6th ORPHEUS CONFERENCE. PhD QUALITY INDICATORS FOR BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES April, 2011, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Türkiye

Transcription

1

2 Proceedings: 6 th ORPHEUS Conference on PhD Quality Indicators for Biomedicine and Health Sciences April 2011, Izmir, Turkey 6th ORPHEUS CONFERENCE PhD QUALITY INDICATORS FOR BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES April, 2011, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Türkiye ÖZEL SAYI EDİTÖRLERİ (SUPPLEMENT ISSUE EDITORS) Gül Güner Akdoğan <gul.guner@deu.edu.tr> Güldal Kırkalı <guldal.kirkali@deu.edu.tr> Mine Doluca <mine.doluca@deu.edu.tr> ÖZEL SAYI DANIŞMA KURULU (SUPPLEMENT ISSUE ADVISORY BOARD) Zdravko Lackovic <lac@mef.hr> Mike Mulvany <MM@PHARMA.DK> Miroslav Cervinka <cervinka@lfhk.cuni.cz> Petr Hach <petr.hach@lf1.cuni.cz> Seppo Meri Kalevi <seppo.meri@helsinki.fi> Chris van Schravendjik <chrisvs@vub.ac.be> Osman Sinanovic <osman.sinanovic@ukctuzla.ba> Hannes Stockinger <hannes.stockinger@meduniwien.ac.at> S2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Editorial Board- Scientific Editorial Board S1 Articles 1. Forward Michael Mulvany, Zdravko Lackovic, Gül Güner-Akdoğan 2. Standards for Doctoral Degrees in the Molecular Biosciences: Recommendations of the Committee on Education of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Susan Hamilton 3. PhD Education for Biomedical Scientists in the United States Joey Barnett 4. Postgraduate Education in Turkey and the Contribution of Turkish Biochemical Society Nazmi Özer 5. PhD Quality from the Standpoint of Employers Mike Hardman 6. Standards for PhD Education in Pharmacology in the UK Nicholas Goulding 7. Implementation of Orpheus Standards-Charles University of Prague Tomas Zima, Petr Hach, Cervinka Miroslav 8. System of Research Training in Russian Federation Konstantin G. Gurevich, Nikolay D. Yushuk 9. An Overview of the Doctoral education in Health Sciences in Turkey Hakan S. Orer 10. Current Status of PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in Pakistan Abdul Haque 11. PhD Education in Bulgaria Diana Petkova 12. The Master of Science Degree (MSc) in Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, Which Offers the Option for Obtainment of a PhD, as a Model Example for Postgraduate Studies in Greece Manolis Fragoulis 13. Doctoral Education in Biomedical Science: Practice at the Manchester Metropolitan University Nasser Ahmed 14. Key Performance Indicators for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences Marvin J.R. Lee 15. Standards on Post-Graduate Biochemical Education in Greece Constantin Drainas 16. Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education -Experiences from Karolinska Institutet Ingeborg van der Ploeg 17. Achievement of Doctoral Study: Tunisian PhD Students View Emna EL Golli-Bennour 18. Research Environment for PhD Students in Biochemistry in the Medical University- Sofia Tanya Monova, Alexey Alexeev, Ganka Kossekova 19. PhD study and program: from ex-student to student A LESSON LEARNED : A PhD course proposal Goran Ćurić, Ljubica Glavaš-Obrovac 20. New Paradigm of PhD Education at Tbilisi State University Faculty of Medicine In Georgia Nato Pitskhelauri 21. Keynotes for Doctoral Educatıon in Food Engineerıng to Health Sciences Haydar Özpınar, İsmail H.Tekiner S4 S6 S9 S13 S17 S19 S26 S31 S35 S42 S45 S49 S54 S60 S63 S67 S69 S72 S78 S82 S87 S3

4 Forward The modern concept of the PhD degree, research training under supervision, was developed in the nineteenth century and has since spread to most of the World (ref. 1). The overall aim is to produce a qualified researcher, evaluated by the PhD thesis and an oral defence of the scientific results. At a meeting of European Union ministers in Berlin in 2003 (ref. 2), the previous two cycles of the Bologna Process (ref. 3) were extended to a third cycle covering doctoral studies. By implication these include the PhD, but not exclusively. This has accentuated the need to define more carefully what is meant by PhD studies and the standard of the PhD degree. In particular there is a need to distinguish the PhD from the "professional doctorates" awarded in some countries, and which are often based on shorter research training periods. To address this question the ORPHEUS (Organization for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System) project was started in 2004, when the first conference was held in Zagreb. Here the standard for the PhD thesis was defined as containing the equivalent of three articles published in international journals. At the second conference, also in Zagreb, the topic was the content of PhD programmes, where it was agreed that programmes should be structured over 3-4 years, and that they should include about half a year of courses. The third conference in Helsinki discussed "clinical PhDs", and there was agreement that a clinical PhD, even if performed together with clinical studies, should meet the same standards as other PhDs as regards the level of the PhD thesis. The fourth conference in Aarhus, combined the previous consensus documents in a position paper (ref. 4) describing admission requirements, contents of a PhD programme, supervision, standards for the thesis, and evaluation of the thesis. The fifth conference in Vienna concerned mobility. The results of the various ORPHEUS conferences are in full agreement with those of the European Universities Association: "The core component of the third cycle is the advancement of knowledge through original research, and this makes the third cycle unique and different from the first and second cycles. The doctoral training phase constitutes the main link between the European Higher Education and Research Areas, and high quality doctoral programmes are therefore crucial in achieving Europe s research goals." (ref. 5) The aim of the present sixth conference is to discuss implementation of the position paper. In part, through discussion of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate the various sections of the position paper. In part, through presentation of a proposal for formal standards developed from the position paper in collaboration with the World Federation for Medical Education and the Association of Medical Schools in Europe. The overriding aim of the conference is to continue the ORPHEUS project by ensuring that the quality of the PhD degree in biomedicine and health sciences is maintained and strengthened throughout Europe. Above all to ensure that the PhD remains a research degree. The present volume contains a number of articles showing how these questions are being addressed in various countries. Michael Mulvany, Vice-president ORPHEUS, Aarhus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, mm@farm.au.dk ZdravkoLackovic, President ORPHEUS, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, lac@mef.hr Gül Güner Akdoğan, Organizer ORPHEUS 2011, Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Izmir, gul.guner@deu.edu.tr S4

5 References: 1. Nerad M, Heggelund M (eds): Toward a Global PhD, Univ Washington Press Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003 (see 3. The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999; Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education ORPHEUS 2009 position paper: Towards Standards for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences See ORPHEUS website: and 5. TRENDS V, European Universities Association (see S5

6 Türk Biyokimya Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Biochemistry Turk J Biochem] 2011; 36 (1); 6-8. EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE Published date 27 April, 2011 Standards for Doctoral Degrees in the Molecular Biosciences: Recommendation of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Susan Hamilton Academic Board, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia 4072 Abstract In 1989, the (then) International Union of Biochemistry published for the first time a set of Standards for the PhD Degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. This was a time of unprecedented growth in the molecular biosciences, and also of fragmentation into specialisations such as developmental biology, neuroscience, molecular cell biology, structural biology and molecular pharmacology. The IUB document articulated a clear and relatively generic set of standards for the PhD across these specializations. These standards have been revised in 2010 to accommodate the additional significant changes to the research environment in the molecular life sciences research in the 21 st century, in particular the advances in genomics and associated use of computing, the increase in interdisciplinary research and systems-based approaches, the impact of industry funded research, the drive to develop applications of basic science and the associated emphasis on intellectual property. These revised Standards emphasize (i) the desired characteristicsof those awarded a doctor sdegree inamolecular Bioscience; (ii) suggestions as tohowtheseabilitiesmaybe acquired and how their attainment maybe assessed; and (iii) suggestions regarding the criteriafortheoverall evaluation of candidates. They are intended as an aid to university departments and boards of graduate studies, to national organizations that set standards for graduate education, to those scientists who serve as external examiners toevaluate theses, and to candidates for adegree in these sciences. Key Words: PhD education, Standards, IUBMB Introduction The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular biology seeks to advance the international molecular life sciences community by: Promoting interactions across the diversity of endeavours in the molecular life sciences Creating networks that transcend barriers of ethnicity, culture, gender and economic status Creating pathways for young scientists to fulfil their potential Providing evidence-based advice on public policy Promoting the values, standards and ethics of science and the free and unhampered movement of scientists of all nations. S6

7 One of the key focus areas for the Union is education. The associated vision statement is: Enhancing teaching and learning in the molecular life sciences through international collaboration. In 1989 the Committee on Education of the International Union of Biochemistry first published its Standards for the Ph.D. Degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. These were well received internationally, and a second iteration was published in 2000 that was broader in scope, addressing not only Biochemistry and Molecular Biology but all the Molecular Biosciences. A further revision has now been undertaken [1], necessitated in large part by the dramatic changes in the molecular life sciences over the past decade. The introduction to the new Standards paper expresses this environment very well: Biological Science has been changing at a stunning pace with unprecedented growth, a deepening of knowledge and proliferation of methods of investigation. At this time interdisciplinarity has become commonplace and even essential as the barriers among the traditional biosciences disappear. Biochemistry and molecular biology, cell biology, structural biology, developmental biology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, neurobiology, nutrition, physiology, pharmacology, and molecular medicine now speak the same scientific language and use the same molecular tools. It is not unusual for elements of these molecular biosciences to be combined in a single degree. In addition, informational science has made possible the birth of genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics, while interest has been moving from molecules to mechanisms and to whole organisms, from a focus on individual components to biological systems. The 2010 Standards document is international in emphasis. It recognises that some institutions may have lower research capability than others, and these institutions are encouraged to develop external networks that improve opportunities and outcomes for students. One specific requirement identified for doctoral students is ready access to the scientific literature and electronic databases, now regarded as essential for modern research in the molecular life sciences. A working knowledge of English is also highlighted as a prerequisite for functioning in a modern scientific community. The document also gives emphasis to flexibility of approach recognising firstly that different pathways can lead to research excellence, and secondly that there is a need for flexibility in areas of the molecular life sciences that are rapidly evolving. Rather than proposing an ideal PhD training program the goal has been to recommend (i) a set of graduate attributes for the PhD graduate (i.e. Standards), (ii) some strategies by which these attributes might be achieved and (iii) criteria by which the work of the candidates might be appropriately evaluated. There is also emphasis on breadth and diversity as opposed to narrow specialisation, and on support for the acquisition by doctoral students of generic and transferable skills such as communication skills, time management, independence and collaborative skills, with a corresponding deemphasis on over-specialisation. Understanding the importance of integrity in science, and what constitutes ethical behaviour as a scientist, is also seen as integral to the training of doctoral students. (See IUBMB Code of Ethics). Standards The Standards proposed for PhD graduates in the molecular sciences are [1]: 1. The candidate should demonstrate a general knowledge of physics, organic and physical chemistry, mathematics (including calculus, probability and statistics), computer science, biology and cell biology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology, bioinformatics, the particular Molecular Bioscience, and good knowledge of the topic of research. 2. The candidate should be familiar with the research literature of the particular Bioscience should have the ability to keep abreast of major developments and to acquire a working background in any area. 3. The candidate should demonstrate skill in the recognition of meaningful problems and questions for research in the particular Bioscience. S7

8 4. The candidate should possess technical skill in the laboratory, including computational and mathematical, manipulations. 5. The candidate should demonstrate the acquisition of oral, written and visual communication skills. 6. The candidate should demonstrate skill in designing experiments and in conducting productive self-directed research. Strategies Formal and informal courses, student-run seminars, contributions to undergraduate teaching, presentation at group meetings, journal clubs, seminars and conferences and are among the range of activities that can usefully contribute to a graduate program of study leading to increasing confidence and sophistication as a scientist and independent thinker. The role of the research supervisor in this development is seen as critical, requiring careful judgement regarding the amount and type of guidance needed as the thesis progresses. The valuable contribution that other academics can make to the supervisory process, especially in the form of a supervisory committee, is recognised. Processes for enriching the graduate student experience at a departmental level and for facilitating active involvement of students in their departmental community are also suggested. Thesis The thesis should demonstrate.. that the candidate has conducted successfully and meaningful research by solving an original problem with an increasing degree of independence, has made significant contributions to the work and understands how the results fit into the scheme of current knowledge [1]. Recommendations for the preparation of the thesis include: (i) consideration of the options of a written thesis with standard literature review, methodology, results and discussion vs a collation of published papers with an introduction and discussion, as well appropriate supplementary information. For thesis defence, an oral defence before at least one external expert and the supervisory committee is recommended. Elements of the thesis recommended to be considered in assessing quality include: fluency of style, quality of critique of the literature; S8 clarity of experimental methods such that they can be reproduced; rigorous experimental design, clear presentation of results and appropriate interpretation and conclusions, attribution of the contributions of others. Rejection of the thesis is appropriate if defects cannot be easily remedied to the satisfaction of the supervisory committee in a reasonable timeframe. Conclusion A final theme that permeates the Standards document is the importance of the development of doctoral students as independent and creative thinkers. Pertinent statements include: The naive beginner must evolve into a self-reliant and professional investigator during the thesis work. Candidates should have opportunities to practice looking at problems from different perspectives and applying integrative thinking Candidates should participate actively in selection of the [research] problem. The original description of the doctoral thesis problem should not be too restrictive. The supervisor must decrease detailed direction as the project proceeds and the candidate becomes more self-reliant, and may have to accept, within reasonable limits, a degree of loss in efficiency in the work of the laboratory as part of the cost of professional education. The IUBMB offers these Standards for Doctoral Degrees in the Molecular Biosciences with the hope that they will be helpful to the international community of researchers and educators across the broad landscape of investigation that shares in common the study of living processes at a molecular level. Acknowledgements The revised standards document was prepared through the work of a committee appointed by the IUBMB, whose membership was: George Kenyon (chair), Dagmar Ringe, Adele Wolfson, Frank Vella, Susan Hamilton References. [1]. Standards for the PhD degree

9 Türk Biyokimya Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Biochemistry Turk J Biochem] 2011; 36 (1); EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE Published date 27 April, 2011 PhD Education for Biomedical Scientists in the United States Joey Barnett Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN USA, joey.barnett@vanderbilt.ed To whom correspondence should be addressed: Joey V. Barnett, Ph.D. Department of Pharmacology Vanderbilt University Medical Center Room 476 RRB 2220 Pierce Avenue Nashville, TN USA Telephone: (615) Fax: (615) joey.barnett@vanderbilt.edu Abstract Most students in the U.S. enter PhD programs in the biomedical sciences after completing a Bachelor s Degree. Academic achievement and laboratory experience are major criteria for admission. Students are paid a competitive stipend and have all fees paid by the program or mentor. Often admission is into an interdisciplinary umbrella program where additional didactic material and laboratory rotations are completed prior to choosing a mentor. This allows students to sample several disciplines, training programs, and mentors. Mentor selection is accompanied by the selection of a degree-granting program which may have additional didactic or programmatic requirements. After the completion of programmatic requirements, a comprehensive qualifying examination in the student s area of study must be successfully completed after which the student is referred to as a doctoral candidate. Qualifying Examinations often contain both an oral and written component that may cover discipline specific and general knowledge, research plans for degree completion, or both. Doctoral candidates spend most of their effort in directed research with the mentor. The candidate s research is overseen by a faculty committee that must approve both the body of work and the written document. Most trainees publish at least one, nonreview, peer reviewed, first author paper. The average time to PhD in the biomedical sciences is 5.5 years. Best practices in graduate training are addressed by several groups with the most influential being the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences. Key Words: PhD education, Biomedical sciences Several models exist for training PhD students in the biomedical sciences. In the United States most students enter PhD programs directly from Bachelors degree granting programs. Successful student applicants to PhD programs generally have significant research experience in addition to academic credentials. Graduate school time to degree in the biomedical sciences in the United States averages 5.5 years [1] placing the total time to degree, including the 4 year Bachelors degree, of under 10 years. Overview of PhD Training in the United States A feature of many PhD granting programs is student participation in an umbrella or interdisciplinary training program (for an example of a typical such program, see 1). Here students do not apply to a specific faculty member or even department for admission but to the umbrella program where applicants may be evaluated by faculty representing several different disciplines. Upon gaining admission, students are placed in a core curriculum, which often includes elements of biochemistry, cell S9

10 biology, and genetics, that forms the foundation for future graduate, discipline-specific coursework. While completing the core curriculum which may last up to 1 year students perform rotations in faculty laboratories where they are exposed to available research projects, discipline-specific approaches, and departmental or program PhD requirements. At the conclusion of the umbrella program, successful students will have identified a mentor, a research problem, and completed a coursework foundation for discipline-specific coursework. This model has advantages for both students and faculty. Admission to the umbrella allows student to sample several disciplines as well as faculty laboratories before committing to a PhD program. Similarly, faculty members have the opportunity to determine the suitability of students for their program and laboratory prior to formally admitting them. These advantages are generally felt to outweigh potential disadvantages such as delaying entry into discipline-specific training and extending time to degree. Once students enter discipline-specific PhD programs, either through an umbrella mechanism or direct admissions, students may spend a year completing discipline specific-coursework while beginning laboratory work and formulating a research problem. At the end of this period students must complete qualifying examinations after which they are admitted to candidacy for the PhD, transitioning from predoctoral students to doctoral candidates. Qualifying examinations vary widely across not just institutions but across departments and programs within an institution. Most examinations have both a written and oral component that may test general knowledge, discipline-specific knowledge, and the ability to define and articulate experimental strategies and design. Examinations are scored by members of the faculty and the student s faculty mentor may or may not have a formal role in the process. If the student cannot pass the examination they are dismissed from the program. Students who are admitted to candidacy spend the remainder of their time focused on laboratory-based research although most programs will require participation in journal clubs, seminar series, or other events to continue to expose students to research approaches and provide students the opportunity to present their research. During this time the student is monitored by a faculty committee that includes the student s faculty mentor and a variable number of faculty members representing the discipline and often a faculty representative from another discipline. This faculty committee has the majority of the responsibility for ensuring that the student progresses and completes degree requirements. Once the body of work is judged to represent an original and substantial contribution to the field the student is given approval to write the dissertation. This document is evaluated by the committee and accompanied by a public oral defense of the work, after which the student is awarded the PhD. Organizations with a Stake in PhD Training Several organizations in the United States provide input into graduate education in the biomedical sciences although none have a recognized regulatory role. The National Research Council operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Science has addressed graduate programs across the United States including the recent publication (2010) of A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States [2] which continues a several decade s tradition of collecting information from PhD granting programs and providing comparisons based on parameters such as quality of applicants and admitted students, faculty productivity, institutional support, and student outcomes. More recently (2011), the National Research Council released Research Training in the Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Research Sciences which addressed national workforce needs in these areas along with recommendations for investing resources to support the training of an adequate number of scientists to meet projected needs [3]. Many biomedical programs are based in medical centers which have garnered attention from the Association of American Medical Colleges which has formed a Graduate Research Education And Training (GREAT) Group that monitors and comments on aspects of graduate education associated with medical schools, particularly mentoring [4]. Discipline-specific associations and professional societies often have committee structures to monitor graduate education and address issues that arise. Recent efforts by professional societies have included supporting national meetings of graduate program directors to improve discipline specific training [5]. However, S10

11 the organization with the most direct impact on graduate education in the biomedical sciences is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, by virtue of funding both individual fellowships and institutional training programs, has developed criteria that are used in the evaluation for funding of graduate programs. This has led to the adoption of these criteria by many programs as best practices that are applied to students even when not directly funded by the NIH. The NIH, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) funds most of the institutional predoctoral training program awards in the biomedical sciences and has just completed a strategic plan for the future of training funded by the Institute [6]. Best Practices as Established by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) The NIGMS funds institutional predoctoral training programs in the biomedical sciences in the areas of Behavioral- Biomedical Sciences Interface, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Biostatistics, Biotechnology, Cellular, Biochemical, and Molecular Sciences, Chemistry-Biology Interface, Genetics, Medical Scientist (MD,PhD) Training Program, Molecular Biophysics, Molecular Medicine, Pharmacological Sciences, and Systems and Integrative Biology [7]. These are highly competitive awards that fund trainee stipends and provide funds for programmatic needs. For award consideration programs are evaluated on specific criteria or best practices The review criteria [8] are divided into areas that are dealt with in turn below. Training Program and Environment-Criteria that are evaluated include facilities which should include the space, equipment, and access to core facilities required for state-of-the-art research within the discipline chosen for training. Although the strength of specific components may vary between institutions, programs should demonstrate that trainees have available the necessary environment to complete the contemplated research. The objectives, design, and direction of the training program should be consistent with the effective training of scientists and the overall program of training should ensure that students are prepared for successful and productive scientific careers. This relevance to program goals and to start-of-the-art approaches also applies to coursework and other training components of the program. Interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary training is seen as advantageous as is demonstrated commitment from the institution to support graduate training. Training Program Director-A primary criteria is whether the director has the scientific background, expertise, and experience required to organized, direct, and administer the training program. This is evidenced by a funded research program, publications in the field, and a record of teaching and training PhD students. The Director must also have sufficient time for administration and interacting with students. Administrative support should be provided and is seen as an indication of institutional support. Preceptors and Mentors-Sufficient numbers of faculty should be identified to provide a critical mass of mentors to support the program. Faculty members should be funded and productive with evidence of collaboration and participation in the program. Strong records of training PhD students are expected of senior faculty members. Junior faculty members associated with the program should be mentored by senior faculty and assisted in the supervision of students. Regular evaluation of faculty members for continued participation in the program should be outlined. Specific criteria for allowing faculty members to mentor students may be enumerated along with the measures that are used to admit mentors to the program. Trainees-Programs must articulate a recruitment plan that attracts quality applicants that are evaluated by well-defined selection criteria. Ideally the recruiting strategy may include broad participation of the training faculty and students. These approaches are best coupled with retention strategies that support students throughout their training. Retention strategies should include resources to address academic or personal issues that present barriers to training. Training Record-Training outcomes are the best measure of training programs. Parameters that are particularly relevant include the completion rate and time to degree of admitted students. If the selection criteria and retention strategies are effective the majority of students admitted should S11

12 complete a degree in a reasonable time frame as determined by comparison to time to degree in peer programs. Student productivity can be measured by the record of publication and presentations at national meetings. Productivity may also be reflected in the success of program trainees in obtaining fellowships and awards. In addition to these measures, programs should track and report on the careers of program graduates to demonstrate that the program generates successful graduates who contribute to the scientific community. An evaluation plan for the program that specifically monitors the issues outlined above must be in place and include mechanisms for feedback from graduates and a long term monitoring plan for graduates. Program support by the NIGMS generally supports only a fraction of the total number of trainees in a particular program. However, the prestigious nature of these institutional awards and the significant financial support provides a significant incentive that stimulates programs to adopt best practices that improves training for all trainees. These guidelines also encourage broader recruitment efforts, a focus on the retention of trainees, and a commitment to mentoring and monitoring students. Acknowledgements Professor Barnett would like to thank the ORPHEUS committee, and especially Professor Lackovic, for the kind invitation to participate, the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics for a travel award to attend the meeting, and Vanderbilt University for continuing support. References [1]. Handbook for Graduate Students in the Training Program in the Pharmacological Sciences (2010) Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tennessee USA macology/files/graduate%20student%20hand book%20_2009_.pdf Programs in the United States. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press. [3]. National Research Council (2011) Research Training in the Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Research Sciences. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press. [4]. Compact Between Biomedical Graduate Students and Their Research Advisors (2008) American Association of Medical Colleges Group on Graduate Research, Education, and Training (GREAT). Washington, DC. [5]. Barnett, JV. (2006) Directors of Pharmacology Graduate Programs: Pharm Phorum. Molecular Interventions 6: 4-7. [6]. Investing in the Future, (2011) National Institute of General Medical Sciences Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training. Washington, DC MS_Research_Training_Strategic_Plan pdf [7]. NRSA Institutional Predoctoral Training Grants Program Description and Guidelines (2011) National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Washington, DC doc/predoctrainingdescription.htm [8]. Items Considered by Reviewers in Evaluating Institutional Training Grant Applications (2009) National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Washington, DC [2]. National Research Council (2010) A Data- Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate S12

13 Türk Biyokimya Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Biochemistry Turk J Biochem] 2011; 36 (1); EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE Published date 27 April, 2011 Postgraduate Education in Turkey and the Contribution of Turkish Biochemical Society Nazmi Özer Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara and Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia, Mersin-10, Turkey Abstract Postgraduate education has two phases in Turkey. Before 1980, universities were administered according to the law According this law, even govermental universities, were more independent in their budget managements but there were no coordination between universities. Each university had its own rules for accepting students to both undergraduate and graduate education. Some universities had MSc, PhD programmes but some did not. In medical faculties, in our knowledge till 1980 only Hacettepe Medical Faculty had MSc and PhD programmes. Other universities had only medical specialist programmes. After 1981, a new Constitution was prepared and a new university law based on items 130 and 131 in that Constitution, Higher Education Law 2547, YOK Kanunu, was prepared. According to 2547 YOK Kanunu undergraduate and graduate education was re-organised. Turkish Biochemical Society (TBS) established in 1975 and after its establishment it became a member of FEBS (1978), IUBMB (1978), BCLF (1996), EFCC (FESCC, 1997), IFCC (1997). TBS had organised several workshops to contribute to the undergraduate and graduate education in biochemistry, molecular biology and clinical biochemistry. Four workshops on undergraduate and graduate education were organised together with the Educational Committee of IUBMB (in 1989, 1991, 1998 and 2000). Turkish Biochemical Society had organised 23 National Congresses with International Participation. TBS also had organised three BCLF meetings, three BBBD meetings, one FEBS Congress. A Worldlab Congress is going to be organised in 2014 in Istanbul. Thirty two (32) theoretical and practical workshops on different areas of biochemistry, molecular biology, statistics, and clinical biochemistry were also organised by TBS. TBS also contributes to biochemistry, molecular biology and clinical biochemistry education via its journal Turkish Journal of Biochemistry (TrJBiochem) which has been published since 1976, on quarterly basis. Basic and clinical research, as well as reviews, are accepted for publication. It is indexed by SCI Expanded, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Chemical Abstracts, Directory of Open Access Journals, Index Copernicus, Embase, Scopus, Ulakbim Türk Tıp Dizini, Ulrich s Periodical Directory, EBSCO. Key Words: Postgraduate education, Turkish Biochemical Society S13

14 Introduction I. The history of the universities in Turkey i. The history of universities in Turkey has three phases. In the first phase, till university reform at 1933, professorial chair system was dominant and every professorship behaved like seigniory. In some universities more extreme situations observed were the transfer of the professorial chair from father to his son. Professors instead of doing scientific work they were dealing with daily politics. ii. In 1933 Ataturk made the university reform. Several professors were discharged from the university. Ataturk sent many young scientists to Europe to do their PhD s. He also invited many scientists from European countries. At that time, especially Jewish scientists living in Germany were under restraint by nazists. After Atatürk s invitation many of them came to Turkey and took a role in the establishment of new universities such as Ankara University or/and in reorganisation of Istanbul University. During this period, feudality system in universities weakened and they were transformed to modern universities but unfortunately after Ataturk s death and especially after 1950 s, most of those scientists returned back to their countries or moved to USA. The universities and other education institutions were despised by the goverment. Although universities did not have enough budget for research, stil they were improving. Unfortunately, universities were blamed as the source of many terrorist actions during 1965 to After the take-over of army the most harmfull effect was observed on the universities. iii. The third phase of the universities started with the army take-over at 1980; A new constitution and and new university law (number 2547) based on the items 130 and 131 of the new Constitution were prepared. The aim of this law was to harmonise and control the universities. It was an undemocratical and did not obey to academic customs. According to this new law academic degrees obtained very easily and the necessity for academic maturation was disregarded. Academic advancement was based on publication in international journals. Although this resulted in increase of the number of the publications but it also resulted in a lot of fabrication. II. The history of postgraduate education in different countries i. In Islamic countries; the first established postgraduate education was at the medieval madrasahs (9th century), was doctorate (PhD) which originates from the permission (ijazet attadris wa l-ifttd = PhD) in madrasah where the proficiency of license to teach and issue legal opinions were tought. ii. In other countries; - In France: the first PhD was given in Paris at In Germany: PhD started at 17th century but it was only on Theology (Th.D.), Law (J.D.) and Medicine (M.D.). In Germany the use of PhD term started at the 19th century. - In United States of America (USA): Yale university accepted German s system and started to use Ph.D. term starting from In Canada: PhD started at In England: The use of Ph.D. term started at In Turkey: The PhD education started after the university reform at Some universities first used DPhil but later they started to use PhD. As shown in the Scheme 1, below the graduate and postgraduate education establishment followed an unexpected pathway: S14

15 Doctorate (PhD) Master (MSc) Doctorate (PhD) Undergraduate (BSc) Bachelor of Science (BSc) Scheme 1. Historical development of academic career pathway Why PhD is so important? PhD is very important because it is an advanced academic degree given by universities, it is the highest receivable academic degree in some countries, it is necessary to be an academician in universities and it is a necessity, in order to be a researcher in some areas. III. The history and present situation of postgraduate education in Turkey A. The history of the postgraduate education in Turkey; i. The first phase starts with the university reform. Before 1980 universities were administered according to the law According this law, even govermental universities, were more independent in their budget managements but there were no coordination between universities. Each university had its own rules for accepting students to both undergraduate and graduate education. Some universities had MSc, PhD programmes but some did not. In medical faculties, in our knowledge till 1980 only Hacettepe Medical Faculty had MSc and PhD programmes. Other universities had only medical specialist programmes. ii. After army take-over in 1980, a new Constitution was prepared and a new university law based on items 130 and 131 in that Constitution, Higher Education Law 2547, YOK Kanunu, was prepared. According to 2547 YOK Kanunu undergraduate and graduate education were re-organised. B. The present situation of postgraduate education in Turkey: What are the general criteria for accepting students to MSc or PhD programmes in biochemistry? Although legislation is prepared according to criteria in YOK kanunu there are quite big differences between universities. 1. A candidate should have an ALES (Academic postgraduate education Examination) score above 50 (In some universities higher e.g. 70) 2. A candidate should have a CGPA (Cumulative Grand Point Average) 2.4 / 4 or 60 / 100 (In some universities 2.8/4 or 70/100) 3. University Language Examination 70/100 or its equivalence in TOEFL, KPDS, UDS, FCE, CAE, CPE, IELTS (Academic). 4. Candidate should be successful in oral interview For accepting to MSc or PhD programmes 50 % of item 1, 20 % item 2 and 30 % item 4 are taken into consideration but in some universities item 4; 30 % is divided between item 3 and item 4, each contributes 15%. IV. Turkish Biochemical Society (TBS): The history and the contribution of TBS to the graduate and postgraduate education in Turkey S15

16 i. Turkish Biochemical Society (TBS) established in 1975 and after its establishment it became a member of FEBS (1978), IUBMB (1978), BCLF (1996), EFCC (FESCC, 1997), IFCC (1997). ii. TBS had organised several workshops to contribute to the undergraduate and graduate education in biochemistry, molecular biology and clinical biochemistry. Four workshops on undergraduate and graduate education were organised together with the Educational Committee of IUBMB (in 1989, 1991, 1998 and 2000). Turkish Biochemical Society had organised 23 National Congresses with International participation. TBS also organised three BCLF meetings, three BBBD meetings, one FEBS Congress. A Worldlab Congress is going to be organised in 2014 in Istanbul. Thirty two (32) theoretical and practical workshops on different areas of biochemistry, molecular biology, statistics, clinical biochemistry were also organised by TBS. iii. TBS also contributes to biochemistry, molecular biology and clinical biochemistry education via its journal Turkish Journal of Biochemistry (TrJBiochem) which has been publishing since 1976, on quarterly basis. Basic and clinical research as well as reviews are accepted for publication. It is indexed by SCI Expanded, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Chemical Abstracts, Directory of Open Access Journals, Index Copernicus, Embase, Scopus, Ulakbim Turk Tıp Dizini, Ulrich s Periodical Directory, EBSCO. V. References [1]. University law No [2]. University law No (Higher Education Law, YOK) [3]. De Meis, L., Mehler, A.H., Rombauts, W, White, H.B., Wood, E.J. (1999, revised 2006) Standards for the Ph.D. degree in the molecular biosciences, Recomendations of the committee on education of IUBMB. [4]. Wellington, J. Bathmaker, A._M. Hunt, C., McCullough, G. & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London: Sage. ISBN [5]. Wilkinson, D. (2005) The essential guide to postgraduate study. London : SAGE ISBN X (hbk.) [6]. Wisker, G. (2005) The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN S16

17 Türk Biyokimya Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Biochemistry Turk J Biochem] 2011; 36 (1); EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE Published date 27 April, 2011 PhD Quality from the Standpoint of the Employers Mike Hardman AstraZeneca, R&D Science Policy,UK Abstract PhD students are the new generation of scientists. They are enthusiastic, innovative and question traditional wisdom all of these are essential for the future of science. They create the new ideas, which need to be nurtured in a greenhouse until we know which ones will grow. The model for PhD training has evolved and not only includes developing scientists capable of excellence in research, but also includes an understanding of innovation, entrepreneurship and collaboration. This is an enhanced skill set combining blue sky research and the application of science. The industry employers are increasingly recognizing the need for collaboration with academia, and Public Private Partnership (PPP) PhDs are an important element in achieving this. These PPPs allow the PhDs to work across boundaries and develop a better understanding of the different needs of academia and industry. This is important for both their initial research and for future collaborations. These PPP PhDs are also better equipped to move across boundaries, thus promoting another critical success factor mobility. EMTRAIN is working to increase and strengthen the PPP PhDs. We aim to develop a cohort of industry-aware PhD students, with an enhanced skill set (including innovation, entrepreneurship and drug development) and to establish an interactive community thus promoting greater communication and mutual support. Key Words: Public Private Partnership PhDs, EMTRAIN PhD students are the new generation of scientists. They are enthusiastic, innovative and question traditional wisdom all of these are essential for the future of science. They create the new ideas, which need to be nurtured in a green-house until we know which ones will grow. Naturally the employers have an interest in the quality of the PhD students. The employers that I represent are the Pharmaceutical Industry. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associates (EFPIA) was very conscious of the issues facing biomedical research in Europe and partnered with the EU commission to address them. The partnership is called the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) and is the largest public-private partnership in biomedical science in Europe. The IMI projects are designed to address issues in safety, efficacy, knowledge management and education and training. It is the education and training pillar which addresses the requirements for PhD students. S17

18 The European Medicines Research Training Network (EMTRAIN) focuses on strengthening the pan-european community of scientists in drug development. Fostering mobility, integrating education and training and helping scientists to navigate the jungle of courses are the three main areas of activity. Building a programme for public private partnership (PPP) PhDs is part of this strategy. Why are public private partnership PhDs so important to us? The industry is increasingly looking to the academic community for partnerships/collaborations in all areas of research. Having scientists who better understand both the world of academia and the world of drug development, is essential. Therefore, quality for us includes: scientific excellence, awareness of the industry needs and the application of science, additional transferable skills (innovation, entrepreneurship and collaboration) as well as communication across this community. These elements are critically important if Europe is going to remain competitive. A recent report from Denmark on a large cohort of industrial PhD students showed clear benefits in terms of salaries and job prospects as well as benefits to the companies in terms of innovation (patents) and growth [1]. employers and National Ministries so that together we can ensure that science in Europe regains it s status. Then we can ensure that there will always be a thriving environment for future new scientists. Reference Analysis of the industrial PhD programme, Danish agency for science technology and innovation. In support of this we are increasing the number of public-private partnership PhDs by simplifying the contracts and helping companies and academia as well as by supporting the student communities with workshops and social networking. Having an agreed syllabus for courses also helps us to understand what the PhD graduates can do and this transparency is a part of the quality we are looking for. However, it doesn t stop there. We are looking to map the benefits of these interventions and drive life-long learning to ensure that our scientists continue to develop their professional competency. Another way in which EMTRAIN can support the scientific community is to provide a simple, onestop-shop for all Masters, PhD and Continuing Professional Development courses. This will be achieved by the on-course catalogue/resource centre which will be launched this summer. Finally, we are looking to bring together the scientific community, the academic community, the S18

19 Türk Biyokimya Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Biochemistry Turk J Biochem] 2011; 36 (1); EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE Published date 27 April, 2011 Standards for PhD Education in Pharmacology in the UK. Nicolas J Goulding 1, Annie Geraghty 2 Corresponding author: Nicolas J Goulding 1 1 William Harvey Research Institute, Barts & the London, Queen Mary University of London UK and 2 The British Pharmacological Society, UK. Abstract The British Pharmacological Society undertook a study to discover the views of UK pharmacologists on joining current initiatives for the harmonization of PhD education across Europe. This was achieved by a survey of the membership and subsequent triangulation by interview and the convening of a London Workshop on PhD Standards in Pharmacology in April Consensus with the ORPHEUS position was achieved for many aspects of the PhD process, including its central focus on research, three year duration and outcomes for careers in research. Significant differences were revealed in admission requirements, the extent of formalized teaching programmes and types of assessment. UK institutions would continue to offer PhD places for three year Bachelor level qualifications whilst the European standard calls for three year Bachelor plus two year Master s entry criteria. ORPHEUS calls for up to 6 months of formalized taught courses during the three year PhD. In the UK this is significantly less. The UK monographic thesis and viva voce examination with an internal and external examiner was preferred to the European model of published scientific articles and full review of the literature assessed by committee with iteration and public defense. This study highlights the need for continued and amplified discussion and cross-fertilization between UK and European institutions in order to influence future UK and European policy makers in doctoral education and ensure the future success of biomedical research across Europe. Key Words: PhD standards, pharmacology, biomedical research Introduction The award of the PhD degree has been operational in the United Kingdom since 1917, when Oxford University instigated the first doctoral DPhil degree by research [1]. This degree standard was ratified by major UK universities in 1918 at the only national consensus meeting on the PhD to be held in the UK. London University did not accept this consensus until The inception of the UK PhD was war and market-driven. Before 1917, students from within the British Empire and the United States of America in search of research experience tended to migrate to German universities to be awarded a PhD which had gained research kudos. UK and US universities accepted the PhD standard in order to prevent a significant exodus of students to Europe. Whilst this might be perceived as a negative reason, the introduction of doctoral programmes was hugely successful and the ensuing century has seen the maturation and widespread acceptable of the PhD as the Gold Standard qualification for a career in research. S19

20 Since its inception, higher education institutions in the United Kingdom have maintained responsibility for developing their own PhD format and regulations. Despite minor variations, there is a remarkable consistency between UK universities in the academic format required for the award for a PhD degree; the style of the PhD thesis and the process by which PhD examinations are conducted [2].. Universities in the UK are often categorized into two camps: those who received a Royal Charter prior to 1992; the traditional universities and the so-called new post-1992 universities previously known as polytechnics, running courses of a more vocational nature. Whilst these distinctions are beginning to blur, comparison of PhD regulations from pre universities reveals more flexibility and less prescription than that exhibited by regulations and policies from the post-1992 universities [3]. This is a distinction can be explained by the need for newer institutions to establish standards and principles as they seek to gain reputation. The first serious attempt to provide a national framework for higher degree qualifications in the UK occurred in Before that time, attempts at improving quality standards of the PhD were driven by individual funding agencies who sought to assess value-for-money and to enhance completion rates [4]. In 2008, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) published an outline framework [5] which formulated outcomes for European Qualifications Framework (EQF) level 8 equivalent doctoral degrees and described the skills attained by holders of a PhD qualification in the broadest terms (Figure 1). Doctoral degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated: the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to: make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas or approaches. And holders will have: the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments. Figure 1: Doctoral degree outcomes and descriptors (QAA Framework for Higher Education August 2008) S20