M & M's ? Minnesota and Mayo

Mr. B. attended a Regent's open forum earlier this month. It was chaired by Dr. Patricia Simmons who will officially be the chair as of July 1.

She is an articulate and intelligent doc with a specialty that should serve her well - pediatrics. She has serious chops in the medical field as do most Mayo docs.

She is a graduate of Carleton and has an MD from the University of Chicago, so she knows about first class institutions. If Mayo and BigU are to do more collaboration, nothing could be better than to have a person of Dr. Simmons' caliber heading the Board of Regents.

From the Sar-Tribune:
Editorial: A fine time for a Mayo 'U' regent to rise
Count on Patricia Simmons to push the U-Mayo connection.

Published: June 19, 2007

With a bow to William Mayo's long service at the start of the 20th century, we know of no more propitious time than the present for the leadership of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents to be placed in the hands of a Mayo Clinic physician.

Mayo pediatrician and professor of pediatrics Patricia Simmons will take the governing board reins at the state's most important public institution on July 1, for a two-year stint. She rose to the chair after only four years on the board on the strength of her leadership ability, not her Mayo connection. But that connection is bound to serve Minnesota well.

With a nudge from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the help of state grants, Mayo and the university's Academic Health Center have set old rivalries aside in recent years and begun a very promising collaboration. The four-year-old Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics combines the clinical strength of Mayo and the research muscle of the university to seek cures for some of humankind's most vexing disorders: Alzheimer's, prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease and more. The commercial application of their work is likely to fuel the growth of the biosciences industry in this state. (More information about the collaboration is available at minnesotapartnership.info.)

At the same time, the university's teaching and research presence in Rochester has been growing. The University of Minnesota, Rochester now has coordinate campus designation and is in the process of hiring its own chancellor.

Simmons already sees a lively exchange of students, patients, faculty and ideas between Mayo and the university, and she wants to see more. She said in an interview last week that she looks for more joint academic ventures to arise, and to also involve Rochester industries, particularly IBM.

She's not opposed to a little rivalry between Minnesota's two medical giants. "We should be so good at some things that we are competing for top students and teachers," she said. "But when it comes to competing on the national scene, for federal funding, we're much stronger when we stand together."

The value of a major university, dedicated to research and community service as well as to teaching, ought to be on vivid display in Rochester in coming years. Simmons as regents' chair should help see to it.

A hopeful Bonzo.

Hawkeye Presidential Search Almost There?
Some Lessons for BigU From the Search

[Full disclosure: Mr. B. is a graduate of the University of Iowa.]

Down the road from BigU is the University of Iowa, an interesting institution. Say Iowa and, aside from the usual jokes about corn, the Writer’s workshop comes to mind. They also have an excellent academic health center, a fine institution for undergrads, and a working football team. Iowa City is a nice place to live and you can buzz into Chicago easily if you are a big city type.

Iowa has had a little bit of trouble with presidents lately. At least that is one way to look at it. Thus their most recent president, Skorton, left for Cornell. Prior to that Mary Sue Coleman left them to become the president of Michigan. One might say that this is a tribute to their president picking and that they were fortunate to have people of this caliber.

But this has made staying power an issue in the present search. Which, incidentally, is the second search. The first one came up with four candidates and the Board of Regents did not like the slate and dissolved the first search committee.

Another interesting aspects of the search is its transparency. Those who claim that a search must be closed to work might look closely at this situation. There also seems to have been a conscious decision to go outside in seeking a new president despite having, perhaps, been bitten in the past over this strategy. There is a strong inside candidate - surprise, the provost - who has a lot of internal support. He was a finalist in the first search, but not the second. So in the interest of learning something about relevant presidential searches, as well as with respect for our able competition down the road from the Iowa City Press-Citizen:

URBANDALE — The Iowa state Board of Regents adjourned today without making an announcement as to whether they have agreed on who should be the next president of the University of Iowa.

The regents were in closed session today from about 10:30 a.m. to 1:40 p.m. at their office in Urbandale. After coming out of closed session, the board quickly adjourned and made no announcement about a new president.

Individual regents were tight-lipped about the meeting. Iowa City regent Bob Downer said that he hoped the board could announce a president this week, which regent Bonnie Campbell said the president would be hired "very, very soon" without elaborating.

Prior to going into closed session, the University of Iowa presidential search committee briefly presented an eight-page report to regents. They then went into close session with search committee chair and UI Dentistry Dean David Johnsen.
Philip Furmanski appeared to be the favorite of the University of Iowa presidential search committee while the campus community ranked Furmanski and Sally Mason as the top two candidates, according to the committee's written report.

The search committee submitted to regents Charles Bantz, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis chancellor; Mark Becker, University of South Carolina provost; Furmanski, Rutgers University vice president for academic affairs; and Purdue University Provost Mason as all being qualified to be UI's 20th president.

The eight-page report, broken down by administrative experience, academic reputation, fundraising experience, responses of the campus community, external references and summary evaluation, praises all the candidates, but Furmanski in particular.

"Philip Furmanski has the experience, knowledge and academic stature to be an outstanding intellectual and administrative leader of The University of Iowa. There is every indication--from his presentation at the public forum to his interactions with individual groups to the comments of his colleagues and students at Rutgers -- that he would be a very effective president of the university," the summary evaluation stated.

The 13-person committee evaluated Furmanski high in virtually every field.

Furmanski, 60, a cancer researcher, has been at Rutgers since 2003, where he oversees academics including some health science departments and budgets for three campuses.

They credited him as an experienced, firm and effective administrator; as articulate; as understanding the importance of undergraduate education and the mission of teaching in a research institution; as a leader; and his knowledge of academic medicine and for showcasing a fertile relationship between state and his university.

The campus and external references also provided glowing reviews of Furmanski.

Mason, 57, a biologist, who has been at Purdue since 2001 after 21 years at the University of Kansas with the last six as dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, was noted for leadership, communication, creativity and vision, pursuing diversity initiatives, being a national leader for women and diversity in the sciences and developing strong programming that engaged her state.

However, the committee found her to be lacking in health science experience, which was seen a critical skill. Campus groups also were concerned about her awareness of problems facing health sciences campus and her ability to connect externally. Her handling of a scientific misconduct investigation at Purdue also concerned some.

The committee liked Bantz's experience as an administrator at a complex university with a medical school. The report stated he is a "polished public speaker and an experienced fundraiser." It said he had "presidential-type" experience but questioned his leadership ability.

"He clearly has the skills to be an effective external leader for the university but may require strong internal leaders to provide vision and direction for academic programs," the report stated.

Bantz, 57, a communication studies expert, has been IUPUI chancellor for four years, and before that, he was Wayne State University provost from 2000-2003. Campus responses said the institutions he's worked at significantly differ from UI, and he didn't articulate a strong vision for advancing a public research institution. References varied on his ability to handle difficult situations.

Becker, 48, the youngest of the candidates, is a biostatistician with a three-year stint as provost at the University of South Carolina following three years as dean of the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

"Mark Becker is a vigorous, ambitious and bright academic leader, and a strategic thinker, who has accomplished a great deal in a relatively short administrative career," the report stated, noting he had effected substantial positive change.

The committee and some group feedback found him an ineffective communicator in some settings. Some references varied on Becker's support for the arts and humanities and his management style, accessibility and openness to input.

Upon submitting the report, the search committee requested the regents keep the report confidential until the process was over. Regent Executive Director Gary Steinke wrote in an e-mail that "I feel as though I have no choice after consulting with the (Attorney General's) Office," which he did last week and was told it is a public document.

The candidates already interviewed with regents Tuesday and Wednesday, and they appeared in campus interviews, including public forums, one candidate per day on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.

Regents could, though it appears unlikely, wrap up the 17-month wait to find out who will succeed David Skorton, who left for Cornell University, by naming someone today.

As Mr. Spock used to say: "Interesting..." Ciao, Mr. Bonzo

Are you being Driven? To Distraction?

Driven to Discover question of the day:

"How much cotton is in a 100% cotton shirt?"

Mr. B. has noted previously the obnoxious public relations campaign (Driven to Discover) being waged by BigU, or should I say by their advertising agency? Thus he was a little annoyed to see the latest version of M magazine arrive in his mailbox complete with Driven to Discover logo front and back as well as another one of those obnoxious questions of earth-shaking importance: "Why don't spiders get caught in their own web?" I leave it to the interested reader to pursue this matter. Could it be evolution or is it perhaps intelligent design? Apparently many of our congresspeople don't believe in evolution, so the answer is obvious. To my great surprise there were actually a number of perceptive letters printed in this issue of M.

To wit:

...I found the article in the winter 2007 issue of M somewhat frightening. In the article, Dean Thomas Fisher writes that the College of Design "educates students to be leaders in the field of social change via design, and to be visionaries for a better future." then works through a list of politically charged buzzwords that leave little doubt about where his personal political allegiances lie. Must some unsuspecting 18-year-old who enrolls at the U wanting to learn how to design Web pages, or blouses, or houses, or gardens--and maybe also make the world a better place in accordance with his or her own personal beliefs and vision--also get an entire load of ideology about exactly what the visions should be?

David W. Downing, St. Paul

And our old friend Will Shapira - who must be BigU's worst letter-writing nightmare - opines:

I take strong issue with the upbeat message and feel-good tone of the M spring 2007 article about the new football stadium. I believe it is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult and embarrassment to those of us who abhor the jock mentality that has spread from the Bierman Athletic Building to the office of President Bruininks.... [ellipses are in the printed letter, so it may have been shortened.] How does a football stadium help Bruininks move toward his purported goal of making the U a top research university? Ski-U-Bah!

Willard B. Shapira

Now Mr. B. has always thought of W. Shapira as some kind of anti-athletics nut (sort of like Mr. B) but he has an interesting background indicating that his position may be a lot more subtle than some of his letters indicate.

He is identified as a "Minnesota Daily sportswriter, 1954-58, Daily sports editor, 1956-58, Minnesota Gopher (yearbook) sports editor 1956-58."

Kudos to M magazine for printing these letters. Maybe something could be done about them by OurLeader and the Board of Regents? Mr. B. still strongly believes that BigU can be a great university. But we have a lot to fix and a good start would be to drop the expensive and lame Driven to Discover campaign and the ambitious aspiration of being one of the top three public research universities in the world.

For a different model of athletics and academics see:

Quartet Set for 'C' Club Hall of Fame Inductions

(which is a description of post-graduate activities of the latest inductees into the Carleton College 'C' Club hall of fame)

Ciao, Bonzo

Mrs. B. is in Nuevo York, so I can spend the day and evening in the lab...

Stem Cells Continued
And the Beat Goes On...

Today a variety of posts and articles appeared concerning the famous Nature paper by Dr. Catherine Verfaillie. Spin city... Mr. B. gives links to a number of them below:

U stem cell study had flaws, but results unaffected: Nature Magazine
Minneapolis Star Tribune - Minneapolis, MN,USA

Stem cell research flaws don't change findings
Minnesota Public Radio - Saint Paul,MN,USA

Adult stem cell figure retracted
Scientist - UK

Journal Says Flaws in Controversial Stem-Cell Paper Didn't Affect ...
Chronicle of Higher Education - USA

Since this is a kind of name your poison problem, I will opt for Maura Lerner's account in the Strib, the first link above:

U stem cell study flawed but still valid

A prominent medical [sic] journal, Nature Magazine, found factual errors in the controversial study, but not enough to undermine its conclusions.

By Maura Lerner, Star Tribune

Last update: June 13, 2007 – 11:36 PM

Nature Magazine has concluded that a controversial University of Minnesota stem-cell study had flaws when it was published five years ago, but that the errors didn't affect the underlying conclusions, which drew headlines around the world.

The study, which found that adult stem cells may be as useful as embryonic stem cells in treating disease, had been under scrutiny since last year because of questions raised about its accuracy.

On Wednesday, the prestigious medical journal said it had conducted its own review of the study, and that despite some flawed data, the findings still hold up.

It also published a correction by the study's authors, most notably Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, a world-famous scientist who formerly led the university's stem-cell institute.

In an e-mail interview, she described Wednesday's report as a great relief.

"As I have said before, I take responsibility for the factual errors, and am sorry about these," Verfaillie wrote from her home in Belgium. "Nevertheless I continue, and this was reinforced by the conclusions from Nature, to believe that our findings were correct."

Tim Mulcahy, the university's vice president for research, said the journal's review should "close the loop" on the controversy.

"Their reviews are highly respected for how thorough they are," he said. Last year, a university inquiry also found that part of the study was "significantly flawed" in the way it identified certain cells but said it didn't have the expertise to assess how important that was.

The authors later submitted new data to correct the mistakes.

In a news release Wednesday, Nature said: "The retraction of Figure 1 does not negate the central findings of the paper that cells isolated in the manner described are self renewing and multipotent."

Other studies under review

The study was one of the first to raise hopes of a serious alternative to embryonic stem cells in medical research.

Embryonic cells are controversial because the embryo must be destroyed to obtain them; while adult stem cells can be extracted from bone marrow and other organs without causing harm. Scientists are trying to use stem cells to treat cancer and other illnesses and repair damaged organs.

In February, though, the study came under fire when another journal, New Scientist, reported that Verfaillie and her colleagues had published the same data twice, labeled differently, in separate medical journals.

"We're pleased that the data have been corrected," said Peter Aldhous, the San Francisco bureau chief for New Scientist, of Wednesday's report. But he said some questions remain in the scientific community about the study's findings. "It's an interesting and exciting paper which has proved difficult to replicate, and that is still the case," he said.

Verfaillie disagreed, saying that "many labs are recreating similar results."

Meanwhile, the University of Minnesota is reviewing two other studies published by Verfaillie and her colleagues, as well as data published in a patent application, Mulcahy said. He said Verfaillie, who ran the university's stem-cell institute for eight years, has acknowledged that there were errors in those papers as well. Verfaillie now heads stem-cell research at Catholic University in her native Belgium, although she remains a part-time faculty member at the University of Minnesota.

"I am fully cooperating with them," she said of the ongoing inquiries. "And I hope that a clear answer will come forth on this soon."

We've not heard the last of this, I am afraid. But hopefully the issue of the duplicated figures - in a paper and a patent - will be resolved soon.

Mr. B.

What's Good For the U?

Some Input from Parents, Employees, and Administrators

A Board of Regents Open Forum, Wednesday 13 June

This afternoon Mr. B. attended an open forum sponsored by the Board of Regents that was for the purpose of taking public comments on the proposed budget. It is not, as Regent Simmons pointed out, for the purpose of dialog, so questions, rhetorical or otherwise, were not answered. It was a strange mix of administrators, such as a dean and a department chairman, kowtowing, and some interesting input from parents of students. There was also a well coordinated effort by a labor union, AFSCME, that represents clerical and technical people at the U. People who wanted to speak are only allowed 3 minutes but a number of the union folks chained 3 minute statements together that made a reasonable case that their compensation has been unjustly neglected in recent years.

Because the whole performance was so interesting, I did not take good notes. Thus the above synopsis will have to do. However one of the parents who made a statement has kindly sent me a transcript of her remarks that I give below. But she is a Minnesota resident who has a daughter attending school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Judy Rheault, a Minnesota resident and parent of a current UW-Madison student said:

For nearly 40 years, Wisconsin and Minnesota have supported a tuition reciprocity program which is responsible for expanding opportunities and increasing affordability to over 28,000 students per year.

Our family history includes 2 generations of participants in the reciprocity program.

Why would you end this?

After years of Minnesota under-funding Higher Education, leading to double digit tuition increases… versus Wisconsin who has remained committed to fund Higher Education & retaining lower tuition costs. The Board of Regents have concluded that the tuition reciprocity agreement is unfair.

Wisconsin returned 7.8 million to the MN general fund for interstate payments. I encourage this Board to demand the redistribution of funds back to the University system.

I encourage this Board to hold President Bruininks and his staff accountable for their business decisions and eliminate the reckless negotiations of Athletic contracts and buyouts.

Over the past 7 years:

Coaching buyouts totaling 7.42 million, not including legal fees

The pending construction of an athletic stadium for an estimated 302 million dollars

I am amazed that athletic costs are approved and buy-outs are paid without questions, however, reciprocity is scrutinized.

I implore you to redirect your attention to approving the Minnesota-Wisconsin reciprocity agreement.

Return your financial commitment to the Academic Athlete and create a winning game plan for reciprocity!

Thank you for your consideration and commitment to the parents of students who participate in and value reciprocity!

Mr. Bonzo has asked some of the same questions in previous posts on the Periodic Table. Thus it is a little comforting to know that he is not the only person who is very concerned about these issues. I hope that the Board of Regents will consider Judy Rheault's points and make some effort to look into the issues raised, rather than simply rubber stamping OurLeader's plans. In the long run, I hope that sanity will return to BigU. We are not going to be one of the top three public research universities in the world, but nevertheless we have a lot of improvements to make. Maybe we should make our goal to be in the top half of the Big Ten ?

Ciao, Bonzo

Tuition Reciprocity and BigU
You can buy a better product but you can’t spend more money.

Mr. B. has noted before the idiocy of the reciprocity problem between BigU and Wisconsin. A barrage of propaganda is in the air about the agreement costing the U six or seven million dollars. This is apparently being done to whip up support from the Board of Regents to drop the current agreement with Wisconsin.

Maybe it is not such a good idea for BigU to get into an unnecessary spat with Wisconsin over this matter. Apparently more Minnesotans think that an education in Wisconsin is a good thing than vice versa, at least based on enrollment. It is a good deal for ColdState citizens to have an opportunity to go to school in Madison at a reasonable tuition rate, because Madison is generally regarded as a significantly better school than BigU for undergraduates. See “Oh Lord, It’s Hard to be Humble,When You Have Ambitious Aspirations."

As has been pointed out many time before, the state of Wisconsin is making up the delta to the State of Minnesota. This fact is noted again by the Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Editorial: Resolve inequity in tuition reciprocity
6/8/2007 12:08:35 PM

... under the rules of the reciprocity agreement between the University of Minnesota and University of Wisconsin systems, students can attend their neighboring state's university at their own in-state tuition rate. Since tuition has increased faster in Minnesota than in Wisconsin, students coming here from Wisconsin are paying at least $1,200 less to attend the 'U' than do students from Minnesota.

It's an unfair situation for Minnesota students, and a somewhat embarrassing predicament for the University of Minnesota. For whatever reason -- reduced state aid, a failure to keep a lid on expenditures -- Minnesota students are seeing tuition at the state's flagship university eat up an increasingly large portion of their education budget.

For whatever reason, the University of Wisconsin has been able to get along with relatively smaller tuition increases.

Now, University of Minnesota officials are adamant that they will either get the agreement changed or drop it entirely in 2008. So far, officials in Wisconsin have been reluctant to make any changes.

Locally, this is a significant issue because of the large number of Rochester and area students who attend college in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, the 'U' is enlarging its Rochester program.

Last year, about 14,000 Minnesota students attended Wisconsin campuses while about 12,000 Wisconsin students attended 'U' campuses.

At the end of each year, Wisconsin compensates Minnesota for lost revenue -- to the tune of $20 million over the past three years. But that money goes to the state's general fund, rather than to the 'U.'

It would be a shame if a program that so many students in both states find attractive is allowed to expire. College students and their parents have been pummeled by tuition increases in the past year. The uncertain future of this reciprocity agreement only adds to their turmoil.

People who run universities are supposed to be smart. They should be able to find a way to equitably solve this problem for the benefit of all -- but especially for students.

There is an obvious solution here.
Why exactly isn't this being taken care of?

(Send the money directly to the institutions involved, or have the governor direct that the money paid to the State of Minnesota be equitably distributed? No... Screw the students and their parents, let them eat cake, er... bratwurst!)

Bonzo

The Fix is On

Another Fast Shuffle at BigU or
If You Can't Compete on Quality Compete on Price

Once again BigU is pursuing a manipulative course of change without prior discussion or consultation with the affected stakeholders. A massive tuition cut for non-resident students is planned with the notable exception of Wisconsin and the Dakotas. This action was set up by an editorial in the Strib published yesterday, on the same day that OurLeader apparently put forth this plan to the Regents who will vote on June 27. It is just this kind of quick and sneaky approach to decisions at the U that makes stakeholders - students, faculty, staff, as well as citizens of ColdState - suspicious of the good will and intentions of BigU's administration. This kind of behavior is hardly the way to improve the academic and consultative climate on campus, among the administation's professed goals. This behavior reminds Mr. B. of days gone by when re-engineering was in vogue at BigU. Move quickly before anyone has a chance to react. Do it when no one is around to argue. These tactics failed when used in the reengineering campaign and badly damaged the U. We have yet to recover from its effects.

From today's Strib:

U has plan to keep enrollment up with a tuition bargain

Officials say a recruiting effort coupled with lower nonresident tuition could be the ticket to stabilizing projected enrollment declines.

By Mary Jane Smetanka, Star Tribune

In California, there isn't enough room in universities for all the kids who want to go to college. And in Florida, community colleges have started offering four-year degrees to expand the capacity of higher education.

And so we are going to get a lot of business from Florida and California? In your dreams. Mr. B. has recruited for BigU in warm states and it is a very tough sell. Students literally shudder when Minnesota is mentioned. Minnesota wants to be Florida's community college? California kids would rather attend BigU than, say, the University of California at Santa Cruz?

Would some of those students come to the University of Minnesota if they didn't have to pay much more than Minnesotans do?

That's the experiment the U is likely to pursue beginning in fall 2008. Officials are proposing to dramatically cut undergraduate nonresident tuition to attract more students from around the nation. Last year, nonresident tuition and required fees on the Twin Cities campus were $21,040, compared with $9,410 for Minnesota students. If the proposed change had been in effect, nonresidents would have paid only $4,000 more per year than Minnesota residents.

If you do the math, that is a cut of ca $8,000. Heckuva deal. Of course it means that for each of the new students attracted someone paying lower tution will be squeezed out… But what the heck our educational mission here is obviously taking a backseat to research, so who cares?

U President Robert Bruininks told the Board of Regents on Thursday that the plan would keep university enrollment up in a time when the number of high school graduates in the Midwest will drop.

Could someone please explain to me exactly why enrollment at BigU has to be so large? We are a small state. Why are we duking it out with large population states like Ohio for the largest state university? Could it be because a large university will support a large budget?

Because most U graduates stay in Minnesota to work, he said, that would benefit the state economically.

Of course that is because most U graduates - now - are from Minnesota. Here some numbers, conspicuously absent in most U pitches, would be useful.

The U enrolls about 10 percent of Minnesota's high school graduates each year and that would not change, Bruininks said. But the composition of the rest of the undergraduate class could look different.

Now, 72 percent of U freshmen come from Minnesota,

[Someone pointed out to Mr. B. that it is closer to 65 percent and that it will probably hit 60 percent in the next few years. Mr. Bonzo will be watching.]

while almost 19 percent are from Wisconsin. Between 3 and 4 percent come from North Dakota and South Dakota.

Now let’s think carefully about the implications here. The out of state mix is going to change and less students will be taken from Wisconsin and North and South Dakota. Now people from those states are used to the weather and the intellectual/social climate of the upper Midwest. They are more likely to stay here than people from, er, California, Texas, or Florida. Interesting that the U, by recent actions, is working to make enrollment of Wisconsin students a less attractive option to Badgers.

Enrollment slipping

But over the next decade, the number of high school graduates is projected to drop 3 percent in Minnesota, 6 percent in Wisconsin, 23 percent in North Dakota and 8 percent in South Dakota. Already, the number of students from the Dakotas attending the U has declined 10 percent. And five of the six other states in the middle of the country that send more than a handful of students to the U also face shrinking numbers of high school graduates.

Ah, finally, the dirty little secret emerges. All of this talk about getting better and better students is predicated on a large applicant pool and it is shrinking. Perhaps it is time to retract enrollment at the U as Wisconsin did some time ago? Why, exactly, does enrollment at the U have to be so high?

"Over the next 10 years, the U needs to position itself to recruit from other states," said Peter Zetterberg, senior analyst in the U provost's office.

Why? Just as the football team seems to be positioning itself to capture the best athletes in Minnesota, maybe the U should take positive steps to capture the best students in Minnesota...

A test case

The U's Twin Cities campus already draws more students from Illinois than it used to, the result of a decision a few years ago to recruit there.

Could we please have some numbers here? How many students over the past ten years were from Illinois? How much money was spent on the recruiting effort?

What other states could be targeted for recruiting isn't clear yet, but potential targets include California and Texas, which already send students to the U.

How many, exactly? It is very unlikely that we will see significant enrollment from either California or Texas in the future. (As most of the kids would say: “Brrr...”)

Zetterberg said the U wouldn't lose money through the change partly because tuition discounts and scholarships mean few nonresident students pay the full amount now. And the new policy should draw more students, he said. Even with tuition cuts, nonresident students would be fully paying the cost of their education.

Once again, numbers would be nice. “Trust us?” Trust but verify.

The plan also would drop nonresident rates at the Duluth campus to just $2,000 more per year than the Minnesota rates. Nonresident rates have already been dropped at the Crookston and Morris campuses.

Regents will vote on the proposal as part of budget decisions June 27.

The fix is on. For once it would be nice to see the Board of Regents do more than rubber stamp OurLeader’s scheme. For once it would be nice to see some real numbers about revenue differential. For once it would be nice to see the U administrators talk straight on these matters. Do we want more money from Wisconsin students? If so, why are we willing to cut nonresident tuition for others by quite a bit (eight grand) and lose revenue on them? To Mr. B. it appears that these two different lines of thought are not consistent.

This latest questionable scheme seems to be an act of desperation by an administration in real trouble with their ambitious aspiration to be one of the top three public research universities in the world. If you look at nonresident tuition for Michigan and Wisconsin, BigU's rate will be significantly cheaper. Thus it appears that a college education is in the same category as a used car. If the product is inferior and isn't selling well, cut the price.

Once again OurLeader makes a bold and audacious (would that be bodacious?) move.

Are we selling Yugos? Perhaps we are...

Bonzo

Another BG
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Money, Philanthropy

Mr. B. has reluctant but great admiration for Bill Gates. Probably because he is about to put his money where his mouth is, unlike a lot of other people, including a number of very wealthy people, the majority of politicians, and even some university administrators. A very amusing and insightful article about the amazing Mr. Gates has appeared in Time online.

Thursday, Jun. 07, 2007
Bill Gates Goes Back to School
By Lev Grossman

He is transitioning out of Microsoft to become a full-time philanthropist-at-large, directing his formidable intelligence and ridiculous wealth at improving global education and global health.

"The only computer-science course that I ever signed up for was the one that had the most prerequisites in the whole catalog — and I signed up for the second half of the year," Gates says. "So my freshman year I show up, and it's all graduate students, and two days into the course I tell the professor, Hey, you know, this thing is wrong ... My social skills weren't that great."

When Gates and Allen sold the Altair folks a version of basic — which they wrote without ever having seen an Altair — the school brought him up on disciplinary charges for running a business out of his dorm room. So Gates turned on, booted up and dropped out.

Long before the dotcom boom, long before it was hip to be square, Gates crossed over to the dork side.

Gates' social skills still aren't all that great. He may omit to shake your hand when you meet him. His voice has one setting: high and loud. He still has that much remarked-upon habit of rocking back and forth while he's thinking, and he sometimes jumps up, rather startlingly, to pace while he's talking.

But there's a warmth to him and a weird but genuine charm

It's just how his mind works — he can't help answering your questions seriously and literally. There are tales, probably true, of his brutally breaking down employees in meetings. He likes the truth, and he likes things to be clear. I sit in on a meeting in which he works through the kinks in his Harvard speech. He stumbles on a superfluous phrase: more fully. "That's the kind of stuff I hate," he says, pausing for a minute to riff. "I delete stuff like that all the time. The word truly — whenever I see it, I tend to delete it. Why say 'truly X'? Is 'X' not enough?"

That's typical of Gates: he takes an engineer's approach — a literal, analytical, hacker's approach — to everything, whether it's an engineering problem or not. This isn't always the best approach. On the one hand, it's worked out pretty well for making software. On the other hand, look at Gates' haircut.

For all his drive and intelligence, Gates doesn't see things with an artist's eye for those human intangibles. In May, Gates made a rare and instructive public appearance with his longtime frenemy Steve Jobs. An audience member asked each of them what he had learned from the other. "Well, I'd give a lot to have Steve's taste," Gates said. "You know, we sat in Mac product reviews where there were questions about software choices, how things would be done, that I viewed as an engineering question. That's just how my mind works. And I'd see Steve make the decision based on a sense of people and product that is even hard for me to explain. The way he does things is just different, and you know, I think it's magical." The audience cracked up. But Gates wasn't joking.

So it'll be interesting to watch Gates try his Vulcan approach on challenges like curing AIDS and fixing America's public schools. In July 2008, his primary focus will become the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which he and his wife founded to address health and education issues. It has an endowment of more than $33 billion, making it by far the largest charitable foundation in the world. Last year his close friend Warren Buffett committed to transferring to the foundation much of his wealth too, which will eventually add about $30 billion more. Gates' foundation makes him one of the most powerful nonelected actors on the global stage.

The worst grade Gates ever got at Harvard, a C+, was in organic chemistry. Now he has to study it all the time. He monitors clinical research, talks to doctors, sits in classrooms, flies to infectious hot zones. As a foe of disease and ignorance, he is fearsome.

Gates is probably getting out of technology at the right time. Funnily enough, it's not really a business for nerds anymore. Gates was at the center of the personal-computer revolution and the Internet revolution, but now the big innovations are about exactly the things he's bad at. The iPod was an aesthetic revolution. MySpace was a social revolution. YouTube was an entertainment revolution. This is not what Gates does. Technology doesn't need him anymore.

Now education and health care — those are areas in which the bedrock problems, the bits and bytes, have yet to be solved. All that pretty, fluffy stuff, that can come later. That's for the cool kids to figure out. Sickness, death, ignorance, illiteracy — those are the problems that need nerds. That's where Gates 3.0 needs to be, and that's where he's going.

Based on the performance so far of Gates supported research, Mr. B. is very impressed. You can't lose them all.

Ciao, Bonzo

And you think Mr. Bonzo is hard on BigU...

Mr. B. has previously mentioned Ms. Sturdevant's column.

Apparently Will Shapira had a few problems with it too.

From the Minnesota Daily:

Academics first

Lori Sturdevant's column in the June 3 Star Tribune and President Bruininks' lame performance on "Almanac" Friday night reinforce my belief that he, his rubber-stamp Board of Regents, and a largely misguided legislature and governor have no sense of priorities for Minnesota and Minnesotans.

How can so many of them put a needless half-billion dollar football stadium ahead of a biosciences capability and other vital academic projects?

If Bruininks would have lobbied half as hard for biosciences as he did for jockdom, it might have happened.

Minnesota used to be the Brainpower State. Now it seems to be the Brain-dead State, thanks in large part to these ill-informed, wasteful public officials.

We need some new blood in these positions and the sooner, the better. That would be biosciences at its best.

Will Shapira
University alumnus

I'm not sure he really understands the biosciences situation, but otherwise I am pretty much in agreement.

Bonzo

Latest on Avandia (Rosiglitazone)

Mr. B. has previously posted twice on Avandia:

“Not a Pretty Sight, Avandia - aka Rosiglitazone - Another Medical Train Wreck?”

and

“Avandia flagged by FDA as a possible heart risk five years ago”

These posts were stimulated by a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine: “Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes by Steven E. Nissen, M.D., and Kathy Wolski, M.P.H.” that was published May 21.

Today appeared online several editorials and a paper. These will appear in the July 5 edition of the journal. But since this is such an important topic and of wide interest, an abstract is given below.

BOTTOM LINE: Data to date are inconclusive. This is a good thing because it means that the drug is apparently not absolutely terrible in which case the study might have been stopped. Hopefully the study at its conclusion will provide a firmer basis for making a decision about the use of the drug. If you have personal health concerns about these matters please consult your doctor.

Original Article

Published at www.nejm.org June 5, 2007

Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes — An Interim Analysis

Philip D. Home, D.M., D.Phil., Stuart J. Pocock, Ph.D., Henning Beck-Nielsen, D.M.S.C., Ramón Gomis, M.D., Ph.D., Markolf Hanefeld, M.D., Ph.D., Nigel P. Jones, M.A., Michel Komajda, M.D., John J.V. McMurray, M.D., for the RECORD Study Group

ABSTRACT

Background A recent meta-analysis raised concern regarding an increased risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes associated with rosiglitazone treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Methods We conducted an unplanned interim analysis of a randomized, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial involving 4447 patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control while receiving metformin or sulfonylurea, in which 2220 patients were assigned to receive add-on rosiglitazone (rosiglitazone group), and 2227 to receive a combination of metformin plus sulfonylurea (control group). The primary end point was hospitalization or death from cardiovascular causes.

Results Because the mean follow-up was only 3.75 years, our interim analysis had limited statistical power to detect treatment differences. A total of 217 patients in the rosiglitazone group and 202 patients in the control group had the adjudicated primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.31). After the inclusion of end points pending adjudication, the hazard ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.32). There were no statistically significant differences between the rosiglitazone group and the control group regarding myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes or any cause. There were more patients with heart failure in the rosiglitazone group than in the control group (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.57).

Conclusions Our interim findings from this ongoing study were inconclusive regarding the effect of rosiglitazone on the overall risk of hospitalization or death from cardiovascular causes. There was no evidence of any increase in death from either cardiovascular causes or all causes. Rosiglitazone was associated with an increased risk of heart failure. The data were insufficient to determine whether the drug was associated with an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction.

Published at www.nejm.org June 5, 2007 (10.1056/NEJMe078118)

Rosiglitazone — Continued Uncertainty about Safety

Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D., Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and Gregory D. Curfman, M.D.

On May 21, 2007, the Journal published a meta-analysis by Nissen and Wolski¹ that indicated an increased cardiovascular risk associated with rosiglitazone (Avandia), a thiazolidinedione used to treat type 2 diabetes. We published this analysis because it indicated an increase of about 40% in the risk of myocardial infarction among patients receiving rosiglitazone as compared with those receiving either an alternative oral diabetes therapy (metformin or a sulfonylurea) or placebo. Since rosiglitazone is widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and since the analysis considered all publicly available data on the topic, we published the article to make health care professionals and their patients aware of these potential adverse effects. Although we ensured that the article and accompanying editorial spelled out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the analysis, we knew that a patient-level analysis performed by the manufacturer of rosiglitazone confirmed the findings. The article raised substantial uncertainty about the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone. Even a small increase in cardiovascular risk in a fragile population of patients with type 2 diabetes is of considerable concern.

As a result of our publication of this article, the steering committee of the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes, or RECORD, trial undertook an unplanned interim analysis of some of the cardiovascular end points in that trial. The results of that interim analysis appear in this issue of the Journal.

The clinical impact of these data needs to be clarified. To do so, we asked a diabetologist, a cardiovascular epidemiologist, and a drug-safety expert to give their interpretations, which can be found in the accompanying editorials. Both editorials express uncertainty about the safety of rosiglitazone.

When a drug is approved for marketing, its full safety profile cannot be known, and the data from the two studies we have published represent a clear example of how difficult it can be to determine drug safety. In this age of freely available information, drugs cannot easily be parsed into "safe" and "unsafe" categories. Instead, there will be shades of safety that must be graded against shades of efficacy. As new data about the safety of an approved drug become available, they should not be suppressed. On the contrary, they should be reported to health care professionals, patients, and participants in ongoing clinical trials, even if that means creating uncertainty about the safety of a drug. Although there may be uncertainty about a drug's safety, there should be no uncertainty about the need for open and honest disclosure.

A Modest Proposal Toward Ending the Tuition Reciprocity Problem

Margaret Soltan (aka UD) covered this topic earlier on her blog (in "A University is a Sometime Thing"). Mr. B. was going to let soltanization suffice, but now that reciprocity is in the news again an obvious solution to the problem is evident. Maybe Cheese State could raise tuition?

CNN reports:


University of Wisconsin-Madison faces faculty exodus
Story Highlights

•.More than 115 professors reported receiving outside offers last year
• Departing professors say the university lacks resources
• Administrators say some departments are in crisis because of the losses
• Governor Jim Doyle has proposed creating a $10 million fund to retain faculty

MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- University of Wisconsin-Madison has long been an attractive target for elite schools like Harvard and Stanford looking for top academics. But now other public universities are among the faculty poachers, and school administrators are worried.

Dozens of professors have left in the past two years, and Chancellor John Wiley said a growing number are going to schools that traditionally could not compete with the state's flagship university. More than 115 professors reported receiving outside offers last year, the most in 20 years and more than double the number from five years ago.

Administrators at Wisconsin, traditionally ranked among the nation's top public schools, say some departments are in crisis because of the losses. They worry about the school's quality and ability to draw research dollars.

Faculty say the departures accelerated as professors' salaries hit rock bottom among their peers and morale sagged amid state-imposed budget cuts.

In response, lawmakers are expected to consider Gov. Jim Doyle's plan on Tuesday to create a $10 million fund to retain faculty at Madison and other campuses in the University of Wisconsin system. University of Wisconsin-Madison is lobbying hard for the plan.

"In years past, schools like Pitt or Rutgers, even some of the other major state universities like Ohio State, Michigan State, Iowa and Indiana would not have been able to hire away from Wisconsin," Wiley said. "And they are doing that now."

Departments such as political science, English and history have been particularly hard-hit, Wiley said.

Wiley said the university, which maintained its U.S. News & World Report ranking as seventh- best public university last year, is trying to retain top professors.

A University of Wisconsin-Madison full professor earns an average of $103,000 per year, the lowest in the school's 12-member peer group, and well below the $117,000 average at those schools, according to the American Association of University Professors.

University officials say a retention fund in the last state budget helped keep more than 100 key faculty members.

But they didn't include Joe Soss, a political science professor leaving for the University of Minnesota. He said the departures should make taxpayers think about whether they want to maintain University of Wisconsin-Madison's strong reputation.

"In my case, the decision to respond to an invitation is something that arose after a number of years of frustration with the resources at the university," said Soss, who said Minnesota will increase his $90,000 salary by 50 percent. "I think that you've seen a real upswing in the number of people who are responding to invitations because of what's going on."

The problems started in 2003 when Doyle and lawmakers slashed $250 million from the university system to balance the state budget and froze professors' pay. Funding has remained at about the same level and raises have been below inflation ever since.

Departing professors say the university lacks resources, meaning fewer teaching assistants and less money for lab improvements and travel, among other things. Tuition at University of Wisconsin-Madison is the second-lowest in the Big 10 athletic conference, which is made up primarily of public, Midwestern universities.

In some cases, professors' departures mean their courses will no longer be offered. Graduate students who worked under a professor will have their studies disrupted.

Jeff Wright, a political science major who will be a senior in the fall, said a professor who was going to advise him on his honors' thesis left last year for Georgetown University. And he recently learned the next professor he asked to help, Soss, would also be leaving.

"I've lost two advisers. It's really disheartening for me," he said. "These are great people."

"When you have a mass exodus of faculty leaving, that sort of jars students and tells them that something may be wrong here and their education is being compromised," he added.

Let's hope that this bad PR on CNN is a wakeup call for the citizens of Cheese State to support their fine university. Howard Temin, and a lot of other great scientists, did Nobel-prize winning work there. Howard even stayed after he got the prize.

Ciao,

One sad Bonzo

Have it your way!
Or, in the end the students always seem to take the hit...

Mr B. has kicked around the topic of tuition reciprocity before, e.g., “Small Schools in ColdState and CheeseState Caught in Crossfire.”

The latest skirmish is reported in todays Star-Tribune. As usual the unintended consequences of this move seem not to be of concern to BigU administrators. They will, though, as we continue our march to greatness and demographics start to kick in.

U sets 2008 deadline in tuition battle

Minnesota says it will end the reciprocity pact unless Wisconsin agrees to changes.

By Mary Jane Smetanka, Star Tribune

Last update: June 04, 2007 – 11:35 PM

Tens of thousands of students in the two states use the agreement to attend college across state borders without paying nonresident rates. But U officials say the agreement is unfair.

Because of the way it is structured and because tuition increases in Minnesota have outstripped those in Wisconsin, Minnesotans now pay $1,200 to $2,700 more to attend U campuses than Wisconsin students do. The U's line in the sand is being drawn three years after officials first asked for change in the agreement. Sporadic talks have yielded no result.

Wisconsin officials, including the governor, have been reluctant to change the agreement because they say it helps keep tuition affordable.

In 2005-06, 23,700 Minnesotans and 19,500 residents of Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Iowa and Manitoba used reciprocity to attend college across state lines. In the school year that just ended, about 6,300 Wisconsin undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students attended U campuses.

At the end of each year, a complex formula is used to try to rebalance things financially between the two states. In December 2006, Wisconsin paid Minnesota $7.8 million. However, that money goes into the state's general fund, not to universities.

So, as has been pointed out before, the money is there. BigU doesn't seem to be able to pry it out of the hands of the state. Or at least that is BigU's position. Of course the state can say: "But we give you lots of money..." BigU's response: "Oh, then let's take it out on the students because there is nothing they can do about it." Reminds me of an old movie. Something about failure to communicate...

Ciao,

Mr. B.

Earlier Thoughts of BigU Administration Concerning
Possibility of St. Thomas/Allina Medical School

An earlier post of Dr. Frank Cerra's email to faculty has been made: "Blanket Email from Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Kudos and Questions for Proposed Medical School."
Dr. Cerra's message was sent on May 25. Minutes of an earlier discussion have just appeared. It is cited here as background for the dialogue on this matter that is soon to occur.

From:

Minutes

Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, May 17, 2007

5. Discussion with Senior Vice President Cerra

Professor Chomsky welcomed Dr. Cerra to the meeting for his biannual discussion of issues related to the Academic Health Center. Professor Balas started the conversation by asking Dr. Cerra what he thought of the proposal for a medical school at St. Thomas.

Dr. Cerra noted that the proposal is that Allina and St. Thomas will jointly form a new medical school next to Abbot-Northwestern hospital. It is their view that they must address three major areas: prevention, chronic disease management, and end-of-life care (issues that all medical schools are focused on) and that there are not enough primary-care physicians, so they need to start a new medical school. The boards of the two organizations are doing a feasibility study.

They will need a lot of money, Dr. Cerra observed, and must learn what a medical school is and is not. The question of whether Minnesota needs more family-practice/primary-care physicians is a good one, he said. There are parts of Minnesota that are classified federally as facing a shortage of doctors and those areas need family-practice physicians. If, however, one looks at the ratio of doctors to people in the state generally, supposedly Minnesota has a sufficient number of doctors, so the issue is distribution and how far someone should have to drive to see a doctor. Moreover, the University's family-practice programs are not full (a phenomenon true across the country); if there is a shortage of family-practice doctors, why don't Allina and St. Thomas work with the University to fill those programs?

If the two organizations really want to focus on prevention, chronic disease management, and end-of-life care, one can question whether that is best accomplished with physicians. The expertise of nurse-clinicians and clinical pharmacists is more effective in both outcomes and costs. That is the path the schools of the Academic Health Center are looking into.

The operating cost of a medical school is about $1 million per student per year. Instructional costs alone are $200,000 per year per student, fully loaded. If the plan for the new school is to graduate 40 students per year, it would have 160 students, so would cost about $160 million per year. Primary-care/family-practice physicians leave medical school with a debt-to-income ratio of about 2:1: they have about $180,000 to 200,000 in debt and their average starting salary is $80,000 - $100,000. It can take 25-30 years to pay off the debt. That is one reason the slots in the family-practice programs are not full, Dr. Cerra concluded. Others include lifestyle, reimbursement for services, and geographic challenges.

So how will a new medical school be financed? If by endowment, and one assumes a 5% return on the endowment, there will need to be an endowment of $20 million per student. There would need to be lots of money, Dr. Cerra said, and if the donor community put that kind of money in a new medical school, "what is left for the rest of us?" Those are the problems for the community but Minnesota is not that big a place. With about 5 million people it has done amazing things, but it can water down its accomplishments.

Professor Gunnar said she thought there were programs that would support physicians who agree to go to outstate Minnesota. There is not much money in those programs, Dr. Cerra said. If they do open a medical school, will the University offer a plan to provide the training more cheaply? It already does at the Duluth campus, Professor Elliott pointed out, and it is done exceptionally well. A lot of Morris students go to the Duluth medical school, Professor Carpenter said; Dr. Cerra added that they would like to establish pipelines with other campuses as well.

If one considers the physicians in Minnesota, over 70% received their ability to be licensed from the University; in greater Minnesota, over 80% received their training at UMD. That sounds like a better deal for donors, Professor Gunnar said.

How much of this is about the need for family-practice physicians and how much is about St. Thomas wanting another professional school, Professor Martin asked? Dr. Cerra said he did not know, although he has not been successful in his attempts to contact St. Thomas. There is speculation concerning the production of providers in the future so Allina went to St. Thomas; they saw the University is linked to Fairview, and with federal funds for graduate medical education declining, they believe that tuition and health-system payments will fund medical schools. If that is the model, how can they not also do something for nursing, pharmacy, public health, and so on, Dr. Cerra asked? That is an argument for partnering with the University. Dr. Cerra said he did not understand how the nature and values of a full-service health-care system and a faith-based university would mesh. He learned in the University-Fairview discussions that if the values do not match the partnership cannot work.

There is no accreditation prohibition on the establishment of the new medical school, Dr. Cerra said, but he does not understand why the American Association of Medical Schools keeps saying there is a terrible shortage of physicians and medical schools must increase enrollment or the number of medical schools must be increased. That is not true in Minnesota or in most areas of the U.S. and what is driving the call is the increase in osteopathic schools. There are osteopathic and allopathic medical schools; Minnesota's is allopathic, as are the ones at almost all major research-intensive universities. Osteopathic schools are private and are accredited by the same bodies and processes as allopathic schools.

Dr. Cerra said he is not saying he would not support the new medical school but that he does have a lot of questions about it, since the question about the workforce in those areas of treatment has been raised. Why only solve the problems with physicians? If they can be addressed with other providers, it is not clear there is ANY physician shortage except perhaps in a few specialty areas.

Professor Balas thanked Dr. Cerra for the explanation and commented that it seemed to be an odd time to think about a new medical school when the University's budget does not look that good. This is another time when someone is saying the University is not delivering what the state needs, when it is. Dr. Cerra agreed and commented, by way of example, that the University probably doesn't talk enough about the 180 pharmacists who will graduate this year, most of whom will stay in Minnesota. They will also solve the Occupational Therapy/Laboratory Science problem, which no other place has done.

This is undoubtedly a complex problem and there seems to be a difference of opinion about how to solve it. Dr. Cerra is certainly right that starting a new medical school will be expensive, but perhaps not as expensive as he thinks. Coming up with money so that family practice physicians would not be under crushing debt load seems to be a rational thing to do in this situation. But of course the U has not done this to date and thus leave themselves open to questions on the matter. The strategy of running up the tuition rate in an attempt to garner more state support may have backfired. BigU's instate medical school tution is currently the highest for any public university in the country. Certainly the BigU medical school administrataion seems concerned that another med school may drain resources from an already financially precarious situation. This concern is justified.

It should be an interesting summer. Mr. B.

Open Your Mouth and Say Ah… Or Why Won’t OurGovernor TeePaw Do the Right Thing and Give BigU What It Wants?

Mr. B. has previously pointed out the disconnect between authorizing new bioscience buildings for the U (a blank check, so to speak) and an explanation of where the money is going to come from to fill the buildings with people and equipment. These issues have not been addressed in the latest piece by the Star-Tribune's excellent legislative reporter, Lori Sturdevant.

See:

"If You Build It, Grants Will Come? Or, Could Someone at BigU Please Be Honest and Responsible About Expansion of Biomedical Research?"

Perhaps we should worry more about a way to lower tuition for doctors who plan to do family practice in Minnesota so that they can afford to do this? Agitation on the part of BigU's med school administration indicates that this may be a pressing problem, particularly if St. Thomas/Allina get into the mix. BigU is well aware that there may be a limit to the amount of funding available from the state coffers for the education of future health care providers.

See:

"BigU's MedSchoolDean Comments on St. Thomas/Allina Feasibility Study for New Medical School"

and

"University of St. Thomas to Establish New Med School?

as well as

"Blanket Email from Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Kudos and Questions for Proposed Medical School"


From the StarTribune:

A moment left unseized
The wait continues for a gubernatorial push for the U of M bioscience plan.

By Lori Sturdevant, Star Tribune

Published: June 03, 2007

Twenty years later, DFLer Rudy Perpich circled the globe, hunting for jobs in industries ranging from chopsticks manufacturing to supercomputing. Then came Republican Arne Carlson, who knocked himself out to keep Northwest Airlines afloat.

So as the clock wound down on the 2007 session, I figured that Gov. Tim Pawlenty would soon start talking up the University of Minnesota's request for fast-track bonding authority for four new bioscience research buildings. Or that legislators would start buzzing about calls from the governor's office, urging a kind look at the university's plan for hiring scores of new faculty.

The university's request was, after all, the only viable, affordable, remotely plausible plan in sight for keeping up with the competition, and snagging a share of the industry that's exploding in research hotspots around the country.

But the clock wound down. A public appeal from Pawlenty to the Legislature never came. If one was made privately, it escaped detection.

When asked May 1 about the university's bid for a separate bonding path for biosciences, Pawlenty's response wasn't negative. It just lacked oomph. "That's a good idea," he said. "Either this year or next year, it should go ahead."

The governor wasn't alone in playing it cool. The Senate was with the U on this request for the second year running. But it was a different story in the House. There, where turf jealousies, regional parochialism and raw partisanship are the order of any given day, several senior DFL members weren't interested in giving the university permission for more than one building at a time. Allowing the Legislature a chance to say no before a building's bonds were issued was proposed. No deal.

"Their view was, 'Come to us every two years and let us take care of you,' " said university lobbyist Donna Peterson.

There are two problems with that view. One: It isn't the depth of state commitment that Academic Health Center Dean Frank Cerra needs to turn top faculty heads. Cerra says that recruiting research superstars takes three to five years to consummate. He needs to be able to promise today that a brand-new building will be waiting in 2012 or 2014.

And two, it pins Minnesota's best hope for a desirable new industry on what has become an unreliable process.

University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks says he'll be back next session -- or, better still, in a special session -- to try again. Platou says he'll try to keep a major donor on the hook. Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher says she'll try to "bring greater awareness to legislators about the competitive pressures involved here."

They are a potent threesome, but they can only go so far.

"It's going to take the governor's leadership to make this happen, "Bruininks said. Providing leadership to develop new industries -- that's what governors do, isn't it?

Mr. B. believes that there are a number of logical disconnects in the above analysis.