Eberly College of Science Strategic Plan 2002-2005

Building on Success: Living on the Slope

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Our Heritage

Recent Progress

External Environment

Internal Challenges

Looking Forward

Resource Request

Goals

Executive Summary

The last decade has been an extraordinary time for science. Major accomplishments include dramatic advances in the understanding of living systems, including the mapping of the human genome, rapidly growing ability to probe and manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular scale, and major advances in understanding the structure and history of the universe. In addition, science and technology have had a major and increasing role in enhancing the economic strength of the nation, advancing health care, and improving other aspects of the human condition.

The last decade has also been an extraordinary time for the Eberly College of Science. In the last several years, the college has surged in activity, accomplishment, and recognition. New courses and new methods of teaching and learning have been developed, new educational programs have been put in place, improvements in diversity and climate have been achieved, the college’s numerous and multifaceted outreach programs have been expanded, and research activity has exploded, with a 50% increase in sponsored program funding in the college in the last three years and an 80% increase in five years.

The rapid increase in activity and in the quality and stature of programs and departments in the college has enhanced undergraduate and graduate programs, boosted the quality and impact of the research programs, and greatly increased our visibility among academic institutions and in the state, national, and international media. We have been able to hire and retain some of the most promising faculty in the nation because of the strong increase in reputation and the expectation that the college and the University will continue in their commitment to build top programs.

To guide the Eberly College of Science in its drive to excel in meeting its responsibilities in teaching, research, and outreach, we have adopted the following broad goals:

The impact of these goals and the challenges inherent in them are elucidated in the strategies developed for achieving the goals. A key element of the strategies is focusing on the people of the college and striving to make the Eberly College of Science the college of choice for outstanding faculty, students, and staff.

Among the challenges facing the college as we work to attain these goals are the increasing competition we must face in attracting and retaining the very best faculty and the need to increase their numbers in order to reduce class sizes, improve student/faculty ratios, reverse the trend of increasing proportions of instructors to tenure-track faculty, take advantage of growing research opportunities, and meet the increasing demand resulting from substantially increased numbers of freshmen and sophomores at University Park. The number of academic standing faculty in the college is the same as it was two decades ago. Our situation is made more difficult by the deteriorating condition of some of our buildings and facilities – the McAllister Building is in a critical situation, there are major problems with Osmond Laboratory, and other facilities are not up to standards for modern research and teaching.

In order to meet these challenges, we will continue and increase our efforts to raise private funds, to find efficiencies in our operations, and to make tough choices about the distribution of resources within the college. However, continuing progress is not possible without additional core resources. Even maintenance of the present position is not possible without additional resources. We are benefiting from “living on the slope,” from the widely-held perception that we are moving up, but the slope is slippery and standing still is not an option.

To support and continue this progress over the next three years, we request:

Research and teaching of the highest quality in the physical and mathematical sciences must continue to be a top priority for Penn State. In addition, with the explosion of research opportunities and the evolution of federal funding priorities, increased strength in the life sciences is essential for the future of the University. Any university that wants to place itself among the top research universities in the coming decades must be positioned to play a leading role in the life sciences, and strength in the basic sciences is a major and indispensable part of building a vigorous life science research program. Additional investment in the Eberly College of Science is essential to sustaining and building on strengths in the physical sciences and to continue developing a flourishing University effort in the life sciences.

---

---

Introduction

The past several years have been a period of truly remarkable growth in aspiration and accomplishment in the Eberly College of Science. New courses and new methods of teaching and learning have been developed, new educational programs have been put in place, improvements in diversity and climate have been achieved, the college’s numerous and multifaceted outreach programs have expanded, and research activity has exploded, with external grant and contract support rising 50% in the last three years and 80% in five years. This upsurge is continuing; just over halfway through the academic year 2001-02, support received for sponsored programs in the college is running 20.4% ahead of that received in the same period of 2000-2001.

The college has great momentum. We have outstanding faculty – including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, six members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, four Fellows of the Royal Society (UK), and eleven of the University’s twenty-one Evan Pugh professors. We have very strong departments and programs throughout the college – a Department of Chemistry in the top 20 in the country and aiming toward the top 10 (where it already is by some measures), Departments of Physics and of Astronomy and Astrophysics dramatically moving forward and poised to move into the top ranks of American departments, a strong Department of Mathematics, a Department of Statistics among the top 20, strong Departments of Biology and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and many outstanding programs in areas across the college. If we can find ways to sustain our success and build in important areas, the Eberly College of Science has the potential to become one of the premier centers of education and research in the basic sciences.

To achieve this potential, we must sustain and build on the present momentum by finding ways to address some critical issues, including serious problems with some facilities, increasing demands for teaching, and increasing competition in attracting and retaining outstanding faculty. We must continue to build on our strengths and invest in opportunities. We must reaffirm the University’s commitment to the life sciences and accelerate our investments, making good choices about areas where we need additional strength and areas of particular opportunity; we must invest in other areas of growing importance, such as computational science; and we must build on our strengths in key areas like nanoscience.

In this plan, we identify the need for significant investments by the University in the college, and we point out the tremendous opportunity for the University presented by investment in the college. We ask for a phasing in of that investment. In particular we ask for an increase of 10% in the college’s permanent budget over the next three years in addition to the increases necessary for raises for continuing faculty and staff. These may not be the easiest times for new resources, but the time of need is now, and the time of opportunity is now.

The booming success of the college has more than strained the available resources. The stronger we become, the more activity we have, and the more we attract outstanding people, the more resources it takes to support the new level of activity and accomplishment. We already make tough choices about distribution of resources among disciplines and programs in the college, and we are moving support toward areas of opportunity. That we have no weak or non-essential departments is a two-edged sword. We are fortunate to be a college of strong and essential departments, but we have no Peter to rob on behalf of Paul. Every discipline in this college is central to the research and instructional missions of any modern research university, and virtually all are essential to the success of major Penn State initiatives. For this college, the consequence of no new resources is either stagnancy followed by broad retreat or narrow progress in some essential areas using resources redirected from other essential areas. Neither of these possibilities is attractive.

As the title of this plan, “Building on Success: Living on the Slope,” suggests, the college is not in a stable position. Without new resources, the current progress is not sustainable, and even the present position cannot be maintained. In an enterprise where people are the essential resource and reputation is vital to attracting outstanding people, progress and the perception of progress become real assets. Many excellent people apply to, come to and stay in the college because of the progress we’re making. However, those assets can be quickly dissipated. If we fail to continue moving forward, if we are satisfied with where we are, we will end up with less than we have now.

Our Heritage

The Eberly College of Science has an impressive history of contributions to society through its students, faculty, and alumni. A hallmark of the college and Penn State has been to provide access and opportunity to many students, often from modest backgrounds. The impact of the college and the University on the lives of these students and through them on the world beyond has been immense. One example is Dr. Monica Morrow (B.S. Sci. ‘74), a professor of surgery at Northwestern University Medical School who was recently honored as a Penn State Alumni Fellow. She holds a joint appointment as director of the Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Program at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Dr. Morrow and her colleagues are making significant advances in the detection and treatment of breast cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer deaths among women. Another example is Morris Taradalsky (B.S. Math '70), Vice President of Engineering and Chief Technical Officer of Brocade Communications Systems, who was honored last year as an Outstanding Science Alumnus. Brocade is the world's leading provider of infrastructure for Storage Area Networks. Morris Taradalsky‘s career in information technology spans executive leadership, engineering management, product development, and information systems management and includes executive positions at IBM and Apple. These contributions are impressive, and Monica Morrow and Morris Taradalsky are just two of the more than 30,000 living alumni of the college.

Ideas, inventions and discoveries contributed by the Eberly College of Science have also had great impact. One example is the first practical synthesis of progesterone in 1937 by Chemistry Professor Russell Marker, making possible the birth control pill and a variety of hormone treatments. Marker’s work led to the naming of Penn State as an International Historic Chemical Landmark in 2000. Other notable examples are the first ability to use a microscope to see individual atoms, achieved by Physics Professor Erwin Mueller in 1955, using a field-ion microscope of his own design; and, in 1992, the first discovery of planets outside our solar system by Astronomy and Astrophysics Professor Alex Wolszczan.

Recent Progress

The history of intellectual contributions and practical ideas generated by faculty and students in the Eberly College of Science is admirable, and the future promises to be truly remarkable. The impact of the discoveries and inventions resulting from research in the college is burgeoning along with the levels of research activity. Research in the college ranges from the study of quantum gravity to investigating the origins of cancer, from the study of quasars billions of light-years away to exploring life on the bottom of the ocean, from the examination of global ecosystems to studying the basic elements of all living organisms, from proving basic theorems to making great strides in the application of mathematics and statistics to the sciences and other areas, and from the search to understand the structure of the universe to manipulating and probing single atoms and molecules.

In addition to the remarkable growth in research funding, another measure of research activity and impact is given by publication and citation data from the ISI University Science Indicators database. In 1996-2000, 6,440 papers with Penn State authors in the fields covered by the Eberly College of Science (biology and biochemistry, chemistry, mathematics, microbiology, molecular biology and genetics, physics, and space science) were published, and 43,676 citations resulted. This corresponds to a 60% increase in the numbers of papers and a 150% increase in the numbers of citations in a decade.

A sampling of the papers from the Eberly College of Science faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and students that have been featured on the covers of major scientific journals gives some perspective on the range and impact of research in the college. Among the research results that were featured on journal covers in 2001 are a report by J. G. Ferry, the Stanley Person Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and his collaborators from Penn State and Purdue in the Journal of Bacteriology on the structure of acetate kinase, an important enzyme found in bacteria; a paper in Science by Nitin Samarth, Professor of Physics, and his students in collaboration with colleagues at UCSB reporting the ability to manipulate electron spins in semiconductors using ultra-fast pulses of laser light, an advance that may provide a path to quantum computers; a paper in Nature by Assistant Professor of Biology Joseph Kiesecker and collaborators at Penn State and Oregon State reporting a direct link between global climate change and amphibian mortality; a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society by Associate Professor of Biology Blair Hedges and students at Penn State along with collaborators from Wisconsin reporting startling results on the evolutionary history and relationships of aquatic birds based on a comprehensive genetic analysis; two nanoscience papers by Professor of Chemistry Paul Weiss, one with Professor of Chemistry David Allara and colleagues at Penn State and Rice, and a third paper by Assistant Professor of Chemistry Christine Keating and collaborators were featured in Chemical and Engineering News, Chemistry Highlights 2001, and Weiss’ work on molecular rulers for scaling down nanostructures and Keating's striped metal nanorod bioassay were both featured on the cover; and a paper in Nature by Professors Niel Brandt, Eric Feigelson, and Gordon Garmire and others in the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics along with collaborators at MIT, UCLA, and Caltech describing dramatic X-ray flaring that indicates the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Examples of very recently funded or newly developing collaborative projects and centers include the Floral Genome Project, a five-year, $7.5 million, multi-institution project led by Associate Professor of Biology Claude dePamphilis and his colleagues, designed to understand the genetic basis of flowering and to develop tools for evolutionary functional genomics in plants. The Center for Molecular Nanofabrication and Devices, led by Professor of Chemistry Paul Weiss, has been established to build on and expand University strengths in the rapidly growing area of nanoscience and technology. A new effort in protein engineering, a collaboration among faculty in several departments in the Eberly College of Science and the Department of Chemical Engineering in the College of Engineering, has been given a great boost by a generous gift from Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Stephen Benkovic and Patricia Benkovic. The Statistics Department, in collaboration with Astronomy and Astrophysics, has a growing leadership role in astrostatistics, having hosted three international conferences. A recent $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation supports a multi-institution, interdisciplinary group, led by Professors Jogesh Babu (Statistics) and Eric Feigelson (Astronomy and Astrophysics), to develop statistical methodology for the National Virtual Observatory, and a Center for Astrostatistics is planned. Finally, the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, a joint project of the Departments of Physics and Astronomy and Astrophysics, led by Associate Professor of Physics Sam Finn, was recently established by a five-year, $5 million grant from the National Science Foundation as part of its Physics Frontier Center program which funds research centers with the potential for profound advances in our basic understanding of the physical world.

Several innovative projects using information technology in teaching and learning are in various stages across the college. We believe strongly in the importance of student-faculty interactions, and our goal is to use information technology in ways that enhance, rather than disrupt, those interactions. The restructuring of the introductory physics sequence for engineers and scientists has been fully implemented, and Physics 1 is now being upgraded; Statistics 200, the most popular statistics course, has been transformed from traditional lecture format to an interactive, technology-based, instructional format and the department is now engaged in restructuring its biostatistics and engineering courses; Biology 110 now makes extensive and highly successful use of web instruction modules, and web instruction is being extended to the core 200-level Biology courses; and Math 22 and 110 are in an ongoing process of transformation to computer-aided instruction. Even outside of major redesign projects, computer presentation and communication methods are changing teaching across the college. For example, over half of the 0-200 level courses in Astronomy are now given in PowerPoint or HTML, and about a third of assignment preparation and grading, as well as a large fraction of
student-faculty consultations, are carried out electronically.

With generous support from the Sloan Foundation, the Eberly College of Science is developing a portfolio of professional master’s degrees. These programs provide avenues to further training in the sciences that appeal to those who do not wish to pursue research careers with the doctorate but who want to extend their baccalaureate education to meet the needs of the scientific and technical workplace. Each of the three programs constituting our first offerings – Biotechnology, Bioanalytical Chemistry, and Applied Statistics – has been developed with substantial initial and continuing input from the industrial sectors that are likely to hire the graduates. The Applied Statistics program will be offered through the World Campus as well as through resident instruction. If our experiences with these three programs are positive, as we expect them to be, we plan to expand the offerings with programs in Industrial Mathematics and Materials Science.

Of the 9,577 pre-college students who participated this past summer in academic youth programming at University Park, 5,145 – more than half – attended one of the seven programs offered by the Eberly College of Science.

The breadth and diversity of the courses and research of the Eberly College of Science bring together individuals with a wide range of interests and talents. The strongly international character of science research and education and our welcoming of students and faculty of many different national origins have given the college significant diversity, especially among faculty and graduate students. However, in a number of ways, we do not reflect the diversity of the students and society that we serve. In one area we have made noticeable progress. The college has moved from 11% female tenured and tenure-track faculty members in 1997 to 15% in 2001. The fraction of female faculty members in the Department of Chemistry doubled (to 20%) in the last two years, and the Department now stands third in percentage of female faculty members among the fifty top research departments in the country.

The college’s outreach and public service extends from pre-college students to teachers and from businesses to the general public in the local and national communities. In calendar year 2000, 113 faculty members engaged in more than 300 outreach activities. These activities include programs for K-12 students and teachers on campus, school visitations of all sorts, programs and lectures for the public on- and off-campus, advising student organizations for middle school through college level students, programs for parents, web activities aimed at the K-12 audience, economic development activities including patenting and entrepreneurship, contributions to the Commonwealth's and the nation's industries through consulting, service in national organizations and on national boards, and numerous funded outreach activities, linked to research programs, aimed at either K-12 students or female and minority undergraduate and graduate students. One area of rapid growth is outreach to pre-college students. What began some years ago as a few summer camps has, over the past two years, developed into a highly visible presence on the academic youth camp scene. Of the 9,577 pre-college students who participated this past summer in academic youth programming at University Park, 5,145 – more than half – attended one of the seven programs offered by the Eberly College of Science. The college also has a very active Office of Public Information whose central purpose is to enhance communication with college friends and alumni and with the public. One recent press release, titled “World’s Smallest Lizard Discovered in the Caribbean,” resulted in more than 60 interviews for Associate Professor of Biology Blair Hedges, leader of the research group, and, at last count, news stories by more than 190 news organizations in 32 countries.

The striking growth in activity in teaching, research, and service in the college is dramatic testimony to the commitment and capability of the faculty, staff, and students. The growth in research is truly remarkable, and it has been achieved without any growth in the number of tenure-line faculty members. The number of academic standing faculty is the same as it was two decades ago.

External Environment

The strong growth in the college’s research programs has come in a period of mixed, but generally positive, federal support for scientific research. The decade of the 1990’s started with declining federal support for research due to an economic recession and uncertainty about the rationale for federal support of scientific research following the end of the cold war. The decade ended with a bipartisan consensus on the importance of scientific research to economic growth and to the quality of life, particularly human health. The physical sciences and engineering fared less well than the life sciences. For example, federal funding for university physics research declined by 7.4% between 1993 and 1999. Near the end of the decade, Congress put the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on a path of doubling the budget in five years, and the last two years have seen substantial increases in National Science Foundation (NSF) budgets as well.

"Science is the predominant change agency in the entire human society" — George Brown

In the past, basic science has sometimes been viewed as primarily an intellectual exercise only partially relevant to society. Science is indeed a grand intellectual challenge, and progress in science is clear testimony to human capability and determination, but it is now increasingly understood that basic science has also become the most significant driver of growth in the economy, improvements in health care, and changes in other fundamental aspects of the human condition. It is now widely agreed that science and technology have been responsible for approximately 50% of the growth in the gross domestic product over the last 30 to 40 years and for 70% of the growth in the last decade. As George Brown, the former congressman from California, asserted, “Science is the predominant change agency in the entire human society.”

The roles of those universities that contribute most significantly to the advancement of knowledge in the sciences and other disciplines sometimes seem lost in national conversations about higher education. One hundred institutions, or roughly 2.5% of the more than 4,000 institutions of higher education in the country, are responsible for three-fourths of the sponsored research. It seems likely that these same 100 institutions make the major contributions in all areas of scholarship. For the other 3,900+ institutions, teaching is the core activity, and research is significant mainly for its role in faculty development and the education of students and not for its impact on the advancement of the frontiers of knowledge.

The highly publicized criticism of institutions of higher education that was prevalent in the early 1990’s (criticism for rising costs, inappropriate priorities, inflexibility, etc.) continues somewhat, but with subdued voices. Recent surveys by the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement have shown that both the general public and American business give higher education good marks (translating to B or B+ in the opinion of those reporting the results) and view colleges and universities as performing essential functions. While criticism has declined, and recognition of the important role of higher education seems to have increased, few state legislatures have shown any commitment to maintaining low tuitions at public universities through enhanced state appropriations. This is an issue for many public universities across the country, but we are most keenly aware of this situation; Pennsylvania is 47th among the states in per capita support of public higher education.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that state budgets for higher education will grow much over the next few years. Support for Penn State from the Commonwealth has grown very modestly even in times with a remarkably good national economy. The recent economic downturn will make significant increases in state support even more unlikely; this year the University has had to return 3% of its state appropriation. If the University is to help support the college’s drive for excellence, the resources are very likely going to have to come from other sources.

The outlook for federal funding for research is much better. Just a few months ago, there were fears that the limping economy and increased attention to national security might deflect plans for continued rapid growth in the NIH budget and attempts to get the NSF budget on a path of rapid growth. However, concerns about terrorism contributed to support for basic and applied research and that, along with a continued strong bipartisan commitment to boost spending for the NIH, prompted Congress to boost federal funding for R&D with the largest percentage increase (13.5%) in 20 years to a record total of $103.7 billion. Department of Defense (DOD) research and development had the biggest gain (17.3%, including a 5.0% increase for basic research), the NIH budget increased by $3 billion (15.8%) to $22.8 billion, and the NSF budget increased by 8.4% to $3.3 billion. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) didn’t fare as well but did receive a 3.8% increase.

Trends in Federal Research by Discipline, FY 1970-2000 obligations in billions of constant FY 2001 dollars

Source: National Science Foundation Federal Funds for Research and Development FY 1999, 2000, and 2001. FY 2000 data are preliminary. Constant-dollar conversions are based on OMB's GDP deflators. Used with the permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Clearly the rapid increase in the NIH budget is continuing. This is the fourth year of increases in the range of 15%. Notice that even though the NSF received a healthy percentage increase, the NIH increase was almost equal to the total NSF budget. As the graph above makes clear, funding for the life sciences is the largest of any discipline, and it is growing at the fastest rate.

Internal Challenges

The college’s remarkable growth in research funding has not followed the national patterns. Our largest increases so far have come in the physical sciences. Principally, but not entirely because of the very large SWIFT satellite project, support from NASA has shown the largest percentage increase in the college, while NASA’s own funding has remained essentially flat. NIH awards to the college grew substantially in 2000-2001 after a small dip in the previous two years, but they grew a total of only 6% over three years – far short of the 15% per year pace of the NIH budget. The departments with the largest increases over the last five years are Astronomy, Physics, and Biology. Chemistry remains the department with the largest annual funding. The college’s current support (funds received in 2000-2001) is approximately 1/4 from the NSF, 1/4 from the NIH, 1/4 from NASA, and 1/4 from all other sources (DOE, DOD, corporate contracts, etc.).

One challenge is to solidify and build on the investments we have made in the life sciences. The hiring to date in the biological sciences supported by the college and the Life Sciences Consortium has resulted in significant progress. In some areas, such as plant biology, we have great strength that we need to sustain and build upon. In other areas, such as neuroscience, we have some excellent people, but we have not yet built a program with the coverage and critical mass to be robust and widely recognized. The gains that we have made are not secure. We need to continue the investments to the point where we have enough outstanding strengths and synergism to promote even higher levels of accomplishment.

The growth in activity and numbers of people in the college, as well as the passage of time, has led to the point where the space available to the college is clearly inadequate both in quantity and quality. The new Chemistry Building and the multi-college Life Sciences Building will be tremendous improvements. Unfortunately, they won’t solve all the problems. The McAllister Building, built in 1904 for use as a dormitory and now home of the Department of Mathematics, is in urgent need of attention. Recent concerns about the structural integrity of McAllister have necessitated the removal of large numbers of books from the Mathematics Library and have heightened long-standing concerns about a building that is in painfully obvious need of repair and refurbishment. Osmond Laboratory, which houses much of the activity in the Physics Department and is now in its 64th year of service, is in better condition than McAllister, but it has many dreary spaces and does not provide adequate facilities for modern scientific research. Piecemeal renovation of Osmond has proven to be terribly inefficient and expensive. Even some newer buildings, such as South Frear and Althouse are now 30+ years old and, while we have invested in renovations in these building, they need more attention. They are not competitive with facilities for the biological sciences at other institutions with whom we now compete for faculty.

It would be hard to overstate the significance of the problems with facilities, especially the McAllister Building. The present conditions have precipitated a real crisis in morale in the Department of Mathematics. Unless we decide upon and commit to a solution soon, the department could be seriously damaged by faculty departures.

Large class sizes are a major problem. Even with dedicated and capable teachers, introductory classes of up to nearly 1000 students and, in the biological sciences, upper-division classes of 200 or 300 students cannot provide the quality of educational experience for which we strive. We have made some progress in reducing class sizes, some through educational innovations that facilitate instruction in smaller groups and some by hiring additional instructional faculty – most notably in the biological sciences with additional instructors hired in the Departments of Biology and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with the support of the Life Sciences Consortium. However, this year has seen an increase in some class sizes in many departments, reflecting increasing numbers of freshmen and sophomores at University Park and the continuing growth in interest in the life sciences.

The University will not continue to grow strength in areas of priority and attract outstanding faculty without vibrant departments and a healthy college.

The remarkable growth in research activity and in the quality of the faculty and programs is truly wonderful, but it has brought serious challenges. As the quality and accomplishments of the faculty grow, the competition for those faculty and the level of need and expectation for salaries, facilities, and other support grows as well. In addition, opportunities for and competition for quality faculty members has grown in most disciplines. The college’s general funds budget has not grown in proportion to the demands on that budget. The college’s permanent general funds budget grew only 14% in the three-year period when external grant and contract support grew 50%. External grant support now significantly exceeds the college’s general funds budget (including fringe benefits paid from a central pool) and is growing much faster. In the last two years, the growth in general funds has been more than taken up by increases in salaries for faculty and staff. The discretionary monies in the college budget have actually decreased due to recycling to the University from University Park college budgets, while the needs for funds for startup support for new faculty, matching funds for grants, and renovations to maintain and improve our facilities have grown. The support for priority areas through the Life Sciences Consortium, the Materials Research Institute, and the Environmental Consortium has been very important, but the University will not continue to grow strength in areas of priority and attract outstanding faculty without vibrant departments and a healthy college, and the college and departments cannot sustain the present success without additional resources.

Many excellent people come to the college or remain in the college because they see the progress we’re making and choose to participate in building an outstanding scientific and educational community.

The challenges of finding adequate facilities, of meeting growing student demand for Eberly College of Science classes, and finding resources sufficient to meet the growing demands for discretionary funds are significant, but meeting these challenges is necessary. The alternative is stagnation or worse. Failure to address these issues will lead to a decline in the capability and stature of the college. If momentum is lost, maintenance of the status quo will become extremely difficult; many excellent people come to the college or remain in the college because they see the progress we’re making and choose to participate in building an outstanding scientific and educational community. If we fail to continue to move forward, if we limit our ambition for lack of resources or other reasons, we will end up with less than we have now.

Looking Forward

The last decade has been an extraordinary time for science. The accomplishments range from dramatic advances in the understanding of living systems, including the mapping of the human genome, to impressive advances in understanding the structure and history of the universe. Science and technology have also had a major and increasing role in the economic strength of the nation and in improving the quality of life. There has never been a time with as high a level of intellectual excitement and rate of advancement in science and technology. Furthermore, the rate of progress is increasing, and the present decade promises to be even more interesting and exciting.

As one of the leaders among the 2% of the institutions of higher education in the country that play a significant role in the advancement of scholarship in the sciences, Penn State has both a great opportunity to participate in this flowering of science and a profound obligation to pursue excellence in research, teaching, and outreach in the basic sciences.

The major issues of the 21st century include health, energy, food production, the environment, information, materials, security, and the impact of science and technology on individuals and society. Grand challenges in the search for knowledge include further advances in understanding the origin and fundamental structure of the universe, the origins and constitution of life, the nature of intelligence and working of the brain, science at the nanoscale, and understanding complex systems. Emerging and potential technologies and technological challenges include proteomics and beyond; molecular, quantum, and DNA computing; nano-structures, -sensors, and -electronics; and space conquest. The research and teaching programs of the Eberly College of Science speak to nearly all of these issues and, with continuing aggressive leadership from the faculty, position the college to make significant contributions. If we can find the resources to support continued growth in ambition and accomplishment, support to strengthen key areas such as the life sciences, nanoscience, and computational science, the college will emerge as a national leader in addressing major issues and finding answers to the challenges.

Resource Request

In order to meet the serious and growing needs, continue the remarkable progress, and take advantage of the great opportunities, we request a 10% increase in the college’s permanent budget, phased in over the next three years, in addition to the increases necessary for raises for continuing faculty and staff. This request is based on a convergence of serious need and exceptional opportunity. The escalating need results from growing activity in the college in both research and teaching, and the great opportunity results from the demonstrated ability of the college to hire outstanding faculty and move up dramatically in accomplishment and stature.

The discretionary budget available to the college has decreased in the last two years while demands upon that budget, driven by the growing levels of activity and accomplishment in the college, have increased. The program of Research Incentive Funds, returning to the colleges a fraction of the overhead funds generated by the research programs in the colleges, is a good program. It recognizes that many of the expenses upon which the overhead rate is based are met at the department and college level, and it provides automatic feedback of funds to help meet those expenses. Unfortunately, the level of return is not nearly high enough to cover the expenses. As a result, the present system has a built-in damper on growth in sponsored program funds and activity. Thus if we want to continue our progress, we need an increase in our permanent budget.

We also need to increase the size of the tenure-track faculty in the Eberly College of Science in order to reduce class sizes, improve student/faculty ratios, reverse the trend of increasing proportions of instructors to tenured faculty, bring in the talent needed to teach the breadth of courses which need to be offered, and meet the increasing demand resulting from substantially increased numbers of freshmen and sophomores at University Park. As we describe below under Goal 2, “Improve the range and quality of educational experiences for all students,” the nearly 25% increase over the last two years in the numbers of freshman admitted to University Park will substantially increase the teaching responsibilities in the Eberly College of Science. Since 75% of our teaching is in lower division courses, we could see as much as a 19% increase in the student credit hours taught in the college.

The deteriorating condition of some of our buildings also needs to be addressed. The McAllister Building is in very poor condition, and the empty shelves of the Mathematics Library are a constant reminder to students and faculty of the concerns about the structure of the building. The situation with the McAllister Building and the morale in the Department of Mathematics has reached a critical state. There are also major problems with Osmond Laboratory, and other facilities are not up to standards for modern research and teaching. We ask to work together with the University to decide upon and commit to solutions to the most pressing problems with the facilities in the college.

Additional investments in the Eberly College of Science are necessary to continue the wonderful progress of recent years and are key to achieving University goals. Any university that intends to be among the nation’s top research universities in the coming decades must position itself to play a leading role in the life sciences. Strength in the basic sciences is an indispensable part of a vigorous life sciences effort. Investments in the Eberly College of Science will support further development of the life sciences and sustain and enhance high quality programs in all areas of basic science.

Goals

To support further improvement in the Eberly College of Science and to guide its drive to excel in meeting its responsibilities in teaching, research, and outreach, we adopt the following goals:

Goal 1: Enhance Academic Excellence

Academic excellence is key to accomplishing the college’s mission. Commitment and integrity are requisites for academic excellence, but they do not guarantee excellence. Academic excellence requires exceptional accomplishment and impact—impact on the directions of scholarship and the development of knowledge, impact on the careers and lives of students, and through the knowledge and the students, impact on the nation.

Our efforts in teaching, research, and service work synergistically to create an outstanding scientific and educational community. Our faculty bring the newest ideas and information into the classroom because they are at the scientific forefronts of their fields; they ignite the scientific curiosity of our students by bringing them into the laboratories, by showing them the far reaches of outer space, or by teaching them our love of scientific inquiry and thirst for knowledge. Our outreach activities are popular with K-12 students and teachers because of the enthusiasm of our faculty, the relevance of their work, the exciting new discoveries they describe, and the way in which they teach the teachers. The Commonwealth and the nation benefit from the Eberly College of Science through the outreach to students, teachers, and the general public, through the quality of the graduates we produce, through the discoveries we make, through the research support we give industry, through the inventions we license, and through the companies we start.

The importance of academic excellence is not lost on the consumer. We all recognize the strong correlation between the academic reputation of an institution and the quality and numbers of applicants. A recent survey by the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement shows a concordant result. The survey sampled individuals who felt they knew their state’s institutions of higher education well enough to make an assessment. When asked for the single most important priority for colleges and universities to pursue, the two answers that stood out were: (1) attract the best faculty and (2) ensure high academic standards. These two priorities go hand-in-hand.

Goal 1, Strategy 1:
Make the ECOS the college of choice for outstanding faculty.

People are important in every enterprise, but the faculty is the university. The reputation and accomplishments of the university depend upon the faculty. The basics for building a great research university are straightforward to state—hire outstanding scholars and give them support, encouragement, and plenty of room to grow.

Goal 1, Strategy 2:
Reduce barriers to joint appointments and take advantage, when possible, of opportunities to build programs and hire faculty who can benefit more than one department.

Departments in the Eberly College of Science do not work in isolation. Each of the departments has substantial interactions with other departments in the college and the University. Still, there are additional opportunities for enhancement of research and teaching programs through expanded interactions among departments. Joint appointments are a good way of enhancing interactions and expanding the benefit of excellent faculty and research programs. A joint appointment gives more than one department the opportunity to benefit in accomplishment and reputation from the efforts of a single faculty member. Joint appointments do, however, have their challenges. Faculty members with joint appointments are expected to have a physical, social and intellectual presence in more than one department and generally are expected to contribute to teaching and service in each department. This can be stimulating, but also challenging, especially for pre-tenure faculty, who then have two departments and two sets of colleagues who will evaluate them at tenure time.

Other ways of enhancing collaborations between departments include developing more interdisciplinary courses that are co-taught by faculty members from different departments and supporting faculty to spend time in other departments interacting, writing proposals, and possibly teaching courses in their host departments.

Goal 1, Strategy 3:
Maximize our reputation through publicity, awards for faculty, and appropriate guests and speakers.

Reputation is not the goal of our continuing drive for excellence, but it is a useful and necessary tool in building great programs and departments. The reputation of the faculty, programs, and departments is fundamentally built on the quality and impact of the research accomplishments and the success of the graduates. Reputation is the coin of the realm for academic institutions. In a kind of bootstrap process, increasing reputation makes it possible to attract more excellent faculty, students, and resources, which thus allow further growth in accomplishment and reputation. We can accelerate the process a bit by working to ensure that the accomplishments of the faculty and students are recognized appropriately through publicity, awards, and the like.

Goal 1, Strategy 4:
Have external departmental reviews for all departments by 2003

We have embarked on a program of ongoing external reviews. A review of the Department of Physics was carried out in the fall of 2001. We are working on scheduling reviews in the spring of 2002 for Mathematics and Chemistry, and a simultaneous review of Biology and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology is tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2002.

 

Goal 2: Improve the range and quality of educational experiences for all students.

Goal 2, Strategy 1:
Increase the size of the faculty in the Eberly College of Science to reduce class sizes, improve student/faculty ratios, reverse the trend of increasing proportions of instructors to tenured faculty, bring in the talent needed to teach the breadth of courses that need to be offered, especially in the exploding life sciences, and meet the increasing demand resulting from substantially increased numbers of freshmen and sophomores at University Park.

The University has very recently increased the admission of freshmen to University Park in response to reductions in upper-division campus transfers. Maintaining constant enrollments at University Park by increasing freshman (and sophomore) enrollments will likely keep the total student credit hours taught at University Park roughly constant. However, the effect on the different University Park colleges is likely to be very uneven.

During the five years 1995–1999, summer/fall freshman enrollments at University Park numbered approximately 5100, with a maximum of 5424 in 1995 and a minimum of 4739 in 1996. In the 2000 admissions year, freshman enrollments increased to 5755 and, in 2001, to 6279, the latter figure representing an increase of 1177 freshmen (23%) over 1999. The target for 2002 has been set at 6,000, the upper limit of the 2001 target range of 5800-6000. We infer from this target that, for the present, freshman enrollments at UP will likely remain on a plateau on the order of 1300 students (25%) higher than in 1999. (Actual University Park enrollments during the years 1995-2001 have exceeded the upper limit of the target range by an average of 368 students/year.) The increased enrollments significantly impact classes in the Eberly College of Science, which teaches lower-division courses to large numbers of students from across University Park.

The reduction in changes of assignment from other campuses to University Park and the corresponding reductions in numbers of upper division students that should keep overall University Park student credit hour loads roughly constant will not solve the problem in the Eberly College of Science. Campus colleges currently offer a total of only four small programs in General Science, largely to non-traditional students who, before the new programs were offered, often transferred to regional schools to complete their degrees. Also, none of the reductions in campus transfers will likely occur in areas that require upper-division science courses. Engineering, with the largest numbers of students who take upper-division courses in the Eberly College of Science, offers no programs at campus locations, so there will be no reduction in the numbers of engineers who take our upper-division courses.

Of the roughly 200,000 student credit hours (SCH) that the Eberly College of Science teaches annually, more than 150,000 (75%) are at the 0-299 level. Nearly the same fraction (75%) of Eberly College of Science-delivered undergraduate instruction is offered to students outside the Eberly College of Science. Thus, demand for courses in the college should track pretty closely to total University Park freshman and sophomore enrollments. While the size of the increased teaching effort required of the Eberly College of Science will only become fully apparent after the new enrollment patterns have been in place for a few years, a reasonable estimate can be made by noting that since 75% of the Eberly College of Science teaching load is due to lower-division students, we can expect the percentage of student credit hours taught in the college to increase by the fractional increase in the freshman and sophomore students at University Park times 75%, or 0.25 x 75% = 19%.

The only assumption in the estimate above is that the additional students matriculating at University Park have the same interests and course needs as the students already on campus. A more precise prediction requires consideration of what colleges the students will likely enter and the corresponding instructional needs. (We are setting up meetings with the Registrar’s Office to address these and related questions.) While we’ll know a lot more about the parameters in the steady state (if there is one) when the class matriculating in 2001 has passed into its last semester and 4-5 years of experience with enhanced enrollments have been gained, we cannot wait to see what the steady state is before addressing the problem. With an average of 47 students per class, the Eberly College of Science is already ranked 3rd in the university in section size (after Business and IST), almost 25% greater than the average at University Park. We had been working to reduce class sizes in the college before the increases in freshman and sophomore enrollments.

If there is significantly increased demand for laboratory courses, the needed increases will likely go beyond instructional effort. Since some of the instructional laboratories are already running from early morning to late in the evening, additional students will require the addition of instructional laboratory space and equipment.

Full participation in a true learning community provides our students with the maximum benefit of an education at a research university.

We also need to address how the additional instructional demands can be best met. Our only realistic short-term option is to hire additional fixed-term faculty and teaching assistants. This is the quickest and least expensive solution, and it’s already happening. Our fixed-term faculty members are generally dedicated and capable teachers; some are among the most talented teachers in the college. They are an essential part of the mix in our efforts to provide the best possible educational experiences with limited resources. However, addressing all new enrollment demands with fixed-term faculty is not the right solution for the long term, as it will reduce the role of the tenure-track faculty in classroom instruction. The natural integration of teaching and learning – researchers teaching and students carrying out research – offers the best possible educational experience. Full participation in a true learning community provides our students with the maximum benefit of an education at a research university.

It is important to know that our departments start with a significant handicap in the size of the tenure-track faculty relative to nearly all departments at comparable institutions. For example, our Department of Physics, with 32 faculty members, is much smaller than the average size, 49, of the other Big 10 public universities with separate astronomy and physics departments. Chemistry, with 30 faculty members, is 7 below the average of other Big 10 public universities, and in the biological sciences we are more than 20 faculty members below the average of the other Big 10 public universities.

Goal 2, Strategy 2:
Increase the number and kinds of educational opportunities.

• Increase undergraduate research opportunities.

“Students educated in a research environment develop a lifelong curiosity and outlook from which they continue to benefit, whatever their chosen fields.” - Frank H. T. Rhodes, President Emeritus, Cornell University

The Eberly College of Science is proud of the research opportunities offered to its undergraduate students. For example, a 1996 external review of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics stated that the department had the best undergraduate research program ever encountered by the reviewers. These research experiences are often major formative experiences where the students integrate and apply classroom learning in a different and challenging environment. On the order of 40% of Eberly College of Science juniors and seniors participate in research.

Undergraduates are considered a natural part of research teams in the college, and many of these research efforts lead to publications in major scientific journals. For example, undergraduates working with Assistant Professor of Mathematics Andrew Belmonte contributed experimental results which led to a Physical Review Letters publication on the self-tying of knots in a swinging mechanical chain. The results reported in the paper were featured in a Nature Science Update.

Many undergraduate research opportunities are supported by sponsored program and departmental funds. We also make maximum use of the President’s Fund for Undergraduate Research and supplement it with college funds to maximize the numbers of opportunities. Virtually all students in the physical and mathematical sciences who express a real interest in doing research are given the opportunity. We are, however, unable to meet the huge demand in the biological sciences. Our future strategies for addressing this problem are to add additional faculty members, who are needed in the classroom as well, and to involve more fixed-term faculty, both instructional and research faculty, in mentoring undergraduate research.

This effort aligns with another goal – to help with the national problem of insufficient numbers of minority graduate students and faculty members. We will further encourage minority students to participate in undergraduate research experiences, and we will track the students to see where they go after finishing their baccalaureate degrees.

• Partner with other Penn State colleges and other educational institutions to provide a wide range of educational opportunities.

We have already developed a joint, accelerated B.S./M.D. program with the Jefferson Medical School in Philadelphia, the longest continuously running program of its type in the nation, and an accelerated Science/MBA program with the Smeal College of Business. We have also expended a great deal of effort over the past 5-6 years in assisting Penn State campus colleges in developing their own versions of the General Science major and in assisting in the development of new programs for which there are no analogs at University Park (e.g., a nanotechnology program at Berks). Over the last few years, we have lent our fiscal support to science faculty at the campuses (regardless of the location of their tenure) who wish to attend and present papers at research conferences, and we have recently begun making teaching laboratory equipment, equipment that has been replaced in our Eberly College of Science teaching laboratories through our process of regular upgrades, available to campus colleges. The initial response to this program has been very enthusiastic.

• Continue the development and introduction of professional masters degrees.

As mentioned earlier, the Eberly College of Science expects to expand its current Professional Master’s Degree portfolio to include new programs in Industrial Mathematics and Materials Sciences and will continue to look for other opportunities.

• Enhance opportunities for international educational experiences.

The college has been very aggressive in seeking out opportunities for international study. We have developed the so-called British Science Exchange which has generated close affiliations with the Universities of Leeds, Glasgow, Sussex, Essex, Bath, Wales (Aberystwyth), and Lancaster. We have very close relations with the Universities of Marburg in Germany and Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg, France. We are in the midst of developing a relationship with Concordia University in Montreal, an anglophone institution in a francophone culture and location. In a slightly different vein, we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with King Mongkutt’s University of Technology at Thonburi (Thailand), chiefly for the purpose of aiding this rapidly emerging institution in a rapidly emerging nation in the development of doctoral programs in the sciences.

Goal 2, Strategy 3:
Ensure that courses and sections are available when students need them.

• Continue to ensure that students from across the University have access to the courses in the Eberly College of Science that they need and want.

• Work to ensure that our majors have the appropriate advanced courses available when they need them for their educational programs.

Across the college, we do a reasonable job of making the necessary courses available to majors, but there are challenges, and we should do better. A recent visiting committee pointed out that majors in Physics do not always have elective courses available at the appropriate time in their program. Advanced courses in Biology and Statistics frequently have too many students (as many as 200 to 300) for proper instruction at that level. The problems arise because the number of faculty members is insufficient to meet all the demand.

Goal 2, Strategy 4:
Improve student advising.

The Eberly College of Science has taken a leadership role in the assessment of academic advising. We are piloting an evaluation process that the Division of Undergraduate Studies hopes to extend to other colleges. In June, 1997, the "Report of the Eberly College of Science Committee on Undergraduate Advising" was issued. That report laid down 6 advising goals for the college, viz., that students will understand: a) their interests and abilities; b) the relevant Penn State policies and procedures; c) the relevant Penn State academic environments; d) the relationships between student abilities/interests and Penn State expectations; e) the academic standards of post-degree activities, and f) the relationships between academic credentials and post-degree activities. In spring, 1999, a joint committee comprising Eberly College of Science and Division of Undergraduate Studies faculty and professional advisors was formed and charged with developing an instrument to assess the extent to which each of the 6 goals had been achieved. The committee's first activity was to formulate design goals that the assessment instrument would follow. These turned out to be: to assess the Eberly College of Science advising goals; to provide useable feedback to the college and its constituent departments/programs; to enable students to examine their own behavior toward advising; to be deliverable via WEB technology; eventually to be integrated into CAAIS, and; to be modified for use by the entire University. The prototype assessment instrument was piloted with Biology students, and the final instrument was reviewed and approved by the Eberly College of Science Deans Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee. Assessments were conducted at the ends of the spring 1999 and spring 2000 semesters. The second assessment focused only on first year students in the Eberly College of Science. Results of both college-wide assessments as well as department reports were shared with the relevant departments. The Eberly College of Science Enrollment and Retention Planning Committee is currently engaged in an ongoing process of determining areas of strengths and weakness from these studies and bringing these to the attention of the relevant departments. Future studies will assess the extent to which departmental weaknesses have been successfully addressed and will suggest further action.

Goal 2, Strategy 5:
Improve teaching and learning in the college through sharing of ongoing instructional innovations and support for further innovations.

• Seek private funding to establish and support a Center for Excellence in Science Education. This center, requiring about $100,000/year in funding, will build on the enthusiasm and innovations of some of our most talented teachers. Activities of the center will include promotion and sharing of new ideas and methods in teaching as well as evaluations of learning in different contexts.

There are many innovations in teaching and learning being developed in departments across the college. The Center would support and reinforce those efforts and ensure sharing of successes throughout the college. While we have been reluctant to add another center for teaching and learning to the several around the University, we are now persuaded that a Center for Excellence in Science Education in the college would support innovation and progress in ways that the other centers and consortia do not.

• Continue to share ideas and best practices through the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee, though retreats funded by the associate dean, and through interaction with the Teaching and Learning Consortium.

• Support and expand e-learning in the college. Continue to create instruction modules for Bio 110, 220, 223, 240; aim to have a web course management site for every course; create web materials for General Education courses including active learning and collaborative learning elements; etc.

• Offering of courses and programs through the World Campus can provide departments with academic opportunities and fiscal benefits, but, in spite of college efforts to encourage participation, our involvement remains very limited. It is difficult for tenure-track faculty members, already heavily committed, to find the time to develop courses for the World Campus. To address this situation, we proposed the concept of Outreach Fellows, teaching-postdocs whose appointments would be split between the World Campus and the host department and whose activities would include supporting the development and offering of World Campus courses and teaching within the department, perhaps of the same courses offered via the World Campus.

Goal 2, Strategy 6:
Work to increase the diversity of our students.

[For a complete discussion of the current programs relating to recruitment and retention of minority students in the Eberly College of Science, see the college’s December 2001 Progress Report on the Framework to Foster Diversity.]

To enhance the educational experience of all of our students, the diversity of our students, faculty, and staff should be increased. Greater diversity will help bring greater understanding and respect for others from different backgrounds, and greater diversity will increase the comfort level and retention of minority group individuals. Greater diversity will allow the college to continue to increase its impact on the nation. A recent report by the Business-Higher Education Forum says that the trend of African-Americans and Hispanics earning fewer degrees proportionately could lead to a dearth of skilled workers. Eighty percent of the growth in the traditional college-age population between now and 2015 will be non-white.

Climate in the college is important for retention and graduation rates of all of our students, but particularly for minority students and faculty. Therefore, we’ve created a separate strategy below that specifically addresses one aspect of the climate in the college for minority individuals.

The programs and targeted activities described here will be continued and/or initiated during the period of this plan.

• We will continue our current programs and activities, under the direction of our Director of Science Diversity Initiatives, aimed at recruiting and retaining minority students. These are described in our December 2001 Progress Report on the Framework to Foster Diversity.


• Our success in recruitment and retention of minority graduate students varies by department. We will bring our departmental graduate student recruitment leaders together annually in the late spring to share best practices, successes, and failures and to give our Director of Diversity Initiatives a chance to share information, to learn, and to interact with the group. We will ask the Director of Diversity Initiatives to share information from this annual meeting with the College Executive Committee.


• Competitive fellowship packages are essential to success in recruiting minority graduate students. We will seek additional funding to enhance our graduate fellowship offerings for minority students.


• Research has shown that an undergraduate research experience is a key determiner in encouraging students to pursue graduate studies. To increase the number of our minority undergraduates who go on to graduate school, we will look for ways, including additional funding, to enhance the number of undergraduate research opportunities available for our minority students.


• Develop creative means of increasing the number of role models for women and minority individuals in the college. This year the college initiated a program aimed at bringing role models for students of color and female students through our college. Dean Larson has offered to pay half the expenses for any prominent scientist of color or prominent female scientist who is brought in to be a colloquium speaker. He is also offering to pay an additional honorarium to these guests if they will give a lecture to one of our large undergraduate classes. This practice will be continued if success is demonstrated this year, and other ideas will be solicited.


• We will renew and establish relationships with several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and encourage our departments to accept graduate candidates whom the HBCUs feel will be successful in our programs. Other colleges have seen that a record of success for students from the HBCUs encourages even better qualified students from the same institutions to apply in subsequent years, and we are hopeful of similar success.


• We will look for ways to enhance exposure of promising, minority high school students to the outreach programs