Faculty of Health Sciences
Research Strategy 2007 - 2012
Table of Contents
1.
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................
1
2.
Governance .........................................................................................................
2
3.
Funding ................................................................................................................
(a) Research Income ............................................................................................
(b) Research Committee Budget ..........................................................................
(a) Full Cost Recovery..........................................................................................
3
3
4
5
4.
Determining Priorities .........................................................................................
5
5.
Growth Opportunities .........................................................................................
(a) Post-Doctoral Fellowships ..............................................................................
(b) Clinical Research Centre ................................................................................
(c) International Centre for Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology .......................
7
7
7
8
6.
NRF Research Chairs..........................................................................................
8
7.
Careers in Research............................................................................................ 9
(a) Sustainability ................................................................................................... 9
(b) Transformation ................................................................................................ 10
8.
Infrastructure .......................................................................................................
(a) Laboratories ....................................................................................................
(b) Library .............................................................................................................
(c) Information Technology Services ....................................................................
9.
Human and Animal Ethics .................................................................................. 11
10.
Measuring Success ............................................................................................. 11
(a) Communications ............................................................................................. 12
(b) Productivity ..................................................................................................... 12
11.
References ........................................................................................................... 12
10
10
10
11
1.
Executive Summary
In terms of its research profile, UCT’s Faculty of Health Sciences aspires to be among the
best health science faculties in the world, certainly within the top one hundred. Since we
have some way to go before achieving this goal [1], what strategies should we be
considering for the next five years? The purpose of this document is to highlight our
choices as we seek to answer this question. Simply stated, there are three areas on which
we need to concentrate: people; funding; and scholarship.
We are currently putting in place a governance structure, with a Deputy Dean for Research
that will facilitate the smooth running of the research enterprise in the Faculty. The
Research Directorate has an opportunity to play a strategically important role in the
development of both people and scholarship. One key initiative is the creation of a new
post of biostatistician who will contribute to both clinical and basic science research in the
Faculty.
The Faculty currently generates R180 million of new research funding per annum, more
than half the University’s total. We have an opportunity, through the writing of competitive
international grants, to increase this amount substantially, while simultaneously
implementing full cost recovery. Our Faculty is in the fortunate position of annually having
R6.5 million in discretionary funding, provided by a University block grant (R1.2 m) and
investment income (R5.3 m), that enables us to support strategically important initiatives
such as post-doctoral fellowships, MRC Career Development Awards and undergraduate
research.
We believe that in pursuing high quality scholarship, we should adopt a strategy that
embraces the full research spectrum, from bench (basic science) to bedside (applied
clinical science) to population (epidemiological science and public health). In determining
our priorities we should also recognise the MRC’s National Collaborative Research
Programmes and, in particular, we must understand both the national and global burden of
disease and risk factors.
The Faculty has been the primary beneficiary and driver of one of UCT’s two signature
themes identified so far, the Brain and Behaviour Initiative, and we also have an
opportunity to play an active part in another theme, drug discovery. There are five other
significant opportunities for growth. These include: (1) post-doctoral fellowships, where we
should be aiming to double or even treble the existing 40 fellows; (2) clinical research
centres, which will allow us to reclaim our position as an international leader; (3) the
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, which has the potential to
elevate our research and training in molecular biology to a truly world class level; (4) the
NRF Research Chairs initiative, where we have had some early success that portends
even greater possibilities for the future; and (5) the training of postgraduate students.
Significant funding will be required, not only to support our different projects, but also to
ensure that we have in place a superb research platform and infrastructure. Here we will
require well-equipped laboratories, a 21st century library, information technology services
that support adequate bandwidth, and well-running human and animal ethics committees.
Our success will ultimately be measured by the quality of our research outputs. These
pertain to our postgraduate students as well as our publications. At a fundamental level,
our strategy must be to publish our research findings in journals that provide the widest
and most appropriate exposure.
1
2.
Governance
The governance structure in the Faculty of Health Sciences has been reconstituted in the
first quarter of 2007. It now consists of a Dean, Professor Marian Jacobs, and three
Deputy Deans who report to her: (1) Undergraduate Education and Operations, Associate
Professor Gonda Perez; (2) Health Services, to be appointed; and (3) Research and
Postgraduate Affairs, Professor Kit Vaughan. The governance structure for research in the
Faculty is therefore one of two portfolios for which Professor Vaughan is responsible.
Dean
Deputy Dean
Faculty Finance
Research
Manager
Research
Directorate
Animal Ethics
Human Ethics
Faculty Research
Committee
Committee
Committee
Finance Office
Faculty
Administrative
Faculty
Dept. Research
Animal Unit
Assistant
Biostatistician
Faculty Research
Committees
The Deputy Dean for Research heads up the Faculty’s Research Directorate. A key
component of the Directorate is the Faculty Research Finance Office which also reports to
the Faculty Finance Officer, Ms Eliza Hui. The Research Finance Office is headed by Mr
Salie Nassiep who has a staff of 10 reporting to him. These staff members are divided into
pre-award and post-award sections. All new research grants submitted by the members of
the Faculty pass through the pre-award section and must ultimately be signed off by Mr
Nassiep and Professor Vaughan. The functions of the Directorate include administration,
communications, grant writing and funds management.
There are three key committees that report to the Research Directorate: Faculty Research
Committee; Human Ethics Committee; and Animal Ethics Committee.
The Faculty Research Committee is chaired by the Deputy Dean for Research and has 12
departmental representatives (11 academic departments plus the Institute for Infectious
Disease and Molecular Medicine). Ex officio members include the Dean of the Faculty, the
Faculty Finance Manager, the chairs of the Animal and Human Ethics Committees, the
University’s Director of Research, Dr Marilet Sienaert, and the Deputy Vice Chancellor for
Research, Professor Cheryl de la Rey. Among the responsibilities of the Faculty Research
2
Committee are included: determining strategic priorities, including NRF Research Chairs;
approving the annual budget of the Research Directorate; prioritising annual equipment
requests; and determining top-up funding levels for individuals, departments and MRC
research units.
The Human and Animal Ethics Committees have a key role to play in facilitating research
across the Faculty. Each of these committees has a chair who is appointed by the Dean
on the recommendation of the Deputy Dean, for a three-year term of office. The chair of
the Human Ethics Committee is Associate Professor Marc Blockman, while the interim
chair of the Animal Ethics Committee is Professor Vaughan. Servicing the needs of these
two committees are staff members from the Faculty Research Finance Office.
Reporting to the Animal Ethics Committee and the Research Directorate is the Faculty
Animal Unit, previously headed up by the Faculty Veterinarian, Dr Gininda Msiza. Recently
appointed is an Administrative Assistant, Mrs Lamize Viljoen and there is also a newly
created post, the Faculty Biostatistician. The incumbent in this latter post, whose primary
responsibility will be to support clinical research in the Faculty, will have a joint academic
appointment in the Departments of Public Health & Family Medicine and Medicine.
3.
Funding
3 (a) Research Income
The Faculty currently generates R180 million of new research income per annum. This
represents approximately 50% of all the research income generated by the University of
Cape Town. Of this amount, more than half is for research on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria.
The vast majority of our research income is brought in by individual investigators who are
members of the Faculty of Health Sciences. Some are UCT staff, some are employed by
the Provincial Government of the Western Cape, and some are employed by the National
Health Laboratory Services. It is the responsibility of the Research Directorate, working in
conjunction with the Faculty Research Finance Office and the principal investigators, to
ensure that the utilisation of the funds is in agreement with the spending rules of the
particular funding agency.
The sources of these research funds include: local government agencies such as the
National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Medical Research Council (MRC);
international agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Wellcome Trust
and the European Union; not-for-profit foundations, both local and international, such as
CANSA and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and for-profit companies such as
Lodox Systems (Pty) Ltd and Glaxo-Smith-Kline.
Our strategy as a Faculty should be to increase the amount of R180m dramatically. How is
this to be done? First, we need to ensure that our government, through the Department of
Science and Technology, follows through on its commitment to increase the funds spent
on Research & Development from 0.7% (APPROACHING 0.9%) of Gross Domestic
Product to 1.0%. That will release an extra R2.5 billion into the system immediately. The
indications are that this is already happening. Second, we need to persuade the NRF,
MRC and DST that these funds should be disbursed on the basis of the competitive peer-
3
review mechanism [1]. Third we need to create an environment for the staff in our Faculty
that will enable them to compete for these funds.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we need to encourage our staff to apply for
international funds, particularly since the Rand has weakened in the past decade.
Although agencies such as the NIH are extremely competitive, with only 1 in 10 submitted
grants currently being approved for funding, some of our academic staff have been
successful. Competing on such a world stage will also contribute to our aspiration of being
a world-class Faculty of Health Sciences.
3 (b) Research Committee Budget
Each year the Faculty Research Committee receives a block grant allocation from the
University Research Committee (URC). This allocation is based on the publication count
from two years before the year in question as well as the number of masters and doctoral
graduates. For 2009, the Faculty of Health Sciences was awarded approximately R1.5m.
In addition, the Faculty Research Committee also has access to other income which is
derived from investments, dividends and annual bequests. This income varies between
R4.5m and R5.0 per annum, and obviously depends on the performance of the stock
market.
The Faculty Research Committee approved the following budget for the current financial
year:
Faculty Research Committee
Budget
Income
University Research Committee
Projected Income (interest, etc.)
Carry Forward
Bridging finance returned
Awards
Departmental top-ups
Individual top-ups
MRC Unit top-ups
Start-up grants
Faculty Research Grants and Finance Office
Post-doctoral fellows
MRC Career Development Awards
Nellie Atkinson Chair
Stimulation of undergraduate research
Research booklets
Emergency repairs
Sponsorship of research days and seminars
Bridging Finance
Equipment ( Freezer )
10% UEC contribution
Awards made in 2007
Awards not made in 2008
13 March 2009
2008
Budget
Actuals
1,400,000
1,407,088
5,412,788
5,976,487
573,395
621,222
300,000
7,686,183
8,004,797
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
100,000
300,000
1,200,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
200,000
75,000
500,000
80,000
1,500,000
1,514,400
1,533,333
300,000
1,080,000
250,000
200,000
49,236
69,030
161,757
170,500
500,000
79,010
2009
Budget
1,400,000
5,978,763
757,242
8,136,005
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
100,000
400,000
1,200,000
250,000
200,000
100,000
60,000
150,000
100,000
500,000
100,000
100,000
-159,711
4
AS PER FRC MEETING(November 2008)
Awards for publication
Clinical Research Centre
Harry crossley Fellowship
Total
Contingency (balance carried forward)
50,000
7,605,000
7,247,555
7,810,000
81,183
757,242
326,005
3 (c) Full Cost Recovery
The Faculty of Health Sciences was the first to adopt the University policy of full cost
recovery. This is crucial to our long-term survival as a Faculty, and success with our
research strategy. While we cannot “shift the goalposts” on grants that were already
funded prior to the adoption of the policy, we are committed to implementing full cost
recovery on each and every new grant.
Where, for example, an agency such as the NIH only allows an 8% indirect charge, we will
encourage the principal investigators to include costs above the line in their budgets. This
covers items such as funds management, human resources management space charges,
and information technology services. Although we encourage our investigators to use the
full cost recovery spreadsheet model devised by UCT Innovation, we permit a percentage
overhead to be charged. Since 2006, this has been set at 15%. We recognise there are
agencies such as the NRF, MRC and Department of Health that do not allow us to build
overhead charges into our budgets. It is incumbent on us and the leadership of the
University to convince such agencies to change their policies.
4.
Determining Priorities
When considering priorities there is often the debate of basic versus applied research.
This is no different for research in the health sciences. However, we believe that the
choice should not be “either/or” but we should rather adopt a strategy that embraces the
full spectrum, from bench (basic science) to bedside (applied clinical science) to
population (epidemiological science and public health). The key is to create a culture of
research excellence where the focus must be on the quality of science. The best research
groups are those that encompass the scientist, the clinician and the epidemiologist, where
each person feels that he or she is an equal member of the team.
When determining priorities, we do need to be cognisant of the policies of national and
international institutions such as the South African Medical Research Council (MRC) and
the World Health Organisation (WHO).
In the past two years, the MRC has defined its own five-year research strategy (20052010). While they will continue to support individual self-initiated research projects, as well
as research units which recognise and support outstanding researchers, they have also
identified the need for national collaborative research programmes. These strategic
programmes, which should address three areas of concern – population health; disease
mechanisms; and health systems and policy – will be selected from topics within the
following list:
MRC’s National Collaborative Research Programmes
5
HIV and AIDS
Tuberculosis
Malaria
Cancer
Indigenous Knowledge and Drug Discovery
Genomics, Proteomics and Computational Biology
Nutrition
Crime, Violence and Injury
Women, Maternal and Child Health
Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases
Mental Health and Functional Disorders
Policy and Implementation
Source: http://www.mrc.ac.za/about/defining.htm
Another important factor driving health research priorities should obviously be the national
and global burden of disease. The WHO, the NIH and the World Bank have funded a study
entitled Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors, edited by Lopez et al. and published
in 2006 by Oxford University Press [2]. This is a landmark publication, freely available on
the web (www.dcp2.org/pubs/GBD) that provides a wealth of information. The table below
provides a succinct summary of the burden of disease by cause, with DALYs (disability
adjusted life years) measured in millions:
Group
I
II
III
Low-Middle
Income
Description
Communicable diseases,
maternal and perinatal
conditions, and nutritional
deficiency
Non-communicable
conditions
Injuries
Total
High
Income
World
552___
9__
561_
679___
129__
808_
156___
11__
167_
1,387___
149__
1,536_
It is evident that low- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionate burden for
communicable conditions compared to high-income countries. However, noncommunicable conditions (such as neuro-psychiatric disorders, cancers and cardiovascular disease) represent the heaviest burden, even in middle-income countries such as
South Africa. Groups I, II and III consist of separate conditions that need to be assessed in
terms of the burden for specific diseases.
Inevitably, granting agencies will utilise these figures in determining their own funding
priorities. The United Nations has endorsed the Millennium Development Goals and
identified eight goals to achieve by the year 2015. Three of these are specific to
healthcare: reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; and combat HIV/AIDS, malaria
6
and other major diseases. Our strategy in the Faculty of Health Sciences must therefore
be to recognise these priorities and to tailor our research efforts accordingly.
5.
Growth Opportunities
In 2005-6 the Faculty was a key supporter of the Brain and Behaviour Initiative (BBI), one
of only two signature themes recommended for support by the University. While the
funding available was quite limited, a major benefit for the BBI has been the stimulation of
research activities across the faculties at UCT, as well as the establishment of new
collaborations between ourselves and other universities, both local and international. One
of the five new signature themes recently approved – drug discovery – will
provide our Faculty with an opportunity to play an important role. There are three other
growth opportunities that we have identified.
5 (a) Post-Doctoral and Clinical Fellowships
Whilst the Faculty regularly recruits the largest number of post-doctoral fellows each year
(between 40 and 50, representing greater than 50% of all such fellows at UCT), the reality
is that we could and should be doing considerably better than this.
As indicated in the table on page 4, we allocated R1 million for post-doctoral fellowships in
2007 which, at R100,000 per fellow, allowed us to support 10 fellows from our own funds.
We believe this number needs to be increased four- or five-fold, in addition to the fellows
recruited and paid by principal investigators. If we were to have a cadre of at least 100
productive post-doctoral fellows in the faculty at any one time, this could potentially lead to
a significant improvement in our research output. Of course, the onus is also on the
Faculty to ensure that post-docs have a positive research experience during their period
with us, and one way would be to establish an association for them.
A new and exciting initiative has been the introduction of Clinical research Fellowships by
the Discovery Health Foundation in mid-2007. Our Faculty was very successful in the first
round of this programme, securing 6 of the 13 awards. These fellowships will play an
important role in developing our physician-scientists.
5 (b) Clinical Research Centres
Over the past 50 years there has been a strong clinical research culture at UCT and this
has certainly been bolstered by the Faculty’s publications in international peer-reviewed
journals. That proud record has been eroded over the past decade as the Provincial
Government of the Western Cape has withdrawn its support for research by clinicians at
Groote Schuur Hospital, Red Cross Children’s Hospital and elsewhere. The Province has
accomplished this by reducing the number of specialists on the joint staff and by
prescribing to clinical staff the amount of time they may reasonably devote to research
activities. It will be crucial for the Faulty to engage with the leadership of the Province, to
persuade them that the best strategy will be to integrate research and clinical activitites.
One way in which the Faculty plans to support clinical research is by the creation of Senior
Clinical Research Fellowships. Funded by the Harry Crossley Foundation, these
fellowships will enable senior clinicians to embark on research projects – such as the
completion of an MD thesis – without the significant personal financial sacrifices that must
7
often be made. The first four fellowships will be awarded in early 2008 and will continue to
be available in future years.
To address the problem created by the withdrawal of support by the Province, we believe
that there is a real need to create Clinical Research Centres within the Faculty. There are
two models for such a centre that could be explored: (1) a “Lung Institute” model, which
would entail the building of a purpose-designed facility; or (2) an “Existing Facilities”
model, where space could be set aside, in GSH and Red Cross or even in the UCT
Medical Clinic. While the first model is certainly appealing, it would take a few years, and
require the raising of considerable funds, before the centre was operational. The second
model would potentially be quicker to implement, but it would require significant
cooperation, either with the Province or with the board of directors of the UCT Medical
Clinic. As a first step, it will be necessary for us to appoint a small task team to explore the
options for the establishment of well-resourced Clinical Research Centres.
5 (c) International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)
The ICGEB is an international organisation dedicated to advancing research and training
in molecular biology and biotechnology, with a special focus on the needs of the
developing world and is a part of the United Nations system. It is located in Trieste, Italy
with a second component in New Delhi, India. Cape Town has been selected as the site
for the third component which will be physically located within the Institute for Infectious
Disease and Molecular Medicine (IIDMM) on our Faculty’s campus.
The ICGEB has recently recruited two of the Faculty’s Professors, Iqbal Parker and Frank
Brombacher for the Cape Town component and launched the centre in September 2007.
Parker will serve as inaugural director while Brombacher, an A-rated scientist, will head up
the infectious disease research programme. The South African government, through the
Department of Science and Technology (DST), has committed R40 million to the Cape
Town component for a period of 5 years. It is anticipated, however, that the local scientists
, working with the ICGEB in Trieste and the DST, will increase this level of funding by a
factor of ten. Our Faculty will also have an important role to play in this expansion.
6.
NRF Research Chairs
The South African Research Chairs initiative, administered by the NRF and funded by the
DST, is one of the most exciting developments to have emerged in higher education
during the past ten years. The intention is to appoint 210 chairs by 2010. At a value of
R2.5 million per annum per Chair, our government will be spending over R0.5 billion
annually when the initiative is fully operational in 2011.
After the first two rounds, concluded in September 2007, our Faculty has been awarded
eight Chairs out of 71 awarded nationally: in brain imaging (Ernesta Meintjes); cancer
biology (Iqbal Parker); functional proteomics (Jonathan Blackburn); immunology of
infectious diseases (Frank Brombacher) ; clinical neuroscience (Marc Combrinck); lung
infection and immunity (Keerten Dada) health and wealth (Di McIntyre); and vaccinology
(Anna-Lise Williamson). Because some of these academics were UCT employees, our
Faculty has an obligation to advertise and hire new scholars to fill their vacated posts, thus
further strengthening each research area.
As the initiative gains momentum, we have an opportunity to formulate a strategy that
could leave a lasting impression on our Faculty’s research accomplishments over the next
8
ten years. As the rules currently stand, the NRF would like to award 60% of the Chairs to
foreign-based applicants and 40% to scholars based here in South Africa. Our Faculty has
well established networks and links with leading academic centres around the world and
our strategy must therefore be to identify and recruit leading international scholars. If they
are expatriate South Africans, this will contribute to a brain gain. A second strategy we
should explore is the nomination of Senior Wellcome Trust Fellows for NRF Research
Chairs. This will have two benefits. First, it will enable productive academics to continue
with what they do best: top quality research. Second, it will relieve our Faculty of some of
the financial burden we take on when their fellowships come to an end.
Given the potential of the NRF Research Chairs, and our success to date, our Faculty
should be aiming to secure at least 20 of the 210 chairs over the next three years. Our
challenge will be to identify and support competitive candidates whose research areas are
most closely aligned with the Faculty’s own strategic interests.
7.
Careers in Research
Our Faculty’s strategy for post-doctoral fellows, the ICGEB and the NRF Research Chairs,
will all contribute to the viability of careers in research. However, we will need to address
two key issues – sustainability and transformation – if we are to succeed in our aspiration
of creating an environment in which a career in research becomes an attractive option for
young South Africans.
7 (a) Sustainability
Our Faculty has the largest number of researchers who are supported on so-called “soft
money.” Their posts are only secure as long as the principal investigator continues to
succeed with his or her grant applications. This creates a sense of uncertainty for
researchers and makes it extremely difficult for them to develop a career path. However,
current labour legislation is forcing UCT to consider carefully what its long-term obligations
are to researchers whose contracts are continually renewed. This provides us with an
opportunity to grasp the nettle of sustainability.
If a new research post is created, for example when a large grant is funded by the NIH, we
need to determine if it is likely the person hired could become an independent researcher
in his or her own right. If the answer is “yes,” the researcher could be offered a permanent
position, after a probationary period, provided certain obligations were met. Among these
obligations, which would include the principal investigator of the original grant, could be the
requirement of raising a certain proportion of salary – say 50% – from new grants. The
balance could come from the general operating budget (GOB), provided we were to
change the way that grants were administered. At present, if a GOB-funded academic
charges a proportion of his or her time against a grant, we do not use the funds to offset
the salary. Before implementing this strategy, we would need to assess the financial
implications for the Faculty very carefully. We would also have to create a culture that
emphasises the importance of grant writing and then rewarded success accordingly.
7 (b) Transformation
9
Transformation is a cross-cutting issue at UCT and operates at various levels. First, we
need to transform the culture in the Faculty, ensuring that research in all its guises,
whether basic or clinical or public health is recognised and celebrated. Second, we need to
realise that mentorship will play a key role in successful transformation. We must
encourage a commitment to mentorship among all our senior academics so that we inspire
a new generation of research scholars, promoting an ethos of enquiry, the belief that ideas
matter, and the self-confidence to realise that as a country we can and must compete on a
world stage [1].
The dearth of black African scientists in the Faculty is a major concern and the fact that
our Faculty of Science is relatively very few black Africans into their undergraduate
programmes is of some concern. However, our Faculty is in the fortunate position of
attracting the country’s most talented African students into our MBChB programme. If
given the opportunity to pursue a PhD, some of them would undoubtedly accept the
challenge. We need to persuade the Department of Health that earning a PhD should be
able to substitute for community service. We would also need to establish a scholarship
system so that these students did not have to make financial sacrifices to pursue a
research career.
8
Infrastructure
In our efforts to create a world class research environment in the Faculty, we need to
realise that it is not sufficient to have outstanding researchers. We also need to ensure
that our research infrastructure provides the necessary platform.
8 (a) Laboratories
Although the Faculty recognised some years ago that much of its research equipment was
outdated and needed replacement, there have been encouraging developments. First, the
University Equipment Committee has been allocating funds for the purchase of large ticket
items and our faculty, under the leadership of Vicki Lambert, has successfully secured
between R1.5 million and R3.0 million per annum. Second, the University has recently
established a Core Equipment Facility, under the leadership of Anton le Roex, for the
financial management of large core facilities.
Third, and most encouraging of all, the government introduced a National Equipment
Programme (NEP) in 2006 and will be spending significant amounts equipping the
research laboratories in our country. The budget for 2007 is R50 million and this level of
funding will be increased in future. Our strategy as a Faculty must be to identify those
pieces of equipment that best fulfill the NEP guidelines and then to work with our sister
institutions in the Western Cape to ensure there is no duplication of facilities. As a further
strategy, we must insist that when a new piece of equipment is purchased, a plan is in
place to ensure there are technical staff members to manage and operate the equipment.
8 (b) Library
Our Faculty is in the fortunate position of having a well-endowed library. While the
increased cost of journal subscriptions and the rapid weakening of the Rand six years ago
10
led to a reduction in some of our holdings, we are still able to access most of the important
journals. These include electronic access to Nature, all the Elsevier journals through
ScienceDirect, as well as the ISI’s Web of Science which provides data on citations and
impact factors. A particularly useful feature is the ability to access all these electronic
databases from a remote site (i.e. when not directly connected to the UCT network).
Individual departments and groups need to communicate their research needs to the
library staff members who are receptive to assisting researchers.
8 (c) Information Technology Services
The university has recently invested almost R80 million in Information Technology
Services (ITS) though the supaTsela project which is nearing completion. Although
adequate bandwidth will always be a contentious issue, given the competing needs on
campus, and we may never be able to approach the speed and rapid access of our
scientific colleagues in Europe and North America, the Internet has played a key role in
levelling the playing field. Our research strategy must be to exploit the benefits of the
Internet, whether in the fields of bioinformatics or international collaboration or
publications.
While the research benefits of Skype have been raised, as explained in the May issue of
the Faculty Newsletter, the nature of the technology precludes it from being implemented
on the UCT network. This suggests that alternative strategies, such as the Faculty’s videoconferencing facility, should be explored.
9.
Human and Animal Ethics
As indicated in section 2 of this document, both the Human and Animal Ethics Committees
are central to our efforts for creating a world class research platform. The general public,
and indeed the funding agencies that support our projects, expect that in all our research
endeavours we uphold the very highest ethical ideals.
The Human Ethics Committee currently processes approximately 50 to 60 protocols per
month. Some of the costs to run this committee (e.g. personnel and running expenses
such as photocopies) are offset by income from charging research groups when the
project is supported by an outside party such as a pharmaceutical company. Since the
activities of this committee are regularly audited by external agencies such as the NIH, it is
crucial that our strategy includes a strong commitment to transparency and exemplary
standards. We have recently established the need to acquire no-fault insurance, costing
about R300,000 per annum, that would cover the liability of the principle investigators.
The Animal Ethics Committee, although processing far fewer protocols per month, is no
less important to the Faculty’s research agenda. We have recently upgraded the facilities
of the Animal Unit and we will soon embark on a review, conducted by three external
veterinary surgeons, to ensure that the unit is eligible for accreditation by the Association
for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). Both the review
and the subsequent follow-up actions are likely to have cost implications for the Faculty.
10.
Measuring Success
11
Despite the severe cutbacks by the Province over the past decade, our Faculty continues
to be a significant contributor to the University’s reputation as a research-led institution.
We currently have 4 A-rated scientists and 1 P-rated scientist. We also have 10 with a Brating, 27 with a C-rating and 10 with a Y-rating. This is the greatest number of rated
scientists, by a significant margin, of all Faculties of Health Sciences in the country [4]. We
also have 10 MRC Research Units, representing more than a third of all the country’s
extramural units.
10 (a) Communications
Good communication is vitally important to the success of our research in the Faculty. At a
fundamental level, our primary strategy must be to publish our research findings in journals
that provide the widest and most suitable exposure. In some cases, this will mean
submission of articles to the South African Medical Journal where we have a long and
proud history of support. In other cases, we must seek out the best international journals,
such as The Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine, when this is appropriate.
Other avenues for our academics to communicate their ideas and findings are in policy
documents for local and international agencies, as well as books and book chapters. The
recent rejuvenation of UCT Press, where Professor Tim Noakes serves on the
reconstituted editorial board, is an opportunity for our staff to publish their research
findings in high quality books. Ultimately, our success as a research-led Faculty will be
determined by the quality of the scholarly papers that our staff members publish.
Within UCT itself, we have various publications that lend themselves to the communication
of our research. These include the Faculty’s monthly newsletter (with its featured
Publication of the Month), the Monday Paper, UCT News and Impact, the latter published
by UCT’s Department of Research and Innovation. In this way the Faculty can
demonstrate its commitment to social responsiveness and illustrate the real impact of its
research.
10 (b) Productivity
One direct measure of our research productivity is the number of postgraduate students
trained. In particular, the number of PhD, MD and DSc graduates has a significant impact
on the research subsidy accruing to both the University and Faculty. Our strategy must
therefore be to increase the number of doctoral candidates who graduate each year. This
can be accomplished by improving the funding and conditions for these students, thus
freeing them from activities that might retard their progress, and by improving the quality of
research supervision.
The Department of Education currently “rewards” universities for their research productivity
by paying a publication subsidy – at present about R75,000 (APPROX R85,000) – for
each paper published in an accredited journal. As has been emphasised elsewhere,
however, this is a perverse incentive, mitigating strongly against long-term, high-quality
research and encouraging South African researchers to publish as many short,
inconsequential papers in the least demanding journals as possible (the "least publishable
unit") [1]. In fact, this is just what has happened: more than 50% of the papers in the
country accepted for subsidy purposes in 2006 were not published in journals accredited
by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The Academy of Science of South Africa
(ASSAf) has expressed its concern and has recommended a more strategic approach to
12
research publishing in this country [3]. We should commit ourselves to a strategy that
rewards individual researchers for high quality publications in prestigious journals.
10 (c) Include the Faculty's UCT Fellows +/- 11 of them suggested by Anwar Mall
11.
References
[1]
Vaughan CL, Reddy BD, Noakes TD, Moran VC “A commentary on the intellectual
health of the nation”, South African Journal of Science, 103: 22-26, 2007.
[2]
Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global Burden of
Disease and Risk Factors, Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN: 0-8213-62623, 552 pages, 2006.
[3]
Gevers W., Hammes M., Mati X., Mouton J., Page-Shipp R., Pouris A. Report on a
strategic approach to research publishing in South Africa. Academy of Science of
South Africa, ISBN 0-620-36105-0, Pretoria, 2006.
[4]
Evaluation and Rating: Facts & Figures 2007, National Research Foundation, July
2007.
13