Medical School officials expressed their disapproval yesterday of recently approved changes to the process of evaluating the progress of faculty on the University’s research track. The officials contend it hinders researchers’ ability to get funding and grants.

At yesterday’s Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs meeting, Margaret Gyetko, Medical School assistant dean for faculty affairs, and Nicholas Lukacs, Medical School assistant dean for research faculty and pathology professor, argued against changes to the Medical School’s research faculty tracks that were approved last semester.

These changes, set to take effect this fall, were meant to provide for more uniform review of faculty members across disciplines. They included alterations to the titles of certain research faculty, new lengths of time allotted for review of research professors and changes to the timeframe of the tenure process for those faculty members.

According to an article in the University Record in November 2008, the policy changes affect 691 researchers at the University, 301 of whom are in the Medical School.

Gyetko said the ability to compare professors on different research tracks — something that isn’t a part of the upcoming changes — is important because the Medical School has such a large faculty of 2,200 members.

“We have three tracks,” Gyetko said. “So in order to retain the quality across the tracks, it’s a matter of policy in the Medical School in which ranks are comparable across the tracks.”

Gyetko and Lukacs said they also want to give assistant research professors more opportunities to be evaluated for promotions.

In addition, Gyetko and Lukacs said they want to change the assistant research professor title because it currently limits a person’s ability to get research grants.

Gyetko explained that the current title causes companies providing research funding to question the institution's commitment to the faculty member.

After Gyetko and Lukacs disapproved of the new changes, Michael Thouless, SACUA vice chair and Engineering professor, disagreed with their sentiments.

SACUA Chair David Potter questioned the deans’ proposed changes to the faculty track policies on the grounds that by making all research titles comparable, they would also be eligible for regular rates in raises.

Thouless also said research professors with different levels of standing should not have the same title.

“It seems to me that this proposed rule for (the Office of the Vice President for Research) is (that) you’re going to call a professor that is everything equal,” Thouless said. “If they’re not equal, then there’s this other rank. You can’t have someone who’s not equal; then there’s something else you can call them. This application is the same thing it should be. If people are equal, then they should have equal titling.”

Gyetko also expressed opposition to another part of the policy that would require assistant research professors to be reviewed by an external source after six years of employment at the Medical School. She said this practice would make it appear as if the University could not review its own faculty.

But Thouless said the external review is important.

“I’m a bit puzzled by the fact that you’re saying someone after six years has to at least be reviewed by someone from outside the Medical School, why that’s punitive,” he said.