM Grievance Committee, or the associate dean for graduate student affairs. The School of Medicine has established policies on conflicts of com- mitment, conflicts of interest, procedures for dealing with professional misconduct, grievance procedures, and rules and guidelines for respon- sible conduct. As established by recommendation of the School of Medi- cine Advisory Board and the Faculty Medical School Council, all Hopkins students, fellows, and faculty are required to follow the policies in the booklet Honor in Science published by Sigma Xi. These policies are illus- trated in a series of lectures held in the School of Medicine. Attendance at one lecture per year is expected of all CMM students. First- and second-year CMM students will receive additional instruc- tion in responsible conduct of research as part of two presentations in He topics in cellular and molecular medicine. Attendance is required and will be monitored by the CMM educational coordinator. Third-year CMM students will attend the all-day workshop in biomedical ethics sponsored by the Department of Medicine and taught by several CMM faculty. This intense course comprises formal presentations and group discussions about specific problems in bias, fraud, and misconduct. Advanced CMM students will attend special activities held in the departments where their thesis projects are located.

APPENDIX E 9 Characteristics of Students A major CMM objective has been to recruit outstanding Ph.D. candi- dates to Johns Hopkins. Three sorts of individuals have joined CMM: U.S. nationals enrolling as straight Ph.D. students (21 individuals), U.S. na- tionals enrolling as M.D./Ph.D. students (5 individuals), and international students (16 individuals). To advertise our program a full page is in- cluded in Peterson's Guide, and there is an entry on the Hopkins website at ~www.med.jhu.edu/gradweb/cmm>. We have also mailed our CMM poster to multiple undergraduate institutions. Importantly, CMM faculty lecture extensively at universities throughout the United States to pro- vide visible evidence of the program to highly motivated undergraduate students, who are often in attendance. Requests for application forms are received throughout the year. Since 1996, students who apply to graduate programs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine submit a single universal application form. Applications are mailed directly to the CMM office. While individuals are free to apply to more than one program, appli- cants generally have a strong preference for one Hopkins program. A1- though the Hopkins graduate programs work together to facilitate stu- dent visits, each program evaluates students without conferring with the other programs. Each applicant is thereby assured that decisions are inde- pendently reached by each program, and no internal deals are made by any Hopkins programs. During the first five years CMM has averaged 90 applications (see Table E.3~. During the first two years other Hopkins graduate programs included a CMM program brochure in mailings to potential applicants; consequently the number of applications received was slightly higher (89 and 107~. Subsequently CMM managed its own publicity, and while the number of applications declined somewhat, the number has increased every year (74, 82, and 102). TABLE E.3 Summary of CMM Admissions During the First Five Years Summary of Admissions 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Number of applicants 89 107 74 82 102 Offers made 14 17 15 19 25 Accepted our offer 6 8 9 10 10 Completed training 0 0 0 0 0 Still in training 5 5 9 9 10 Left program 1 3 0 1 0 (Graduated (Graduated (Health in 1999) in 1999) reasons)

92 APPENDIX E The CMM Admissions Committee operates completely independently of other Hopkins graduate programs, and each application is read by at least two Admissions Committee members, who assign a preliminary score of 1 to 5 (1.0 = best). The students are evaluated on the following criteria: Academic performance in the sciences; Academic performance overall; · Graduate Record Examination scores; · Letters of recommendation; · Accomplishment and experience in research; ~ Evidence of dedication to a research career; and · Reputation of undergraduate institution. Those students ranked in the top third are invited to Hopkins for an interview (typically about 30 applicants). During the interview weekends students are interviewed by CMM students and at least five faculty. While interviewers rate the student on the same criteria as the initial readers, the ability of the applicant to communicate effectively, and the individual's creativity and commitment to science are scrutinized closely. The Admissions Committee holds a follow-up meeting at which the scores from the preliminary evaluations are compared with the interview scores and notes, and an average is calculated for each student. The Ad- missions Committee also consults the present CMM students for feed- back about the suitability of applicants. Applicants with a CMM rarUcing of 2.0 or better usually receive an offer. Those with 2.1 to 2.5 are wait- listed, and a subset may eventually receive offers. To date, about 40 per- cent of offers result in matriculation. The 1998 applicants who accepted a CMM offer and those who de- clined have been compared. To assess our weaknesses students who have declined the offer were contacted to learn of their alternative choices. Applicants who declined the offer did so after accepting offers by gradu- ate programs in outstanding universities. This information also offers evidence of the independence of CMM from other Johns Hopkins gradu- ate programs, since only five students who received CMM: offers declined in favor of more established Johns Hopkins programs (biochemistry, cell and molecular biology, and human genetics). Financial Data The Markey funds have been expended. Nevertheless, the John Hop- kins University School of Medicine is seeking funding to continue He Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine win new funding. CMM

APPENDIX E 93 staff has applied to the NIH for funding for a new program, and antici- pates funding in the near future. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO MARKEY FELLOWSHIP SYSTEM Overall Program Description The Markey Fellowship System was an interdisciplinary program in- volving both the academic campus and the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, the Salk Institute, the Scripps Re- search Institute, and the La Jolla Cancer Research Foundation (now the Burnham Institute). George Palade was the program director. The pro- gram relied heavily on the use of tutorials and small group conferences to establish close and effective interactions of the Markey fellows with pro- gram faculty. This approach was the best way to train students in a criti- cal assessment of relevant scientific literature. These activities were added systematically to the requirements of the different graduate programs in which the students were enrolled. The program also included symposia dealing with major health prob- lems still in need of effective solutions. One-day symposia with the fol- lowing titles were conducted: Virus; · The Interface of Science and Medicine: Human Immunodeficiency · The Cardiovascular System: Biology, Pathology, and Therapeutic Strategies; · Cancer: Progress Toward a Molecular Understanding and Rational Therapy; and · A Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer's Disease; Most speakers were from the UCSD faculty, but in one case the speaker was an outstanding investigator from another university. The program also included an annual retreat at a nearby ranch at which the Markey fellows presented their research accomplishments. These presentations were remarkable in substance and format, and their professional quality impressed the faculty and other fellows. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap The Markey fellows were exposed to a discussion of current health problems by experienced clinical and basic science investigators. The fel- lows had no contact with real patients because University of California,

94 APPENDIX E San Diego, hospitals discourage contact of nonprofessionals, such as grad- uate students, with patients for a variety of reasons. However, the fellows heard from experts about the status of current efforts to understand and control the major diseases that were the topics of the symposia. The "seeds" put in the fellows' minds by the topics of the symposia may germinate into active research involvement by the time they are ready to start their own research careers. Interestingly, many Markey fellows took the tutorials and small group conferences dealing with HIV infections and Alzheimer's disease. A listing of tutorials and small group conferences offered by program faculty in the last year of the program is listed below to illustrate the variety of topics and the broad participation of faculty from UCSD School of Medicine and campus and affiliated institutions. Protein Structure Determination by NMR Macromolecular Structure and Chemistry Development of the Immune System; · The Molecular Mechanisms of Neural Development; · Autoimmunity and Tolerance; · The Biology/Epidemiology of AIDS; Molecular Modeling Techniques in Chemistry; Evolution and Adaptation of the Visual System; Manipulating the Mouse Genome; · Receptor Tyrosine Kinases and Their Role in Neurodevelopment; Developmental Neurobiology; · Comparative Neurophysiology of Integrative Mechanisms; · Protein Sorting Pathways in Eukaryotic Systems; Signal Transduction: Coupling Mechanisms, Mediators, and Selec- tivity; and · Drosophila Neurogenesis. The core of the Markey Fellowship System was its faculty, and over 150 different faculty participated (see Table E.4~. These faculty were lo- cated in UCSD graduate programs, School of Medicine graduate pro- grams and at the Salk Institute, Scripps Research Institute, and La Jolla Cancer Research Foundation. Students interacted with faculty from more Man one institution. The Markey Fellowship System conducted annual retreats during which approximately 20 students presented synopses of their research. . . Characteristics of Students The leading candidates of each graduate program were nominated for Markey Fellowships. The nominations were discussed, assessed, and

APPENDIX E TABLE E.4 Location of Markey Fellowship System Faculty Location 95 Number of Faculty UCSD Graduate Departments Biology Biochemistry School of Medicine Graduate Programs Biomedical sciences Neurosciences Molecular pathology Affiliated Institutions The Salk Institute The Scripts Research Institute La Jolla Cancer Research Foundation 4 44 13 31 23 7 21 12 compared by an executive committee (steering committee) for Me Markey Fellowship System, which included representatives of each program, as well as representatives of Me collaborating institutions: the Salk Institute, Scripps Research Institute, and La Tolla Cancer Research Foundation. This committee made the final decisions for appointing Markey fellows. The number of fellows in the Markey Fellowship System averaged nearly 18 per year, with 89 fellows enrolled during Me five years that new fellows were admitted (see Table E.5~. The most popular programs of the Markey Fellowship System were biology and biomedical sciences; pathol- ogy had the fewest fellows. In the Biomedical Sciences program one or two fellows come from the Medical School's Medical Scientist Training program. TABLE E.5 Markey Fellows at the University of California, San Diego, 1992-1996 Programs Academic Year Biochemistry Biology Biomedical Sciences Neuroscience Pathology Total 1992-1993 1993-1994 1 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 Total 3 2 2 11 25 5 6 5 6 4 5 2 7 3 5 6 4 4 5 4 29 2 20 15 19 18 17 17 7 89 l

96 APPENDIX E Financial Data Each Markey fellow received a stipend of $16,000 per annum and a travel allowance of $1,000. Small amounts of money were used for the administration of the Markey system. MARKEY MOLECULAR MEDICINE GRADUATE PROGRAM UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Overall Program Description The Molecular Medicine Graduate Program at the University of Vir- ginia School of Medicine is designed to provide rigorous disciplinary training in basic sciences as well as exposure to the problems and oppor- tunities of research on human disease. The central mechanism for achiev- ing these goals is dual mentorship: Each student has a research mentor in a basic science department and a clinical mentor in a clinical department. Ideally the student's research will serve as a collaborative venture be- tween the basic scientist and the clinician. Thus, this program supports the research activities of both the basic and the clinical departments. The participating basic science departments and programs are micro- biology, biochemistry and molecular genetics, pharmacology, neurosci- ence, biophysics, molecular physiology and biological physics, and cell biology. The participating clinical departments are pathology, neurology, urology, medicine, pediatrics, and surgery. Students spend their first year in coursework and laboratory rota- tions. Each beginrung student is given a three-person advisory committee for guidance until the student chooses a laboratory and has a thesis com- mittee set up. The first-year courses include cell and tissue structure, gene structure and expression, and biochemistry structure and function. Avail- able electives include advanced genetics, molecular oncology, molecular pathogenesis, immunology, physiology, molecular pharmacology, and protein chemistry. At the beginning of the second year, students choose research and clinical mentors and begin their research. During the second year the students take a course on topics on the molecular basis of human disease, which is organized by the program. The Executive Committee was established to set policy for the pro- gram, to advise students, and to handle admissions, and evaluate student progress. The Executive Committee consists of individuals who represent the various constituencies and departments the program serves and rep- resents both basic science and clinical departments. This is the fifth year of full operation of the program. Superior stu- dents are increasingly attracted to the program as people learn about it

APPENDIX E 97 (almost all applicants now contact the program through the Web). The program received 61 applications last year for a maximum of 3 positions. Ties to the M.D./Ph.D. program have been strengthened along with ties to a newly designated research track for medical students in the didactic aspects of the training. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap The program jointly sponsors an evening seminar and lasagna dinner called "molecular disease rounds" approximately twice a semester. At this event a clinical investigator introduces a disease state, and a basic scientist gives a lecture about the molecular basis of the disease. Where possible, pairs of individuals who are working collaboratively are chosen. This course follows the dual-mentor paradigm initiated by us for gradu- ate mentoring. Topics for the molecular disease rounds include · Molecular Pathology: New Approaches To Understanding Human Pathogenesis; · How Mitochondrial DNA Defects Cause Alzheimer's and Parkin- son's Disease; · Influenza Surface Proteins: Crystal Structures and Targeted Drug Design; · The Human Immune Response to Melanoma; · The Molecular Dissection of Pancreatic Carcinoma; · Light Input to the Vertebrate Circadian System; · The Reproductive System: A Question of Timing; and · The Science and Clinical Uses of Sperm Check, An Immunodiag- nostic for Detecting and Measuring Sperm. We also have started a new course titled "Topics in Molecular Basis of Human Disease." This course is required for our molecular medicine stu- dents, but is also open to other graduate students as well as MSTP and research-track M.D. students. The course addresses the biologic and mo- lecular mechanisms related to selected disease processes as they affect specific cell types, tissues, and organ systems. The format consists of weekly two-hour meetings, and each topic is covered in two sequential sessions with a combination of informal didactic presentations by the faculty and journal article discussions (three to five papers total) by the students. Didactic-style presentations are aimed at providing sufficient background on the relevant pathobiology, histopathology, and clinical manifestations for the students to read and discuss the literature assign- ments. A strong focus of the course will be the discussion of the basic pa~obiologic processes and the contemporary biomedical translation of

98 APPENDIX E experimental science to the understanding and treatment of human dis- eases. Enrollment is limited to 21 students, with preference given to full- time graduate students in the Molecular Medicine program, first-year students in the Medical Scientist Training program, and medical students participating in graduate research programs. The class meets on lThurs- day afternoons and the format is similar to the molecular disease rounds. At one session both a physician and a basic scientist introduce a disease topic and papers are assigned that investigate the molecular basis of the disease. At the session the following week students present, discuss, and analyze the assigned papers. The course has been extraordinarily well received. The only difficulty we have had is integrating the course into the medical school schedule. The most recent offerings in "Topics of the Molecular Basis of Human Disease" were · Diabetes; · Growth Hormone Action in the Cell and in the Organism; · Retinal Degenerations; · Molecular Genetics of Colorectal Neoplasia; · Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Neurodegenerative Diseases and Ther- apeutic Strategies; and · Pathobiology and Therapeutic Approaches to Melanomas. Characteristics of Students The Markey Molecular Medical program gets as many as 60 appli- cants per year. At least half of the applicants are qualified to enter the program, however fiscal restraints have limited the number of offers to 6 per year, with an average of 4 students admitted each year. A total of 20 students have been admitted to the program. One, admitted as an ad- vanced student, has already graduated from the program and is currently employed by Genentech, doing translational research. One student left the program to continue studies with his science mentor, who moved to another university. Two students have decided to graduate with a mas- ter's degree. Currently there are 16 students enrolled in the program. Financial Data The major barrier to further development of the program has been funding. The resources have not been committed to admit a cohort of students large enough for this group to achieve an institutional identity. Currently the university is supporting the program at a steady-state level, and there are funds to support second-year and some third-year students.

APPENDIX E 99 Markey funds have been shepherded to fund first-year students, as there are no institutional funds for that. The Markey Molecular Graduate pro- gram has attempted to secure additional funding from extramural sources. These attempts, however, have been unsuccessful. The small class size also makes it impractical to develop specific course offerings. An additional barrier has been the fact that the program occurs in a matrix of departmental graduate programs, which also creates identity problems for advanced students, who typically feel more at home with their departmental colleagues. LUCILLE P. MARKEY SPECIAL EMPHASIS PATHWAY IN HUMAN PATHOBIOLOGY WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Overall Program Description The Lucille P. Markey Special Emphasis Pathway in Human Patho- biology at Washington University School of Medicine was established in 1992 through a grant from the Markey Charitable Trust. The pathway is dedicated to training bright, young Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fel- lows in various aspects of human disease. The overall purpose of this innovative educational experience is to produce a cadre of excellent young investigators who will carry out basic research in areas related to human disease and serve as role models for future generations of students. The long-term objective is to develop research faculty at the Ph.D. level who are familiar with human diseases and who regard research in human disease as an exciting opportunity. The driving force behind the development of the Markey pathway at Washington University was (and continues to be) the widening gap be- tween clinical and basic research, and the pressing need to develop train- ing programs that bridge this gap for Ph.D. researchers in the life sci- ences. U.S. health statistics have documented the magnitude and explosive growth of biomedical science in the past two decades. The basic sciences, including molecular biology, have expanded and evolved rapidly. Ad- vances in basic science have created extraordinary opportunities for un- derstanding the fundamental biological basis of clinical medicine and using this information in innovative ways to help patients. At the same time, however, the changing landscape of the U.S. health care system and serious financial pressures facing academic medical centers have had a significant negative impact on the investigative activities of clinical fac- ulty. Traditional approaches to addressing these issues have been success- ful to a large degree, but new initiatives are needed. M.D. /Ph.D. training

100 APPENDIX E programs provide one mechanism by which physician-investigators ac- quire the basic science skills and education to approach complex biomedi- cal problems. One untapped area in which a major long-term impact on biomedical education can be achieved is the introduction of the biology of human disease to the pool of competent young Ph.D. investigators. A1- though the rationale for this approach may appear obvious, successful implementation of this strategy has required careful thought and plan- ning, the enthusiastic and dedicated commitment of an energetic faculty, and the institutional will to provide an environment that nurtures inno- vation, excellence, and an interdisciplinary approach in scientific training and research. All graduate research training in the life sciences at Washington Uni- versity is administered through the Division of Biology and Biomedical Sciences. All predoctoral programs and degree-granting units in the bio- logical sciences at Washington University are both interdisciplinary and interdepartmental. The division was established as an independent ad- ministrative unit with its own endowment in recognition of the increas- ingly interrelated nature of all aspects of research in the biomedical and biological sciences, and to facilitate cooperation among faculty in the in- terdisciplinary training of future biological scientists. At the present time the Division of Biology and Biomedical Sciences is responsible for admin- istering several university programs, including the Ph.D. portion of the M.D./Ph.D. training program, the M.D./M.A. program, the Young Scien- tist program, as well as the Markey Special Emphasis Pathway in Human Pathobiology. The Markey pathway emphasizes training a subset of graduate stu- dents and postdoctoral fellows to provide them with a basic understand- ing of human disease without distracting them unduly from the main objective of becoming first-rate basic scientists. The clinical specialties provide limitless opportunities for important, challenging research in the understanding and treatment of human disease, and the main goal of this program is to make these opportunities and challenges known to Ph.D. students and fellows and to entice a number of them into these areas. Alan L. Schwartz, Ph.D., M.D., Spoehrer Professor and head of the Department of Pediatrics at Washington University, was the principal investigator of the original proposal to the Markey Trust and served as director of the pathway from its inception until 1998. In July 1998 Jeffrey E. Saffitz, M.D., Ph.D., Lacy Professor of Pathology, accepted the post of program director and assumed responsibilities for the day-to-day admin- istration of the program. Dr. Saffitz has been involved with the Markey pathway since its inception. He served on the original Steering Commit- tee and directed the Clinical Mentor program prior to assuming his cur- rent position as program director.

APPENDIX E 101 Timothy I. Ley, M.D., and George I. Broze, Ir., M.D., both professors of medicine at Washington University, were original members of the Steering Committee and served as coursemasters for the first seven years. In 1998 Dr. Broze stepped down as coursemaster, and was replaced by Daniel C. Link, M.D., assistant professor of medicine. Drs. Ley and Link now serve as co-coursemasters and work together as a team to organize the course, select faculty members who lead the three sections presented each year, and assume overall responsibility for seeing that the course runs smoothly. As new faculty members join Washington University and participate in Markey pathway programs either as faculty members in the course, clinical mentors, or research mentors of students in the pathway, selected individuals are invited to fulfill leadership roles. Recent additions include lean Schaffer, M.D., assistant professor of medicine) and Samuel Speck, Ph.D., professor of pathology, who are now members of the Steering Committee and serve on the Postdoctoral Fellow Admissions Committee. Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap Although much of the nation's basic biological and biomedical re- search takes place at academic medical centers, pre- and postdoctoral Ph.D. trainees (including those who train in the laboratories of physician- scientists) have traditionally had little or no access to the clinical enter- prise at these centers. Until the development of the Markey Special Em- phasis Pathway in Human Pathobiology there had not been a training model at Washington University designed to engage Ph.D.-level scientific trainees in the clinical realm. The three principal components of the Markey pathway through which Washington University bridges He bed-bench gap are a course in human pathobiology; a clinical mentorship program; and enrichment ac- tivities, including an annual retreat and guest lecturers. The following is a brief description of each of these components. The Markey Pathway Course on the Pathobiology of Human Disease States A fundamental premise upon which our philosophy is based is that all pathophysiology is an integrative function. Each cell type, organ sys- tem, physiological state, and pathological stress involves complex inter- actions that can be dissected and studied in isolation but which must also be evaluated as a whole. A single disease state provides a paradigm in which students can experience several of He principal areas in human pathobiology. The Markey Pathway Course on Human Pathobiology is organized into three sections, each of which focuses on a major disease state. The

102 APPENDIX E course is offered each fall semester. Because the pathway encompasses two years, each student will have been exposed to course curricula on six different diseases. Diseases covered include sickle cell anemia, AIDS, acute leukemia, multiple endocrine neoplasia, osteoporosis, and rheuma- toid arthritis. The selection of disease topics and the organization of each component of the course are the responsibilities of Drs. Timothy Ley and Daniel Link, coursemasters, together with the program director and Steer- ing Committee. The course is presented at an intermediate or advanced graduate level appropriate for second- and third-year graduate students. As noted above, Markey pathway trainees include postdoctoral fellows. The mixture of pre- and postdoctoral trainees enriches the milieu for both students and faculty, and also ensures that the level of teaching and dis- cussion is on a high plane. Enrollment in the course is limited to Markey pathway trainees to maintain a forum for active interchange between the teaching faculty and students and to encourage student participation in the course. The Markey pathway students evaluate every section presented and comments are relayed to the coursemasters, the faculty section leader, and the program director. Course faculty are selected each year to include both clinical and basic science faculty, with special attention paid to teaching skills and enthusiasm, as well as their ability to integrate into a cohesive educational effort. The majority of the course faculty are young and active investiga- tors in the clinical sciences. In general the course material for each disease state is presented in 10 sessions of 1.5 hours duration (total of 15 hours). Each week there are two sessions, typically including a 60-minute lecture (or other type of presentation, including patient interviews) and a 30- minute discussion of papers from the historical and current medical lit- erature. Students lead the literature discussion and the faculty participate as moderators. The focus of these discussions is to address major disease states of comparable complexity and importance that affect society. An obvious benefit of a disease-oriented course is the attraction of students to future research opportunities in that disease state. One example of a disease state covered in course material is chronic myelocytic leukemia (1998 course topic). Chronic myelocytic leukemia (CML) is an acquired clonal disorder of hematopoiesis that is manifest by an accumulation of mature and immature granulocytes in the blood. A cardinal feature of CML is Me presence of the Philadelphia (Ph) chromo- some in leukemic cells. Of note, the Ph chromosome was the first chromo- somal abnormality associated with a specific human cancer. Subsequently it was determined that the Ph chromosome is a result of a translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 t (9; 22~. Nearly 20 years ago it was discovered that this translocation fuses the BCR gene with the ABL gene,

APPENDIX E 103 resulting in the production of a novel chimeric protein termed bcr-abl. Since then extensive studies have been directed at characterizing the mo- lecular mechanisms by which bcr-abl induces leukemia. CML provides an exemplary model to study the impact of basic re- search on clinical medicine. Throughout this course the students were asked to consider two questions: (1) How has the study of bcr-abl contrib- uted to our understanding of the pathogenesis of CML and impacted its clinical management? and (2) What are the important clinical problems in CML and how can basic research help to resolve them? During the course the students developed a thorough understanding of the clinical presentation and management of patients with CML. Pa- tient interviews were performed on two separate occasions and served to highlight therapeutic dilemmas. More importantly these interviews pro- vided the students with valuable insights into the emotional and social aspects of this disease. Interspersed with the clinic-oriented lectures was a detailed presentation of the molecular biology of bcr-abl with an empha- sis on its impact on clinical management. As is readily apparent from this model there is enormous potential to integrate vast areas of human pathophysiology. The key is integration and achievement of a moderate degree of depth (i.e., avoiding superficial- ity while not attempting to provide an entire medical education). The curricular format based on a single disease requires that faculty relate their particular discussions to the central theme, chronic myelocytic leu- kemia in this case. During some courses Washington University invites outstanding lec- turers to complement the Washington University faculty. For example, Orah Platt, M.D., Harvard Medical School, has spoken twice on sickle cell disease; I. Joseph Marr, M.D., Searle, has spoken on malaria; and Richard Lawn, Ph.D., Stanford University, has spoken on coronary artery disease. James Griffin, M.D. also from Harvard Medical School, spoke on cell biology of CML. Washington University has also invited keynote visiting professors to present seminars to the entire medical center community toward the end of each theme. For example, in the case of cystic fibrosis, Michael Welch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine and cell physiology, investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Iowa, presented a lecture titled "The Pathway of Discovery in Cystic Fibrosis." The Markey Pathway Clinical Mentor Program Another central element of this approach to bridging the bed-bench gap and developing basic scientists who aspire to focus on investigative aspects of human disease is the Clinical Mentor program. The overall goal of this pathway component is to enhance awareness of the underlying

104 APPENDIX E biology and pathobiology of human disease. Thus, Washington Univer- sity has established a mechanism for sustained interactions of trainees and clinical scholars in an area of mutual investigative interest. The clin- ical mentor component re-establishes the traditional student-mentor re- lationship, a foundation of scientific training but one that has been rel- egated to a minor position in many of today's graduate education programs. This provides for a close interpersonal relationship between student and mentor. Under the guidance of Dr. Jeffrey Saffitz, professor of pathology and medicine and clinical mentorship director for the pathway, trainees to- gether with their research advisors will select members of the faculty with clinical involvement to serve as clinical mentors for the students. This liaison in essence establishes a basic science and clinical science mentor pair for each student. The clinical science mentor will be a top-notch investigator. Ibe principal goal here is to provide a forum for and conti- nuity with the exciting issues in clinical medicine. In practice this is ac- complished by having the student join the clinical mentor for about two hours per month to participate in any of the various clinical activities of the mentor. Often students attend combined specialty conferences with their mentors. The medical center has a well-organized, ongoing series of interdisciplinary clinical specialty conferences, which are interdepart- mental and interdivisional. These conferences generally meet weeldy or biweekly and provide an interactive forum for discussion of current con- cepts and emerging ideas in clinical medicine. Examples of these confer- ences are · Medical genetics conference (includes faculty from obstetrics, pediatrics, medicine, pathology, and surgery); · Autopsy conference (includes faculty from pathology, radiology, medicine, pediatrics, and surgery); · Allergy-clinical immunology conference (includes faculty from medicine, pediatrics, and pathology); · Metabolism-endocrinology-nutrition conference (includes faculty from medicine, pediatrics, pathology, and surgery); · Hematology-oncology conference (includes faculty from medicine, pediatrics, pathology, and surgery); and · Transplantation biology conference (includes faculty from medi- cine, pathology, surgery, and pediatrics). These conferences expose the student to the concepts and the faculty in the targeted areas. In addition, students and mentors are encouraged to participate together in inpatient attending or consultation rounds, outpa- tient activities, various clinical procedures, or other activities that the

APPENDIX E 105 clinical mentor would normally perform as part of clinical responsibili- ties. It is important not to micromanage the type of interactions between students and mentors. The best results usually come from providing some basic ground rules for the program and then allowing two highly moti- vated and energetic people to develop their own mutually fulfilling rela- tionship. The goal is not to detract from investigative scholarship, which is the major focus for graduate students after their first three semesters, but to supplement it. The clinical orientation of the mentor interaction provides a longitudinal program during the thesis years. The trainee's time commitment is typically small (a few hours per month) but the po- tential impact can be great and long lasting. The clinical mentor component of the human pathobiology pathway has been a major success since it was begun seven years ago. For most of the pathway students this program has provided the first (and for many probably the only) opportunity to participate in the clinical activities of an academic medical center and to do so as the personal guest of an out- standing physician-scientist. Responses of the students to annual surveys about the program have been uniformly strongly positive. Many have commented that their experiences significantly broadened their scientific horizons and deepened their commitment to careers in which basic re- search is directly linked to important clinical problems. Many medical mentors and students mentioned that their relationships lasted longer than the required three semesters and frequently was for many more hours per month than the proscribed minimum. Both the program director (Dr. Saffitz) and the program administra- tor (Ms. Deborah Sinak) evaluate the mentor program on an ongoing basis. In addition to the annual survey, which gives participants an op- portunity to comment in detail on their individual experiences, Dr. Saffitz and Ms. Sinak communicate informally with both students and faculty mentors throughout the course of the 18 months of this portion of the program to monitor progress. When students and wisely chosen mentors are brought together under the aegis of this program, they tend to de- velop extremely effective working relationships to the great benefit of both parties. The Markey Pathway Human Pathobiology Annual Retreat One of the important components of the pathway in human disease is providing the students with a sense of identity and of being part of a group accomplishing something meaningful. For this reason several spe- cial activities have been organized, including an annual two-day retreat to provide students with an opportunity to present their own research and exchange ideas. Each year in late spring all pathway students, men-

106 APPENDIX E tors, course faculty, steering committee, and selected medical school schol- ars are invited to participate in a retreat. There is always a keynote speaker, generally from outside the university. For example, in May 1997 Professor Kari Raivio, M.D., Ph.D., rector of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and a world-renowned human developmental biologist and phy- sician, scientist, and educator, served as the keynote speaker and dis- cussed educational pathways for human biologists in Europe. The retreat provides an environment of intimacy for personal and scientific interactions between trainees and faculty. It includes a session devoted to student presentations and roundiable discussions of selected scientific topics, including a critique of the course in pathobiology and the clinical mentor program. The retreat offers a chance to exchange informa- tion and ideas in a rural setting (at selected sites a few hours' drive from St. Louis), where recreation and social events are also featured. After dinner on the first evening a lecture is presented, which provides a way for introduction of the keynote speaker. Roundtable discussions are planned to acquaint students and junior faculty with elements of professional life. Senior faculty and guests pre- sent information on various topics, such as how to select a postdoctoral position; how to acquire funding for research; the nature of positions in academia, government, and industry; and the changing climate of bio- medical investigation. Characteristics of Students The Markey pathway program is now in its eighth year. It is obvi- ously too early to formally define the long-term success of our program. The academic growth of the trainees, the ability of the trainees to success- fully secure peer-reviewed grant support, their election to esteemed sci- entific societies, and selection to peer-review panels are criteria that will be used to judge the success of the program. Long-term success of Markey trainees will ultimately be judged on the basis of successful application of sophisticated tools of biological inquiry to studies of human disease. Recruiting and Admissions Process Recruiting for Markey pathway students has employed the usual bro- chures and listings in Peterson's Guide. There is also a Web link from the division's Web page (<http//dbbs.wustl.edu>~. The mainstay of the re- cruiting effort has been the contacts with a number of smaller colleges known for the quality and rigor of their programs. Washington Univer- sity offers a program of summer research internships to students from these colleges. The Markey pathway is announced to all students who

APPENDIX E 107 apply for graduate research training in the Division of Biology and Bio- medical Sciences, as well as publicized nationally through mailings to undergraduate schools, for example. The result of these intensive efforts was that the division received greatly increased numbers of applications from these high-quality sources, and the overall quality of the applicant pool has been trending steadily upward for the last several years. Over the past eight years the Markey pathway in human pathobiology has provided a powerful recruiting incentive that has enhanced the qual- ity of the overall pool of applicants to the Division of Biology and Bio- medical Sciences. Another advantage of the pathway has been the poten- tial to attract undergraduate students who have leanings toward both human disease and basic science. This can most effectively be done with the pre-professional advisors (i.e., general pre-medical advisors) at most colleges. In order to maintain the integrated strength of the Division in graduate education, Pathway students are generally selected during their first year of graduate studies and are formally enrolled during years 2 and 3 of their 5 to 5.5 years of graduate education. Following their two years in the pathway students continue to attend seminars and usually maintain close relationships with their clinical mentors. As stated above, graduate students are selected for the Markey path- way in the second half of their first year. Students apply to the pathway by April 1 of each year. Applications along with academic credentials (including graduate record exams and grades in undergraduate and grad- uate school), course evaluations, lab rotation evaluations while at Wash- ington University, letters of recommendation from mentors for the pre- doctoral applicants and project and goal statements for the postdoctoral applicants are reviewed and ranked by the Admissions Committee. Pre- and postdoctoral admissions committees (subcommittees of the Steering Committee) endeavor to recruit the brightest, most motivated applicants, while achieving a good mix of graduate students and postdoctoral fel- lows, and a reasonable balance among various interests (e.g., neurobiol- ogy, immunology, genetics) such that substantial cross-fertilization will occur during the courses and other activities of the program. Financial Data The Markey pathway at Washington University has operated much like the other components of the Division of Biology and Biomedical Sci- ences. Finances are required to support trainee tuition and stipends, ad- ministrative costs of the division, programmatic costs of the pathway (faculty leadership), and ancillary costs directly associated with the path- way (e.g., annual retreat, invited speakers). The total costs per annum supported by the Markey Trust were approximately $600,000. Since ter-

108 APPENDIX E mination of the Markey support it has been necessary to shift some of the costs for tuition and stipends to the trainee's laboratory, thus allowing the pathway to continue with total costs per annum of approximately $173,000. This cost shifting consisted primarily of eliminating tuition re- imbursement for graduate students and stipends for postdoctoral stu- dents. In addition, because all current funding is intramural, overhead costs are not applicable. Additional economies were achieved by reduc- ing expenditures for the Markey retreat and visiting scholars, and elimi- nating funding for invited speakers.

Next: Appendix F: Summary of Site Visits to Markey-Funded Programs that Provided Training in Basic Research to Physicians »
Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $46.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since the 1970s there has been a serious gap between fundamental biological research and its clinical application. In response to this gap the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust instituted the General Organizational Grants program, which funded two types of awards to provide training that would bridge the bed-bench gap. These training awards fell into two categories: (1) those that provided significant opportunities for M.D.s to engage in basic research during and immediately following medical school and residency, and (2) those that provided significant clinical exposure for Ph.D.s while they were predoctoral or postdoctoral students. These grants were intended to close the widening gap between rapid advances in our understanding of the biological process and the translation of that knowledge into techniques for preventing diseases. This report examines the General Organizational Grant programs, identifies best practices, and provides observations for future philanthropic funders.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!