A few weeks ago I heard a talk by Professor Ulf Landegren from Uppsala University about innovation and commercialization of research. Landegren himself has developed innovative molecular tools for measuring DNA, RNA and proteins in blood and tissues, resulting in a large number of patents and companies including Olink (www.olink.com).
Landegren also delved on how governments and universities facilitate innovation and presented a figure that shows proportion of GDP spent on R&D in relation to number of scientists and engineers. The figure was taken from an article in Nature Immunology (Kollias and Lambris, 2015) in which Greek researchers pointed out everything that did not work in Greece in general and in Greek research policies in particular. They mention, among other things, politically driven research with no clear strategy, no real evaluation of money spent, and when evaluations are performed they lead nowhere.
Research and development (R&D) versus scientists / engineers per million. Size of the circle reflects the size of the amounts used for R&D.

Not surprisingly, Norway spends the lowest amount of money on R&D compared to our Nordic neighbors, despite broad political consensus that we should spend more. After all, we are “one of the richest countries in the world.” Another striking feature that puts us on what Landegren thinks is the wrong part of the ball park (with Greece), is that Norway has a high proportion of researchers per million inhabitants compared to available R&D funds. At first glance it may seem good to have many scientists, but limited research and innovation funds allocated to many scientists might produce mediocre results in many areas instead of groundbreaking research that can be commercialized and create new industries and jobs. In the opposite end of the field you find Israel as an outlier with a 4.3% share of GDP spent on R&D spread over about 1600 researchers per million. Perhaps there is a connection between this research policy and the fact that Israel produces more high-tech start ups than countries like Britain, Canada and China. Maybe we have something to learn by looking to Israel and our Nordic neighbors.

I wish you all a good weekend!

Eystein

Do the name ” Enhet for læring” or ”Unit for learning” sound familiar to you? Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry has , in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital, employed an educationalist to strengthen the medical teaching competence. How this can help us in our teaching, you will get to know at the Teaching Day 2016 on 12 October.

We will arrange the Teaching Day together with K1, and this time as a full day seminar rather than two half days, like we did last year. The new curriculum Medisin 2015 has now been in effect for one year. During the meeting we will have an actual demonstration of Team Based Learning as performed during autumn term. This as an inspiration of how we may incorporate this technique in our teaching (even without having to refurnish the auditoriums).

Digital presentation; making a presentation where you as a teacher may show pre-recorded combined pictures and sound is now a valid option. This may be short presentations for the students to go through before a ”regular” lecture in the auditorium or as a full recorded plenary lecture as an alternative for individual students to physical attend. The program used for this purpose is named TechSmith Relay (additional information available at relay.uninett.no). During the Teaching Day we will show examples and practical tips on how to use this system.

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Bergen has entered a collaboration with NTNU and UiT with the aim of strengthening the examination process by developing a huge common database of MCQs (Multiple Choice Questions) for the Medical Curriculum. This to ensure examination uniformity throughout the different Faculties in Norway and give UiB the possibility to use MCQs developed in the other faculties. MCQ may well be used with a short clinical introduction (case description) followed by different questions regarding diagnose and treatment as well as basic knowledge (anatomy and physiology). To be able to develop GOOD MCQs we will build upon the experience from those in NTNU that have used this very structured during several years. We aim for all teachers being able to develop MCQs from their specific fields of expertise. This will ease the work of putting together an individual exam and the marking process will be automatic and less subjective!

Remember to set aside the 12th of October in your appointment schedule. Warmly welcome!

Jone

The relationship between jobs funded by the anuum (the basic budget from the government) and those covered through external funding, and the relationship between technical-administrative and academic positions always awakens interest. Some believe that the number of administrative positions at K2 increases at the expense of scientific positions. In short, that there is too much administration and too little science. Recent figures that illustrate these conditions are now available for the period 2013 to 2016.

Figure 1 shows number of K2 administrative, technical and academic positions funded through the anuum in the specified period. There has been a decline in number of academic positions (from 60.7 in 2013 to 52.8 in 2016), a slight reduction in number of administrative positions (from 14.5 to 12.5) and no change in number of technical positions (2013: 36.4 and 2016: 36.3). The ratio of scientific to administrative positions was 4.2 in both 2013 and 2016.

The picture becomes a little different when we include the externally funded positions (Figure 2). There has been a marked increase in number of academic positions salaried externally, while administrative positions with this kind of funding has remained virtually unchanged. The two ways of financing combined are visualized in Figure 3. The conclusion is that the relationship between number of scientific and administrative positions is moving in the right direction. This development (Figure 3) is deliberate and intentional, but it cannot continue like this uninterrupted. There is a need to strengthen the economy section, and a new economy consultant starts at K2 over the summer. We will also employ a research consultant to strengthen applications for external funding.

Per

The Department of Clinical Science is going to use the new strategic plan actively as emphasized in the editorial of Per last week. In one of the paragraphs on Recruitment Strategy (RIK1-T2), we wrote that:

Department of Clinical Science will stimulate group leaders to identify outstanding internal and external (foreign) candidates and submit names of potential candidates to the Department which will follow up these candidates with career counseling by the research advisor.

Aftergrowth is important for the Department. I encourage you all to let us know the names that may be relevant when the Department will plan future permanent academic positions. We wish to recruit outstanding candidates, whether they are located in Bergen or abroad. We have written merit-based criteria in addition to need-based criteria in the strategic plan. As merits we have emphasized high impact publications with high citation levels and key author roles, increasing trend in the publication quality and quantity, early achievement of a high h-index and demonstrated independence and ability to obtain external funding and teaching merits.

Helge

The new K2 strategy has been formally approved by the Institute board after the draft of the plan has been commented by various groups at K2. The plan is Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic and Time specific (SMART). The plan comprises the following areas: research, teaching, recruitment, infrastructure and competence as well as dissemination.

You might argue that it’s OK with a strategy plan. However it should not influence me and my daily work.  My answer would be that the plan will affect all of us in one way or the other, be it new teaching- or student evaluation methods, K2 support for grant applications, recruitment plans, HSE initiative in the labs or assessment of the psychosocial environment.

The strategy plan covers slightly more than one page. I expect all of you to read it. I can promise that the institute will use it actively and provide an annual update as to the status of the implementation of the plan.

Per

Our April Fool joke “Will make K2 international” was quite successful. Many thought the joke was funny, others reported that the idea was actually very good and wanted to join. Therefore, we will now consider the proposal – seriously this time. I can reassure everyone that the visit to an “elite university” in Hawaii is not included in the plan, but the department management will during 2016 visit UoBs new office in Brussels.

The head of the office, that is a collaboration with NTNU and SINTEF, is newly employed and his name is Kristof Vlaeminck. Vlaeminck has experience from both research and research funding and is currently national contact point for FP7 and Horizon 2020 and the Belgian delegate to the Horizon 2020’s program committee for the discipline “Secure Societies”.

The EU office has ambitions to keep UoB updated on the research developments in the EU, as well as being of concrete assistance to researchers who want to build networks or establish consortiums. They also have meeting rooms that can be used by researchers from UoB. The next few weeks Vlaeminck will visit UoB, and hopefully also our department, so that we can get “firsthand” knowledge of how best to utilize this opportunity.

The research department at UoB prioritises international networking and will provide support to researchers who want to establish contacts and write applications. Concretely K2 sent a COST action application this April, and the research department played a very central role in the writing process.

K2 is doing well in the international arena already, partly visible through numerous publications in very highly rated journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, Nature and Science in recent years. This illustrates the importance of international networks and how we can use these to become internationally leading.

Finally, we will use the leeway to employ a new research advisor, not to travel to Hawaii …

Good luck with network building!

Eystein

Do you feel that medical students receive (are offered) too scant teaching in your field of interest?
This is an opportunity for you to make a difference!

The new model being established contain optional modules, called “Elective periods”, and four weeks each spring semester 3., 4., 5., and 6. academic year are allocated for this. One of these modules will be reserved for working with their major academic assignment (Særoppgave). Thanks to those of you who mentor these!
The other three spring modules should contain different optional courses of two to four weeks duration.

These courses may preferably be interdisciplinary (utilize resources across subject specific fields) here are some suggestions for inspiration:

“Life-style as medicine”: nutrition, exercise, perspectives from different medical disciplines may elucidate what could / should be provided by life-style interventions at various levels of the health service.

“Future Medicine”, can we draw lines ahead; from basic science via present clinical aspects to possible future scenarios? The future is now!

A more practical approach is also welcomed:
“How to improve students’ clinical ability in my specific field” (to practice as a doctor with temporary license or a brand new fellow in my department). Focus on practical procedures/skills focused in one medical field.

“Sonography” is a method that students receive sparse practical training in present curriculum in spite of this modality is increasingly used by non-radiologists. Can we by an interdisciplinary approach contribute to such training?

“Research Methodology”; statistics, epidemiology, practical laboratory methods, laboratory animal courses? Is this a possible link in recruiting future PhD candidates?

Students themselves have suggested several possible subjects for these optional courses (from tropical to mountain medicine, mindfulness course to neurobiology science). Now is the time for us at Department of Clinical Science to consider and announce what we find beneficial for the students to learn and what we can contribute to achieve this. First course module will be scheduled spring 2018 but active planning must start now. Number of participants, cohorts (level/year of student experience) and whether the course could or should be taught in English should be considered.

The Study Plan Committee with responsibility for Elective periods is headed by Professor Christian Vedeler and they are eager to receive suggestions via this form. Please send to Dina Kristin Midtflø.

We hope all the research groups at K2 find at least one topic they want to offer!

Jone

The IT unit at UoB has developed a secure system for handling of sensitive personal information in research. The system is called SAFE. SAFE is the preferred system for all internally and externally financed research projects at UoB handling sensitive personal information. K2 supports this.

K2 research groups which already have data stored at the server at Haukeland University Hospital do not have to move their data, but can still use this server. The important issue is that this kind of data are stored according to the requirements. Storing sensitive personal information at a PC is not allowed, even if the data should be unidentified.

A significant advantage with SAFE is that is allows not only storing but also statistical handling of the data. According to statisticians at IGS, SAFE is very good system. More information about it may be found here (in Norwegian).

Per

The university has an increased focus on correct affiliation, not only related to publications, but also in contact with the press. In the latter case, it is important to check that we are addressed by the name of the institute and then University of Bergen. You may also want to first state the name of the research group, and that is of course OK. As to the title, we for are for instance professor at the Department of Clinical Science, UoB. Those who are also employed by the for instance Haukeland University Hospital or Stavanger University Hospital may be consultant, while not professor at the hospitals.

One may argue that the press will not accept such an affiliation as it is too extensive. However, Laurence Bindoff at K1 is a recent example that this is quite possible. When his research was presented in VG, he was addressed with Department of Clinical Medicine, UoB.
A good advice is to review the text prior to publication and this is an opportunity to also check the affiliation. My experience is that also the journalists want the content of their papers to be correct.

Per

The Department Management and Administration will take new paths to get research funding. In June the management lead by Per Bakke will embark on a 3-week trip to the world’s highest ranked universities, including Harvard, NIH, the Mayo Clinic and an elite university in Hawaii. The institute’s research will be presented and the management will learn more about how to apply for funding from the United States, including from the NIH and the industry.

The trip, including stay, board and travel (5 star hotels and business class due to tight itinerary) comes to about 500 000 NOK. This may seem expensive, but the potential is huge and we choose to use our leeway like this instead of hiring a research consultant .

The management wants 1-2 persons from the permanent academic staff to join the trip. For more information, or to register your interest, follow this link.

Eystein

These days we learn about Danish and Finnish universities that have to cut their budgets by 5-10% and lay off hundreds of employees. Fortunately this is not the case in Norway. UoB has to reduce its budget by NOK 70-100 mill as part of the efficiency program of the government. This is just a very minor part of the budget. However, it may still be wise to assess the way the university is run. UoB has established a “Steering group for development of efficient and future-oriented administrative and technical services”.

This sounds very boring and bureaucratic, and we may think that this has nothing to do with me. But it does and to a great extent. For instance, recruitment procedures, travel documents and establishing exams are tasks we are all engaged in. More important than making these tasks cheaper, is to improve their quality. This is why the work of this steering group is important to all of us, and I am sure that we will hear more from it.

In the meantime Easter is coming up, and I hope that we can all relax and have a good time.
Happy Easter!

Per

I grew up in a school system with a fairly even distribution of boys and girls with equal skills.

When I was a medical student (early 80s) we were also equally distributed (as opposed to the current situation with 70% girls), but the lecturers were essentially men, and women professors were a rare breed. (I can actually remember that Professor May-Elin Koller of the anesthesia department made an impression as an almost solitary swallow.) In gynecology I have always had many female colleagues and at KK the management also has a dominance of women now.

When I stepped into the University function however, it was like tugging “back to the 80s”: I experience that I am the almost single swallow! Look around your section: How many research groups, platforms or centres of excellence have female leaders? And in middle management, how is the situation there? In the hospital we can clearly see how male nurses largely possess such positions, and how is it for the Medical Laboratory Scientists?

Is this inequality a problem? Should we just sit around and wait for all the current female students and PhD students to grow up an hope that it will then even out? Or should we have an active equality policy where this is on the agenda? A friendly push; actively encourage women to apply for management positions (yes you ARE good enough!) and employ them! Should we have affirmative action? We are currently writing a new strategy document. Should a greater proportion of women in the scientific positions be an objective? If we do not mention it,it means we do not find it important (enough) to work towards. It is a choice.

Jone

Drafts for the Jebsen applications have been assessed by an external committee and four of the applicants have been invited to submit full applications. These are Eva Gerdts, Per Eystein Lønning, Eystein Husebye and Bjørn Tore Gjertsen. Even if this is just the first hurdle to pass and no success is guaranteed I am pleased to note that all of them are researchers at K2.

In a previous editorial Eystein has described the K2-review process for those who have submitted drafts of NFR applications. The review process includes an open meeting at which the applicants will be given feedback on their draft from experienced researchers. I encourage also those of you who have not submitted a draft, to attend the meeting. It is highly possible that that you may pick up valuable advices as to how to write an application. This applies to whether you are a PhD, post doc or sit in a fixed position.

Per