The April 26, 2007, issue of Nature (446: 7139) features an editorial entitled: “The university of the future.” The article discusses the traditional model of the U.S. research university and states that the “bedrock of each university is a system of discipline-specific departments.”  

The author questions if a department-based structure is relevant to the way that contemporary scientific research is conducted.  He/she argues that despite years of encouragement to adopt interdisciplinary collaboration, the department-based structure of the university is essentially at odds with such collaboration.

Further, the argument is advanced that in the U.S., where most things are highly fluid, academic departments and the fields covered by them have been unchanged for many years.

Reading this editorial caused me to think about the administrative structure in CAFNR.  Have we remained static in the face of a changing research environment?  Do we look the same today as we did 25 years ago?  Are we positioned to respond to the types of research initiatives that are being funded nationally?

In 1982, the College of Agriculture had a department-based structure with 16 traditional departments. Each awarded degrees and was led by a Chair with budgetary responsibility. The majority of research was funded through the Agricultural Experiment Station, and each faculty member with a research appointment was expected to have his/her own experiment station project; a one-person/one-project model. What has happened since then? Plenty.

• Dean Roger Mitchell, working with the state legislature, established the Food for the 21st Century Program (F21C) in 1984. This forward-looking research program used a new line of state funding to build “clusters” of excellence around research themes such as plant biology, animal reproductive physiology and nutritional science. Membership in a cluster was defined by disciplinary expertise, not departmental affiliation. The F21C clusters remain to this day and form the basis of some of MU’s nationally prominent programs.
• The name of the College was changed to reflect a broadened vision that included food and natural resources. Today, our range of programs has expanded beyond the traditional agricultural disciplines to include biological engineering, hotel and restaurant management, tourism and more.
• On July 1, 1989, the College structure was changed from department-based to one built around Units (now Divisions). Resources were distributed from the College to the Units, rather than to departments. The goal was to enhance the efficient investment of resources across a broad group of programs and faculty. The initial reaction of most faculty (including me) was to resist the change. Today, three of our divisions retain departments within their structure, three do not. The Division of Plant Sciences took the bold move in 2005 to discontinue department designations and function as a unified faculty. The goal was to enhance the interactions among the diverse faculty and disciplines to position the division as a leader in plant sciences on campus and nationally. 
• We have seen a proliferation of centers and institutes in the College. Among them are the Food and Agricultural Policy Institute (FAPRI), the Center for Agroforestry and the National Center for Soybean Biotechnology. Why the growth of centers and institutes? These structures provide identity for cross-disciplinary efforts that involve faculty from multiple departments, divisions, even colleges across campus. They recognize and embrace the notion of collaborative efforts.    
• The recently opened Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center epitomizes the collaborative nature of research on this campus. Establishment of the LSC was made possible by the support of five colleges on campus who worked together to garner the state, federal and private sector funding necessary for construction.  Research in the LSC is built around themes and populated by faculty from appropriate academic programs across campus. Thus, in many ways, it builds upon the ethic established in F21C and other forward-looking research efforts on campus.  Currently, about half the faculty in the LSC are from CAFNR.
• What about those station projects? While all faculty with research appointments are required to be on a station project, researchers are encouraged to develop multiple investigator projects that reflect the cross-disciplinary approach to research that is prevalent in the College.

How do we measure against the issue raised in the Nature editorial? As a College, we have taken bold steps to enhance the environment for collaborative, cross-disciplinary research. I challenge you to think of additional changes and enhancements that we should consider to create and maintain an environment that maximizes the ability of our faculty to think, act and succeed in a cross-disciplinary research world. This is not an exercise with an endpoint, rather a continuous process that is necessary if we are to remain competitive in a rapidly changing life sciences environment.

Regards,
Marc