Looking at it one way, I was on the ground floor of what later became known as Information Technology. Indeed, my office as Director of Faculty and Research Resources was on the first floor of the main building for Baylor College of Medicine. My multiple tasks included the administration of all appointments to the faculty of the College, both regular and clinical, as well as with the management associated with research grants, beginning with the College’s official sign-off on all applications for external financial support and continuing through the coordination of various committees relating to faculty and research matters. Since I kept track of all of the College’s research and faculty, I could say I helped formulate the concept of information technology within the institution.
In order for a chairman to appoint someone to the department’s faculty, my signature was required in lieu of that of the President of the College or, later, the Dean for the Medical School. As with any growing academic institution, BCM kept modifying its organizational structure to meet changing conditions. Although I remained associated with the Office of the President, my immediate supervisor varied with my title of the moment.
Most of the time, I observed no problem with departmental requests for appointments to the faculty of the College. On rare occasion, I was puzzled with the applicant’s background qualifications relative to the rank to which the department wanted to appoint the person. My brief discussions with the chairman resulted with my appreciation for the action, or with a slight modification in titles bearing limiting conditions such as “Research, Clinical, Adjunct or Visiting.”
On my own delegated authority from the President, I could approve appointments at the level of Instructor or Assistant Professor. I had identical authority for all appointments with the modifying notation of “Research, Clinical, Adjunct or Visiting,” e.g., Research Associate Professor or Clinical Professor. However, for full appointments at the tenured level of Associate Professor or Professor, I had to coordinate a review by the Faculty Appointments and Promotions Committee, composed of selected departmental chairmen and senior faculty, which made its recommendations to the President for his approval.
In order to clarify the appointment process, I found it necessary to write a Faculty Handbook outlining the requirements and responsibilities associated with each type of appointment. At the time, the College had some 1,400 full-time, 100 part-time and 2,000 voluntary (Clinical) faculty. I also had oversight for the appointment of some 300 postdoctoral fellows. Many of these fellows were foreign nationals. Fortunately, a separate Office of International Services, for which I had oversight, handled their visa problems and offered other assistance they needed.
I also had oversight for a Faculty Records Office which managed all of the routine paperwork associated with an appointment. Additional information about each faculty member was retained in a computerized program I developed and maintained for this purpose. Each year, I prepared a Faculty Roster identifying all of our members as well as summary statistics for the College. As part of this overview, I designed a “flow chart” for each department to how its members advanced through the levels of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, beginning with their appointment to the faculty and completing with their departure for a new place. My training as a biochemist interested in metabolic pathways apparently had an entertaining result with regard to faculty pathways and the life of academic departments as organisms.
What I did for the organization of faculty appointments was replicated in what I did concerning the research in which they were engaged. Since my signature was required for every grant application seeking external support, it seemed logical for me to scan each proposal for its content – what the investigator intended to do and how much it would cost. I assigned “keywords” to each document and recorded all of the relevant information in my own Paradox-based data system.
It was not long before it was recognized I knew something about most of the research being conducted by the faculty and was able to respond to inquiries about their interests. Each year, I published a Grants Registry and Projects Thesaurus, summarizing the data showing who was doing what and their level of funding from all of the agencies providing financial support for these studies.
Another source for providing information about the research and clinical studies undertaken by the faculty was the annual Faculty Bibliography. Although I, personally, did the review and data capture for faculty appointments and research applications, I had a professional assistant in charge of the Bibliography. She obtained reprints from faculty members and inputted the information needed for the publication of this document. Those complaining about our omission of their own publications had only themselves to blame for not providing a copy to us for inclusion. I continued to be bemused by those who miss being included as a result of failing to participate in a process in which they had disdained any interest – until it affected them, directly.
Being able to support nascent research was among my favorite roles in administration. In my final position within the NIH, I had a responsibility for policies involving the Biomedical Research Support Grant providing institutional funds to medical schools and universities. Now I was the Principal Investigator for the BRSG awarded to BCM. Twice a year, I chaired the Faculty Research Committee which reviewed internal applications for modest support to initiate biological research. I enjoyed being able to help young investigators, directly. I also enjoyed helping them develop the fiscal and administrative components of their grant applications for external funding. It may be better to-give-rather-than-to-receive, but asking for support does have its own merits.
Biological research, especially in a medical school, often involves human subjects or animal models. The welfare of both types of subjects was of high concern to investigators, to fiscal supporters, and to the general public. All protocols involving human subjects had to be reviewed by a faculty committee to assure that ethical procedures were to be followed. Twice a month, our Human Subjects Review Committee met to exam every application in which such participation occurred. Fortunately, unlike the similar committee at the University of Massachusetts, I was not the chairman. At BCM, I served as the administrative liaison member and, later, affirmed, when I countersigned each application, that this review had been made and appropriate informed consent was included in the study.
A similar condition prevailed for the Animal Studies Review Committee, which I had chaired at Umass but here at Baylor was chaired by a member of the faculty involved with animal studies. Fortunately, the BCM Animal Care Facility with its nonhuman primate section did not have any problems with PETA or the public, in general. I admit I did not attend as many sessions of either the Human Subjects or the Animal Care committees as I might have; other professional events kept me well occupied.
Ultimately my role in research administration was taken over by a member of the faculty who was a clinical investigator and held an M.D. degree. This newly designated Vice President for Research, with his tenfold increased staff, now managed the efforts in which I, alone, had been engaged. As the College developed an expanded interest in maintaining computerized information and the establishment of a multi-staffed IT office, my own personalized system was set aside. Nevertheless, I remained as the Director of Faculty Appointments throughout the remainder of my career with BCM.