At lunch with one of the PI’s today, the topic came up of why there isn’t more communication between folks who do their work, or have their offices on different floors. It’s actually very interesting because the topic also came up fairly recently in quite a different context where several of us were discussing the design for the new Society for Neuroscience offices downtown–same deal, how to get around the obstacle of different floors acting to discourage collaborations.

Along these lines, another PI recently suggested the notion of more talk, journal clubs, a question of the month and brown bag lunches all as ways to address this issue. While I think those are good ideas, I also think that there needs to be something more.

Fundamentally, we are talking about climbing or descending the stairs (or taking the elevator) as a barrier. Ultimately individuals expend energy to get over barriers because, in doing so, they achieve something of value to themselves–although in many cases I hope we indentify beyond our individual selves and in doing so avoid the so called tragedy of the commons (for a good explanation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). The value added for the Institute of course is increased collaborative activity in addition to a greater sense of community. But I recognize that the value added for the individual may be a bit vague and consequently take a lower priority against the other priorities that make up a scientific life.

So the question is how to bump it up the priority scale. I’m not sure, but I’ve finally come to the realization that this is a necessary thing to do. And I’d welcome your input.

I was like one of Pavlov’s dogs this morning: I walked in the front door, looked at the mailroom in its new location on the mezzanine, and then promptly walked down the hall to collect my mail from the place where the mailroom used to be. Such is the power of the hippocampus (smile).

In all seriousness, the movement of the mailroom is really the first step in the series of “adjustments” we’re going to need to make during the construction period. I’d like to thank everyone in advance for their continued understanding. Don’t hesitate to drop by my office if you’re worried or have questions.

Jim

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

You know…it’s very easy, of course, to talk about the science that goes on here. I spend most of my time outside the Institute doing just that. But it’s worth noting that none of this would be possible without the outstanding support staff who help us (and I mean all of us) every day.

Recently my predecessor in this job mentioned to me the quite striking difference between Krasnow and another institute for advanced study that he is very familiar with–the number of support personnel. Krasnow manages to run efficiently with very few support staff. Approximately 50 science folks (faculty, postdocs, graduate students) are supported by just four support people. That wouldn’t be possible without some very dedicated and talented individuals–our support staff.

As we head into the 4th of July holiday, I’m thinking how grateful I am to these often unsung colleagues, and I know the rest of the scientific staff feels the same way.

Thank you,
Jim

A new post has been published on the Krasnow Neuro-architecting blog on “Virtual & Physical Environments”. You can access the blog at: http://krasnowconstruction.blogspot.com/

One of my projects for the next year is to have lunch, individually or in very small groups, with all Krasnow staff members and PI’s. Some of these will be brownbags in my office, some of them will be a bit nicer–Connaught’s Place comes to mind–but the goal is to get feedback from each and every one of you on how the Institute is doing, and even more importantly, what we can do better.

If you’re a PI, you’ll probably have a very broad perspective. If you’re in a classified position or are possibly a student or postdoc, that perspective may be more narrow–I’m interested in all of them.

Jim

I would like to announce that in the interest of keeping subject matter coherent, we have created a new blog: Neuro-architecting at Krasnow. A spin-off of the “krasnow director’s column”, this blog will be used exclusively to document insights on the krasnow expansion.

I will notify you of new posts to the neuro-architecting blog by announcing them here on the director’s column.

Access the blog, and read today’s post at: http://krasnowconstruction.blogspot.com/

I know that there has, and continues to be, a lot of concern about the affect of installing an MRI in the current Krasnow building. As far as I can see, the principle concern is how on-going experiments and research will be affected, both by the installation, but more importantly as a result of MRI operations going forward.

Our alternative, was purchasing a $700K temporary housing facility (a.k.a. trailer), building a pad for the trailer and then putting the magnet in the trailer until the new Krasnow building is completed sometime around Fall of 2007. Here are the reasons that led me to consider other alternatives:

1) The trailer investment would basically be lost. This type of facility would not have a high resale value relative to what the University would have spent on it, even if we were successful in non-destructively removing the magnet from the trailer when the new building was ready.

2) The trailer would be a less than optimal environment for the high-performance data collection that we expect form cognitive neuroscience research, as opposed say…to clinical imaging.

3) The trailer would, in the way these things typically play out, probably become a permanent fixture even after the new building became available and would be an eyesore. It would detract from the overall aesthetic quality of the Institute.

4) Most importantly, the difference between retrofitting the current building and purchasing the trailer is large. These additional non-recoverable costs would have had to have been recovered in direct charges to users down the road. That seemed unpalatable.

So, we proceeded to chose, among several alternatives, installing the unit in space currently utilized by the Institute Administration and the Center for Neuroeconomics (after positive reactions from that Center Director).

Installation in this existing space would have the following advantages:

1) We think it’s going to be a lot cheaper–at worst, at least we don’t lose our investment.

2) It’ll potentially add flexibility to space allocations in the new building

3) It’ll be adjacent to the Center for Neuroeconomics–which clearly will benefit that group.

With regards to the installation:

It is most likely that Siemens will be handling the entire installation as a “turn-key” operation. That means, that they will use their extant expertise to *do* what they have to do, in order to deliver appropriate shielding and performance–this means that they don’t get paid, if the finished installation leaks sound, RF, magnetic field etc. in such a way as to disrupt adversely experiments.

Finally….the acquisition of this technology is both good for Krasnow and good for the University. I hope that we all can agree on that.

Jim

So, without commenting on the possibility of a future Mason medical school and teaching hospital, I think there is a clear need at Krasnow for accessibility to clinical materials and databases in research. Currently the mechanisms aren’t there. Or to put it more generously, they are evolving slowly. From my standpoint, it should be a priority of the Institute to gain access to, and the ability to run, clinical trials–and beyond that–we need to figure out ways to share in ownership of the data from those trials, and then to re-use that data in new basic research.

Secondly…it seems to me that we need a way to hire clinical faculty (as distinct from instructional faculty) and then allow them to see patients, as a way of supporting their salaries. Currently Mason only has the instructional- and research-faculty models. We need to now add to that, at least at Krasnow, so that clinical scientists working on cognition, can be part of the community, while not having to give up their clinical sources of income.

Obviously any time an institute acquires new instrumentation it presents an opportunity–both for the existing faculty (they get to use the technology to test new hypotheses) and for the recruiting of new faculty (come to an institute where you can use Widget Y to conduct your research).

For me, ultimately, the goal is to bring the finest faculty to Krasnow (and with them the finest trainees, postdocs and graduate students). Instrumentation can’t write papers that get into SCIENCE or Nature….yet. But it’s also clear that instrumentation can be a key part of the overall package that induces someone great to come to a place. The strategy then, needs to be to be clever about leveraging instrumentation into the faculty offer package.

As Krasnow expands, as we acquire new technologies (above and beyond the current MRI acquisition), the trick will be to use the instrumentation as a “honey pot”.

My thanks to one of the Krasnow PI’s for the above idea: it’s spot on.