|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|
The following interview between the Faculty Newsletter (FNL) and Vice President for Research and Associate Provost Alice Gast (AG) took place on August 5th of this year.
FNL: David Litster held your position before you, but the job has been redefined. How do you see it now versus where it was?
AG: Yes, the position has been redefined, and I'm pleased with the redefinition. The title changed from Vice President and Dean of Research to Vice President for Research and Associate Provost. In my view, the importance of the title is that it is to represent working, on one level, as the Vice President for Research, on matters of policy, and another level as an Associate Provost, rather than a Dean. Being an Associate Provost, I can continue to work between school boundaries for the common good of the Institute.
FNL: So do you focus specifically on labs and centers as opposed to departments?
AG: I try to work within research in general but I also care for and support a number of labs and centers. I view the position as continuing to be the champion of interdisciplinary research. As with previous Vice Presidents for Research, I can work with other Deans and we can pursue initiatives together; the centralized administration and collegiality here makes that quite easy to do.
FNL: So what do you do, per se? Part of it seems to be that people need an integrated multi-disciplinary push in the right direction, but how do you even find that out?
AG: I do a number of things in my position. I'm responsible for 14 interdisciplinary labs and centers, and I do take that very seriously, and I serve on Academic Council, and feel like I represent the research side of the Institute. I've been responsible for issues of research policy, and that can be both interdisciplinary or at any level that it's an institutional matter of policy. I also serve on the space planning committee [CRSP]. I serve on what I would call the strategic level of CRSP, and my goal is to think broadly and on the research side, dealing with institutional priorities for space utilization innovations, new buildings, and to think about how we can best serve the research teams' interests.
FNL: As part of research policy issues, do you have any connection to distance learning or the Web?
AG: I haven't been integrally involved yet in OpenCourseWare, although I'm peripherally involved with some of the issues that they're dealing with regarding copyrighting and the licensing of educational materials.
FNL: What are some of the other policy issues?
AG: Environmental health and safety is a very important one that I view as a key issue.
FNL: How much of that is internal, and how much is mandated?
AG: From my work with the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Health and Safety, I view a lot of the synergy and activity as internal. I realize that there is external pressure to meet the consent decree with the EPA, but I would say at this point there's a very broad recognition of the need for an Institute-wide system that works well for all the different parts of campus.
FNL: So do you work with OSP [Office of Sponsored Programs]?
AG: I do. Research policy also involves research grants and contracts, and so I work with Julie Norris in OSP on issues of conflict of interest.
FNL: How much of your time have you spent on that? (There's no video camera today so the readers can't see you roll your eyes.)
AG: It varies. [LAUGHTER] A big fraction of time.
FNL: And this is talking about individual cases, waivers, requests? It seems the boundaries have been pushed a lot in recent years, if not decades. There are issues here going back to when Whitehead was established, and now there are cases where more and more of industry wants academia to get involved in doing their work.
AG: Yes, that's very definitely a tone and a trend I see nationally. Industry views that now universities can help them with their research and development.
FNL: It's classically been done in Europe. European scientists often are funded heavily by industry. Yet certain desires of industry can fly in the face of our educational objectives.
AG: Yes, MIT has very high standards for openness and educational objectives regarding research.
FNL: So you're really the person who's the watchdog.
AG: I'm the gatekeeper. And I was very pleased with the document that Sheila Widnall's committee put together on classified research. They have a chapter, a small chapter, with recommendations about industrial corporate sponsored research. And in general, you'll find that MIT's policies are not explicitly documented in some of these areas, and the committee's report actually provides very nice guidelines that do lay it out in black and white. Their charge to continue with more discussion on these issues is a very important one.
FNL: What are the sanctions that tend to be levied by your office or anybody else's? To what extent is there action taken when breach of ethical procedures occurs?
AG: Well obviously, they come in case by case. And most often, I've dealt with issues regarding grants and contracts that we cannot accept because they do not meet our conflict of interest standards, or there are issues around publication rights and things like that. Most of those issues in the contracts were actually negotiated by OSP and our intellectual property counsel, and so I only see them if there's a problem.
FNL: And it's up to them to alert you of potential problems?
AG: Right.
FNL: So, it's not up to the faculty to check with you ahead of time before they try to sign something away. Since this interview is for the Faculty Newsletter, is there anything you'd like to alert the faculty to concerning their responsibilities in this area?
AG: I would suggest that faculty do and can continue to seek the advice of our Sponsored Projects Office, our Senior Counsel for Intellectual Property, or my office.
FNL: So where would the faculty go? Policies and Procedures? You said those seem not to be as well spelled out as you'd like.
AG: The policies and procedures are not very explicit on some of the details on issues that we deal with.
FNL: Whereas the Widnall report . . .
AG: It provides some guidelines, and faculty can come to my office. They can come to the office of the intellectual property counsel. Traditionally faculty have gotten a lot of guidance from [Senior IP Counsel] Karen Hersey and now her replacement in dealing with these questions. We strongly encourage faculty to get advice on non-disclosure and confidentiality arrangements. There are plenty of resources here through the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Office of Intellectual Property Counsel, and my office.
FNL: What about the changing R&D on campus? You haven't been here that long, but basic research now seems to be more frequently sacrificed, or industry certainly would like us to sacrifice it, for the end product. I don't know if it's your job to change it per se, but is that on your radar screen?
AG: It is on my radar screen, and partly from my discussions with various representatives of industry in various venues. But my personal view is that industry should engage in cooperations with universities when they want to gain a better fundamental understanding of something and when they would like to have that knowledge readily available to the entire world. They should engage in those collaborations where there are areas of common interests, realizing that the product will be fundamental research, publications, and students. Traditionally, one of the great assets that an industry/university collaboration had was that students would be exposed to some of the issues that arise in applications of their research and they would learn about industries in more detail. Industries would be exposed to a student body and have them trained in areas that they were interested in, and there'd be a lot of common interests in the prospective hire's perspective.
FNL: So in terms of deliverables, is it part of your job to negotiate these contracts?
AG: No, I don't do that. The Office of Intellectual Property and the Office of Sponsored Programs would handle that. I think that in recent years intellectual property has become a much bigger part of the equation. And so industry moves into a relationship with a university expecting not only research results and knowledge and students, but also intellectual property. I think perhaps that was partly driven by a lot of young companies who had more intellectual property than real property – product. And when you start dealing in ideas and ideas are what are fueling your company, then the intellectual property becomes very valuable to you. I think that's an unfortunate trend . . .
FNL: So does the average investor.
AG: [LAUGHTER] Recent stock market results have made that clear.
FNL: Has anything specifically changed in your area as a result of 9/11?
AG: Oh, very much so. Among the first thing that comes to mind are issues regarding security. We add to the already active efforts in environmental health and safety the aspect of security; making sure that our research materials and our research results are safe and secure. That is the basic reason for the bioterrorism legislation that many people have heard about if they happen to work with what are termed select agents that could be considered a hazard or dangerous if they got into the wrong hands. And we've been responding to that new legislation.
FNL: Are there other post-9/11 issues?
AG: Yes. The International Scholars Office reports to me and the International Students Office reports to me via the Dean for Graduate Students, and so I've spent a lot of energy and effort thinking about how we deal with post September 11th issues. In particular, the INS has speeded up its implementation of a database system.
FNL: There are stories of post docs who have been told that, if they pay a $1,000 fee, the rate at which their visa renewal application will be handled will be fast-tracked. They were told so 3-6 six months after they had conscientiously sent in all their paper work and fees. They were told that $1,000 would put them at the front of the line.
AG: There are delays now in getting visas. And the International Scholars or International Students Office are very good about warning people of those delays and trying to help them prepare in advance for delays that can occur in visa applications now, and even denials. We have had some fraction of denials, too.
FNL: What about foreign students in general?
AG: What I get is more of a general issue – calls from newspapers and radio programs talking about the foreign student issue and how we're dealing with it or what we think. And you know, I've expressed how much we value our foreign student population.
FNL: That's not the spin they often have.
AG: Right. But I think it's important that institutions like ours stand up for international student and scholars.
FNL: Any other post-9/11 issues?
AG: I also co-chair, with Associate Provost Claude Canizares, the Committee on the Protection of Human Life and Infrastructure, formed by Chuck Vest to assess what, if anything, MIT would like to do or should do to respond after September 11th. And we're launching a new Website this September. We're going to use that Website as a means of communicating what we already do that is related to issues of terrorism and to, in some sense, raise consciousness with other faculty doing research who, with a little bit of change of focus, could contribute quite a bit to this War On Terrorism.
FNL: Do you see this whole area as a significant opportunity for research projects for the faculty?
AG: I believe it will be. I don't think it's going to go away. And I think it's appropriate for faculty to assess their interests and their concerns and whether they can apply their talents to these problems.
FNL: There was no national budget for this, and they continue to reorganize the plan.
AG: Yes, the national organization has certainly not been swift, and so to some extent, nobody has really known what to expect or where they should be focusing their attention. The Branscomb-Klausner Report has come out, which is a high level National Academy panel put together to focus on issues of counterterrorism, and so there are many recommendations of research areas or areas needing more attention in that report.
FNL: It's interesting that this may actually be an opportunity, in a very idealistic sense, perhaps to unify the campus more, not simply the different engineering or science disciplines, but really bringing in the whole Institute – humanities, architecture, etc., in pursuing this unified goal.
AG: One of the issues or recurring themes is, what I would use is the term the "root causes" – issues of the whole international studies area and how one can start to take a global view as one does with other large problems. And MIT is notoriously good at solving large-scale problems at systems levels.
FNL: The question of centers and labs – how do you see their evolution? Are there some here that should be closed down?
AG: I would say that there is an evolution in labs and centers, and the Provost and I are very interested in trying to foster new areas and think critically about how we're dealing with the more mature labs and centers. In particular, obviously, the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies is a new opportunity and a new interdisciplinary activity. It is an exciting institute with a contract from the army and a new facility here on campus; it will then evolve after the contract is over. And since it is interdisciplinary, it will report administratively to my office. The director, Ned Thomas, will also sit on Engineering Council because it has a strong link to the School of Engineering.
FNL: Any others?
AG: There's the Martinos Center, a medical imaging center involving a collaboration between MGH and MIT.
FNL: Do you see them as fundamentally different? There are always new centers and they have new ideas or laboratories – but are we really dealing with a fundamental paradigm change or not?
AG: I would say, looking at national research again, that interdisciplinarity is important. And I would say from the complexity of the problems being addressed, if you think about the types of work that people are doing in the forefront of biological sciences, for example, there are many, many areas where you need cross-disciplinary activities.
FNL: So do you think it's a valuable exercise for an institution to set up interdisciplinary programs and find people who can participate for a given period of time, as opposed to the general question of is interdisciplinary research worthwhile?
AG: Well, I do believe interdisciplinary research is worthwhile, and I do think that you need to maintain strong disciplines for faculty to come to collaborations with the appropriate tools and expertise. But it's when you do bring researchers together in a fruitful collaboration, as we've seen over and over again, that a lot of interesting new things can come out. And so, there's a balance between maintaining their disciplines so that you have your core competencies represented by the faculty, students, and research staff, but at the same time you nurture them, or make feasible and possible their interactions so that they can have productive collaborations unencumbered by any boundaries put up by the institutions.
FNL: The model in a lot of places is to bring people together from different disciplines into collaboration, and at a certain point in the creative development of the project the expertise that one really needs has to come from outside. And yet frequently funding agencies expect that the collaboration should take advantage of those resources that are nearby, because it's easier and cheaper. Yet often this perspective forces a certain mediocrity in performance because it's not the right match, but you do it because it's convenient. What do you think this is doing to the research environment?
AG: I don't see them as in opposition. I would never want to prevent an inter-institutional collaboration. But I think what the Institute has to think about is what they can provide to make these things easier and more productive. And you mentioned facilities, and that's one of the key things that is represented in the Soldier Nanotechnologies institute – central shared facilities where you can bring together people working on complex problems with extensive and state-of-the-art equipment.
FNL: Let's change the subject a bit. You came from Stanford; how about a little comparison between there and here.
AG: Well, I see MIT as a very centralized administration with a lot of individual autonomy. The faculty here have tremendous autonomy and authority, but the administrators do work together in a very centralized fashion. And I say that referring to Academic Council. I'm very impressed with their structure, the way they review promotions and appointments; they review all of them with great care and spend a tremendous amount of time, in fact, together on these issues – issues of concern to the Institute. Meeting weekly and spending so much time together, viewing the wide variety of issues and situations that come from across the Institute I think is a very collegial process. It brings people to a very deep understanding of how the schools operate, so that each dean has this broad view of the other schools.
FNL: It wasn't always necessarily like that.
AG: There's an Institute-level concern, and then there's the understanding of the differences that you have across campus units. It also makes it very easy to do things. I feel like I know the Dean of Science and the Dean of Engineering and the Deans of all the schools quite well. If I need to try to get something done between two schools, I can pull them aside on a Tuesday morning and we can talk for five minutes and something will happen. I don't view Stanford as quite so centralized. I view the schools as having much more independent authority. I was working very hard on the Clark Center for Biomedical Science and Engineering at Stanford. And it brings together in a very nice atmosphere of collaboration and communication and openness, people from Engineering, Medicine, and Science. But I feel that the structure of the administration there made it a bit more difficult to get the three schools together than it would have been at a place like MIT.
FNL: We could ask about the weather and then Stanford could get a plus on their side.
AG: Actually, I should preface this by saying that I have great respect for Stanford and thoroughly enjoyed my 16 years there. Leaving was a very difficult decision for me.
FNL: Well, we hope you're happy here.
AG: I'm very happy here. It has a lot of similarities to Stanford. Both places have very energetic and high intensity faculty. They share an eagerness to try new things and a boldness in experimenting. Stanford was embarking on a very exciting new experiment in bringing really disparate parts of campus together; and we could see very quickly how just bringing people together to get to know one another caused them to start a new collaboration three years before the building would even open! So I saw the power of having funds and facilities to bring people together to get to know one another from many different parts of campus. And I think that's been a long tradition at MIT. MIT has labs and centers that have brought people together from different parts of campus for a long, long time and they have a lot of different models for how to do that and you've alluded to some of them. And maybe they're all experiments, but they're all by and large working well, and so it's very gratifying to see all the different ways that research happens.
FNL: Is there anything you would want to say to the faculty that we haven't covered?
AG: My door is always open. I like to hear anybody's ideas about new ways of pursuing research or collaborations or any interdisciplinary activities. I look forward to more positive interactions with faculty and I've really enjoyed my work at MIT so far.
|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|