Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 1:34pm — memcinto
Name of proposed new unit, OR Title of submission:
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
119 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology.pdf
Name of contact person for this proposal: John Murphy
Contact person title: Professor and Associate Dean
Contact Address:
College of Pharmacy
Contact Phone: 520-626-2327
Responses from President and Provost
Response #1> Back to List of White Papers
If you do not wish to comment publicly on this site, you may post your comments at uatransf@email.arizona.edu
Comments
The African American
The African American Advisory Council would want to insure that Transformations processes including consolidations and workforce reductions would not erode The University of Arizona's efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculty, students, and staff.
The UA President’s Hispanic
The UA President’s Hispanic Advisory Council (HAC) is pleased to provide its evaluation of this White Paper/Proposal, with the specific goal of relating it to the joint UA/HAC goals concerning diversity and inclusion, recruitment, retention and graduation of Hispanic students and faculty, and on meeting the UA goal of becoming a Hispanic Serving Institution by 2012. Additional criteria used when reviewing this proposal include the following: UA’s land grant institution status and thus its location in the southwest and the changing demographics of this area; innovative program design, including instruction methodologies; and whether the proposal realistically addresses the UA’s business needs. HAC’s mission it to strengthen relationships between the UA and the diverse communities within the State of Arizona by serving as a communications conduit and developing mutually beneficial partnerships.
HAC has reviewed this proposal and rates this as:
Revamp – this proposal does not sufficiently address the Hispanic Advisory Council criteria and should be revamped
In response to the comments
In response to the comments of Drs. Davis and Sipes, we would like to point out the following. In advance of the submission, the Deans of the COP and COM discussed a potential merger of the two departments and, as stated in the document, the two Department Chairs (Monks and Sipes) met to discuss this issue. Dean Bootman also informed Dr. Sipes that this proposal was to be submitted. Thus the basis for the "astonishment" is unclear.
The document that we prepared did not describe all the aspects of the merger that would, of course, be required. The COM would clearly still require the teaching of pharmacology in its curriculum. We understand this requirement and believe a merger could enhance that teaching rather than detract from it because a broader spectrum of faculty expertise would be available. Further, the COP department also collaborates freely on research across the AHSC and UA and that collaboration would certainly continue. Merger of departments should enhance rather than hamper those activities.
Because the Provost’s and President’s messages regarding transformation plans link efficiency along with development of world class research and teaching, we believe that the merger of COM pharmacology into COP Pharmacology and Toxicology would have the greatest likelihood of advancing the University’s reputation. The COP is already ranked in the top ten of colleges and schools of pharmacy across the nation and this merger could serve to enhance that ranking even further. We believe the old adage that “all ships rise with a rising tide,” and that the reputation of the COM should also be enhanced for the obvious reasons. We did not submit this proposal selfishly; rather, we believe that it truly met the intent of what the President and Provost requested.
Finally, we view the COP's efforts in Tucson and Phoenix as part of a single enterprise, the University of Arizona's College of Pharmacy. As such any effort or initiative that might enhance the reputation of one or more of the University of Arizona's many fine College's should be viewed as a benefit to the entire University.
We read with astonishment in
We read with astonishment in the recent “white paper” that the College of Pharmacy proposed a merger of the Department of Pharmacology in the College of Medicine (COM-PHCL) with Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology in the College of Pharmacy (COP-PCOL). Such a merger was attempted several years ago and failed. Part of the reason for this failure is that these departments, although both contain the term “pharmacology,” have very different missions to support different Colleges, different graduate and research programs and have evolved very differently over the past many years. Because of the “difference,” both departments are successful and internationally recognized, but in very different areas. The Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology is noted for its excellent programs in toxicology and medicinal chemistry. The Department of Pharmacology is particularly noted for its strong programs in neuropharmacology, cerebrovascular disease and neuroscience. Each College needs their department to support their individual growth and development. COM-PHCL contributes significantly to the research and teaching activities of the COM and has demonstrated on many occasions its commitment to ongoing collaborations with COM clinical colleagues at a time when clinical scientists are critically needed (Please see Comment under College of Medicine White Paper). When COM-PHCL developed its own Medical Pharmacology graduate program years ago, one of the expressed aims was to have graduate students serve as the “bridge” between basic and clinical scientists. Having students serve in that capacity has greatly facilitated the research of physician scientists and these clinicians contribute greatly to the COM research mission and the improvement of reputation and ranking. We want to get back to that dynamic situation. If the COM is to increase its academic and research stature, which is a strong desire of the UA Administration, it needs strong, involved basic science departments to promote COM basic and clinical research and one of the strongest in the COM is —Pharmacology.
It is clear from the document presented by COP that the only interest it has is to use the talents and resources of the COM-PHCL to strengthen the national ranking of the COP and to support the COP Phoenix Expansion. It makes no mention as to how such a merger would promote the teaching and research mission of the COM. It does stress how the merger would help the COP grow in Phoenix. We can not and will not weaken the COM in Tucson to grow the COP in Phoenix. This is NOT the role of COM-PHCL, nor should it be.
It is apparent that such a merger would have a far reaching negative effect on the COM. The Department of Pharmacology has been a major contributor to the new AzMEd curriculum, with faculty serving as block directors, lecturers and facilitators. In addition, the Department of Pharmacology has been the leading basic science department within the COM with respect to valuable external research funding, and, in fact, COM-PHCL is one of the leading departments at the UA. This success underscores that when faculty are dedicated and devoted to their unit, and allowed to function entrepreneurially, they can be very successful. We have been successful functioning as a well-managed, small department with dedicated faculty, staff and students. For this reason the faculty in the COM- Department of Pharmacology voted 100% not to merge our departments. There is also very little, if any, “grass roots” support for such a merger in the COP- Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology. The potential savings is stated as “up to $150,000” and could more than be offset in a negative manner by the loss of key faculty who have options at other institutions. These are exactly the faculty we do not want to lose. The external resources that any one of these faculty earn provide much, much more in Indirect Cost (IDC) dollars to the UA than the proposed potential savings. Their considerable, individual, direct costs alone contribute to the mission of the UA and to the local economy.
The old saying is “if it is not broken, don’t fix it.” These two departments are not broken. They need to be encouraged, not disrupted, to continue their further development, not penalized to achieve some rating.
Post new comment