|
ONE-ON-ONE - November 2005
by Ed G. Lane
'UK Is Like an Undervalued Stock'
UK's senior research executive talks on what the university needs to make the 'top 20'
 |
Wendy Baldwin
As executive vice president for research at the University of Kentucky, Wendy Baldwin is the senior administrator responsible for a $300-million-a-year research enterprise. Her role involves serving as executive director of the university’s research foundation, and the protection, development, and commercialization of intellectual properties, as well as the development of the UK Coldstream Research Campus. Prior to joining UK in 2003, Baldwin was the deputy director for extramural research at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. As the key advisor to the NIH director on procedures and policies for extramural research, Baldwin was responsible for the preparation of critical testimony, speeches, and reports for the scientific community, university administrators, and the NIH. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Stetson University and a master’s and doctoral degree from the University of Kentucky. |
Ed Lane: After receiving your PhD in sociology and demography from the University of Kentucky, you were employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). After a distinguished three-decade career with NIH, you were recruited to serve as UK’s executive vice president for research in 2003. How would you describe your first three years at UK?
Wendy Baldwin: The first three years here have been years of tremendous change. UK moved to a provost model, integrated two components of the university, now has nine new deans, one new college, a new head of the hospital, a new head for finance, and a new general counsel. The first provost has now left. This is an enormous amount of structural change for a university.
To have had all that change, and still have had the kind of growth UK has had in research is really quite remarkable. Our growth shows the strength and the breadth of the university, and its resilience. For me, these have been challenging years. Not just because I was coming back into a university setting, but because of what has been happening on the UK campus.
EL: How has your long and successful track record at NIH been helpful to you at UK?
WB: It was very helpful. I had a unique job at the NIH. As deputy director for extramural research, my work was focused on how the NIH worked with universities, medical schools and other research organizations. At NIH, I was long-focused on the ways external funding works in a university setting and how universities interact with the federal government. My position at NIH prepared me to deal with issues on a campus – such as human subjects protection, animal welfare, tech transfer, sponsored projects. These responsibilities were in my portfolio at NIH and they’re in my portfolio here.
EL: Will your experience at NIH give UK a competitive edge in writing grants?
WB: It will provide UK with the opportunity to really understand what goes on behind the words on the paper at NIH. I can be – sort of – a cultural guide on why review functions the way it does, when it’s good to make contact with the project officers and plead your case, and when you shouldn’t do that. That ability to unbundle what is going on behind the surface of NIH and other federal agencies is a resource to UK as a whole and to each and every of our investigators or potential investigators.
EL: UK’s strategy is to become a “top 20” research institution. How is this effort progressing?
WB: UK is improving on all of the different domains. UK is developing a specific business plan to become “top 20.” You could ask – what constitutes a “top 20” ranking? We’re giving that question a lot of thought as we get ready to roll out the business plan. While research is obviously my passion, and that’s what I’m hired to do, the university has to think about all of its obligations. (President) Lee Todd has been pretty clear about this. UK could grow the research numbers and fail the state. That wouldn’t be a good thing.
Rankings are very dangerous because UK can do everything right, improve everything, and if some other school improves more, UK might not move in the rankings. Even if UK didn’t improve in the rankings, it would be a stronger place.
 EL: Other research institutions have significant head-starts over UK in funding, faculty and facilities. They, like UK, are aggressively competing for research opportunities. How difficult will it be for UK to improve its ranking in such a competitive environment?
WB: UK has several things going for it that make me optimistic. UK has an explicit plan to succeed. UK is also very special in terms of having agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, engineering, arts and sciences, and business and economics. The university has tremendous breadth right on the campus – that makes it easier for people to work across boundaries.
Many people believe the most exciting research will happen at the intersections of disciplines. Let me give you one example: Mapping the genome is viewed as launching, sort of, the next era of biology. But when you map the genome you develop vast amounts of data. These types of data require skills that are usually found in other fields – like physics, math, other areas of science. So the challenge for NIH and NSF is, how do you get these different domains to work together? My view is it’s enough for the federal government and the science agencies to say, “this is important; we’ll fund it.” Then it’s the university’s job to lead those teams to work together. Why am I optimistic? I know that UK actually has those multidisciplinary partnerships in hand and the ability to incite people to work across domains.
EL: What are some of UK’s strategies in recruiting faculty and re-searchers?
WB: I’ve been very pleased with the caliber of researchers UK is attracting. UK attracts them by virtue of its scientific work environment. Scientists want to know, will I have colleagues? Are there going to be other people I can work with? Then they’re going to want to know, do I have a lab and equipment? Once those things are in place, Lexington provides a very desirable place to live. It offers a high quality of life, a very livable city, and is the right size. The size and the diversity of Lexington helps because UK often recruits two-career families. Researchers move for the scientific climate, but they also want to know, will my family be happy here and can my spouse find good employment.
EL: How important are facilities – offices and research laboratories – in attracting researchers?
WB: Very important – researchers want to know where their boxes are going to be delivered.
EL: Are new research buildings a part of UK’s business plan?
WB: UK needs a strategy where every year or two a new research building comes on-line. The day the funding for this building is available, it’s probably, realistically three years before researchers can move into that building – these are big and sophisticated facilities. Researchers also have to have time to get a research grant together, apply for funds – that takes a year. So, there’s a significant lead-time before researchers start bringing new money into the university. That can create cash flow issues.
 EL: UK’s pharmacy college was ranked No. 3, and it’s slipped to No. 8. It appears UK did not have adequate funds to expand the school’s research facility.
WB: Pharmacy now has part of the bonding necessary for its next building. Pharmacy Dean (Ken) Roberts is leading our effort to generate the balance of the needed funding. UK has a fabulous pharmacy school. It’s not just that pharmacy is a research locus for UK. Like dentistry, it is helping to train the professionals the state needs. The state has a need for pharmacists and dentists. Most of the people UK trains stay in the state. Not only are we able to attract research dollars, but UK is also training exactly the professionals that the state needs. Our graduates can, in effect, go back into communities, earn a good salary, and improve the health of many Kentuckians.
EL: If you have talented researchers and facilities, can you be reasonably assured of attracting research dollars?
WB: It’s very competitive. That’s where you have to be very careful in recruiting. Researchers who have maybe a little bit of a track record really understand that it’s a competitive, tough process and get in there and compete are the most likely to succeed. My office can help them understand what the funding opportunities are, and guide them through the grant process. Investigators have to be ready and willing to keep writing grant applications – this is not an easy process. But, NIH has $27 billion, so UK just needs to get its bite out of that.
EL: What must state government provide to ensure UK makes its “top 20” goal?
WB: I’d say UK’s Research Challenge Trust Fund (Bucks for Brains) has been a big help, but that further highlights the fact that UK needs to move beyond the people to the facilities. Bucks for Brains is a great way to help get people here, but UK needs the state’s help in terms of getting facilities, labs and equipment in place.
EL: Do you have a budget for real estate and facilities in mind for the next 24 months?
WB: At this point it’s very hard for me to give an exact dollar value because it depends on who’s covering the bonding, who’s covering the debt service, what’s the algorithm that’s going to be used. The ideal plan would be for the state to fund the infrastructure, so UK can do its job to achieve “top 20” status.
EL: How many years will it take for UK to reach “top 20” status?
WB: The HB1 goal is by 2020. It would be overly optimistic to say we’re going to do it any faster than that.
EL: “Top 20 in 2020,” I like that. How is your working relationship with President Todd?
WB: Excellent. He has the vision for what this university needs to be. He knows UK’s role in the state, he understands a land grant mission. A big part of the reason I came is the vision he has for why UK is here and what we need to be doing.
EL: What new research facilities have been or are being developed at UK?
WB: The Biological/Biomedical Sciences Research Building (BBSRB), which is located at Limestone and Virginia Avenue on the campus, is our newest facility.
EL: Does UK really need another research building?
WB: Yes. If you look at “top 20” institutions they have an ongoing plan to bring new research facilities on-line.
EL: Is that part of UK’s master business plan – to have a coordinated building and recruiting schedule?
WB: This is a big issue for UK right now. UK can’t hire faculty unless it has productive labs available.
EL: Do researchers have grants that follow them to UK?
WB: Sometimes. Whether researchers bring a grant with them or not, I’m more interested in the pedigree of their ability to develop competitive projects and to get them funded.
EL: The University of Kentucky Medical Center is planning to build a new hospital and to also expand medical research. Is that research effort segregated from you?
WB: No. The clinical aspect is separate because that’s part of the hospital’s clinical enterprise. Hospitals that are part of a larger medical research enterprise are almost always more at the cutting edge. Their clinicians and clinical researchers are working with the newest techniques, they’re helping each other to understand the disease process. They’re not just treating the cases that come in, they’re part of a whole research enterprise to understand those diseases.
EL: In what areas does UK have a strong and successful track record in research?
WB: Neuroscience is by far the biggest. And that’s what UK is really known for at the NIH, neuroscience and some of its work in substance abuse.
EL: What research is being done that makes the university stand out in neuroscience?
WB: Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, historically, has been a strong area. That was true 15 or 20 years ago and it’s true today. But also, neuroscience is one of those fields that’s really moving fast because of imaging and new advances in what we can learn about the brain.
Brain related diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s receive high public and political attention. These are diseases many people have watched in their families and they know about the tremendous personal burden and cost.
EL: In what areas is UK focusing for new research investment – will they be the same areas in which it has excelled or, will there be new areas?
WB: Within medicine I’d expect to see growth in cancer research and cardiovascular disease. The most promising areas of growth in funding opportunities include diabetes and obesity. That’s an area that funding agencies and healthcare providers are worrying over because they’re seeing increased obesity and type two diabetes at earlier ages.
Type two diabetes at younger and younger ages is very disquieting because diabetes is one of those diseases that has so many sequelae – cardiovascular, renal, vision. Early onset of this disease means you’re going to have population with many more years of disability. And it also heightens the importance of looking at primary prevention through nutrition and exercise programs. This health issue should be a huge concern for Kentucky where the rates of both obesity and diabetes are quite high.
EL: How does research impact Kentucky’s and the Greater Lexington area’s economy?
WB: Some areas of research have potential for intellectual property that can have an economic impact because it creates new businesses.
EL: UK currently receives around $274 million in research grants. Most of this investment comes from outside of the state. So, research is an economic stimulus to the state’s economy.
WB: Absolutely. UK brings in $152 million of federal funds. These are not Kentucky dollars. These are dollars that support 6,900 good jobs at UK alone. Our economic assessment is that research grants and contracts from out-of-state resulted in a $514 million contribution to Kentucky’s economy.
EL: How many dollars does UK have to generate in research to achieve the “top 20” range?
WB: There are a lot of different ways of looking at that, but I’d say another 40 percent would be the quick metric on it.
EL: Around $400 million would put UK in the “top 20”?
WB: It’s a moving target. If UK had $400 million today it would be a “top 20” research university. Ten years from now it would have to be a lot more.
EL: In addition to funding for salaries and facilities, what assistance can state and/or local government provide to UK?
WB: Having a good relationship with local government is important because UK is trying to attract people to Lexington when we hire researchers. That’s at the most general level. Look at Coldstream, that’s an example. Coldstream is doing really well right now. That started as a partnership. There was a swap of land for infrastructure so that UK is able to bring entities into Coldstream.
EL: Coldstream had a ground breaking this week.
WB: The Lexhold building. It’s a set of buildings – 150,000 square feet each. This new facility is going to address one of the things that’s been a concern of mine about Coldstream. To attract people to Coldstream you have to have a place to attract them to – not attract them to the possibility of building a building. Lexhold will mean that UK will have some space available so when someone comes and says, gee, I want to take this activity and grow it out of something I’m doing at the university, or someone comes in and wants to start up an activity, there will be space. We can say, well, talk to the Lexhold people, I bet they could have that office or lab fitted up for you in no time.
EL: What type of growth trend do you anticipate for future research funding at UK?
WB: I’m real excited. UK has completed two rounds of homeland security competition.
New technologies are not only going to be helpful relative to homeland security, but they are also valuable for broader applications.
EL: Based on your expertise in research and homeland security, would it be fair to say that government is putting a lot more research and technology into homeland security than the average person might be aware of?
WB: Yes. A lot of times when you hear about the federal government spending on homeland security, it’s referring to the formula grants that fund existing tools for first responders. Very important, but not the same thing as funding research on new tools. For example, if UK does research on ways to strengthen cement so it’s less vulnerable to a terrorist attack, that could help in the construction of levees in New Orleans. This type of research also provides the university with more opportunities for commercialization.
EL: What is the most difficult aspect of your job?
WB: The most difficult aspect is probably the same as on any campus – you have multiple missions and multiple constituencies. So there’s always a constructive tension about where resources go. While I think UK is a more collegial atmosphere than many, working across disciplines is always a challenge and there’s not enough money. That’s sort of a perennial issue. It creates tensions.
EL: Have we missed something?
WB: The Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER), out by Spindletop, is really a very special research entity. The state should be thrilled that we have CAER in place and such skilled researchers out there. Why? Because energy is actually on everybody’s minds, right now.
EL: With regard to energy research, is UK looking at hydrogen, batteries, hybrids, photocells?
WB: We’re looking at hydrogen. Kentucky is a coal state and coal is still a key factor in the energy equation, so we’re looking at carbon capture, clean coal technologies, fuels from coal, gasification, and carbon sequestration. There are a lot of opportunities where research would help advance what Kentucky does with its natural resources. Somebody’s got to do that research. UK is positioned to do it. Energy is an area of real potential growth.
EL: Do you have a closing comment?
WB: I tell people that UK is like an undervalued stock. Outside of Kentucky, people don’t know how good UK is. I spend a lot of time in the representational role on national committees and activities, because it’s a way for me to be a spokesperson for UK and the state. Research is where UK’s future lies. Putting together teams to do research. Training the professionals the state needs. Growing Kentucky’s economy.
Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants Inc. and publisher
of The Lane Report.
edlane@lanereport.com
Back to One on One Index
Back to the November Issue
|
