The Financial Times today had a very interesting article on Americans who are moving to the UK. Among the listed reasons for the migration: health insurance, quality of life, and the ability to travel between the countries of Europe the way most Americans view traveling between the States.

I worry about the potential effects of such a trend on science here in the United States. If this country becomes a less attractive place for the best and the brightest to pursue a career in research, then the nation will be poorer as a result (both metaphorically and actually). I also would add to the list above some additional factors that are specific to science as it’s currently being practiced here in America. Among my items: the increasing politicization of science (e.g. stem cell research and climate change) and the perceived “unfriendly” visa environment for foreign scientists to work in the US.

The second point is significantly more subtle than the first. The latter item refers to the added value to a scientific environment that comes from internationalization. Here at Krasnow, we have an institute for advanced study that currently houses scientists and students that come from China, Russia, Italy, Ukraine and Brazil among many others. That trans-national milieu is considered a real plus among most of the scientists I’ve known. I believe the reason is that scientists value exploration of different cultures almost as highly as they do exploration of nature. If we in the US trend towards more nationalistic science, then I fear the result will be a migration of the science away from the United States.

Jim

A lot has been going on the past week, so it’s probably a good time to update here with some of the more important items:

1) The MRI radio frequency shield will receive its first test today. If that’s successful, we’ll then go on to install the magnetic shield.

2) We’re looking at delivery of the Magnet over the weekend of May 8. We’ll arrange video recording of the delivery and will put it up on the Institute’s web site for download.

3) The Provost made his annual visit with the Krasnow faculty yesterday. It was a very productive Q&A session for which we’re all very grateful.

4) The Krasnow Advisory Board met last week and formed two new subcommittees: one will be in the area of fundraising and it will be chaired by Ms. Patricia Kluge. The other will be in the area of public relations and that committee will be chaired by Dr. Adrianne Noe. My sense is that both of these new subcommittees will be crucial as we move forward with our growth plans.

Jim

The new journal that I’m involved with, Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics, has its web site up (click on the link above). I’m really excited about my other colleague editorial board members and the initial set of articles I think will be very exciting.

Jim

My friend and colleague Anne Rosenblum sent along a wonderful report on how important basic research is at the Academy (linked above).

Money quote from the accompanying press release:
“At present, only 20% of all basic research in the US is performed by the private sector. Colleges and universities account for 60% of such research, with government accounting for the remaining amounts. Washington is the largest funder of basic research, paying for 57% of the total.”

For those of you who were wondering about the 18-Wheeler that was pulled
up this morning to the back of the building, the cargo was the shielding
for the new MRI which will now be rapidly installed over the next
several days. It should be very exciting to watch.

Jim

I’m sure I saw the best hoops game of my life this afternoon. And
that includes the Lakers of 1972 with their 38 game win streak–which
I lived through as a 16 year old growing up 20 miles from the so-
called “House that Wilt Built”. Congrats once again to Mason’s
Patriots who beat number one seeded UConn to advance to the NCAA
Final Four. Sometimes Hoops intersects with science….my sense is
that this is one of those very rare times–a tipping point for a
university.

I worry often about a confusion between two styles of governance:
that of the academic department and that of a research institute.
Stand-alone institutes like Woods Hole or Santa Fe don’t have this
problem because of their distance from the day-to-day life of the
modern american university, but places like Krasnow often do.

In a a sense, the academic department can be viewed as a homeostat
with teaching loads, research, service and the rest of faculty
activities in exquisite balance. The raison d’etre for the balancing
act can best be seen in the context of the continuing obligation to
educate students. Such a permanent state of affairs resonates well
with the notion of keeping everything else in balance.

In contrast, a research institute can be viewed best I think as a
heterostat–that is a system that seeks to move always towards a
maximum condition (in our case the production of new scientific
knowledge). Hence the successful scientific institute is constantly
reorganizing itself to optimize this goal often in an opportunistic
sense. Thus, a good research institute most constantly be open to
reconfiguration in order to pursue new scientific opportunities.

This heterostatic mode can be quite stressful to faculty who are, in
the academic part of their lives, operating within the homeostatic
balancing mode of an academic department. This is especially salient
with respect to governance where a department chair might respond to
enforced change by rebalancing the loads and programs back to a
perceived status quo. In contrast, an institute director, might
respond to the same change by reconfiguring loads and programs to
achieve greater scientific success.

Jim

Next week is the Spring meeting of the Krasnow Advisory Board, a unique group of distinguished volunteers from around the country who volunteer their time to give me advice on the strategic direction of the Institute. The Krasnow Advisory Board is somewhat different from a typical governance board for a stand-alone institute in that its responsibility is not fiduciary (those responsibilities ultimately reside with the George Mason University Board of Visitors). Rather, the Advisory Board plays a key role in positioning the Institute vis a vis the external world, particularly the world of decision makers and external stake-holders. This is also a distinct role from the Krasnow Scientific Advisory Board, which I will discuss in a later blog entry.

At next week’s meeting our Advisory Board will have a great opportunity to get updates on the construction and the MRI installation as well as plans for the two new PI’s who will be coming on board over the summer (more about them later also). I’ll get advice from the Board in three main areas: first, how do we build a long term endowment for the Institute that can serve as a resource for the new scientific hires that are now coming down the road. Second, how do we adjust to macro-changes in the government R&D funding environment. Finally, I’ll ask the Board to commence a discussion on Phase III of the Krasnow Institute–which will further expand our space by another 12,500 square feet.

Jim

Yes, sometimes I really just care about Hoops! Congrats to the Mason
Patriots, who today upset the defending NCAA Champion UNC Tarheels.

Jim

Today marks the end of Spring Break at Mason and the beginning of the
second half of the Spring Semester. I’m teaching a course on signal
transduction this time around and quite enjoying the material–as much I
hope as our graduate students are. I also have a graduate student
getting ready to defend this term and another one advancing to candidacy
this week (we hope) by passing his qualifying exams. So time passes,
even in academia.

Here at Krasnow we’re only about six weeks out from taking delivery of
the new MRI magnet. Add to that welcoming two new P.I.’s , the building
expansion and a couple of job transitions–well, you can see it’s an
exciting time.

Jim