Blueprint for discovery in academic medicine: plans, process and outcomes

By the end of the decade, we had fully implemented most of the recommendations of the Molinoff Report. Our programmatic analysis is summarized in Table 11. While the space needs identified in the Molinoff Report were met by BRB I, II, and III (289,000 nsf as compared [table: see text] to 276,000 nsf as planned), it was possible to provide additional, somewhat unanticipated, research space (111,000 nsf) prior to the end of the decade. The faculty has now developed a research plan for the next decade. It is also important to emphasize that the total faculty grew by 41% [table: see text] over the decade and most of that growth occurred with faculty spending a substantial part of their time in clinical practice. Hence, the dramatic improvement in research funding of over 200% was due largely to the enhanced productivity of our faculty. By taking an organized planning approach deeply seated in the faculty, consistent with Trustee directives and with measurable outcomes, we were successful in growing the research programs within the School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania. We believe this particular approach, taken with a focus on multidisciplinary research, [table: see text] was the right one for the 1990s. In the final analysis, it is abundantly clear that outstanding faculty, working in an exciting supportive environment, was the most important factor for success. We are not certain what the right approach will be for the future. Clearly, with the important advances in genomics and information technology, the importance of the team, even if a virtual one world-wide, cannot be overstated. While research is only one mission of the School of Medicine, clearly, our visible success in research played an important role in the overall improvement in the School of Medicine as measured by others. For example, the ranking of the School of Medicine by U.S. News & World Report, perhaps the most widely used ranking by the lay press, went from 10th to 3rd behind only Harvard and Johns Hopkins during the period of the 90s (Table 12).