Putting the Dots Where They Count

While 155 members of the UCSF leadership may have started the annual retreat not even agreeing on a definition of translational research, there was a clear consensus that advancing it was a campus priority, and by the end of the 1 1/2-day meeting, a list of specific steps had been created.

This result was possible through a carefully orchestrated structure that led participants from an examination of the current state of translational research at UCSF to reflections on the challenges ahead, to discussions leading to key ideas, which were then voted on, refined, and distilled into recommendations.

The retreat started with an overview of a few of the existing translational research hubs at UCSF, their aims, and the resources they provide to the campus community (see presentations on the left).

A keynote address by Peter Kim, PhD, President of Merck Research Laboratories, gave an insightful industry perspective on the challenge of creating a groundwork in the present for drugs and devices in the future.

Intense discussions at each table resulted in a series of key ideas, which were listed on posters by area and voted on the next morning. Break-out groups were charged with submitting specific recommendations based on the ideas which garnered the most votes, and a final discussion and vote generated a shortlist of steps to undertake in the immediate future.

Priorities Going Forward

There were a number of themes that emerged in the final list of priorities:

• The top priority is to adapt faculty advancement policies so that the measures of success recognize that clinical or collaborative research often does not yield as many first- or last-author scientific publications as basic research might. Promotion guidelines need to be consistent across departments so that junior faculty who pursue translational research have clear opportunities for advancement. The leadership also wants to find new ways to fund the work of promising junior faculty.
• Although many graduate, residency and fellowship programs across the campus involve translational research, there is limited coordination and interaction among them. The new CTSI may help bring the programs together and create new training opportunities in clinical and translational research. More coordination with other programs such as PIBS, BMS and iPQB was also recommended.
• On the infrastructure side, the group said that UCSF's process for reviewing and approving clinical trial protocols through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and research grants or contracts through the Office of Sponsored Research, Division of Contracts & Grants (C&G) has to be improved. During the retreat, many faculty members complained that getting a clinical trial started at UCSF frequently takes much longer than other institutions, making participation in multi-center clinical trials difficult.
• Another infrastructure need is to increase the capabilities and variety of scientific "core" facilities, such as genomics.

Links:

UCSF Today Feature

The UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute: A View To The Future Of Research