Parnassus Heights Planning

January 5, 2000

RESEARCH SPACE AT PARNASSUS HEIGHTS:

Implementation of the Ganem/Jaffe Plan

As the Ganem/ Jaffe report correctly emphasized, research space at Parnassus Heights is one of our most precious commodities. If we are to remain at the forefront of disease-related research, UCSF must use this space wisely and with carefully chosen priorities. Moreover, because space is scarce and many of our programs cut across the boundaries of schools and departments, decisions about research space at Parnassus Heights must be made on a campus-wide basis. Allocation of research space at Parnassus Heights thus needs to be made by a process that incorporates the best judgement of the campus about the use of its resources, that reflects the scientific priorities of the campus, and that is respectful of the differing scientific missions and interests of the four schools.

The plan proposed for space allocation in the Ganem/Jaffe report embodied three key principles: that released space at Parnassus Heights be held by the Chancellor; that it be used for programmatic development; and that the research faculty play a major role in its allocation. This memorandum proposes a method of implementing these goals in a context that makes clear the ultimate responsibility of the campus administrative leadership for research space.

According to this plan, all space released at Parnassus Heights by the Mission Bay development will be held by the Chancellor. The Chancellor will retain 25% for discretionary purposes, to be used for assignment to the schools for needs outside overall campus program development. The remainder of the space would be assigned to a Parnassus Heights Research Space Committee for allocation to specific groups or programs which would formally apply to the committee for space. The committee would be chaired by the Vice Chancellor of Research, with a faculty co-chair, and would also have as members, the Associate Deans of Research or their equivalents from each of the four schools, the Chair of the Committee on Research of the Academic Senate, and eight faculty members, chosen for their scientific breadth and judgement, for their wisdom, and for their statesman-like (i.e.non-partisan) qualities.

The committee would carry out three functions:

1. Monitoring space during the period before final decisions about Mission Bay are made. With staff help from the Office of Research Development, and the Planning Office, the committee will identify space that is likely to be vacated by faculty members moving to Mission Bay, and will update and track it during the interim period. Inevitably, the limited amount of space made available by Phase One of Mission Bay means that there will be negotiation with the different groups about how much space will be released and where the space should be located. This function would be carried out by the Vice Chancellor for Research, with the advice of the Parnassus Heights Space Committee.
2. Oversee rearrangements that are made possible by the released space. The developments at Mission Bay not only offer the possibility of developing new programs, but also of rearranging and consolidating existing programs to enhance their effectiveness. Some of these rearrangements may involve new space; others would simply represent reconfigurations with little or no net change in space. All rearrangements that involve released space would be overseen by the Parnassus Heights Space Committee, who would consider and approve any suggestions that were made.

3. The main charge of the group will be the allocation of space, as it became available, to new or established research programs for development. The allocation would be made in response to specific competitive proposals. The criteria for allocation of space to a program would include its scientific timeliness and excellence and its advancement of one or more research priorities chosen by the campus. The committee will have to be especially sensitive to new, unanticipated possibilities that arise, and to exciting research that may be against current fashion. It will also have to balance the urgency of developing new programs and hiring new faculty against the natural desire of those who are here to expand current research space.

One concern that has been raised is the question of how departments or schools can meet urgent clinical, teaching or leadership needs involving faculty whose research may not fit the programmatic aims of the campus. Such proposals could be brought before the committee to be judged in the context of research, but if unsuccessful, could appeal to the Chancellor for assignment from his discretionary allotment. In exceptional circumstances, the Chancellor could also recall space from the Committee for this purpose.

One important question is "ownership" of the space that is committed for program development. The Space Committee would be charged with developing a recommendation that will be discussed with department chairs in each of the schools and with the Academic Senate before implementation.

Finally, the mechanism outlined above will apply only to space released by Phase I of Mission Bay. In 2005, or before if necessary, the success of the mechanisms described here would be reviewed, and decisions about future allocation of space be made at that time.

Zach W. Hall, Ph.D.

Vice Chancellor, Research