Here are some of the issues that I’ve been considering:
1) What would be a good size for the Institute to finally achieve after the expansion project and its follow-on (which I’ll call Phase III for right now). And should I think of that in terms of PI’s, or some other metric?
2)How do we balance the famed Venn Diagram so that we continue to have both interdisciplinary focus and depth?
3) Do we tweak the Venn diagram’s components? For example, I often use “behavioral biology” instead of cognitive psychology–prefering the broader scope.
4) Do we continue as a pure research unit of the university, or do we formalize the academic components that already co-habitate with us?
5) What is the right strategy so that our science gets published in the highest impact journals?
6) As we add faculty, what role does Krasnow (as a research unit) play in these academic searches? In the same vein, how do we get the right mix of criteria for the searches?
7) What is the appropriate role for Krasnow in Mason clinical research…and translational research?
8) How do we keep the scientific excitement and passion going as we become older and mature institutionally?
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 