Talmadge E. King, Jr.
Talmadge E. King, Jr.
Embedded Files
We are entering a pivotal moment for the UCSF research mission - one shaped by extraordinary scientific opportunity, rapid technological change, and shifting expectations from the communities we serve. This year's retreat brought together faculty, department chairs, institutional leaders, and outside experts to assess our collective strengths and define a shared vision for the decade ahead.
Across our conversations, we explored central questions to build resilience in an environment marked by shifting scientific, economic, and societal pressures and to continue to inspire, support, and retain the next generation of scientific leaders.
In the report below, you will find some of the key takeaways and ideas for our desired future state.
The retreat reinforced that progress requires focus. We cannot pursue every worthy idea at once. In the months ahead, my goal is to help position the School to move from broad aspirations toward concrete decisions in several areas that will matter long after my tenure concludes.
Sincerely,
Talmadge E. King, Jr., MD
Dean, School of Medicine
I: Keynote and Beyond the Bay Panelists
I: Keynote and Beyond the Bay Panelists
James B. Milliken
President, University of California
Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD
Editor-in-Chief, Journal for the American Medical Association
Andrew Bindman, MD
Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Kaiser Permanente
Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc
Director, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Elena Fuentes-Afflick, MD, MPH
Chief Scientific Officer, AAMC
Kelsey Martin, MD, PhD
Executive Vice President, Simons Foundation Autism and Neuroscience Programs
Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, MD
Former Director, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
II: Science Spotlight Talks
II: Science Spotlight Talks
III: Platforms of Innovation at UCSF
III: Platforms of Innovation at UCSF
These two examples of scientific platforms set us apart as an institution and allow us to make unique and exciting discoveries.
Why Cryo-EM at UCSF is a Game Changer
Why Cryo-EM at UCSF is a Game Changer
Data & Advanced Computing at UCSF: Turning Care into Discovery
Data & Advanced Computing at UCSF: Turning Care into Discovery
IV: Our Shared Vision
IV: Our Shared Vision
In the morning, small groups focused on our desired future state.
UCSF’s future of research is excellence driven by purpose. Bold, principled, and original thinking will fuel discovery and deliver real-world impact. Visionary, connected teams will integrate research, care, and community to advance sustainable innovation—breaking silos and accelerating transformative discoveries that improve lives locally and nationally.
How should UCSF change while maintaining what makes us special?
What Shouldn't Change?
What Shouldn't Change?
Our Core Values
PRIDE, integrity, mission-driven
Work Style
Collaboration, collegiality, and cross-disciplinary
Research Philosophy
Innovation, bench-to-bedside, curiosity, independence
Investment in and Support of Our People
Next Generation, mentorship, training pipeline
Excellence and Impact
Equity, clinical excellence, focus on community
What Should Change?
What Should Change?
Operational Efficiency
Reduce administrative burden, streamline compliance, and eliminate defunct or redundant processes so we can focus on mission-driven work.
Modernization of Systems
Move away from "old, dated models," embrace AI for research/operations, and improve data accessibility.
Resource Management and Strategic Partnerships
Improve access to core resources, optimize space, and direct funding and philanthropy toward research. Lower hurdles for industry collaboration.
Silos and Fragmentation
Structural and cultural separation limits impact. Create integration across research, clinical, and operational domains. Break down department silos and shift from "individualism" toward teamwork.
Leadership & Governance
Enhance succession planning and improve governance clarity and accountability.
V: Designing the Future of Research
V: Designing the Future of Research
Afternoon small groups met to surface high stakes questions, make the risks of inaction visible, compare them to the risks of change, and identify possible experiments to inform next steps.
Should the research enterprise grow? If yes, how?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we continue to allow research to grow organically based on the availability of funding?
What One Change should we consider?
Hiring should be based on availability of resources (hard money, space, mentorship, housing, sustainability).
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Hiring only when dollars and space are secured.
What commitments should departments be required to make to support faculty with NIH career development (K) awards?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we continue to leave K award support largely discretionary at the department level?
What One Change should we consider?
Develop community standards (best practices) for K awardees
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Develop task force with current K scholars and chairs; paid at rank/step; standards that do not disincentivize K applicants from being submitted; standardize 50% - 75%
How should we address funding gaps, particularly for researchers who need to consider changes in their portfolio due to new federal funding priorities? Or if/when paylines significantly decrease? Or major admin delays (e.g. federal shutdown)?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we allow our research focus and scope to be set by extramural funding priorities?
What One Change should we consider?
Redesign the SOM Bridge Funding Program
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Conduct a research Landscape Analysis which will teach us what has been lost and where we might need to supplement with Bridge Funding or other support.
Should we create new programs or continue programs to promote the diversity of our faculty (across all dimensions, including demographics, discipline and scientific focus)?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we do not proactively monitor and invest in programs to ensure diversity of our people and research agenda?
What One Change should we consider?
Be strategic, bolder (double down) to expand pathway programs and activities (recruitment and retention) to support faculty and programs.
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
We must strategically expand our pathway programs and resources within legal frameworks to fiercely advocate and operationalize diversity across all career stages (especially those at highest risk) countering current administrative threats to our mission; eg add Watson scholars for retention to supporting specific topics and all different stages of careers.
Should we have a different approach to shared resources (e.g. statisticians, data sets, AI core, etc.) to maximize the impact of SOM and unit investments in them?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we allow individual researchers or units to invest in their own resources based on their available funding?
What One Change should we consider?
Create a UCSF data repository to support more efficient and integrated discovery (internal and external data); Embed AI collaborators rather than consultative model/pay as you go; Subsidize access to shared services for early/under resourced researchers.
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Community of data science to deepen collaboration, increase access, and improve service awareness
Should we recruit researchers without providing on-going continuous salary support (e.g. state FTE, endowed chair, etc.)?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we allow for fully soft money positions in the current federal funding environment?
What One Change should we consider?
Optimization of FTEs and other sources of hard money – voluntary relinquishing/transfer of hard funds/state funds to support recruitment and retention
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Survey chairs and other campuses: how can we make emeritus more appealing? Create mechanism to motivate FTE release for successful faculty
What policies and activities should be prioritized to create a positive, supportive research environment that catalyzes innovation and collaboration?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we continue to rely on departments and graduate programs to ensure community, culture and connectivity?
What One Change should we consider?
Expand co-lab concept and associated incentives for collaboration
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Expand co-lab concept and associated incentives for collaboration via challenges grant RFP; space and funding to support and include involvement of students and staff scientists
What do we need to change to increase success with non-federal funding sources (e.g. industry, philanthropy)?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we do not change and invest in a strategy to increase non-federal funding?
What One Change should we consider?
Create robust systems/supports for non-NIH funding: foundations, contracts, government, industry, philanthropy
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Pilot in an NIH-heavy research group the provision of mentorship/resources to apply for non-federal funding; provide some bridge funding as contingency plan. In addition, cultivate opportunities with foundations to distribute funds on their behalf internal mechanisms for funding to investigators.
Should we set overarching scientific domains for SOM focus and centralized investment (including recruitment/retention of faculty)?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we allow all researchers and departments to set their own research agenda (the proverbial “letting a thousand flowers bloom”)?
What is the Next Move we could test?
Create collaborative infrastructure and improve bi-directional communication about our research.
Should we build a new administrative model that would increase efficiency and reduce cost? Could we restructure administration and leverage AI to create more shared resources across departments?
Status Quo Conversation: What happens if we continue to operate in our current decentralized administrative structure (e.g. post-award, finance, etc)?
What One Change should we consider?
Utilize AI to improve change management and administrative functions, processes, and communications.
What is the Next Move we could test to make this One Change?
Create campus-wide task force regarding utilizing AI to improve change management, administrative functions/processes and communication. Task force should consider: educational framework, system limitations, how to ensure constant review and updates, administrative functions and processes to incorporate, how to design metrics to capture efficiencies gained, how to validate data, etc.
VI: What Happens Next
VI: What Happens Next
The outcomes from our afternoon sessions will be reviewed by the Dean's leadership team in May, and some tactics will be scoped under the SOM Strategic Plan. Other discussions will be cataloged for when we need to make decisions based on future landscape changes.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse