There was strong support
for the concept of a pan-European post-graduate training programme
in pharmaceutical sciences from delegates at a recent workshop organised
by CMR International. This was just one of several recommendations
to emerge after wide ranging discussions within syndicate groups.
Held in conjunction with EUFEPS, The European Federation for Pharmaceutical
Sciences, this joint workshop provided an opportunity for university
and industry representatives to address the perceived 'shortfall'
in the skills of graduates relative to the needs of industry.
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
»
Back
to Index
Background to meeting
Prof. Malcolm Rowland (University of Manchester, UK) opened the
proceedings by providing a background to EUFEPS, the only pan-European
body to represent the interests of pharmaceutical sciences in industry,
academia, government and other bodies. He described the survey conducted
by EUFEPS in 1997 that had highlighted an apparent gap between the
graduate output of universities and industry's requirements. The
two-day workshop had therefore been convened to assess whether the
gap is real and, if so, to identify underlying reasons and possible
solutions. Held at the Oatlands Park Hotel in Weybridge, Surrey
(UK) on May 22nd-23rd 2000, the workshop attracted over 40 participants
from a dozen different countries.
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
»
Back
to Index
The challenge to industry
Dr George Mooney (Pfizer Central Research, Europe) articulated the
challenges faced by an industry where significant growth over the
past two decades has increased demand for graduates in science and
engineering who also are creative, good problem solvers and able
to work in multi-disciplinary teams. In trying to tackle these challenges
he emphasised the need for a 'partnership' that includes not only
industry and academia but also government. These three bodies have
both synergistic and diverging interests in scientific education.
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
Pharmaceutical R&D has changed dramatically in the past 15 years
and evolution is certain to continue. The industry now finds it
difficult to recruit staff with appropriate skills particularly
in new areas such as combinatorial chemistry and pharmacoepidemiology.
The challenge comes from dealing with the balance between education
in basic science, and training in the emerging areas of science
and technology.
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
On the education-training continuum, industry should recognise what
it most values from academia, while universities must question their
ability to fulfil their traditional role in the face of current
rates of adoption of new sciences and technology. Dr Mooney concluded
that while disciplinary excellence is vital, multi-disciplinary
programmes are going to be increasingly important.
»
Back
to Index
Problems faced by academia
In identifying and addressing the needs of the pharmaceutical industry,
academia faces a multitude of problems and challenges. The increasing
need for efficiency in pharmaceutical R&D, the emergence of pharmacogenomics
and pharmacoproteomics, the challenge to cure rather than just treat
diseases, and the changing face of the industry, were some of the
issues outlined by Prof. Douwe Breimer (University of Leiden, The
Netherlands).
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
Prof. Breimer suggested that the traditional disciplines, such as
pharmacokinetics or medicinal chemistry, should not be studied in
isolation. Disciplines per se are a major stumbling block, even
in emerging areas such as biotechnology, bioinformatics or in silico
technologies, and a multi-disciplinary approach is called for.
Greater breadth of study, development of interpersonal skills, use
of computers and refinement of communication skills were among the
many modifications suggested by Prof. Breimer to prepare pharmaceutical
scientists for the 21st century. He proposed a future model of harmonised
academic education in the EU, based on research institutes that
are able to take account of the scientific environment while developing
strategic alliances within and between universities, and with the
pharmaceutical industry.
(Clic on the figure to see it in full scale)
»
Back
to Index
Brain storming begins
Following these informative presentations, Dr Leo de Leede (Yamanouchi
Europe BV, The Netherlands) outlined the objectives for the first
syndicate sessions, during which participants were divided into
industry or academic groups. Each group was asked to 'brainstorm'
in order to identify, characterise and thereafter prioritise the
training issues faced by industry. From these initial, fairly brief
sessions, a number of key questions emerged:
- Is the problem structural;
if so, how can it be resolved? (e.g. 'organisational' problems
in academia, barriers between disciplines).
- Is the content right;
are the right things being taught? (e.g. balance between 'hard'
and 'soft' skills; balance between learning in academia vs. on
the job).
- Is the output from
academia relevant; for today and for the future? (e.g. what, if
anything, is 'wrong' with current academic output; what (if any)
changes are needed?).
- Is there an appropriate
level of commitment; from government, academia and industry? (e.g.
what level of involvement is wanted by industry; to what extent
is it willing to help: with money, time, lecturers, students,
placements, lobbying government?).
- How can training needs
of industry be met; now and in the future? (e.g. the view of industy's
needs is unclear (both current and future); should academia respond
to perceived needs?)
»
Back
to Index
Into the melting pot
At this point the five syndicate groups were reconfigured so that
each contained a mixture of representatives from both industry and
academia. One question from the above list was assigned to each
individual group; the members were charged with producing recommendations
as to how the issues might be addressed and outlining proposals
as to how those recommendations might be taken forward. The process
for doing this was described by Dr Cyndy Lumley (CMR International,
UK). Far ranging discussions ensued, ably led by the chairmen of
each group. Such syndicate sessions provide a unique opportunity
for the delegates to learn from each other and to build on their
own experience and perceptions. It falls to the rapporteur within
each group to capture the essence of these discussions and to report
back to the assembled delegates at the end of the workshop.
»
Back
to Index
Key points from the discussions
Protectionism within academia is a potential barrier to opening
up the disciplines. This might be overcome by greater use of modular
undergraduate teaching based on inter-disciplinary matrix management
similar to that used in the pharmaceutical industry, according to
the group considering structural issues. However, the group stressed
the need for teaching based on research, and acknowledged the need
for specialisation within institutions, and the maintenance of institutional
'corporate' identity.
Market research is needed to help quantify the 'shortfall' in graduates
and post-graduates. To enable industry to articulate its future
professional training needs, an industry wide survey of human resources
departments and recruitment agencies was proposed.
For undergraduate courses, universities are best able to teach the
building blocks but they must maintain an awareness of modern technologies.
The group debating content advocated more interactive teaching to
introduce some 'soft skills' to undergraduates, through the use
of tutorials and the like. Several people called for government
involvement in the promotion of science to the public to attract
more students into these disciplines.
It is at the post-graduate level where industry can best be involved.
There are considerable opportunities for input from industry through
organising courses, allowing site visits and providing lecturers.
The importance of skills relevant to employment, personal development
and the need for life-long learning were topics touched on by several
groups. A greater understanding of industry's needs in these areas
might be achieved through more student placements within industry,
increasing numbers of special/adjunct professors, and the introduction
into PhD courses of specific modules on 'soft skills' (e.g. communication,
report writing, team working, chairing meetings).
There were similar proposals for establishing some sort of 'Masters'
level qualification in pharmaceutical sciences that could be modular
in nature, and gained through study at more than one institution.
The ideal would be taught in one language, in partnership with industry
and result in pan-European certification (accreditation).
As a first step towards achieving such post-graduate qualification
and encouraging an ongoing commitment from industry, it would be
useful to compile a list (available at a web site) of relevant training
courses that are currently available across Europe. Such courses
could be updated/improved and new courses devised as necessary.
Interaction between industry and academia needs to increase in order
to achieve a 'win/win' situation for these partners. The group considering
relevance proposed collecting and examining models of best practices
for academic/industry interaction, to help move the process forward.
The financial implications of increased collaboration between industry
and academia were debated. Funding from industry for strategic alliances
is unlikely to be forthcoming until the business case has been established.
To establish centres of excellence throughout Europe funding might
be sought through the Commission's EU/RTD Framework Programme. Industry
was called upon to influence governments at a senior level to encourage
an overall more realistic funding of academia.
»
Back
to Index
Proposals and recommendations
In the final session of the workshop, under the chairmanship of
Prof. Stuart Walker (CMR International), the syndicate groups' discussions
were summarised by the rapporteurs, debated and then prioritised.
The following represents the overall proposals and recommendations:
- Establish a European
based 'Masters course in drug development'.
- Provide a mechanism
for gaining 'transferable' academic credit across Europe. Universities
would work together to provide components for a modular (post-graduate)
degree. Standard fees and money for mobility should be considered.
Proposals to be made through the Commission's EU/RTD Framework
Programme.
- Identify and examine
best practice models for industry-academic collaboration.
- Establish a database
of post-graduate educational/training courses, of relevance to
pharmaceutical sciences, which are available throughout Europe.
This should be non-judgemental; evaluation to be possible through
access to previous students.
- Develop a co-ordinated/collaborative
structure to allow for accurate data collection on the 'shortfall'
in appropriately qualified graduates and post-graduates. This
in turn will lead to a commitment to discuss and implement solutions.
- Promote the value
of education in Europe; emphasise the strong synergy between industry
and academia in Europe.
»
Back
to Index
The next step
Both EUFEPS and CMR International will review in detail the outcomes
from this workshop and endeavour to facilitate implementation of
the recommendations.
Brenda Mullinger
Wordpower Projects
June 2000
|
|
|
Download
this document |
|
