  |
 |
 |
Aging and Psychiatric Research Group Review(Group Director:Masao Ito; four laboratories in the group) |
|
| The Review Committee met from May 13 through May 15, 2003. It was comprised of 12 members and chaired by Prof. Steven Hyman (Harvard University, Provost). They recommended that all four laboratories continue for the next term of 5 years. The review report includes the following general comments: |
|
 |
Riken is to be congratulated for addressing the very important problems of aging and of psychiatric disorders. Research on Alzheimer's disease (AD) and psychiatric disorders are critical both for Japan and for the world. Within the area of psychiatry the areas of genetics and molecular approaches to pathogenesis are forward looking and position Japanese science to be at the cutting edge of psychiatric research. |
|
One path to a group leader with expertise in the areas of Aging and Psychiatric Research would be the addition of a fifth group, if space permits. A senior leader might be found in important and complementary areas. |
|
We recognize that there was less interaction than one would expect between the two Alzheimer's disease groups and between the two psychiatry groups. Although stronger intellectual collaborations would be ideal, at a minimum, sharing around the use of technologies such as chips or bioinformatics expertise would be important. Especially since budgets are somewhat constrained and space is limited, collaboration and better use of shared core facilities is highly encouraged. We might suggest that the group director have some funds to create incentives for joint ventures. |
|
We recognize that space is currently limiting, but it is clear that the areas of Alzheimer's disease and molecular psychiatry are both important. It was also clear that the two halves of the Aging and Psychiatric Research Group have little to do with each other. Riken might, in the long run, consider splitting the aging and psychiatry labs to form the basis of two new groups. |
|
We would encourage stronger interactions with the Riken Genome Center in Yokohama given the interests of these groups in human genetics and microarray analyses. It appears that only one of the groups currently collaborates with this Center. |
|
The review committee is concerned about the ad hoc nature of clinical interactions for all four groups. Riken should work to lower boundaries for interaction with clinics for human genetics and other work. |
|
Sophisticated expertise with behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice was in short supply. An effort should be made to increase expertise in behavioral science. |
|
The quality of the oral presentations by the lab heads was very high and the written materials provided beforehand were quite useful to the review committee. The posters that were displayed as part of the lab visit were very much appreciated by the reviewers, but it was clear that some of the younger scientists had difficulty communicating in English. We recommend that English training for the scientists be strengthened. |
|
|
|
Senior Scientist Review |
|
| The Review Committee met on June 23 and 24, 2003. It was comprised of 12 members and chaired by Prof. Eric Shooter (Stanford University). They recommended that all seven Senior Scientists continue for the next term of 5 years. The review report includes the following general comments: |
|
|
The greatest limitation in the growth and productivity of the Senior Scientists is probably the constraint of extremely limited space for their research programs. One possibility that the administration might consider adopting is a policy of flexible allocation of space, especially at the transition between a Senior Scientist and a Laboratory Head. The current policy appears to be a roughly four-fold increase in space at this point, and, while clearly appropriate in some cases, some additional net space might be gained by a smaller increase in other cases. Moreover, it might also be useful to periodically review space allocation for all laboratories at the BSI to ensure maximal utilization of this valuable and limited resource. |
|
The current policy of the program is that a Senior Scientist position is available for a period of 5 years, with the opportunity of renewal for another 5 years. The possibility occasionally exists for a Senior Scientist to become a Laboratory Head, depending upon both the availability of such a position and the merits of the Senior Scientist relative to the pool of candidates for the position. This inevitably will mean that many of the Senior Scientists will have to search for a position outside of the BSI at the end of their 10-year term. We feel it is imperative to provide adequate advice to all Senior Scientists about their future after they leave the BSI, especially given the current status of reduced funding for neuroscience research throughout Japan. A corollary of this observation is that the administration might carefully monitor the total number of Senior Scientist positions to minimize the competition for the limited number of Laboratory Head positions. |
|
In some cases the cost of animals can be truly problematic. Especially for the users of transgenic mice, these costs can absorb a considerable amount of the total annual research budget of a laboratory. We recommend a flexible policy of incremental financial support in these instances, to be determined on a case by case basis. |
|
In some cases the start-up costs of a laboratory can be excessive. While these costs can often be offset by the availability of excellent core facilities, in other cases the need for specialized equipment can give rise to a significant strain on the annual budget of a newly formed laboratory. As above, we recommend a flexible policy of incremental financial support in these instances. |
|
We found that the overall structure of our two-day visit to be quite effective. However, we found that the ability to spend time with the individual scientists in their laboratories to be highly productive. Thus we suggest that, for future reviews, more time be allocated to this valuable aspect of the review process. In addition, we suggest that the formal presentations be reduced a bit in their duration to allow for a more prolonged question and answer period. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
