 |
|
|
|
|
Throughout this period, there had often been discussions about whether CSHL should establish its own graduate program, but they were usually tabled because we were busy venturing into new research fields. In addition, many people quite rightly questioned whether our own program might change the nature of the Laboratory. This was a very appropriate question to ask. Eventually, however, the notion that we start a graduate school at CSHL emerged as one of the principal topics for discussion, encouraged by the Board of Trustees under the strong and enthusiastic leadership of David Luke. As a result, we embarked on a journey that, I believe, will have as much of an impact on the Laboratory as the starting of the postgraduate courses did in 1945.
CSHL has always enjoyed the ability to be flexible in its programs and not having to follow what people elsewhere have done. This key thread was woven into the plans for the new graduate program. Beginning from scratch, Winship Herr again took on a major new challenge to lead the design of a graduate program with CSHL faculty that was appropriate for the modern era of biology and that would serve us well far into the future. He also had to guide our application through the New York State Board of Regents' stringent approval process while not compromising on our desire to be innovative. In both of these, he and the Laboratory were spectacularly successful.
Incorporating the experiences of our diverse faculty who have studied in many different countries and graduate programs, the design of our graduate school took shape. Several important principles emerged that guided the thinking behind the design process and that became part of the graduate school curriculum. Many graduate students in the United States spend far too long in graduate school (up to seven years in some cases), so the program was designed to take about four to four and a half years. For the highly motivated students we expect to attract, this time frame should be more than adequate to embark on a life-long journey as a scientist. (I was fortunate to have completed a successful Ph.D. degree in three years and thus come to Cold Spring Harbor as a postdoctoral fellow having just turned 25. But I was trained well enough to appreciate all that CSHL had to offer.)
To ensure that our students can maximally benefit from the exciting environment at CSHL, we have incorporated a two-tier mentoring system. Students will have an academic mentor from the faculty, who will guide their intellectual and individual development, in addition to a research mentor to guide their thesis research. The relationship between a student and a research advisor is particularly unique and affects both people and their careers in significant ways. Indeed, it is a very special relationship that develops. But there are potential conflicts because the research advisor's research goals often have little to do with the education of a student. Moreover, the very nature of graduate thesis research focuses the student on a very narrow, albeit important problem. The addition of a second mentor for each student who will meet with and guide the student in all aspects of science should counter these possible conflicts. That mentor will guide the overall education of the student, particularly in areas of science not related to the research thesis.
Together, the student and academic mentor will discuss science and address problems that might arise. Although such discourse may also come from the research mentor (and I hope it will), the academic mentor will provide another point of view. I was aided greatly by having a marvelous thesis advisor in Alan Bellett, but also a second mentor, Ban Younghusband, who gave me the good advice to come to CSHL from Australia, against the advice of others. Ban urged me to come here because we got to know each other very well, and he therefore knew what would be good for my future. He turned out to be right.
The shorter training period necessitates a way of teaching that is more intense and different from what many graduate programs use, where students spend one to one and a half years in formal course work. It is my observation that following this, students often think that they do not have to continue to learn about science outside their thesis field. But those who take this attitude are doomed to mediocre science.
The innovative curriculum of the new school was designed to teach students in an initial 14-week course how to learn, think, and expand their own horizons. By exposing students to what they need to know in the first semester, we do not expect them to become experts in all subjects. Rather, we expect that the course will open doors and that they will then seek out more information on their own, with their mentors' guidance. To reinforce the concept of continuing education, short courses over the entire four years of the program will provide opportunities for students to learn about new areas, particularly taking advantage of the CSHL advanced courses. There, scientists do not become instant experts in the field taught in a course, but they are exposed to what is currently possible, enabling them to continue the learning process when they return to their own laboratories.
The graduate program involves a significant commitment on behalf of our faculty and the students, so we have initially limited student numbers to approximately five per year. But the small number will also allow us to address other important aspects of the program. First, because we seek high-quality students who will bring a vital energy to the program, recruiting must be highly selective. Second, so as to not have a negative impact on the current research budget, we will endow the graduate school with sufficient funds so that every student will have a guaranteed stipend, in addition to coverage of research costs and other expenses. This will have the added advantage that the students will have more flexibility in selecting the topics for their thesis research because they will not have to rely solely on funds from research grants that have other aims.
There was an obvious choice for the name of the school. Jim Watson has made pioneering contributions to research and to CSHL, but he has also made many significant contributions to education. As a teacher at Harvard, he developed perhaps the most influential textbook in modern biology, Molecular Biology of the Gene. This book greatly influenced later texts, including the popular Molecular Biology of the Cell, which Jim also helped write. He was a driving force in the establishment of the DNA Learning Center and its programs, and greatly expanded the postgraduate courses at CSHL during his tenure as director. Jim has been uncompromising on quality, innovation, and enthusiasm as a leader in education. I was therefore most pleased that when David Luke and I asked Jim whether we might name the school the Watson School of Biological Sciences, he said yes, although somewhat reluctantly.
None of this would be possible if it had not been for the dedication and very hard work of Winship Herr. He has guided the development of the curriculum, organized the faculty, and set a high standard for the graduate school. The Laboratory owes him a great debt. It is therefore most appropriate that Winship was named the first Dean of the Watson School of Biological Sciences at the November meeting of the Board of trustees.
|