Co-Locating Clinical and Research Space Makes Sense

“To go after some of these larger grants, you need ample contiguous research space as opposed to the fragmented space that we have,” says Hess.

Pathology plays an increasingly important role in biomedical research, and is a field driven by technology and bioinformatics, particularly in the current trend of “personalized medicine.”

Pathology labs also treat patients directly, and will likely become involved in stem-cell therapies in the near future, he says. In large medical centers, they typically bring in tens of millions of dollars and are one of the largest revenue sources for hospitals.

As the field grows, the competition will increase to attract the best academic pathologists from a limited pool. Developing an innovative pathology institute will assist in recruiting as the University expands its research programs in molecular oncology, informatics, and new diagnostic technologies. Hess anticipates hiring 10 to 15 new research faculty and 10 more clinical faculty, and has created a new division in pathology informatics and translational pathology. This expansion will help reduce the $6 million per year the department spends sending specimens elsewhere for diagnostic analysis.

There are many reasons to co-locate clinical and research space, says Hess. The pathology department conducts five million tests a year in the clinical laboratories and about 75,000 biopsies. Transporting specimens over long distances increases turnaround time, operating cost, and the risk that specimens could be lost or damaged in transit.

“Specimens can come right out of the operating room, into our tissue banks, and we don’t have to juggle the logistics of an offsite location,” says Hess.

In addition, pathologists require many face-to-face meetings with clinicians, as well as interactions with other departments, and a lot of time is wasted walking between facilities. Collocating R&D functions with diagnostic clinicians will facilitate the development of new diagnostic tests and increase the efficiency of clinical scientists.

One initial concern was that bringing all these disciplines together would create a silo within the University, but Hess argues that the opposite is true.

“We have many interactions with other clinical departments, both diagnostically and in our research programs,” he says. “Some of our researchers will stay affiliated with their current programs or departments. For example, it makes sense for a renal developmental biologist to be next to the nephrologists.”

On the administrative side, many members of the pathology faculty have leadership roles in the University which necessitate their frequent presence on campus.

“A big concern for our own department was that if our faculty are too isolated, too fragmented, that would be hard on morale and would hinder our ability to hire the kind of people we want.”

In the long run, developing an innovative environment will increase the visibility of the University of Michigan and better position it to compete for the best faculty.

–LW