The Phase I Krasnow Expansion Projects are of course getting under way and I thought this might be a good time to give a picture of what institute life will be like approximately 18 months from now when we’re moved in.

First, Krasnow will be larger in terms of research groups. I’m anticipating that there will be at least one new PI in place (with his or her laboratory group) and we’ll be in the process of recruiting for the second of six. This new PI will be a cognitive neuroscientist and I expect his/her research area to complement our existing cognitive neuroscience strengths. Obviously this new group will be a heavy user of NIKI (NeuroImaging at the Krasnow Institute) where I hope we’ll be looking at several instrumentation upgrades to our existing 3T Allegra system.

Second, Krasnow will once again become, if briefly, a place with ample space to spread out although we intend the research usage of the new space to be far greater than that of the old space. But there certainly will be a welcome break in the relentless up-tick in our population density.

Third, our academic connections will be on order of magnitude more intense than they have been. We’ll be seeing Krasnow involvement in everything from undergraduate research experiences to of course doctoral programs but also including post-graduate medical education opportunities. That will be a reflection of the growth of the University, especially in the life sciences.

Of course our woods will be intact (mostly) outside the east-facing windows and we’ll probably be facing the same issues with parking that we always have.

And…

we’ll be beginning the intense push for the Phase II expansion project, which will add an additional 12,500 square feet of research space to our facility. This will be an opportunity once again for input from our entire community of scholars and staff.

Will all of this be worth the various inconveniences along the way? I certainly think so. It will allow us to build scientifically upon our current strengths and to achieve critical mass across all of the fields (Computer Sciences, Behavioral Biology and Neuroscience) that our founders envisaged over 15 years ago.

Jim

One way to facilitate research collaboration between research groups at an institute is to view each new PI hire as an opportunity to bring the existing complement of scientists together.

As an example: one might hope that by hiring a new cognitive neuroscientist who uses fused data from say fMRI, dtMRI, MEG and Near Infrared Imaging one might succeed in bringing together existing groups where one group operates pretty much exclusively in the domain of brain nuclei or cortical regions and another group that operates pretty much in the domain of neurophysiology and perhaps aspects of cytoarchitecture.

This is of course strategic hiring and is often thought to be at odds with the traditional search committee approach of academia, but I don’t think it has to be. You just need search committees with a strategic focus on the future of your institute.

Jim

One natural tendency for a research institute that is growing rapidly is to metastasize hierarchically. One example of this is to form a large number of centers within the institute, each center somewhat autonomous in terms of its research agenda.

The problem with this is two-fold:
First, the new centers tend to act as within-institutional barriers to the type of cross-pollination that is so important to significant scientific progress.

Second, the new centers are tempted to view themselves as somehow more significant scientifically than individual PI laboratories, and this tends to cause friction. Additionally, this creates a dynamic for PI’s to join centers or form new ones rather than be “left behind”.

Nevertheless, at Krasnow we have a number of very successful centers and so far, we have been reasonably lucky with regards to the two issues I just mentioned. I think one reason for that is the Annual Krasnow Scientific Retreat, which brings together all Krasnow scientists to discuss research in a non-center-centric fashion for a day and a half.

Another reason for our good fortune is that the Krasnow Institute itself is extraordinarily well-designed as far as facilitating interactions between groups. The challenge of course is that now at least one of our centers is off-site.

Jim

One of the major problems that an institute director faces is cajoling and nudging research groups to reach out beyond themselves–to continue to intellectually communicate with other research groups within the institute as a whole. In the next several blog entries I’m going to be writing about this problem from a number of viewpoints.

Just a quick look ahead to the Krasnow Science Retreat in January. First of all, kudos are once again due to Krasnow Director Emeritus, Harold Morowitz, for organizing the Retreat for a third year running. Second, we’re going to have two major discussions on the second day of the Retreat that I’d like folks to start thinking about:

1) We need to start making a list of individual PI’s that we would like to bring to Krasnow over the next several years as we expand into the new space. This year we’re going to be getting fairly specific and naming names for our wish list.

2) We need to think about the superstars we want to invite for the 2007 10th anniversary of the Krasnow Facility Celebration. We’re already deep into the planning process for this very important event in our history.

Jim

Usually these two shouldn’t mix–at least in the public arena. What I mean is that if you are involved in high-level science administration, then I think it’s probably not terribly wise to have a high profile on science policy issues when they intersect with politics–especially partisan politics.

Let me explain:

Usually, science administrators have to deal with decision makers at various levels of government. They also generally have fund raising responsibilities which brings them into direct contact with donors who may also be involved in politics. If one is perceived as partisan–on any issue–then one runs the risk of being de facto labeled. And as soon as one is labeled, then all bets are off as far as advancing the causes of your institution when the other party or faction is on power. And of course such change is bound to happen eventually.

I worry that too often, science administrators ignore this basic tenet and eventually end up paying a cost through their institution. Very often it’s done in the name of academic freedom–which is of course nonsense as far as a science administrator’s job. There will be plenty of time to spout off when one returns to the instructional faculty.

Cheers,
Jim

Eugenie Scott will be speaking at Mason later this week:

WHY SCIENTISTS REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN “THEORY”
A public lecture by
DR. EUGENIE C. SCOTT
Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education

Thursday December 1
7:00 PM
Johnson Center – Dewberry Hall South
George Mason University
Fairfax Campus

Free and open to the public
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Scott has been both a researcher and an activist in the creationism/evolution controversy for more than 20 years, focusing on educational, legal, scientific, religious and social issues around the controversy. She has received national recognition for her NCSE activities, including awards from the National Science Board, the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Geological Society of America and the American Humanist Association.

Driving directions and parking information at: http://www.gmu.edu/welcome/Directions-to-GMU.html
This event is sponsored by Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, the Provost’s office, and the College of Arts and Sciences, GMU.

Not sure why, but Blogger seems to be down this morning. So posting
will be difficult.

Jim

We’re now nearing the end of the trial period for having the Monday seminar series run by a Krasnow faculty committee. So far I think it’s worked really well–both in terms of quality of speakers and budget. I particularly like the idea of a rotating chair–although we’ve been extremely lucky to have two fantastic chairs in Professors Ascoli and Barreto.

Thus I’d like to ask for feedback on how others perceive the series during the recent trial run. If the feeling is that we continue with this mode, I’m game.

And of course…Happy Thanksgiving!

Jim

Yesterday, in the midst of an interview for a tenure-line position I found myself trying to describe for the candidate our strategy for investing in young scientists, in general filled with potential, but as yet unproven in their careers. For me that strategy is best summed up by the slightly glib expression “chose your bets carefully, but then follow them all the way through”. In other words, once we have made a choice, as a rule, we tend to avoid hedging that bet.

The first years of an independent investigator are of course the most fraught with risk. There is the challenge of developing a line of research that is separate and distinct from that of one’s mentors. There is the challenge of using set-up funding wisely in order to ensure good pilot data for the first round of independent grant applications. There are the challenges that go with balancing teaching load with research, combined with the need to attract quality graduate students to the effort.

In all of these challenges, I view the Krasnow Institute as a partner. We are also at risk (because of the investment, but also because each time we bring in a new investigator we to some extent roll the dice on the collegial environment that we enjoy here). As a partner, of course we give advice, but it is also crucial to be there with support and to do whatever can be done to improve the chances of the new person for success.

Jim