Division of Biosciences Staff Meeting Friday 16 th December 2016 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Division of Biosciences Staff Meeting Friday 16 th December 2016 3.30-5.00pm Cruciform Lecture Theatre 1 Agenda State of the Division Frances Brodsky, Director REF Michael Strang, Research Impact & Curation Support Manager (SLMS)
‘State of the Division’ Frances Brodsky, Director REF Michael Strang, Research Impact & Curation Support Manager (SLMS) UCL Consultants Bjorn Christianson, Consultancy Manager (UCL Consultancy) UCL Business Rebecca Paulraj, Business Manager (UCL Business) Education Stephen Price, Associate Director (Education) Professional Services David Meech, Divisional Manager Director’s Q&A Frances Brodsky
Awards, Prizes and Honours
Andrew Macaskill (NPP) Wellcome-Beit Prize Judith Mank (GEE) Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award Christophe Dessimoz (GEE) EMBO Young Investigator Tim Newbold (CBER, GEE) Royal Society University Research Fellowship Jonathan Ashmore (NPP) Royal Society Croonian Medal and Lecture Nick Lane (GEE) Royal Society Michael Faraday Medal Lorenzo Fabrizi (NPP) OHBM Merit Abstract Award Geraint Thomas (GEE) Top Teacher Award – voted for by students
New Grants
And many others …. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!
Steve Price – Two grants from Global Excellence Fund for education projects Helen Chatterjee (GEE) – ESRC 2 year grant Richard Mott (GEE) – BBSRC 3 year grant Alex Gourine (NPP) – Wellcome 5 year grant Gyorgy Szabadkai (CDB) – Wellcome 2 year grant Gabriel Waksman (SMB) – Wellcome 4 year grant Patricia Salinas (CDB) – ARUK 3 year grant Angus Silver (NPP) – Wellcome and NIHR grants
Estates
Welcome to the Division/New Appointments
Recruitment Plans
Worrying denial of invasive species threat Tim Blackburn (GEE) A federal origin of Stone Age farming Mark Thomas/Garrett Hellenthall/Stephen Shennan (GEE) Paving the way for new treatments to combat bacterial infections Gabriel Waksman (SMB) Key mechanism behind brain connectivity and memory revealed Patricia Salinas (CDB) HIV doesn’t drive spread of drug- resistant tuberculosis Francois Balloux (UGI) Garden ponds may help spread lethal frog disease Stephen Price (UGI) Biodiversity falls below ‘safe levels’ globally Tim Newbold (GEE)
Divisional Lectures
Athena SWAN Lecture series highlighting international colleagues: FLS Anne McLaren Lecture – Professor Maria Leptin Division of Biosciences Patricia Clarke Lecture – Professor Angela Gronenborn Divisional Lecture series :
in Spring 2017
Division
Michael Wright will be co-ordinating with departments
Research Impact Curation and Support
Support UCL impact by:
idance in impact planning and evidence collation.
and collation of impact data in preparation for REF 2021. Monitor and showcase UCL impact by:
latin ing actu ctual and pot
ial case stu tudie ies, and other impactful projects, within a searchable le database.
lishin ing im impact stor
ies from all faculties.
RCUK/REF definitions of “impact” (Dec 2016):
makes to academic advances, across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding, methods, theory, application and academic practice.
culture, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia. (Evaluated via key REF criteria: reach and significance)
REF impact case studies:
Four-page template
Measures of improved clinical outcomes, public behaviour or health services. Measures of improved well-being. Documented changes to clinical & public health guidelines. Evidence from audited change in guidelines. Evidence of enhanced awareness of health risks/benefits among consumers. Evidence of enhanced patient experience
Impacts on health and welfare Impacts on commerce
Sales of new products/services. Business performance measures. Employment figures. Licences awarded and brought to market. Demonstrable collaborations with industry (incl. knowledge transfer partnerships, contracts). Commercial adoption of a new technology, process, knowledge,
Impacts on production Impacts on public policy and services
Documented evidence of policy debate (e.g. Select Cttee, NGO publications). Documented evidence of changes to public policy/legislation/regulations/guidelines. Measures of improved public services. Documented evidence of influence on health policy and/or advisory committees. Evidence of use of process/technology. New product recommended for use or adopted. Development of a new plant variety or crop protection product which has entered the regulatory testing system. Published rights for animals/plants. Evidence of improved sustainability. Documented changes to working guidelines. Documented evidence of improved working practices and/or level of production.
REF 2014 key numbers:
15%)
to £55,000 pa for each of 325 submitted impact case studies.
and impact. 3* case studies only worth 25% as much annually. Scores of 2* and below receive zero additional QR funding.
Unit of Assessment 5 (general):
biological nature (incl. development of new diagnostic devices).
legislation.
Unit of Assessment 5 (UCL):
Impact: 44% 4* 38% 3* 14% 2* 4% U “The submission demonstrated an exemplary strategic approach to impact which should position the unit to deliver future impacts of outstanding reach and significance. The sub-panel was pleased to note that many of the submitted impacts were judged to be outstanding in terms of their reach and significance, for example the case study relating to the UCL spin-
University FTE Staff Submitted Case Studies 4* 3* 2* 1* U/C
University of York 44.37 3 92 8 University of St Andrews 50.45 6 90 10 Institute of Cancer Research 34 4 80 20 University of Edinburgh 109.7 12 80 20 University of Dundee 73.2 8 75 25 University of Leeds 60.9 3 71.4 28.6 University of Cambridge 189.63 20 70 24 6 University of Durham 39 5 68 24 8 University of Oxford 223.8 23 61.7 36.6 1.7 Cardiff University 54.7 5 60 40 Imperial College London 99.55 11 53.6 39.1 7.3 University of Sheffield 44.9 5 52 48 University of Exeter 54.58 5 50 50 Newcastle University 30.6 4 50 50 University of Leicester 37.4 4 48 32 20 Birkbeck College (joint submission with University College London) 21.2 19 44 38 14 4 University College London (joint submission with Birkbeck College) 172.9 19 44 38 14 4 University of Nottingham 90.86 10 44 48 8 University of Sussex 47.61 6 43.3 43.4 13.3 University of East Anglia 44 5 40 60
Good case studies (3* and 4*) Weaker case studies (2* or below) Clear simple narrative anchored by a main headline impact, quantified wherever possible No clear story, multiple ‘competing’ impacts and routes to those impacts. No attempt to quantify change. Convinces even sceptical panel members though a clear explanation of how the impact came about or was maximised deliberately and consciously Does not convince sceptical panel of academics, funders and users that the research really made the difference or was deliberate End result (in REF Impact terms) characterised and often quantified Pathways to Impact characterised (e.g. web hits, tweets, audience figures) Details who or what community benefited or was impacted upon, with specific examples, when and by how much References vague groups (‘industry’, ‘the general public’, ‘policy makers’) and vague amounts (‘large change’, ‘substantial difference’) The impact and attribution is endorsed by senior / decision-making and impartial figures
The research / project is praised in general terms by those close to the projects or who stand the benefit Scaled-up impacts where the opportunity arose, e.g. create YouTube video of an event to maximise viewers, trained the trainers, actively sought stakeholders etc. Isolated / small-scale impact missing simple opportunities to try to scale up (e.g from town council to county council, one country / school to many), avoided stakeholders in society Planned and deliberate programme of impact A series of haphazard events presented as though a coherent whole Respected the contribution of others Tried to over-claim own or other’s impact
4* impact case study 3* impact case study
A sector-wide impact or hugely impactful spin-out with implications beyond just one company or the industry of one country A successful but unexceptional spin-out company following a standard well-worn model As well as substantial profits, the end-user/customer/patient/general public/wider economy benefits are also clear and very significant. Well-quantified profit or company valuation Significant new employment or seeding a growth area for the UK economy Jobs created but perhaps mostly displaced rather than ‘new’ to the economy £1m minimum headline figure (sales, value, profit etc.) but preferably £10m+. Always quantified. A significant minority not quantified, but if quantified then most less than £1m headline No clear pattern, but over 100k units sold or ‘affected’ seems positive. 1k–100k often appears in 4*cases as well though. No clear pattern but virtually all below 100k ‘units sold/affected’ For a manufacturing or industrial process /guideline/standard, quantify the actual end result in real-life uptake and realised efficiency/profit/ safety measures etc. Describes a change in procedure and breadth of adoption, but fail to quantify or consider the ultimate practical benefit.
4* vs 3* case studies: commercial impacts
4* impact case study 3* impact case study – too few identified to analyse No clear pattern re patient numbers but the top half of 4* studies affect >10k individuals and top 15% affect >1m N/A Total savings achieved (e.g. NHS efficiency): two thirds of 4* case studies quantify this at >£1m, and almost half of those we assessed at >£10m N/A Re guideline changes: go beyond implicit benefits to consider and evaluate actual adoption and impact N/A
4* vs 3* case studies: health impacts
4* impact case study 3* impact case study Impacts on national government policy, with an indication of how this policy change actually affected the general public in practice. Regional government (UK or abroad) or specific public services (e.g. police) Influencing governments abroad just as common as influencing UK government. Value placed on opportunities to proactively ‘scale up’ through multi- national organisations. ‘EU’ and ‘Intergovernmental Organisation (e.g World Bank, UN, IMF etc)’ case studies less highly rated than ‘national government’ RICS commentary: emphasis in international bodies more on recommendation than policy.
4* vs 3* case studies: govt and policy impacts
4* impact case study 3* impact case study Quantified traditional media reach. Sometimes unquantified (but perhaps because media element is supplementary to something else more concrete?). Of the remainder, half were over 500k. Quantified traditional media: about 30% <10k and similar number were unquantified. Maximum 500k in those we assessed. Digital media: about half >100k with a small minority >1m. Almost all quantified in some way.
media unquantified. Of the rest, the profile was similar to 4* but with a greater proportion of <10k. 4* vs 3*: traditional and digital media
Remember: media coverage is not impact in itself, but is often used to indicate breadth or support causality
Anecdotal feedback:
it.
commercial/medical – just harder to prove.
Impact in REF 2021:
REF 2014 process as far as possible”
work”
Timetable:
impact eli ligib ibili lity:
timetable:
Key points to remember:
Björn Christianson, Consultancy Manager
Rebecca Paulraj, Business Manager BioPharm Team UCLB
Impact of REF from a UCLB perspective…
Benefits
research at UCL
Potential things to be wary of…
novel
a commercial endpoint
Stephen Price, Associate Director (Education)
Roles documents for degree programme leader, taught module organiser, project and personal tutor now approved and discussed at departmental teaching committees and will be put on intranet. These also include what administrative support should be expected. We hope this is useful for staff new to these roles/ new to UCL.
Biosciences did well- 89% overall satisfaction putting us at #3 Faculty at UCL behind Medical Sciences and IoE BSc Biomedical Sciences and Human Sciences commended at 97% and 93% overall satisfaction Biomedical Sciences 5th most satisfied degree at UCL (but twice the size of the top 4) Overall satisfaction most correlated with Organisation and Management parts of NSS NOT Assessment and feedback….. BUT NSS Results
Currently institutional but will become subject specific in 2 years
Uses employment data (Good- above Russell Group average) NSS scores (Generally Good) Non-continuation rates (Good) Assessment and Feedback scores (Not good) New coursework submission form with feedback sections introduced
Teaching Excellence Framework
The teaching on my course
Learning opportunities [new section]
different topics
Assessment and feedback
Academic support
National Student Survey Changes
National Student Survey Changes
Organisation and management
Learning resources
learning well [amended]
collections) when I needed to [amended] Learning community [new section]
Student voice [new section]
interests
UCL Division of Biosciences In-Course Essay Marking Criteria Revised
This will be presented and explained to all years during induction week To come: Oral and visual presentation Marking criteria
Other developments:
Teaching and Learning team to be expanded: 2 additional grade 6 roles and 1 additional grade 7 Outreach: Research department contacts Sayeda Abu Amero (GEE), Yoshiyuki Yamamoto (CDB), Margaret Mayston (NPP), Chris Taylorson (SMB and Lead for outreach). We would like to update list of outreach activities- please contact the above with details of your outreach activities. Heads of University Biosciences group of Royal Society of Biology joined Additional education research projects with IoE initiated on: Assessment and Feedback (Richard Tunwell) Transition from School to University (Stephen Price) Perception of Research Process in Schools and Universities (Stephen Price) Any interest in pursuing education research projects, please contact Stephen Price We would like to seek seed-corn funding for these with the hope of attracting external funding in future
internal and external communications within the Division.
Divisional Communications Officer and is currently being recruited.
Division and will work closely with the Divisional PS Management Team.
due to take place in February 2017.
define the purpose and objectives of their team to support the strategic aims of the Division. This will feed into the TOPS programme.
training of zero tolerance officers for each department