Research Committee
Columbia Health Sciences Strategic Planning

DRAFT Minutes
July 10, 2001

The Research Committee held its inaugural meeting at 12:30 p.m. in conference room 128, Black Building. Dr. Thomas Jessell, Chair, led the meeting. Others attending were:
Dr. Qais Al-Awqati Dean Gerald Fischbach
Dr. Mark Hardy Dr. Wayne Hendrickson
Dr. Rudolph Leibel Dr. Richard Mayeux
Dr. Guy McKhann Dr. Drew Memmot for Dr. Jaime Rubin
Dr. Pat Molholt Ms. Karen Schardt
Dr. Steven Siegelbaum Dr. Ezra Susser
Dr. Andrew Tomlinson Dr. B. Timothy Walsh


Ms. Laura Kappy and Ms. Mary Miers, strategic planning staff, also attended.

Overview of Process

Dr. Jessell introduced the committee’s charge by displaying lists of science areas and technologies that might provide a framework for the committee’s consideration of current and future Columbia research. He noted that his lists represented a slight modification of those presented to the faculty by Dr. Fischbach and commented that some topics, such as genomics and bioinformatics, might be considered research areas, technologies, or both. He suggested that committee members divide up the topics and do a preliminary review between now and the next meeting, calling on consultants if necessary.

In response to a question Dr. Jessell confirmed that there are three other committees dealing with education, patient care, and space.

Committee members were quite interested in knowing more about planning efforts undertaken by other institutions including Rochester, Stanford, Harvard, UCSF, and the intramural neuroscience programs at NIH. Members and staff agreed to share what information they could obtain. Dr. Molholt suggested the Chronicle of Higher Education as another source of information. Departmental reviews can serve as a good source for assessing Columbia programs.

Dean’s Remarks

Dean Fischbach discussed the need for planning and coordination to promote excellence now and in the future. He noted that organizational changes might be needed to align research efforts with future opportunities. He encouraged the committee to look at what other institutions have done, adding Penn to the list, and to take advantage of the work being done by the task force on human genetics and genomics. He hopes to spend a great deal of time working with the planning committees as a member, to facilitate discussion.

Dean Fischbach reminded the committee that Columbia will be recruiting three to five preclinical and two or three clinical department chairs in the next few years. He encouraged the members to form subcommittees if that would be helpful. He stated that the December report can be preliminary, and that we should have information from the space survey by then.

Discussion of Research Areas

Committee discussion of research and technology topics brought out several issues:

  • Does the list perpetuate "departmental" rather than interdisciplinary thinking?
  • Should the focus be on diseases or disciplines?
  • Should topics be subdivided, or other topics added?
  • Is the primary focus on the quality of what we are doing now or where we want to go?
  • What we really have to do is identify what’s needed for the future and go after it (or if it’s faculty, go after them) strategically. We need to identify significant deficiencies and areas of opportunity.

The committee agreed in principle that there are actually three categories to examine: disease or health problems, crosscutting disciplines that encompass both basic research and clinical applications, and a mix of technologies and basic science now principally identified with the downtown campus. Following a quick provisional agreement on what those topics should be, committee members volunteered and suggested members and consultants who could address each topic. (insert or append Dr. Jessell’s lists.)

Next Steps

Members should provide an overview for their topics at a meeting to be scheduled in September. This can be done in "bullet" form, addressing the following points:
  • Why is the topic important—scientific curiosity, relevance to health, both?
  • Where do we stand?
  • What should happen in the future?
These bullets should be sent to Dr. Rubin, who will serve as Committee Coordinator, and to Ms. Miers (mm2056@columbia.edu).

Dr. Molholt asked if the report could address infrastructure issues (it can) and whether the committee could address the mentoring of young scientists. The latter topic may be covered by the education committee. The committee chairs have met once and will meet periodically to deal with issues of interest to more than one committee.

Recorded by Mary Miers