Structure of the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences & Technology (HST) Effort at MIT

MIT

Background

HST is a highly regarded educational program, and is extremely valued by both Harvard and MIT. However, HST has also faced a number of major organizational and financial challenges over recent years, which have been the subject of many discussions within HST and between MIT and HMS. Following a careful evaluation, both institutions have agreed to focus HST on the flagship MD (at HMS) and PhD (Medical Engineering Medical Physics or MEMP at MIT), as summarized in the “HST Consensus Document.” This will allow the world-class HST academic program to continue in the illustrious tradition established over the past four decades. Appropriate transitions have been completed or are underway for other highly valued HST related programs.

MIT’s Corporation Visiting Committee for HST recommended that we consider strategic changes to how HST is structured within MIT. The goal is to bring the HST effort at MIT more into the mainstream of MIT’s academic community while preserving its many existing strengths—including its interdisciplinary faculty, quality educational experience and exceptional student body. This would strengthen the HST program and provide a more robust structure for other MIT activities in biomedical sciences and engineering. To this end, the Provost and Vice-President for Research are convening a committee of distinguished faculty from across the Institute to explore options for the structure of the HST effort at MIT. The committee will engage with the HST faculty, the broader HST community and all other interested parties.

Charge to the Committee

The Committee is charged with examining various structural options to insure that the HST effort at MIT is better aligned and organizationally more congruent with the other academic units at MIT. The committee is asked to examine several options, considering the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities presented by each possibility. The options could range from leaving the structure relatively unchanged, merging in some fashion with an existing department, or creating a new unit in the School of Engineering. The Committee is free to suggest other alternatives. It is essential that the committee engage with the HST faculty, the broader HST community and other interested parties.

If at all possible, the assessment of the options explored, in particular the pros and cons associated with each reasonable option, should be received by April 15, 2011.

Membership

  • Duane Boning
  • Arup Chakraborty
  • Robert Langer
  • Richard Lester
  • Gareth McKinley
  • Phillip Sharp
  • Sheila Widnall (chair)

Staff to the Committee
Douglas Pfeiffer