Founded in Gainesville, Fla., in 1992, McKnight is a university-wide research institute that brings in millions of dollars a year via grants and philanthropic donations, and includes a $60-million, 210,000-sf building that opened in 1998. The building contains some of the most sophisticated research equipment in the world— much of it unique— Luttge stresses that the Institute is not defined or constrained by the building.

"Everyone fixates on the building," says Luttge, "but the Institute isn't a place. It's a hypothetical construct."

Luttge's job is to seek out anyone at the University who can contribute to the study of neuroscience— biologists, engineers, physicists, and mathematicians. He encourages them to think of each other as partners in a greater effort and not as members of exclusive clubs.

"Neuroscience is by nature interdisciplinary," says Luttge. "But other fields of study could have done the same thing. We at the Brain Institute think this is the way universities ought to be run.

"Former President John Lombardi said he wanted the University of Florida to truly be a uni-versity, not a multi-versity," he continues. The current president shares that same goal.

Luttge warns that this kind of a radical concept frequently meets with immediate resistance, starting with complaints about a lack of space and funding.

"Most universities or large organizations are locked into their history," he explains. "They have an entrenched reliance on the historical basis for allocation of those resources. A lack of vision and mission, and a lack of goals, can hamper a university from breaking with traditional space allocation methods."

Overcoming those hurdles requires a clear strategic plan that outlines financial benefits, and a strong leader with the authority to champion the project and the courage to see it through. The benefits are clear at the Brain Institute: University-wide collaboration allows researchers and teachers to pool their considerable intellectual and financial resources, resulting in world-class teaching, groundbreaking research, and cutting-edge product development.

Years in the Making

In 1988, the University of Florida's College of Medicine created a task force to study the feasibility of a university-wide brain institute. In 1991, the College of Medicine and its associated hospital began a separate strategic planning process to address concerns about managed care, which they feared could drastically alter the landscape of medical practice and research. They conducted the first of many SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, threat) studies, which identified the neurosciences as the greatest strength of the College, in part because the brain institute task force had been working together for three years and was operating under a clearly defined mission statement. That finding by the SWOT study boosted the formation of the Brain Institute, which was formally approved by the University in 1992.

Coincidentally, that same year, the Department of Defense advertised that it was offering an $18-million grant to construct a research and teaching facility. Winning that grant became the fledgling Institute's first short-term goal. Throughout the process it has been important for the Institute to establish short-term goals that maintain people's interest and faith in the project while they pursue long-term objectives.

Under the terms of the grant, the University had to contribute $39 million, a testament to its faith in the experimental Institute. From the outset it was critical for Luttge to get upper-level University support for the Institute's mission, and to get it in writing. He also needed the support of the state legislature because the University of Florida is a public institution.

"The people who bought into the idea initially might not be there when the chips are down," says Luttge. "There is a constant turnover of upper-level administration. As new people come on board, it needs to be clear what we are trying to accomplish."

Breaking with Tradition

The Brain Institute defies entrenched academic tradition in both organization and operating philosophy.

The Institute, in a way, floats within the typical university organization. As executive director, Luttge reports to the vice president of health affairs, who reports directly to the University president while receiving input from an external advisory board. On the same level as the vice president of health affairs are the provost, who is in charge of teaching, and the vice president of research.

As in a typical university, all faculty associated with the Institute report to their department chairs, who report to the deans. For many of these researchers the Institute is responsible for at least part of their salary. However these researchers and all other Institute faculty are strongly encouraged to cover these financial obligations with extramural grants. Unlike traditional academic departments, the deans and chairs do not control the space at the Institute where research is conducted. Initially, losing control of the space their faculty uses was difficult for some administrators.

"The space in that building and all the resources are controlled through my office, and we're charged with getting everybody to work together," says Luttge. "I continuously work with the chairs and the deans reinforcing the need for cooperation."

The traditional academic departments benefit from their association with the Institute because it brings in money from the state general fund, grants and contracts, philanthropy, patient fees from the veterinary clinic, and income from patents generated by its researchers. The Institute uses the money for faculty and staff salaries, administrative operating expenses, equipment purchases, and grants for faculty research.

The Institute is in a unique position to use the money it raises. Money raised by a traditional department or college typically comes with strings attached and cannot be used for any other discipline, a practice which contributes to the isolation of researchers. By definition, the Institution is a collaborative effort, so it can raise money and distribute it to researchers working together across departments.

"Health sciences historically brought in more grant money than anybody else at the University and could basically dictate fund distribution," says Luttge, a former chairman of the neuroscience department. "However, I have seen the value of having engineers, mathematicians, chemists, and physicists be a part of the research process as well."

That inclusiveness is one of the many ways the Institute is of the university, not at it, he says.

Luttge expects faculty to compete for the Institute's resources. The ones with the most compelling research, who can bring in the most outside funding, are most likely to be housed in the Institute's coveted building. It is the Institute's stated desire to breed a business-like, bottom-line-oriented, competitive spirit among researchers, a goal that is almost heresy in academia.

"We want to facilitate quality, not equality, of individuals and programs," he says. "The equal distribution of resources— civil service mentality— mediocrity.”

While traditional academic departments are never abolished, Institute programs can be dissolved if they fail to perform.

The "old reality" also does not generate the kind of tangible results the Institute demands. The Institute even goes so far as to help sponsor courses in starting new businesses and acquiring patents for new discoveries.

"Academics can study things for 50 years," says Luttge. "The public is demanding usable products and useful outcomes in a timely manner. Ours is a corporately organized institute where the product is the bottom line. We are oriented toward practical goals, and many traditional faculty just don't think that way. They need to accept the new reality that we expect them to interact with industry."

Faculty associated with the Institute must not only get their products and findings to the public, they also need to generate new sources of funding for the Institute.

"I spend a lot of time going out trying to raise money from donors," says Luttge. "I encourage all faculty in the Institute to understand that this is part of their job, too."

Results

The Institute already has reaped significant rewards for its collaborative efforts. For example, the Institute recently completed the world's first safety-feasibility trial working with embryonic tissue to treat a specific spinal cord injury.

"This study required a wide array of experts ranging from basic biological sciences to neurosurgeons and neurologists, physical therapists, and imaging experts," says Luttge. "The funding was varied, as well, with money coming from the Veteran's Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and private donors.

"As we look to the future, we are convinced that the McKnight Brain Institute will facilitate many dramatic medical advances by aiding in the discovery and clinical translation of basic neuroscience advances ranging from stem cell biology to brain-machine-interface devices," he concludes.

By Lisa Wesel