SenD#6418
StCD#7563
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
FORTY-THIRD SENATE
Summary of Actions Taken in Administrative Session
of the Steering Committee on behalf of the Senate
December 2, 2010
A. Committee Graduate Studies (C-GS), Richard Roberts, Chair
1. C-GS: Recommendation for renewal of degree-nominating authority for
the PhD and MA degrees for the Interdisciplinary Program in Modern
Thought and Literature for the five year period of September 1, 2011
through August 31, 2016 (SenD#6401)
The StC on behalf of the Senate approves the recommendation from the
Committee for Graduate Studies to renew the Master of Arts and Doctor of
Philosophy degree-nominating authority for the Interdisciplinary Program in
Modern Thought and Literature for a five-year period from September 1,
2011 -- August 31, 2016.
2. C-GS: Recommendation to Extend and Synchronize Reporting and
Renewal Periods of the Joint Degree Programs in Public Policy (MPP
degree and JD/MAPP degrees) by Extending All Current Authority to
August 31, 2013 (SenD#6403)
The StC on behalf of the Senate approves the recommendation from the
Committee for Graduate Studies for an extension of degree-nominating
authority for all of the Joint Degree Programs (JDP), as listed on the chart
attached to SenD#6403, that involve the MAPP or MPP in Public Policy to
August 31, 2013, putting them on the same review schedule as their base
Interdisciplinary Program in Public Policy. C-GS requests that each of these
reviews include feedback from the deans o the “other side” of each JDP, and
that they be scheduled to come to C-GS and the Faculty Senate in Academic
Year 2011-12.
3. C-GS: Recommendation for approval to allow a maximum of 60
crossover/double-counted units for students enrolled in the JD/MBA
Joint Degree Program, as delineated by the School of Law and the
Graduate School of Business. This change is effective immediately, so
that students may be granted degrees in the academic year
2010/2011 (SenD#6402)
The StC on behalf of the Senate approves the recommendation from the
Committee for Graduate Studies to approve the request to allow a maximum
60 crossover/double-counted units for students enrolled in the JD/MBA Joint
Degree Program, as delineated by the School of Law and the Graduate
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
School of Business. This change is effective immediately, so that current
students may be granted degrees in Academic Year 2010-11.
B. Committee for the Review of Undergraduate Majors (C-RUM),
Christopher Edwards, Chair
1. C-RUM: Recommendation for Renewal of Degree-Nominating
Authority for the BA degree, Undergraduate Minor and Honors
Program for the Interdisciplinary Program in Feminist Studies, for a
three-year period September 1, 2011 through August 31,
2014 (SenD#6405)
The StC on behalf of the Senate approves the recommendation from the
Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors to renew the degree
nominating authority for the Bachelor of Arts, Undergraduate Minor and
Honors Program for the Interdisciplinary Program in Feminist Studies for a
three-year period of September 1, 2011 through August 30, 2014.
2. C-RUM: Recommendation to Renewal of Degree-Nominating Authority
for the BA degree, Undergraduate Minor and Honors Program for the
Interdisciplinary Program in African and African American Studies, for
a five year period September 1, 2011 through August 31,
2016 (SenD#6404)
The StC on behalf of the Senate approves the recommendation from the
Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors to renew the degree
nominating authority for the Bachelor of Arts, Undergraduate Minor and
Honors Program for the Interdisciplinary Program in Feminist Studies for a
five-year period of September 1, 2011 through August 30, 2016.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
SenD#6418
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
FORTY-THIRD SENATE REPORT No. 4
Summary of Actions Taken by the Senate
December 2, 2010
At its meeting on Thursday, December 2, 2010, by unanimous vote, the Forty-
third Senate of the Academic Council authorized the Committee on Research to
conduct “trial period” exceptions to the category of Principal Investigator
Eligibility Exceptions and allow School of Medicine clinical fellows and
postdoctoral fellows holding MD or MD/PhD degrees to submit a proposal, one-
time only, for traditional investigator-initiated research award; and to evaluate the
effectiveness of these exceptions over a four-year period.
Rex L. Jamison, MD
Academic Secretary to the University
Professor of Medicine, Emeritus
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
SenD#6418
MINUTES OF THE FORTY-THIRD SENATE
OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
December 2, 2010
I. Call to Order
Chair David Spiegel called the final autumn quarter meeting of the 43rd Senate to order at
3:20 PM. In attendance were 35 members and 9 ex officio members.
Chair Spiegel opened today’s meeting “with a great deal of pleasure” by congratulating the
following Stanford students and recent graduates, winners of prestigious scholarships:
David Gobaud, last year’s ASSU President and representative to the Senate, won a Mitchell
Scholarship to study at Queens University in Ireland;
Two students, Sasha Engelmann and Temple He, won Marshall Scholarships to study at
Oxford and Cambridge University, respectively; and
Three students, Fagan Harris, Fatima Sabar, and Varun Sivaram, last year’s ASSU Senate
Chair and representative to the Senate, won Rhodes Scholarships to study at Oxford.
[ Applause ]
Turning to extracurricular activities, Chair Spiegel congratulated—
The women’s soccer team for reaching the upcoming NCAA Final Four tournament for the
second consecutive year, “with what was described in the paper as a 5-0 shellacking of
Florida State”.
[ Applause ]
“And we can’t, of course, go without mentioning that the men’s football team defeated
Oregon State in a stunning fashion, rising to number four in the Bowl Championship Series
(BCS). And they pulled out the secret weapon from the Senate, [Senator] Bob Simoni made
the call on the coin toss. And that’s what did it.”
[ Applause ]
“I believe the president has some speculation about the BCS. [Looking at President
Hennessy] “But perhaps you want to save that for your comments.’
President Hennessy did want to comment: “It’s very complicated.”
[ Laughter ]
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
“If there are two defeats [by other teams ranked higher in the BCS ranking] this weekend,
there’s a long-shot possibility we could go to the national championship. If there’s one
defeat this weekend, we could go to the Rose Bowl. If there are no defeats, we’ll end up
either in Arizona [the Fiesta Bowl] or in Miami [the Orange Bowl], assuming that there’s
nothing wrong with the BCS calculation that would cause some inferior football team to
leap ahead of us. In which case we’ll be auditing the BCS.”
[ Laughter ]
Professor of Law Hank Greely would look to the courts, “ I’ll sue.”
[Addendum: On December 5th, we learned that Stanford will play Virginia Tech in the
Orange Bowl at Miami, Florida, January 3, 2011.]
II. Approval of Minutes – (SenD#6407)
The minutes of the November 4, 2010, meeting of Senate XLIII were approved.
III. Action Calendar
There was nothing on the Action Calendar.
IV. Standing Reports
A. Memorial Resolution:
There were four Memorial Resolutions presented. The full-length memorial resolutions
are available on the Faculty Senate Web site.
Chair Spiegel invited Robert Joss, former Dean in the Graduate School of Business, and
Professor of Finance, emeritus, to present the first two memorial resolutions.
Dean Joss introduced colleagues accompanying him, “I am joined by my colleague
Charles Bonini, who’s a member of both committees, and my three current colleagues,
Larry Wein, Anat Admati, and Stefano Zenios, all of whom, of course, are Senate
members.”
Gayton Germane (1920–2009) SenD#6414
Gayton Germane, who in the 1950s founded one of the business school’s
first executive education programs and 30 years later pioneered an MBA
course, The Commercial Development of Space, died January 17, 2009,
of pneumonia. He was 88.
He had retired from the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 1988,
and was the UPS Foundation Professor of Logistics, Emeritus at the time of his death.
During his career Germane headed research projects that explored reusable space
satellites and did early work on computer-assisted information programs for transit
systems.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Gayton, who joined the faculty in 1952, was part of a generation of young academics
hired following World War II to strengthen the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
He served on a school faculty committee charged with making recommendations for
implementing The New Look, a movement supported by the Ford Foundation and other
reformers urging business schools across the country to become less oriented toward
specific industries and move toward broader research-based disciplines.
Gayton was born in 1920 in Carroll, Iowa. He received his AB degree in economics with
distinction from the University of Missouri, an MBA with distinction from Harvard
Business School, and AM and PhD degrees in economics from Harvard University.
In 1949 he married Janet Reinertson, a fellow academic at Harvard, who survives him.
They had two children: daughter Charlotte, Stanford AB ‘76, who today lives in Nevada
City, Calif., and a son, Bruce, who died as a young man.
In his non-academic life, Germane traveled extensively on four continents, sailed in the
Caribbean and in the 1975 Transpacific Yacht Race, and enjoyed fencing, hiking, music,
and gardening.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honor, on behalf of a committee consisting of Charles P.
Bonini, Timken Professor in the Graduate School of Business, Emeritus, James E.
Howell, Theodore J. Kreps Professor in the Graduate School of Business, Emeritus
Charles T. Horngren, Edmund W. Littlefield Professor of Accounting in the Graduate
School of Business, Emeritus, and myself, Robert L. Joss, Professor of Finance,
Emeritus, to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a Resolution in the memory
of the late Gayton Germane, Professor of Logistics in the Graduate School of Business,
Emeritus.
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Spiegel expressed his appreciation to Professors Joss, Bonini, and Howell and
Horngren.
Oscar Serbein, (1920–2009) SenD#6415
Oscar N. Serbein, Professor of Insurance Emeritus in the Graduate
School of Business died on January 21, 2006 after an extended illness.
He was born March 31, 1919 in Collins, Iowa, in which town he lived
through his high school years. Oscar was valedictorian of his high
school class. He went on to the University of Iowa, where he received
his bachelor’s degree (with highest distinction) in 1940 followed by a
master’s degree in 1941. He then served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II,
rising to the rank of Major in the Air Weather Service. Discharged in 1946, Oscar
turned his attention to academic pursuit at Columbia University where he received his
PhD in 1951. This was followed by an appointment at Columbia as a statistics professor.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Oscar was among the very early hires by Ernest Arbuckle, Dean of the Graduate School
of Business from 1958 to 1968 and architect of the School’s rapid rise to prominence in
the 1960s. Oscar joined the school in 1959 as Professor of Insurance where he taught
courses on insurance, risk management, decision sciences and estate planning. He
authored several important texts and dozens of articles on risk management and
insurance, together with writing over 20 case studies. Oscar served on numerous
committees at Stanford, including the Faculty Senate, and was Director of the PhD
program at the Graduate School of Business in the 1960s.
While a quiet and always polite individual, he invoked warm memories among a number
of his colleagues. Oscar was perceptive in many of his judgments about management
education, and is credited with some of the early directions at the GSB. Serbein was
survived by his wife, Alice, of 53 years, a daughter, Mary Parker, a son, John, and two
grandchildren.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honor, on behalf of a committee consisting of James C.
VanHorne, A. P. Giannini Professor of Banking and Finance, Emeritus, Charles P.
Bonini, Timken Professor in the Graduate School of Business, Emeritus, David
Montgomery, Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing, Emeritus, and myself, Robert
L. Joss, Professor of Finance, Emeritus, to lay before the Senate of the Academic
Council a Resolution in the memory of the late Oscar Serbein, Professor of Insurance in
the Graduate School of Business, Emeritus.
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Spiegel expressed his appreciation to Professors Joss, VanHorne, Bonini and
Montgomery.
Chair Spiegel invited Dr. Louanne Hudgins, Professor of Pediatrics, to present a
memorial statement in honor of Luigi Luzzatti, Professor emeritus of Pediatrics.
Professor Hudgins introduced Susan Schelley, “my colleague, who had the pleasure of
working with Dr. Luzzatti for years, is joining me.”
Luigi Luzzatti, (1914–2005) SenD#6413
Dr. Luzzatti was born in Frascati, Italy, in 1914. He received his MD
from the University of Minnesota in 1943 and served as an officer in
the US Public Health Service in Italy from 1945-1947. He began his
academic medical career in 1948 when he was appointed as Assistant
Professor of Pediatrics at Cornell University. In 1950, he came to
California where he served as the Medical Director and Chief of the
Department of Pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of the East Bay
in Oakland. He served as Director of the Cerebral Palsy Training Program at the
Children’s Hospital in San Francisco from 1953 to 1954. His Stanford career began in
1954 when he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Preventive
Medicine. He remained at Stanford until his retirement as Professor of Pediatrics,
Emeritus in 1986.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Dr. Luzzatti founded the first cytogenetics laboratory at Stanford University in 1962 and
served as its Director. In addition, he founded the Birth Defects Center at Stanford in
1967, serving as the Director until his retirement.
Dr. Luzzatti was devoted to the care of children with developmental disabilities and
training of young physicians in developmental pediatrics and clinical genetics. He
published many publications on the clinical phenotype associated with chromosome
abnormalities.
Dr. Luzzatti died on April 23, 2005, of natural causes.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honor, on behalf of a committee consisting of Dr. Hugh
O’Brodovich, Chair of the Department of Pediatrics, Ruth Colombo, Executive
Assistant, Pediatrics, Susan Schelley, Staff Medical Specialist Clinic - PCH, and myself,
Dr. Louanne Hudgins, Professor of Pediatrics, to lay before the Senate of the Academic
Council a Resolution in the memory of the late Luigi Luzzatti, Professor, Emeritus of
Pediatrics in the School of Medicine.
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Spiegel expressed his appreciation to Dr. Hudgins, Dr. O’Brodovich, Susan
Schelley and Ruth Colombo.
Chair Spiegel invited Dr. Lorry Frankel, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, to present a
memorial statement in honor of his colleague, Lawrence Mathers, Professor of
Pediatrics.
Lawrence H. Mathers, (1945–2007) SenD#6406
Lawrence H. Mathers, Jr., MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics and
Surgery (Anatomy), died on February 21, 2007 at the age of 62.
A teaching legend at the Stanford University School of Medicine who
taught anatomy to nearly 30,000 students over more than three decades
and was a member of the Department of Pediatrics from 1988-2007. He
was the Associate Director for the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at the Lucile Salter
Packard Children’s Hospital. He passed away from natural causes at his home.
Dr. Mathers’ legacy can be found in the both the students he taught and the doctors he
trained--always emphasizing compassion, and applying both the art and science of
medicine in the care of critically ill infants and children for whom he cared.
He was the most humble, honest and gentle kind person anyone could meet. He was a
tremendous teacher to both Medical Students and others who were privileged to learn
Anatomy or Pediatrics from him. He inspired so many fellows, residents and students at
many different levels (medical, graduate and undergraduate students). He was
instrumental in teaching human anatomy and pediatrics to generations of Stanford
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
students. He did so with dignity and excellence. He received the prestigious Kaiser
Award from 14 different medical school classes for outstanding teaching – which must
be a record. His clinical teaching skills were also recognized by the Pediatric Residents.
Dr. Mathers’ published extensively in two distinct disciplines: Anatomy and Pediatric
Critical Care. His scholarly contributions to these disciplines were focused on
advancing the methodology used in teaching both anatomy and clinical pediatrics.
Dean Pizzo described Larry “as a genuinely lovely human being who cared more about
others than himself. He was always available, always giving, always reaching out. He
was a one-of-a-kind person and was loved and respected by the Stanford community.”
In addition to his teaching and clinical skills, Dr. Mathers was a musician who was able
to perform at a very high level. He was both a master instrumentalist and a very capable
vocalist. He could be found on many Fridays performing a wide venue of music in the
atrium of the University Hospital. His music recitals varied from classical music, to jazz,
to swing and pops. Larry possessed a tremendous voice to accompany his music. This
created a soothing environment for patients, families and staff.
Dr. Mathers’ wife of 30 years, Mil, died in 2002. He is survived by his stepchildren,
Doug and Beth Jones.
Mister Chair, I have the honor, on behalf of the School of Medicine and a committee
consisting of Dr. Philip Sunshine, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and myself, Dr. Lorry R.
Frankel, MD, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Pediatrics, to lay before the
Senate of the Academic Council a Resolution in memory of the late Larry H. Mathers,
Jr., Professor of Pediatrics and Anatomy in the School of Medicine.
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Spiegel expressed his appreciation to Professors Lorry Frankel and Philip
Sunshine.
B. Steering Committee
Chair Spiegel commented, “Prior to the Senate meeting today, the Steering Committee
met on behalf of the Senate in an administrative session to receive an annual report and
take action on five recommendations from two committees of the Academic Council. All
members of the Senate received the agenda and were welcome to attend the session. The
documents are available on the Faculty Senate website. The actions taken in that meeting
will be included in the report of the Senate minutes of this December 2nd meeting.
Chair Spiegel called attention to the agendas of future Senate meetings:
January 6th: Meeting cancelled.
January 20th: We will hear reports from student representatives of this Senate, Deepa
Kannappan, ASSU Senate representative, Justin Brown, Graduate Student Council
representative and Angelina Cardona, ASSU President.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Following adjournment of the regular session, the Senate will reconvene in Executive
Session to hear an update on the work of the task force for the Study of Undergraduate
Education at Stanford (SUES), the second of three reports we will have this year.
On the agenda of future Senate meetings are reports from the Dean of the Graduate
School of Business, an in-depth panel discussion on student mental health, and a report
from the vice president of human resources on the effects of the new health care
legislation on faculty and staff at Stanford.
C. Committee on Committees (CoC)
There was no report.
D. President’s Report
The President had no report but offered to answer questions.
Professor Joshua Landy asked, “President Hennessy, in the wake of the closure of
several departments at Albany [The State University of New York at Albany, NY,
announced the closure of language, classics and theater departments], there’s been much
talk about the need for a vocal defense of the humanities. At the last session on the
Senate, I asked you about Skorton’s [President David Skorton of Cornell University]
proposal for a national campaign. Do you have anything you want to add to your
remarks from last time?”
President Hennessy replied, “I think, obviously, some of what’s happening is due to the
financial imperatives faced by many universities around the country. When you look at
what’s happened at Albany and other institutions, the impact seems disproportionately
on the humanities. One should ask—why? I think there are several issues that influence
the decisions being made, which, I think, are things for us all to contemplate.
“The first is some questioning in some institutions--not Stanford--as well as,
increasingly, by the students, about the critical centrality that the humanities have always
played as a foundation for undergraduate education. I think we see more and more of our
own students asking this question. This is one of the issues that SUES will have to
grapple with as it thinks about I-HUM and the role of I-HUM for our own students.
“A second question, which is one that I’ve brainstormed recently at some lunches with
H & S faculty, and one the provost and I have begun some other conversations about--is
the drop in the number of humanities majors, particularly high nationwide in the
literature departments, and whether anything can be done to restore what I would call the
traditional liberal arts humanities major. In other words, ‘I’m not prelaw, premed, or pre-
business major. I’m a history major. I’m a French major. And I will decide subsequently
what I’ll do afterwards.’ I think [this is something that] the faculty ought to think
collectively about--what we might do as an institution to restore something that plays a
critically important role. If you talk to many of our older alumni, that’s exactly what they
came here to Stanford to do [take a liberal arts major]. Subsequently, they ended up
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
going to business school or law school or sometimes just continuing in a career in public
service or some other aspect of their work.
“The third issue is what has happened to career opportunities for PhD’s in the
humanities. That has been greatly affected by the academic market, first and foremost.
But if you look broadly at what’s happening to PhD students, academic careers are not
going to be the first direction they take anymore. The academic community needs to
think about what we can do to support more diverse career paths for students in the
humanities, the social sciences, and the biomedical sciences, where we produce far more
PhD’s than there are career opportunities.
“This is a topic that’s been discussed by various groups around the country. One of our
graduate students (Anaïs Saint-Jude), together with some help from [Professor] David
Palumbo-Liu, has proposed a conference to bring together leaders from Silicon Valley
and ask them what role our humanities PhD’s could have in companies in Silicon Valley.
They are, after all, incredibly well educated, incredibly smart people that have incredible
skills.
“The provost and I are going to start putting together a few opportunities to have those
dialogues and see where we might go.”
“I think some of the issues raised by Professor Skorton’s discussion at Cornell had to do
with specific things which were cut at Cornell in their budget crisis. Some had to do with
national funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National
Endowment for the Arts, which I think have taken a disproportionate penalty. It would
be great to restore that funding. But I think the [decrease in funding] is symptomatic
rather than the underlying cause, and we should be thinking about the underlying cause
and how we begin to address it. And I think that should start here at Stanford.”
There were no other questions for the president.
Provost’s Report
Provost Etchemendy began with a question: “I want to ask the president if he ever
thought he would be the football president.’
[ Laughter ]
President Hennessy looked nonplused, “Did I ever think Stanford would be a football
powerhouse?” [He did not answer that question.]
The Provost had one announcement.
“In the last two and a half days, as many of you know, we’ve had a visiting committee
for the WASC reaccreditation process [Western Association of Schools and Colleges].
It’s a distinguished committee, led by President Jean-Lou Chameau from Cal Tech.
Members of the committee include people from Princeton, MIT, and so forth.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
“We went through the exit interview earlier today. Of course their report has not been
completed and they will send their report to WASC. But I have to say that it could not
have been a more glowing exit interview. I was very proud of the institution. They
clearly came to see what we all see about Stanford and what a wonderful place it is.
“When we get the actual report, we will publish it and make you all read it.”
[ Laughter ]
Chair Spiegel helpfully added, “There will be a short quiz after that.”
The Provost continued, “I do want to thank the many people who have been involved in
this process so far, both in preparing for the meeting and doing the reports that were
necessary, but also all of those in this room and not in this room who were at the various
meetings with the visiting committee. We had meetings with the deans, the steering
committee, members of the SUES committee, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate
Education, and so forth. All the meetings went very well and impressed the committee.
“I’m not going to try to single out a lot of names. But I do want to say that the steering
committee [who prepared for the WASC visit] deserves a real thanks from the whole
institution for the amount of work that they put into this. The steering committee was led
by Stephanie Kalfayan, our Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and included Brad
Osgood, fellow senator; Judy Goldstein from the Department of Political Science and the
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education--first in the person of John Bravman and then
in the person of Harry Elam. I would like to thank that group in particular for all the
work that they put in on the process.”
[ Applause ]
Chair Spiegel commented, “I might add that in our meeting [the Senate Steering
Committee] with them yesterday, they were particularly impressed by the surprisingly
collegial interaction between the faculty and the administration in the Senate and other
places in the university.”
Professor Blas Cabrera asked, “This is not the final round?”
Provost Etchemendy shook his head, “This is not the final round. There will be another
set of reports that go in, and another visit. It’s a long process.”
Professor Kenneth Taylor returned to the Provost opening question, “Has Stanford ever
won a national championship in football?”
Provost Etchemendy looked startled, “This is a question for me?”
[ Laughter ]
President Hennessy explained, “You know, he’s in charge of defense.”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Professor Taylor tried again, “I mean, has there been a national championship [won by
Stanford] before the creation of the BCS [Bowl Championship Series]. There were the
bowls.”
[The answer was--no.]
Professor Greely, the Senate sports historian, noted that, “We claimed a co-
championship in 1926. We were 10-0-1 that year [wins, losses, and ties], tying Alabama
7-7 in the Rose Bowl, with a late score.”
[ Laughter ]
President Hennessy confirmed Professor Greely’s status: “Hank’s in charge of all
football questions.”
Chair Spiegel added, “Professor Jamison reminds me that Stanford has won other
national championships besides football.”
President Hennessy, “Yes, of course, of course. Many of them.”
Chair Spiegel concluded the sports soliloquy, “We worry about athletics trumping
scholarship among students. I think it’s happening to the faculty.”
[ Laughter ]
V. Other Reports
A. Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems (C-ACIS) Annual
Report for 2009/10 (SenD#6371)
Chair Spiegel welcomed Professor Serge Plotkin, Chair of the Committee on Academic
Computing and Information Systems [C-ACIS], who had just completed his third year
as Chair, to present the committee’s 2009-10 academic reports.
All members of the committee were invited to hear this report. Some members were in
attendance, among them Randy Livingston, Vice President for Business and Finance,
and Chief Financial Officer; Bill Clebsch, Executive Director of Information
Technology Services; and Tina Darmohray, Information Security Officer.
With the aid of slides, Professor Plotkin began his presentation. He thanked the Senate
for the invitation.
He first reminded the Senate that C-ACIS has a large number of members--10 faculty, 5
ex officio members, 2 “co-opted”, 3 students, 2 permanent guests and the chief
information officers from each of the seven schools.
“There are a lot of technical topics. Not everybody knows all the technology. Also, there
is a high degree of diversity among all of the groups, schools and organizations. Each
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
one wants something a little different. And, the committee members have a very wide
range of interests. So there are a lot of challenges.”
Attempt to develop an IT [Information Technology] strategic plan.
“One of the things that I wanted to do is to create an IT strategy plan. We tried [but] it
seems unachievable and the committee fully agrees with me.
Chair Plotkin explained why. “The makeup of the committee makes it very hard.
Because of the technological expertise of the members, it does not intersect that much.
It’s very hard to discuss topics deep enough. And there is the huge diversity of
requirements. [The second reason was that any] analytic strategic plan would become
obsolete very quickly.
“So instead of trying to cobble together one plan, the approach that we are have taken is
to provide as much as possible faculty-related input into the various plans of the various
groups and try to create a meeting of minds and common language that the different
groups will be using when discussing future plans.”
Topics discussed by C-ACIS
• Education of C-ACIS committee on campus IT issues, central and in the
different schools.
• Review of strategic plans from IT services and AS [Academic Systems]
• Input into SGG [Systems Governance Group] prioritization process
• Specific topics: Storage; Desktop support; Future of telephony; IT Efficiency
Task Force
“There were a lot of topics discussed. I will not go into many of them.
“There are a lot of recommendations in the report. I [selected a few] recommendations
to show what type of recommendations we came up with.
“Consider establishing a depository of administrative data with clear API [Application
Programming Interface] for use by individual schools…We did see all the strategic plans
from academic systems and IT Services. We thought it important to add into these plans
a list of services that are not going to be supplied. The decision was made to either cut or
not provide those services. This turned out to be useful for plans by individual units
inside the university.
“Another interesting thing the committee recommended is to closely follow
developments in Skype and Google Voice and other SaaS offerings. This is similar to
what happened with e-mail. Originally, there was a decision to go with Zimbra. This is
the e-mail used across campus. The reason Stanford will be ready, when appropriate, to
switch to cheaper and better solutions is because there was a group of professionals
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
inside the IT Services organization which was following developments in e-mail
technology along the way.
“In the opinion of the committee, the same thing occurs in communication, in telephony.
We need to continue following very closely developments in this area. This will allow
us to jump appropriately to the appropriate cheaper and better technology.
Successes
“There were some successes that I wanted to mention. Another committee which is
related to C-ACIS in terms of topics is the Systems Governance Group, which was
created and run by Randy Livingston. That committee consists of mostly staff experts,
subject experts, not faculty. We always tried to provide appropriate input for this
committee, but the schedules did not work out. So the committee schedules were redone
in order for SGG to fit better with C-ACIS so C-ACIS can provide appropriate input for
prioritization of various projects which are initiated by this committee.
“We worked over several years on storage, understanding what computer storage is
required, how to address it and what the process is. We developed a certain process.
There is a storage partners group in IT Services organization which is pushing this
forward. We provided a lot of input and use cases, and the structure of how to address
those questions.
“[Finally] we did expand the dialogue among various groups on campus. They did not
talk that much among themselves beforehand. I think we improved this.”
Suggestions for next year
“Comment on strategic plans of AS [Academic Systems], IT services. Commenting on
prioritization of various strategic plans in academic systems and IT Services is
important. Clearly, the SGG prioritization process can be affected directly. And the
Storage Campus Partners need C-ACIS’s help.
“The big topic we hope will be addressed this coming year by the committee is the use
of IT in teaching. [This applies to] various existing programs, developing new tools,
understanding how to deploy those tools, and how to help faculty use those tools. I will
let Howard Zebker, who is the new chair of C-ACIS, discuss this at length when he will
be given his opportunity.
“That’s the end of my talk. I am done with my service to this committee, which has been
several years. I learned a lot. I gained a great appreciation for the very hard work of our
IT professionals at Stanford. The fact that we are not shouting that ‘everything is broken
and nothing works’ shows that a lot of work behind the scenes is being done correctly. I
would like to thank several of them are here and the many more around campus.”
Chair Spiegel opened the floor for questions.
Professor Landy began by thanking Professor Plotkin and the C-ACIS. He asked about
the future of campus-wide Wi-Fi. “My sense is there’s a strong demand for a more
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
modular system which would allow Wi-Fi to be turned off temporarily at individual
classrooms. Is this a foreseeable possibility?”
Professor Plotkin’s answer and the ensuing discussion can be summarized as follows.
While it was fine for students to use their laptops in the classroom for the purpose of
teaching of that course, it was distracting and unproductive when they used it to read
their emails, surf the web, etc. Although it is relatively easy and inexpensive to turn off
and on Wi-Fi for the entire campus, it is technically difficult and very expensive to do so
for individual classrooms. Furthermore, many students have Smart Phones that can’t be
turned off.
Executive Director Clebsch added, “There aren’t any other of our peers doing this,
either. It’s just too expensive to deploy in that way. What President Hennessy said is
exactly right. All of them have laptops; all of them have Smart Phones. Even if you
could turn off Wi-Fi, you wouldn’t turn off the Smart Phones.”
Professor Jeff Koseff wondered, “What is the status of a centralized facility for housing
the burgeoning number of clusters used for research? Given the energy demand is that
something that’s part of your committee’s discussions? Or is that something that’s
handled separately?”
Professor Plotkin replied that C-ACIS did not handle this, “because we are more of an
input-providing facility as opposed to being responsible. But a lot is being done. At
some point the Senate can decide to ask for a report from the committee.”
Dean Arvin explained, “We have a proposal that’s being put together now to look at a
shared facility jointly with SLAC…We will be able soon to have a more detailed
comment about that.”
Vice President Randy Livingston appropriately lauded the Chair of C-ACIS. “I wanted
to recognize Serge’s service. This is hard duty to lead this kind of committee, as you
alluded to, and Serge did it for three years and has done an incredible job of corralling
all the people.”
[ Applause ]
Professor Taylor described a recurrent problem when he tried to use various IT Services.
He would be told that they don’t have central funding, so they have to be paid—and the
charges seemed excessive. He found sometimes it’s cheaper to go off campus.
Professor Plotkin responded that one should look for the cheapest solution but make use
of the expertise available in IT Services inside Stanford. “If in the end the answer is that
one has to go outside, I don’t see anything bad with that. I do not believe that everything
has to be done in-house. In fact, in my opinion, the more we go outside, like providing
ability to use, say, Iron Mountain for backups--that’s not ours, it’s an outside supplier—
that’s great. If we go to the outside supplier through IT Services, this conduit can create
economies of scale.”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Vice President Livingston agreed emphatically. “This is an issue we run into in many
different administrative services. What does it make sense to provide centrally versus
allowing individual schools and units to provide their own tasks? And if it is centrally,
what is the charge-back model? Specifically, with respect to Web services, there is a
proposal for the budget group this year to recreate a central service to provide Web
design to the units.”
Professor Taylor continued, “The problem is, if there aren’t any economies of scale
within the university, you have to go piecemeal to find a provider. In the Philosophy
Department we didn’t have a lot of money for this when I was chair.
Chair Spiegel observed, “I think your dean needs to give you some more money.”
Professor Susan Holmes, in Statistics we use DropBox [an off-service provider] a lot.
Sometimes I’m worried about it because of the data we’re sharing. It makes me nervous
to feel that it’s somewhere else in control. We’re writing a grant or we have some
sensitive information, and it’s going off somewhere in the cloud.”
Professor Plotkin replied, “If this is sensitive information, Stanford has a very strict set
of policies.”
Professor Holmes shook her head, “No, no, I know about things like that. I’m talking
about things I wouldn’t want to share with a lot of people.
Tina Darmohray [Stanford’s Information Security Officer]: “The industry in general is
grappling with these services that are appealing and do a great job of making it easy to
share data, easy to store data, and those kinds of things. There is a significant effort
under way right now involving ITS (Information Technology Systems), the Office of
General Counsel, and the Information Security Office, to look out at cloud computing
offerings and consider whether they can be taken advantage of more broadly by the
university and to see if we can get contracts with appropriate vendors that are beneficial
to the university and protect the data. [The aim would be so] you can feel a little bit
more comfortable.
Executive Director Clebsch commented, “I think the notion of central IT in higher
education is changing its functionality from being a service provider to more of a service
broker because of these economies of scale that just exist out there now.”
Chair Spiegel, expressing the feelings of the Senate and the larger campus community,
concluded by saying, “I want to thank you, Professor Plotkin, for your generous service
to the committee and the university and thank the C-ACIS community as well.”
[ Applause ]
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
B. Committee on Research (C-Res) PI Eligibility Exception Policy: (SenD#6411,
SenD#6412)
Chair Spiegel introduced the next report by providing some history.
On May 27th, 2010, the Senate passed a resolution to authorize C-Res to further refine
exceptions to Stanford’s policy on Principal Investigator [PI] eligibility to include
postdoctoral scholars in the School of Medicine for a trial period not to exceed four
years. The trial would permit postdoctoral scholars in specific circumstances with
specified approvals to submit one proposal for a traditional investigator-initiated
research award. C-Res was directed to revise the proposal and return to the Senate for a
discussion and vote on the proposed exception to the policy.
Chair Spiegel stated, “Today the Committee on Research returns with a revised
recommendation for Senate authorization to allow the committee to conduct a trial
period of the exception to Stanford’s policy on PI eligibility for the School of Medicine.
It would allow clinical fellows and postdoctoral fellows holding an M.D. or an MD/PhD
degree to submit one-time proposals for a traditional investigator-initiated award. This
one-time proposal would include the opportunity of submitting a revision and
resubmission to NIH according to NIH’s rules. The trial period is four years. This item
requires Senate action.”
The proposal reads:
“The Senate authorizes the Committee on Research to conduct “trial period” exceptions
to the category of Principal Investigator Eligibility Exceptions to allow School of
Medicine clinical fellows and postdoctoral fellows holding MD or MD/PhD degrees to
submit one proposal for a traditional investigator-initiated research award, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of these exceptions over a four-year period.”
Chair Spiegel welcomed Professor Peter Michelson, C-Res member, filling in for
Professor Stephen Monismith, Chair of the committee, who was unable to attend today’s
meeting.
All members of the committee and several guests from the Medical School were invited
to hear this report. Several were in attendance. Ann Arvin, Vice Provost and Dean of
Research, and Harry Greenberg, just back from India, Senior Associate Dean in the
School of Medicine, participated in the presentation.
Professor Michelson thanked Chair Spiegel and proceeded.
“The Committee on Research spent quite a bit of time last quarter refining and working
on the proposed policy changes with the School of Medicine. It is limited to MD and
MD/PhD clinical research scholars in the School of Medicine. The expected number is in
very small--between one and three such trials proposals per year actually being
approved.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
“Why does the Medical School want to do this? It [focuses] on career development using
the traditional NIH grant process and expanding it to MD and MD/PhD scholars. It
addresses a national need [stemming from the] drop in the number of medical scientist
scholars that the country is producing. Steve Monismith’s letter to the Senate mentions
that.”
Dean Harry Greenberg continued the presentation.
“In the School of Medicine, in fact in the university, there is an exception [to the PI
eligibility rule] for career development that allows trainees to get grants. That’s very
important, because we all want our trainees to move on in their careers. This proposal
expands that exception beyond grants that say, ‘This is for a career development’, to a
first-time-only traditional RO1-type grant.
“We are proposing it be limited to physicians, people who have an MD degree or an
MD/PhD degree, because those are the people that have the most pressure on them to
start their career with some speed. They are the oldest [among postdoctoral fellows] as
they move into their career. Because they tend to be in clinical departments, they have
economic pressures to either get their grant or develop clinical sources of money. This
proposal provides a potential mechanism for some of them to hit the ground running
with a grant in their pocket when they’re starting their career.
“The Senate expressed some concern because the original proposal was spread broadly
across all postdoctoral students in the university. We thought that limiting it to this very
specific group--at the Medical School and only to those who have MD’s--would give us
a chance to evaluate it in a relatively limited group and see how it works.
“We’ve restricted it further by saying that a postdoctoral MD can only apply once for
such a grant. Our reasoning was that only the most competitive of the people applying
would be likely to make it through that passage, so we would be able to see how it’s
working in a very highly selective group of people.
“We spent a lot of time, at the direction of the Committee on Research and the
Committee on Postdoctoral Affairs, thinking about how the oversight of this select group
of postdoctoral fellows would be regulated and the relationship between the postdoc who
is applying for a grant (and becomes an instructor) and the mentor of that postdoc in the
grant application. It’s spelled out in a fair amount of detail in your paper.
“There was also concern whether this had broad support at the School of Medicine
among the Chairs. It has now been iteratively brought before the Chairs four times, and
they are broadly supportive of this proposal, as is the Committee on Postdoctoral Affairs.
And the Postdoctoral Association is also broadly supportive. [A representative of the
Association (Johan Kers, PhD), was in the Senate by invitation and nodded his head in
affirmation.]
“In essence, you have before you a very limited proposal to evaluate whether we can, in
fact, provide certain exceptional postdoctoral MD fellows with the opportunity to get an
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
NIH RO1 grant that will help them in getting their first faculty job; to study that
exception very carefully to make sure this does not disrupt the fabric of the School of
Medicine or cause undue harm to the postdocs who don’t get their award; and then to
report back to the Committee on Research and the Senate as this thing moves forward.
“Unfortunately, the NIH is shrinking at this point. So it seems unlikely that the number
of young people getting these awards will be very many. We’ve said we would limit it to
ten per year. Current rates of success on NIH grants are currently somewhat less than ten
percent. I’m not sure how many will get these awards, but certainly not a large number.
“We propose to do a careful evaluation of those people who get awards and those people
who don’t. Of course, it’ll be to some degree anecdotal, because our numbers won’t be
large enough. But at least we’ll have a feeling with the people who apply and the people
who get awards as to what the reception of the process is.”
That concluded the presentation. Chair Spiegel opened the floor for questions. These
were many and varied. To assist in understanding them, the questions are not necessarily
chronological order, but are grouped under a topic heading.
Process of selection
Professor Pat Jones began the questions. “Since there are multiple NIH grant deadlines,
is it basically first come, first served, or is there going a decision first about what to do if
you have the 15 people interested over a year?”
Dean Greenberg replied, “It’s going to be first come, first served, because, as you said, it
is a rolling set of deadlines. If we are surprised and have many more potential applicants
[than we anticipated], we will go back to the Committee on Research and say, ‘Maybe
we should expand it.’ But some people will have to wait until the next year or just not be
able to do it.”
Who is qualified?
Vice Provost Jones continued, “Anybody who knows about MD/PhD students and
trainees, knows that some decide they don’t want to do any clinical work or don’t want
to do any basic research. Those who don’t want to do clinical work could just do basic
research, like any PhD student, and not really be a physician scientist. Is there going to
be scrutiny?”
Dean Greenberg responded, “We decided to not go through that sort of deep analysis of
the motivations and career trajectory of each applicant. This is for people who are
planning to do translational work [research that has bench-to-bedside implications]. The
biggest hurdle is this: The faculty mentor with an MD or MD/PhD trainee and who is
willing to allow that person to apply for an RO1 grant has to agree to relinquish space
and resources. So there’s a built-in selection process. A Stanford faculty member has to
be the first gate that says, ‘I think this person in my lab fits the criteria.’”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Vice Provost Jones thought it would be reasonable for the proposal to determine first if
the trainee was really going to follow the career path for which the program was
intended--a physician scientist combining both research and clinical work.
Dean Greenberg replied that he would be happy to work with the Committee on
Research to think about how one might do that. But he added,
“At this stage in their careers, there are occasional MD/PhD’s who are headed for basic
science. The great bulk of our postdocs with MDs are not that group of people, so on a
purely numbers basis, I don’t see this as a very big problem.”
Since getting an NIH grant is so difficult, why not give the trainee more than one chance
to succeed?
Professor Peter Kao cited his career in his comment. “Fellow senators, I’m an associate
professor with an MD/PhD in my mid-career. This is a very important proposal. NIH
funding since the Bush administration [began] has gone down. I was lucky enough to
earn tenure under the Clinton administration [when obtaining an NIH grant was less
difficult]. When you say that the success rate of getting an NIH grant is 20 percent, in
truth, 50 percent of NIH grants are triaged and don’t even get scored. Of the top 50
percent that get scored, the top percentile who are successful is only 12 percent. In other
words six percent of all grants submitted are successful in getting funded.
“We are putting a double burden on our young physician scientists who we want to train
to become academicians by not even allowing them to try for this difficult, important
career step of winning an RO1 award.
“I would propose a refinement to the proposal that we allow the [trainee] not just to
apply for an award, but to keep applying, like you do [for NIH grants] until you win an
award. That is what actually makes you competitive to seek a job elsewhere. And [the
process of applying for an NIH grant] is a great training experience. If you get
permission just to hunt for an award and you get shot down once or twice and then
you’re not permitted to hunt anymore, that undermines your initiative to launch into an
academic career.”
Dean Greenberg nodded, “This issue was covered in some detail with the Committee on
Research. There was a balance between encouraging applicants and putting some end to
the process, not wanting to have postdoctoral trainees staying around Stanford, saying ‘I
need one more bite at the apple’, that is, creating a group of people who were continually
trying to get awards.”
Chair Spiegel had a point of clarification: “I think the intention is to allow applicants to
revise and resubmit if the grant is sent back and they’re allowed to resubmit. So they’re
allowed to pursue the track of that initial grant.”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Why so low a number and limited to MD’s or MD/PhD’s?
Professor Stefanos Zenios began diffidently, “When I joined the Senate, I was warned
that I would probably need to wait six months before I ask a question. [That soon?] But
still, I will go ahead. I wasn’t here during the previous discussions, so it would be useful
to understand why the Senate asked you to restrict the scope.”
Dean Greenberg, looking at the Dean of the School of Medicine, “My boss is giving me
hand signals that he wants to answer this question.”
Dean Pizzo, smiling, “No, no. The Senate did not give us that instruction. I gave that
instruction to Harry Greenberg to focus on the group we thought was most perilous.
Obviously, we are very concerned about all of our graduates, including those without
MD’s. But from a tactical and starting point of view, this was a more straightforward
case that didn’t infringe or create challenges outside the medical school, and that the
career pathway for MD’s going into research, as has already been enunciated, is among
the most perilous.”
Dean Greenberg expanded on Dean Pizzo’s reply, “When we first went to the
Committee on Research, the proposal was to restrict it to the School of Medicine because
it was an experiment and we wanted to be able to get some data without changing the
whole university. The Committee on Research debated it a long time and said, ‘Well,
postdoctoral students in other parts of the university will be unhappy that this is being
restricted to the School of Medicine.’ So it was expanded by the Committee on Research
to every PhD trainee. It was brought to the Senate. And the Senate said, ‘My God, this is
too big!’--and so it got squeezed back down again.”
Professor Taylor wanted to know the underlying principle, “that picks this group of
postdocs and distinguishes them from other postdocs. It sounded like maybe it had
something to do with the precariousness of the career path.”
Dean Greenberg confirmed, “Yes. As described in Steve Monismith’s letter and in the
[attached] materials, when physician/scientists who wish to pursue an academic career
that is research-intensive join a clinical department, they have two possibilities to earn
their keep. One is the traditional one that I, and many others have had--research grant
support throughout one’s career. In a clinical department where there is no hard money
from the university and you don’t have sufficient grant support, you have another way of
earning your keep. You care for patients. There’s tremendous pressure early in the career
to shift people who start off thinking they want to do research, to push them towards
doing more clinical care because of the financial constraints.
“This proposal would permit people to have protected time from the beginning to get
their research going and to protect them from having to do that clinical work right at the
get-go.”
Chair Spiegel quoted Dr. David Stevenson, Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs,
[not able to attend this session] who wanted to point out that medically trained
researchers are often 40 by the time they’ve finished their training. The average age of
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
those successfully winning their first RO1 NIH grant is 40 to 42. So these people,
because of their clinical training, are a lot older than they would be starting a [non
medical] academic career.
Professor Stacey Bent was troubled by the equality issue. “Why just the medical school
postdocs? One can make the argument that there are postdocs and research associates
across the university who would benefit by having a funded grant before they went off to
their next position.”
Dean Greenberg agreed, “I could not argue against that. I think the idea was that this is
an experiment; it is not a change in policy. This is an exception to gather data to see
whether this is a good way to move forward. And [as previously mentioned] the feeling
of the Senate was that it was a bad idea to start big. And if it [works], we’ll learn that,
we’ll come back, and it can be expanded.”
Professor Eric Roberts offered another fundamental argument for focusing on the MD
and MD/PhD: “When I read through this, I was concerned about some of the issues that
had been brought up about the question of fairness across the university.
“There are two reasons that one could have for limiting it. One is that you want the
experimental data and you want to have a controlled group that’s small enough. But I
was more convinced by the sense I got of a real need to make a difference in this
population. I’ve just thought that that was something really important to say. You’ve
talked about the specific problems of that group of people getting those NIH grants.
You’ve also talked about the special circumstances under which they have to raise
clinical funds.
“I was actually more compelled by the motion that this is a social good, that we need
those people desperately. And unless I’m reading it incorrectly, I sensed that there was a
feeling that the Medical School needed this kind of exemption in order to get the
postdoctoral fellows that it most wanted to have, that this was valuable on lots of
different levels. So I want to say, I am supporting the proposal on that basis. Of course
we can have an experiment that limits it. But these are compelling reasons and you need
compelling reasons in order to make an exception.”
Dean Greenberg responded, “I couldn’t agree more. Peter Kao expressed it in a heartfelt
way. [The path of a physician scientist] is an ever-increasingly tough row to hoe. Yet the
advancement of the biomedical sciences needs physician scientists. PhD’s are doing a
terrific job, and are a key part. But you need a component of people who are actually
involved in providing clinical care. That is a breed that is really endangered.”
Dean Pizzo underlined what Dean Greenberg said, “[The number of physician scientists
supported by NIH grants] has been declining dramatically. I was at a meeting with the
NIH directors on Monday, and it is clear that this is a continuing major source of
concern.”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Professor Taylor commented “I appreciate what Eric [Roberts] said, and that helps a lot.
I’m still not quite sure what you say to that postdoc in some other discipline who thinks,
‘Why not me?’ If some postdocs in biology are doing similar research, they don’t have
that outlet.”
Dean Greenberg explained, “The structure of the job market for basic science
departments and clinical departments is quite different. I had a discussion with my
colleague, John Boothroyd [Professor of Microbiology and Immunology]. When the
Department of Microbiology hires a young faculty member, the department has support
for that person so that if the person doesn’t get a grant for three or four years, it will
support the person. That does not happen in a clinical department.”
Why the PI policy is so restrictive
Provost Etchemendy weighed in. “Let me remind senators why we have a restricted PI
policy. This has been a long-standing policy at the university and a well-thought-through
policy by our predecessors from way back and has come up many times.
“We could easily add, just by being not restrictive of PIs, 1,000 or 2,000 PIs instantly to
our population. There are people that--even out on the street--would love to become PIs
at Stanford. It would be very easy for our research enterprise to double.
“The problem is that that takes university resources. Research grants do not cover the
full cost [of research at Stanford], and the indirect cost recovery is not adequate. So what
would happen is there would be more and more demand for university resources, for new
lab buildings, and so on, that would be sucked up by people other than faculty.
“It’s always been our assumption that the research direction of the university should be
driven by the faculty. The faculty are chosen to come here by departments to do the
research and teaching of the university. That’s why we have been very restrictive. And I
think that’s a good policy.
“This is not meant as a comment against this proposal. I think this proposal is now
sufficiently limited that it’s a safe proposal. Let’s see how it works. Let’s see if it
remains relatively small. You might ask, ‘What is the experiment meant to show?’ I
think different people are going to be looking at this experiment with different eyes.
Some people are going to be looking to see whether the postdocs are happy with it and
that would be wonderful.
“Some people will be looking at it--Ann Arvin and me, for example--to see that not
many grants actually go through. Because if they do, then we will worry about the
resources that are sucked into this program and away from the core mission of the
university, which is to support your research and your teaching.”
Dean Greenberg countered, “Since I’ve lived by getting NIH grants for a long time, we
should be so lucky that we’re sucking in a lot of grants.”
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
Dean Arvin emphasized, “In the context of our policy, this is coming forward as a
potential amendment to an existing exception under a policy which is for career
development. If this is a successful experiment by whatever measures, that is how it
would ultimately be rolled out in the context of our policy of career development.
“We did have the discussion about broader eligibility. It was definitely the sense of the
Senate coming back to the Committee on Research that that was not where they wanted
to begin the experiment.”
Professor Greely reminded the Senate of the other recent exception approved by the
Senate: “Those of you who weren’t in the Senate last year or at the meeting at which this
was discussed, missed a really interesting meeting, with a lengthy, frank, and candid
discussion. There were strong views on both sides. I was concerned about the proposal
last time. I now support this proposal. I think the Medical School and the Committee on
Research have carefully pruned this to a point where it is an effective, appropriate
experiment.
“But it is one of several exceptions, as Dean Arvin said. In fact, last year at that meeting,
we approved an exception for SLAC, which goes into effect January 1st. There are
quality differences, and there are quality issues when you take into account the
differences. This proposal, particularly as a four-year experiment, and particularly with
the provisions that require collection of data about the results, with the requirement that
it come back to the Senate if it’s going to go forward any farther after four years, I think,
is a compromise well worth supporting.”
If this trial is successful what will it lead to?
Professor Bent. “I understand that [the way this proposal is worded] solves the problem
of confining it, but it still is just a runaround from the bigger issue, which is--if this is
successful, what does that mean? Are we now going to open it up to all the postdocs and
all the other research fellows? To me, it still seems unfair to take one segment of a
group. Even within the postdocs in the Medical School, there might be some whose
mentors will say, ‘I don’t want to give you lab space.’ There’s a equality issue.”
Dean Greenberg responded, “I think that is true. But there are equality issues in all parts
of our life, and this is one of them. And we will gain knowledge about how it rolls out.
One of the concerns I have [also] is the equality issue. If there is a lot of dissension
among postdocs as to the way it’s administered, the Committee on Research will know
it. Dr. Arvin will know it. And that will be a problem. And we’ll have to pull the plug.
“I don’t expect that. I don’t think that’s going to be the way it’s going to go. But that’s
the reason we’re doing it as this type of experiment.”
Is this going to be a well-designed experiment?
Professor Koseff threw in some cold water. “I fully agree with Eric [Roberts]. The
reason I will support this is for the reason [he enunciated], because, to be quite honest, as
an experiment, what are we going to learn? We’re really going to learn how competitive
these postdocs are in the national arena--and that’s about it. Unless you’re willing to set
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
up a control group, and track the career pathways of both groups, and see if [this PI
exception] ultimately does [have an impact on their careers], it’s really contrived. So
let’s be honest about it. If you really want this group and have this PI exception
availability, to get this group as part of [the physician scientist group], great. But in
terms of experiment, it’s going to be a miserable experiment.”
[ Laughter ]
Dean Pizzo smiled and nodded, “Agreed.”
Dean Greenberg argued, “From control data, I totally agree. But there are things that can
be learned from anecdotes. And you will get anecdotal information for ultimate outcome
but not for impact.”
Professor Koseff added a qualifier, “Ten years from now.”
How will this affect the potential MD and MD/PhD applicants for an NIH grant?
Professor Anat Admati turned to another aspect. “I want to ask you about one
component, which is sort of a one-time thing. It sounds like either there is a need or isn’t
a need. I’m not sure if the proposal is about protecting the MD MD/PhD time for writing
grants or what, but it introduces a strategic notion about success rates.”
Dean Greenberg replied, “I think one of the rationales behind this is, by restricting it to
one time, you will force the applicants to think long and hard, ‘Am I ready to write this?’
As opposed to simply saying, ‘I’m just going to throw it out there and then throw it out
there again.’ It leads to a bit of discipline about deciding when is it time to step up to the
plate because of that.”
Will this exception help recruit MD applicants to Stanford for research training?
Professor Blas Cabrera asked, “To what extent do you expect this exemption process to
help in recruitment?”
Dean Greenberg replied, “I have no data on that, but speaking frankly, I don’t think most
of our postdocs we’re recruiting are aware of the differences between Stanford’s policy
and other places. If they were well advertised, then it would make a difference. But I
think most come without any knowledge about it.”
Chair Spiegel, seeing no more hands raised, concluded, “I think we have had a full and
fair discussion of this proposal. It comes moved and seconded by the Committee on
Research. I’ll read the proposal to make sure I have the wording.
The Senate authorizes the Committee on Research to conduct “trial period” exceptions
to the category of Principal Investigator Eligibility Exceptions to allow School of
Medicine clinical fellows and postdoctoral fellows holding MD or MD/PhD degrees to
submit one proposal for a traditional investigator-initiated research award, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of these exceptions over a four-year period.
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
There was a discussion about the precise wording, which ended with this comment by
Dean Greenberg, referring to the phrase ‘submit one proposal’, “It’s very well written in
the documents that you have.”
Chair Spiegel called for a vote, “We’re going to do a hand vote. All in favor please raise
your hands. Hold your hand up.”
The Academic Secretary, seeing all the hands in the air, said, “I don’t think we’re going
to have to count.”
The Chair then called for Nay votes (there was one) abstentions (there was one).
The motion carried with one nay and one abstention.
VI. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
VII. New Business
There was no new business.
VIII. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was seconded and passed unanimously. The Senate adjourned at
4:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rex L. Jamison, MD
Academic Secretary to the University
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes
December 2, 2010
Meeting of Senate XLIII
RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
Name Unit Name Unit
P Admati, Anat, Graduate School of Business 01 P Ober, Josiah, Political Science 07
P Arvin, Ann, Vice Provost & Dean of Research Ex officio P Osgood, Brad, Electrical Engineering 04
P Barley, Stephen R., Management Science & Engineering 04 P Palumbo-Liu, David, Comparative Literature 08
P Bent, Stacey, Chemical Engineering 04 P Parsonnet, Julie, Medicine 13
P Cabrera, Blas, Physics 06 P Pizzo, Philip, Dean of the School of Medicine Ex officio
P Carter, Prudence, Education 03 P Plummer, James, Dean of the School of Engineering Ex officio
A Cook, Karen, Sociology 07 P Raisian, John, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Ex officio
P Cyert, Martha S., Biology 06 P Roberts, Eric, Computer Science 04
P Drell, Persis, Director of SLAC Ex officio A Safran, Gabriella, Slavic Languages and Literature 08
P Edwards, Chris, Mechanical Engineering 04 A Saldivar, Ramon, English 08
A Elam, Harry, Vice Provost for Student Affairs Ex officio A Saller, Richard, Dean of the School of Humanities & Sciences Ex officio
P Etchemendy, John, Provost Ex officio A Saloner, Garth, Dean of the Graduate School of Business Ex officio
A Frank, Zephyr, History 07 P Satz, Debra M., Philosophy 08
P Freyberg, David L., Civil & Environmental Engineering 04 A Schultz, Kenneth, Political Science 07
P Gerritsen, Margot G., Energy Resources Engineering 02 A Segura, Gary, Political Science 07
P Greely, Henry, Law 09 P Sheppard, Sheri, Mechanical Engineering 04
A Greene, Roland, English/Comparative Literature 08 A Simoni, Robert, Biology 06
A Gumport, Patricia, Vice Provost for Graduate Education Ex officio A Sinclair, Robert, Materials Science & Engineering 04
P Heise, Ursula, English 08 P Solgaard, Olav, Electrical Engineering 04
P Hennessy, John, President of the University Ex officio P Spiegel, David, Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences 13
P Hewett, JoAnne L., Particle Physics Astrophysics 10 A Stevenson, David, Pediatrics 13
P Holmes, Susan P., Statistics 06 P Stipek, Deborah, Dean of the School of Education Ex officio
P Jamison, Rex, Academic Secretary to the University Ex officio P Taylor, Kenneth, Philosophy 08
P Jones, Patricia P., Biology 06 A Theriot, Julie, Biochemistry 12
P Kao, Peter, Medicine 13 A Walbot, Virginia, Biology 06
P Kasevich, Mark, Applied Physics 06 A Walder, Andrew, Sociology 07
P Kingsley, David M., Developmental Biology 12 P Wein, Lawrence, Graduate School of Business 01
P Koseff, Jeffrey R., Civil & Environmental Engineering 04 A White, Brian, Mathematics 06
A Kramer, Larry, Dean of the Law School Ex officio P Wigen, Kären, History 07
A Krasner, Stephen, Political Science 11 A Wise, Paul, Pediatrics 13
P Landy, Joshua, French and Italian 08 A Yanagisako, Sylvia, Anthropology 07
P Lavori, Philip W., Health Research and Policy 13 P Zenios, Stefanos, Graduate School of Business 01
P Levitt, Raymond E., Civil & Environmental Engineering 04 P Zoback, Mark, Geophysics 02
A Lipsick, Joseph, Pathology 12
A Marshall, Lawrence, Law 09
A Matson, Pamela, Dean of the School Earth Sciences Ex officio
A McFarland, Daniel, Education 03
Present on Invitation or by Request: Present on Standing Invitation:
Robert Joss, Dr. Louanne Hudgins, Susan Schelley, Dr. Lorry Stephanie Kalfayan, Lindi Press, Kenneth Scott, Tom Black,
Frankel, Serge Plotkin, Randy Livingston, William Clebsch, Kathleen Sullivan, Angelina Cardona, Devin Banerjee, The
Tina Darmohray, Peter Michelson, Kathy Gillam, Harry Stanford Daily
Greenberg, Bill Damon, Rania Sanford
Outside Press:
December 2, 2010 Senate Minutes 28