To accomplish these objectives, planning efforts for the new Institute for Translational Research (ITR) have focused more on long-term trends in science, technology, and funding, and less on the current practices of researchers who hope to occupy the building. Mount Sinai has also looked back to its most recent science facility, the East Building, with the intention of learning from experience.

"Science and technology are now changing at a speed that makes the design and construction of research facilities seem a speculative venture," says Kimberly Wright, director of Space Planning and Management for Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "The East Building was state-of-the-art when we broke ground in 1993, but by the time we began to occupy it in 1997, we had already moved beyond what we had designed. We needed to ask 'Why?' before going ahead and building another one."

Planning Process Pinpoints Trends

In 1998, under the direction of a new dean, Dr. Arthur Rubenstein, MSSM began an 18-month strategic planning process, using outside consultants to solicit input from nearly everyone in the School of Medicine. Hundreds of people worked on dozens of committees exploring everything from the research and educational missions to clinical practice and organizational and administrative issues.

The resulting document, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Strategic Plan, charts a course toward the goal of "self-sustaining excellence in education, research, and patient care" that includes the recruitment of 150 new faculty over seven years. The strategic plan also identifies translational research as the key element of a new science strategy.

According to Wright, translational research refers to the need to translate the information that comes from basic science into relevant clinical research, which then can be translated into effective patient care. It also refers to translating the needs of patients back into well-directed clinical research, which then helps direct the inquiries of basic scientists.

"Of all the areas covered by MSSM's Strategic Plan," Wright explains, "we chose translational research for particular emphasis because it provides the most substantial and immediate return, both to the institution and to society--scientifically, by effectively directing research efforts; clinically, by speeding discoveries to the bedside; and financially, by capitalizing on funding opportunities."

This kind of approach depends on complex interactions across traditional disciplinary lines, by basic scientists, clinical researchers, and physicians.

"The strategic plan recommended that while there are many ways to encourage these interactions, none is more effective than providing a facility in which they can occur in close proximity," she continues.

That facility will be the Institute for Translational Research. Its design and programming are being guided by the following scientific trends, which the strategic planning process also identified:

The rise of the computer as a research tool: The next generation of researchers will spend less time at a lab bench and more time at a computer analyzing data.

The growing importance of sophisticated imaging: Technologies like magnetic resonance and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging are large, expensive, and sensitive, requiring an investment in highly specialized infrastructure.

The post-genomic era and the rise of functional genomics: Having spent the last two decades cracking the human genome, scientists will spend the next generation trying to understand how the estimated 30,000 human genes function and how their interaction can lead to disease.

The emergence of genetically modified animal models: The new and developing ability to genetically design the animals used in research has greatly increased the need for specialized containment facilities.

The increasing appreciation of outcomes research: "We are spending more and more money on medical research, and we need to know that the powerful discoveries made in the laboratory and tested in animals can ultimately be turned into effective therapies and delivered to the populations who need them," says Wright.

The increasing role of community medicine and public policy: As the science of medicine continues to advance, schools of medicine must continue to address the disparity between what can be done and what is actually done, and for whom.

The movement toward integrated research: In delineating its research priorities for fiscal year 2000, the NIH specifically included "interdisciplinary research that brings together scientists from chemistry, physics, engineering, computer sciences, and the basic and clinical fields; and epidemiologic research."

Importance of "Sit-Down" Space

One of the most significant new directions in scientific research is the growing importance of computers, Wright says. The development of computing power has opened brand-new avenues of research, like the genome project, which have in turn generated huge volumes of complex data.

As a result, lab design needs to change. Laboratories can no longer be exclusively wet labs filled with high benches, test tubes, and Bunsen burners. With so much scientific inquiry being done electronically, labs need to include low benches where investigators can sit down and analyze their data.

The ratio of high to low bench space in Mount Sinai's new building reflects the increased need for seating. The ITR labs will contain one sit-down space for every six feet of high bench, and the casework will be movable and height-adjustable so that the ratio can be changed as needed. Sinks will be centrally located and connected to umbilicals, so that wet benches can be easily converted to dry space.

In contrast, the East Building labs contain one sit-down space for every eight feet of high bench with fixed casework enclosing permanent sinks. This configuration makes it expensive and disruptive to convert wet space to dry, and has become an obstacle to keeping pace with the changing needs of researchers.

Sit-down space is now considered so important to the future of scientific inquiry that fully one- third of the lab floors in the ITR will be dry space, where biostatisticians and biomathematicians, among others, will do most of their work on computers.

Neighborhoods Promote Interaction

The need for improved interaction among scientists influenced another significant design feature: the research neighborhood. The lab floors in the ITR will be grouped into three such neighborhoods, each consisting of one dry bench floor sandwiched between wet bench floors above and below, all connected by a three-story atrium. The centrally located dry floors will include shared conference space, pantries, and libraries.

This set-up is more expensive than bunching all the wet labs together, because the services are not consolidated and the ventilation requirements are more complex, Wright says. The pay-off is in what happens when scientists from different disciplines run into each other.

"One researcher told me that her last great collaborative idea came while waiting with a colleague for an elevator," Wright explains. "We want to design for that kind of serendipity."

A New Process

Wright also points out that the experience with the East Building helped the team working on the ITR to design a different kind of process.

"The East Building had been programmed using input from the groups expected to occupy the building," Wright says. "But by the time the building was completed, priorities had shifted so far that only half of those groups actually moved in."

In contrast, planning for the ITR has avoided allocating space to any specific program.

"We populated our planning committees with junior faculty and with recruits recently arrived from other prestigious institutions," Wright continues. "And we found that the discussions were less encumbered by departmental and disciplinary boundaries, benefitting from outside information and new perspectives."

Need for Flexibility

Another shortcoming of the East Building that influenced the new process was its barrier facility, a series of quarantined spaces for pathogen-free animals, each with its own air supply and HEPA filter. Once an animal leaves the barrier, it cannot return because it is no longer considered pathogen-free. The East Building was designed with 20,000 sf of rodent barrier housing, which was more than adequate.

It still is. The problem is that many neuroscientists now in the building want to work with primates, or do a kind of work that breaks the barrier, bringing their subjects to a behavioral lab or imaging core and then returning them to their cages.

The problem arose because initially neuroscientists were not among those expected to occupy the building, so they had no input into the design.

"It's another example of why we're not designing for any specific research projects," Wright says. "Too many things can change."

The ITR will devote 36,000 sf to house both rodents and large animals in an area that includes surgical facilities and space for behavioral studies. It will also be adjacent to the imaging lab. Most importantly, it will be designed with a flexible barrier, so that both specific pathogen-free and conventional animals can be accommodated, and their ratio can shift depending on the needs of researchers.

The ITR will also dispense with racetrack corridors, the donut-shaped hallways that connect offices and labs in the East Building. Replacing them will be linear equipment rooms, which will provide centralized access to freezers, centrifuges, etc. The equipment rooms will also increase the total number of net assignable sf per floor.

"An empty corridor is a waste of space," Wright says.

Mount Sinai completed ITR programming and site selection in April 2001. Plans call for schematic design to begin shortly and for construction to be completed in 2005.

By Lisa Wesel

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894