9UNP0191SD_Paul_DeLuca_WordPress

- I'd like to welcome everybody to Wednesday Nite at the Lab. I'm Tom Zinnen. I work here at the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center. I also work for UW-Extension Cooperative Extension. And on behalf of the Wisconsin Alumni Association, thanks to coming to Wednesday Nite at the Lab. We do this every Wednesday night, 50 times a year. Tonight, I'm pleased to have Paul DeLuca be the presenter. He's the Vice Dean at the School of Medicine and Public Health. He'll be talking to us about the new $135 million Wisconsin Institute for Medical Research building that's been going up over the last couple of years. And that will be opening in the next couple of months. 

Dr. DeLuca received a BS degree in physics and math in 1996, and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Notre Dame in 1971. That same year, he joined the University of Wisconsin as a research associate. And in 1975, he was appointed to the faculty of the Department of Radiology. In 1999, he assumed a new role in the UW School of Medicine Public Health as Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies. And his administrative role expanded in 2001 with his appointment as Vice Dean. He has recently been honored with the appointment by the Board of Regents as the first Rennebohm Research Professor. His research interests have concentrated on fast neutron dosimetry, including production of intense sources of fast neutrons, determination of elemental neutron kermafactors and application of microdosimetry to radiation dosimetry. DeLuca is an internationally recognized expert in high energy particle radiation effects on humans. 

And if somebody doesn't ask him what a kermafactor is, I will. Please join me in welcoming Dr. DeLuca to the Wednesday Nite at the Lab. 
(applause)
 
- Well, let's see if we can make this thing work here. Well, I'm very pleased to here. I wasn't sure exactly what the composition of the audience would be. Tom said that I could talk about anything I wanted. But first, I should apologize for the title of Vice Dean. 

I'm never really sure what that means. I get concerned that I could be the dean of vice, for example. That's a good possibility. I have lots of vices, but we'll try not to stress those tonight. But what I am going to discuss is armadillos. Mainly you might have noticed that the crane sign on campus has been intense over the last five or six years. And in particular, it's been very intense in the west side of the campus, particularly around the Health Sciences Center, and most specifically about the Medical School. So what I'm going to try and do, this is kind of an overview of what I'll talk about tonight. I'm going to spend a few minutes of giving you some flavor of what the magnitude of the enterprise is at the medical school. And you may have noticed that we've changed our name. 

We're no longer the medical school. We're the School of Medicine and Public Health. But I won't be talking about the public health part. For the moment, we'll stick to the medical part. I'll discuss the various composition and our research enterprise, and the movement, if you will, to the west campus and some of the implications that that has for the school. And so the school is, at least in my perception, a very vital component of the university. But keep in mind the university is consistently ranked in the top five in the nation for research productivity. Very often in the top two or three, and very often number one, or number two. We're embedded in that. We account for about one-third of the research enterprise that takes place in the school. 

And I'll outline that for you as I go along. But we're a relatively complex school. And some of you would be quite familiar with the names on the left, which are our so-called clinical departments. You might not recognize the names on the right. We have an interesting combination of basic science, applied science and clinical science. These departments, for example, cross appoint faculty very frequently. So someone in medical physics, for example, like myself, I also have appointments in radiology and radiation oncology which we call human oncology in the school. But there's an intense number of departments. They grow and shrink with time. We occasionally change their names. 

But for the most part, the underlying basic science takes place on the right side of this. And you can't hear? 
- I have a question. 
- Sure, already. 
- What's the difference between applied science and clinical science? 
- Well, let me go back a little bit and discuss what's basic science. That's the process of discovery of fundamental principles. And our emphasis is not strongly in that area, but a fair bit of fundamental science takes place, where basic discoveries, how cell membranes work, how ion channels work. Very basic principles. Applied science would take that and move it to a specific application. 

Maybe a disease process, for example, how do ion channels effect heart disease. Clinical science would take that concept and apply it to the treatment and diagnosis of disease. So we do everything, from basic discovery to actual applications in the clinic. Even the basic science departments work in the middle, the clinical science departments in many cases do basic, applied and clinical. And you'll see some of that come out in a few minutes. We also run a hospital. Beyond the basic education research enterprise, we also deliver healthcare. We're typically ranked in the top ten amongst academic health centers. We have lots of other hospitals we're ranked at the top of. Our hospital is not particularly big anymore. 

In other words, the number of beds has kind of shrunk as a function of time. That's more a reflection of how patient care takes place. But the number of outpatient visits is enormous. Over half a million outpatient visits per year take place at our institution. There are six intensive care units, with roughly 74 beds in those intensive care units. So the clinical enterprise, which is the end point of all this science and research, is quite extensive and growing hourly, as a matter of fact. We, in addition, have training sites that span throughout the state. So our clinical training sites, where our medical students go for training, where our residents rotate through, are at facilities that span the entire state. These are just some examples of our affiliate organizations, where our students are out there receiving education and training at these affiliate sites. Largely, because we simply can't train enough of them within the walls of the facilities that we have here locally. 

We have to reach out to colleagues throughout the state. This gives you some idea of the composition of the faculty. There's about 400 so-called tenure track faculty. And we have a clinical health science professor track, which is a non-tenure track. And these faculty have a mixture of clinical practice and science and education research. The tenure track faculty may do that, but are generally more oriented to basic science. We have a so-called clinician teacher track. These are faculty who largely deliver healthcare, but have an educational component. Many of you, I suspect, are getting your healthcare provided by faculty who are in the so-called clinician teacher track. We have an enormous number of volunteer faculty. 

These are colleagues throughout the state at our training sites who have these volunteer appointments. And our medical students rotate to their clinics, where they are trained and provided education by these volunteer faculty. So the total enterprise is about 5,000 people. Beyond the department structure, we have a very extensive centric organization. So these are just some examples of our disease-based center. Some of these, I'm sure you're familiar with. Cardiovascular Research Center. The Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center. The Wisconsin Alzheimer's Institute. These centers are largely devoted to research, very often applied research, because you can see that they are in fact all diseased based. 

So they, in many cases, provide care, the Comprehensive Cancer Center, but they also do an enormous amount of research. The Center for Neuroscience, on the other hand, is almost entirely driven by basic and applied science. We have a number of population-oriented centers. This is beginning to give you a drift towards the name of School of Medicine and Public Health. Here's some examples of these kinds of things. The Institute of Aging is a joint center that we share with the grad school. It's half medical school, half graduate school. The Center for Global Health. This is a relatively new center, and is looking at exactly what it says, global health. The Center for Urban Population Health. 

This is an activity that is actually based in Milwaukee in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. We share this facility, and do a lot of population oriented research at that facility, largely focused on inner-city populations, many disadvantaged populations. The Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. I'll put that aside and tell you more about that a little bit later. In about 2004, the National Institutes of Health announced a program to create these giant centers of clinical research. The purpose of these centers was to provide science and deliver care that spanned from basic discovery, and allowed faculty to pursue a large range of clinical science oriented research. They are awarding vast sums of money in this area. These are extremely competitive awards. A few years ago, two years ago, we were able to apply for one of these and received a $45 million award to create one of these CTSAs. This award allows us to build the infrastructure associated with clinical research. 

What the heck does that mean? Well, in many areas of disease, if you go in, for example, cardiovascular disease or cancer, a lot of the research that's done is actually done on patients, all right? A comparison between two different types of treatment, for example. Some of the studies are looking at efficacy. Does this treatment work better than that treatment. Some studies are looking at, for example, tolerance and safety. Can you give this much drug without side effects, or do you give this much drugs without side effects? These are essential to coming to a better understanding of the disease process and the treatment of the disease. These so-called CTSAs are devoted to looking at that kind of thing. Now the problem is we have the additional difficulty that we simply don't have enough scientists, enough faculty, and in particular, we don't have enough physician-trained faculty doing this kind of research. 

It's not easy to do. It takes a long time to get trained to do this kind of research. A typical physician who pursues this kind of research doesn't receive their first grant until they're in their 40's. So they have invested 40 years of their life to get to the point where they can pursue this kind of research. Well these institutes are designed to increase the rapidity with which we can bring that to bear. Now, we train a lot of people. This gives you an example. You obviously understood that we train physicians. But what you might not have understood is how many basic science PhDs we train. We, in fact, train more PhDs than we do MDs. 

You can see we have roughly 600 MDs under training, almost 700 PhDs, a number of MD/PhDs, which is a formidable training process, and a host of other what I would call health science related diseases. Recently, we instituted a masters in public health, the so-called MPH degree. We've only offered that for about six or eight months. And it's just growing extremely rapidly. What's our funding posture look like? This is a comparison year over year for fiscal year '06 versus fiscal year '07. And our funding source is derived from a spectrum of sources. Obviously, the largest source of funding from research comes from the federal side. And the vast majority of that comes from the National Institutes of Health. We do get some other federal funding, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation. 

But the vast majority comes from the National Institutes for Health. We also, you'll notice, have a fair bit of what I call clinical trials and industrial related. These are generally clinical trials associated with so called big pharma studies. But very often, they're associated with direct care. For example, we run radiation oncology, we compare one radiation therapy technique to another radiation therapy technique, in terms of control of primary or metastatic cancers. We also have a fair bit of so-called other non-federal funding. This is very often research projects, where a company will come to us to study a specific area. Or an individual might want a piece of research done. We do a fair bit of that. The sum total is about $230 million, as of last year. 

Now, how does that show? The pie picture, you can see that the entire enterprise is driven largely by federal grants. That's in general true for the university. What you also might not appreciate is the rate at which the faculty create intellectual property. The wonderful thing about Wisconsin is we enjoy an association with the organization called WARF, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which is our intellectual property patent transfer operation. The medical school creates an enormous amount of intellectual property. In fact, you can see from this chart that the medical school creates more intellectual property, as measured by patent and invention disclosures, than even the College of Engineering. You would first think Engineering is going to create most of the patentable processes. In fact, the scientists in the medical school create as much, and in fact more than the rest. In fact, the engineering school and the medical school, either one, creates more intellectual property than the rest of the university combined for all practical purposes. 

You may have noticed that the corporation bought by Roche on Monday. The corporation was founded by one of our faculty, John Wolf, in the Department of Pediatrics. I think that was the second major biotech buy-out this year, created by University of Wisconsin faculty, and subsequently licensed by WARF. We're getting toward the problem. This is our existing physical plant. Where do we do all of this activity. This is just a table that gives you an outline of our space allocation. So at this end of campus, we have about 1/4 million square feet, which is largely comprised of the old hospital, the so-called Medical Science Center, which was converted into research labs in 1981, as I recall. And you could see that's about 1/4 million square feet. But what you may want to pay a little attention to is the time at which those facilities were built. 

Notice one of them was built in 1928. Parts of the Medical Science Center were built in 1924. None were built sooner than 1959. So most of these facilities are more than 50 years old. And they're rapidly approaching the point, in fact, in many cases, they've past the point where it's sensible to try and keep them functioning. You'll be surprised at some of the slides I'll show you in a moment. We also have the McCardle Cancer Research, which was built a bit ago. I mean, that's approaching 50 years in age. And more recently, the Clinical Science Center, which opened in 1979. The whole enterprise has roughly 600,000 square feet of research space. 

Here's another difficulty that we face. You may recognize that, in fact if I can find the mouse here, you are presently right here. And obviously, our Department of Genetics, for example, is in this building. This is the Medical Science Center complex. This is the McCardle. And then the new Microbial Science Building, the MSB, which is jointly occupied by the Department of Bacteriology from the College of Agriculture and Life Science, and our department, Microimmunology. Out at this end of campus, is the CSC, so-called WIMR, which I'll talk about in a bit, the Waisman Center and Rennebohm Hall, which holds the School of Pharmacy. So there's a chasm between our location here and the location here. Quite frankly, that's been problematic to our research enterprise. This physical separation of our scientists, many of our scientists, from our clinician scientists, is problematic. 

That level of not having physical communication, bumping up against each other, turns out to be a real issue. So what's the problem, all right? This is the problem. And I didn't pre-select particularly horrible slides of laboratories, because we would probably be in violation of most federal and state occupancy standards if I showed you those. These are federally approved and occupy-able laboratories. This particular laboratory was built in 1928. This laboratory was built in about 1950. Now, obviously, we've upgraded these laboratories. What does that mean? That means we've painted them. 

We put in new cabinets. We put in new fume hoods. But for the most part, this is where this research enterprise takes place. Just imagine that you're talking about a $230 million research enterprise, and it takes place in facilities that look like this. A big part of my job is to recruit new faculty to our medical school. And it's kind of a challenge to recruit new faculty when I say, "Oh, this is your laboratory. We're going to paint it." So we have a problem. Let me show you the solution. This is the solution, the Wisconsin Institutes of Medical Research. 

And these are two recent snapshots. I'll describe these structures in more detail as we go through it. But this gives you a flavor of where we're going. Keep in mind this is where we were. And this is where we need to go. So what's a WIMR? Let me play back a few seminal events that took place in recent times. We've been extraordinarily fortunate at the university, and particularly in the medical school. Specifically, in the summer of 1999, Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin converted to a for-profit organization. In that process, they had to divest themselves of their entire assets, or some determination of what entire assets mean. 

When they did that, they devoted those assets equally to the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and to the Medical College of Wisconsin. That comprised a distribution of $300 million to the medical school. Now, I would've loved to have been able to spend the $300 million on our science and education programming. But we were only allowed to spend the proceeds, if you will, the endowment increase in those funds. But even at 5%, that's a very significant amount of money. It has made huge inroads in our ability to make progress in certain areas. In addition, in the spring of 2002, then director of NIH, Elias Zerhouni, came to campus. And he came for a National Academy of Science program at the invitation of the director of WARF, Karl Gulbrandson. And I was sitting in the audience. That was the disclosure by Zerhouni of the so-called "Roadmap" model for doing research. 

I was sitting next to the Dean, and the two of us were completely astounded by Zerhouni's remarks, because we had entered into a process of trying to develop facilities and change the process of how we did research. And it was almost everything that we had planned, Zerhouni was articulating. It's like he stole our slides from our presentation. So we were absolutely delighted with that, because where NIH was going was where we wanted to go. And it was completely fortuitous that we had reached the same conclusions. Some of the activities associated with it, the so-called Wisconsin Partnership Program, which is the Blue Cross/Blue Shield program has for example awarded 128 grants totaling $50 million to kick start various research enterprises. In 2005, we changed our name from the School of Medicine to the School of Medicine and Public Health. We have to do more than just change our name. We have to restructure ourselves and bring public health directly into our curriculum and into our science. In 2007, as I mentioned, we won one of the so-called CTSA, Clinical Translational Science Awards, $41 million. 

We were the highest ranked proposal in that particular round. And we won the award at the highest level of any of the applicants. There were something like 60 applicants for that particular award. And we anticipate occupancy of the so-called IRC. And I'm going to tell you a little bit different about that in a minute. So if I wind the clock back now, to the late 2000 period, and in fact when I took over this so-called job, my responsibility was to decide how we would proceed over the next ten years for the school, in terms of a research enterprise. I was pretty convinced that science was going in a different direction than it had heretofore. Biological sciences, which used to be quite segregated and quite distinct, largely driven by the complexity and difficulty of doing, even a fairly modest experiment. When I first came here, I used to collaborate heavily with Oliver Smithies. Oliver was, I think, one of the world's greatest biologists. 

It would take us one year to do a fairly small experiment. Now, as time has gone by, because of our technology driven enterprise, our understanding of the science, the new technologies that we can bring to bear in the laboratory, science rate has increased by orders of magnitude. The rate of discovery has gone up very, very rapidly. In addition, the physical sciences have melded into the biological sciences. It's very common to see physicists, mathematicians, analytic chemists, cheek and jowl with geneticists, bioinformaticists. A complete melding of science. So we needed a different kind of structure, a different way to organize ourselves to do research. We call that the Interdisciplinary Research Center. That has now become the so-called Wisconsin Institutes for Medical Research. We viewed that this is a possibility for leveraging discovery into application in a very rapid way. 

Some of you are familiar with Tomotherapy, which is a spin-off company from one of our faculty in town. It's used for doing radiation therapy. The time from when that patent disclosure was filed, and we started to seriously investigate that research and the production and sale of the first machine, was less than ten years. Now, 20 years ago, that would have been a 20 or 30 year process to bring something like that to fruition. This was ten years from creation to application and delivery with that capability. This was going to occur across the science generated program. We needed also to be able to respond very rapidly to opportunities. Look at the impact of stem cells. That's not been a long time since Jamie Thomson announced the isolation of human embryonic stem cells, pluripotent cells that can be derived and differentiated into essentially any cell. That was only five or six years ago that that application began to show up with any significance. 

We needed to speed things up. 
- What is the definition of translational medicine? 
- Well the definition of translational medicine is how do I take a discovery, for example, let's say take Jim Dauber's discovery of SNP analysis, which is a mechanism to study various components of a genome. How do I take that and translate that into the process of doing, for example, drug resistance. That's a translational activity, where I translate from basic discovery to an application. That timeline between those two things, discovery to application is translation. And it's collapsed in time. We need to be in a position to take advantage of that, and be at the forefront. However, counterbalancing that, you need to preserve the individual intellect. Our faculty has enormous intellect. 

And their ability for creativity and discovery drives, in some cases from team science, but in many cases from persistence and creativity of individuals. So somehow, we have to retain the ability of individuals to contribute, yet put them in an environment where, as appropriate, they can participate in team cross disciplinary science. We needed a facility to do that, which is a different facility than most people had built. More of the same. So, this led to the so-called creation of WIMR, which was formerly called the Interdisciplinary Research Center. We picked a variety of applied processes. So for example, we perceived an imaging science, both from a nano-scale imaging science, all the way up to a human macro-scale imaging science, was going to make vast inroads into clinical applications, translational science and basic discovery. We needed to be able to do that. Diseased-based genomics, proteomics, all the -omics are going to revolutionize what we call molecular diagnostics. Our ability to discover disease processes at the molecular level is going to advance dramatically. 

There already has been advances. It's going to continue to advance. Regenerative medicine, our ability to use stem cells to repair organs, repair heart muscle, for example. This is going to change how we do science. You see new applications every day. Cardiovascular research, neuroscience, cancer and animals. Animal research is fundamental to our ability to discover. And animal research is a real challenge. It has to be done extraordinarily carefully, under just the right circumstances. And we need appropriate facilities to do that. 

For example, you need animals that are pathogen free. They have no disease. Because we're able to engineer animals that have a particular genetic make-up, and turn on various biomolecular processes by that genetic make-up. We need to have those animals in extraordinarily careful housing. And we needed facilities to do that. All of this was embodied in the so-called WIMR or Interdisciplinary Research Center. And that's more or less that same. Now comes the scary part. These numbers are adjusted to mid-point of construction, which was about 2006. The WIMR or IRC Phase I, which consists of almost 400,000 gross square feet, was estimated to cost $158 million. 

The so-called Phase I Enhancements to that, and I'll tell you what those enhancements are in a minute, which are another roughly 80,000 gross square feet, cost another $24 million. So the roll-up on this was a big hill to climb, $182 million tab that we had to figure out how to pay. I can tell you at the outset, that we have raised almost all of those funds. In other words, we have, I think, on the order of $15 million from the state of Wisconsin. The remainder of those funds came from federal funding, due to peer review grant applications for construction and philanthropy. We have an enormously generous state, which is very committed to this university, and provide an enormous investment in this enterprise. In addition, we had industrial partners, General Electric has contributed in excess of $20 million to this facility. So relative to campus, where most buildings are built with a 50% contribution from the state, the state contribution of this was about 5% or 6%. This was due to philanthropy. That's why I have no hair. 

I lost the remaining hair about 2003. 
(light laughter)
 I don't know. I don't know if I can keep this up much longer. This gives you a flavor of the enterprise. And I'll show you pictorially what this means. In Phase I, we're going to complete three laboratory floors. There's five laboratory floors. We're going to completely finish three laboratory floors. But for the first time in this institution, by that I mean the University of Wisconsin's history, I was able to persuade the state to allow us to design and construct as we had funds. 

So in other words, we were given approval to build the entire project. If we had funds, we were allowed to shell space and finish it as we had funds. And we were allowed to do that over multiple phases and multiple years. This degree of flexibility was extraordinarily important to our success. You've heard the anachronym, if you build it, they will come. This is a true statement. If we build two floors, guess what, people say they want to help you build that third floor. Someone will say they need to help you build the fourth and fifth floor. So that level of generosity derives a little bit from this ability on our part. You can see that there's wet lab space in Imaging Radiation Science. 

I'll discuss that in a minute. A vast amount of animal care space, a primate vivarium, as well as a rodent vivarium, and then a usual support kind of space. These future enhancements, Lab 3, 4 build-out and the molecular diagnostics, we have successfully raised the funds for that. So this now an old slide. We in fact have raised the funds to do all of this stuff. The price tag at the bottom is actually $182 million. 
- What was the --? 
- Gross square feet and assignable square feet. You can't assign the hallway, but you can assign the seats, okay. An efficiency factor for a research building that's in excess of about 60%, means that you don't have any closets. 

So if you want to actually have closets and hallways, you need to have efficiencies no bigger than 60%. So this is in effect Phase II and Phase III. I've already lost my hair on Phase I, and I'm working on Phase II and Phase III. Phase II of this project--. Now, Phase I, and I'll show you these pictures, is driven by two components. Largely, the Cancer Center, the Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center will occupy five floors, lab space, in the first tower. Underneath that, they'll be two enormous floors, one for Imaging Science and Radiation Science. And two floors devoted to Primate Vivarium and Animal Care Vivarium. Next to that tower is another tower, and yet a third tower, so-called Phase II and Phase III. 

Phase II is even bigger than Phase III. Phase II has seven laboratory floors instead of five. If we're able to complete Phase II, almost seven laboratory floors, we should be in a position of being able to vacate all of the miserable spaces that we've been occupying since 1924, and move our school out to the west side, into brand new laboratories focused around those areas. In this Center Tower, the themes will be broad: Molecular and Genomic Medicine, Neuroscience, Cardiovascular Science and Visual Science. This kind of includes a vast number of our departments and research programs, organized around these general fields. This doesn't mean that people in neuroscience don't talk to people in cardiovascular science, etc., but their focus will be neuroscience, or their focus will be cardiovascular science. In the third tower, we're going to do something a little bit different. We are, for example, going to condo-ize two floors. Two of the floors will actually be owned and operated by the Research Park people, the people out on the west side. 

They will use that for tech transfer space. We will create space where faculty who want to move an idea or concept into an industrial environment will have some place to try that out. Now, frankly, what we want to do is create a space where the faculty can fail as fast as possible. Because it's enormously inefficient to take a long time failing. You want to fail quickly. And if you don't fail, you want to grow quickly, and move to the west side Research Park. This will be that buffer space. Faculty won't have to give up their laboratories. They won't have to stop doing what they're doing. They'll be able to go to this space and test this idea out very quickly, and sample whether or not this is really going to be an application that we can transfer to the industrial sphere. 

One or two floors would be built in collaboration with our colleagues in the School of Pharmacy and the College of Engineering. The School of Pharmacy is a very complementary school to much of our activities. And the inroads engineering are making into medical science is striking. This whole so-called nanotechnology, carbon fiber technology, these kinds of activities are having an increasing impact on medical sciences. And we want those colleagues next to those scientists. Stem cells, which we refer to in code as regenerative medicine, that's going to advance very rapidly. Now, the balance amongst these may shift. But this is a general concept of what we expect to take place in that west tower. This gives you some timeline on it. The second column, which is the so-called existing IRC, we're ready to occupy. 

We have faculty moving in there next week. We should have that facility completely occupied, the so-called Phase I part of it, by some time next fall. Certainly by Thanksgiving, we'll have everything in there. The animal component may lag behind another few months, as we commission the animal care facility. But we should be in there fully by next fall. Mark down on your calendars the so-called grand opening. It's September 4. That's a public event. Anyone can come to that. We invite everyone. 

The event starts at 1:00 with a ribbon cutting ceremony and some speechification, presumably by the governor or the chancellor. But after that, the facility is open. You'll be able to tour the floors, the laboratory floors, go through the imaging science part. You'll be able to see everything, except for the animal vivarium, which is because of the pathogen-free environment, we will have shut that down by that point. You can see the center tower. We're very anxious to start construction in '09. We'd like to keep the ball rolling here. I tried to pull that forward into '08 so the crane sign didn't disappear, but we just couldn't keep the philanthropy at a high enough pace to do that. But if we go back in gear in '09, that'll be okay. That will cost us probably 5% or 6% on the total cost, but we can live with that, if we can keep the commitment going. 

We anticipate increased state funding for Phase II, and ideally for Phase III. By the end of the game, which would be around 2015, we should've done the whole job, which is, you know, not too bad a timeline for projects of this magnitude. So let me show you some pictures of what this facility looks like. This is a cartoon, a schematic. I'll use your mouse here, if I can find the bloody thing. There we go. This is what you call the hospital. The so-called Center for Health Sciences, the CSC. This is the hospital area. This is the patient parking ramp if you drive in the front. 

So we do clinical care and we do sciences in this area. This is the Learning Center, the so-called Health Science Learning Center, which is the library classroom instructional space, and the Med School administration. These three buildings are Phase I, Phase II and Phase III of the so-called WIMR IRC project. You can see from the sum here, as you can guess, by the time we're done, the sum of these facilities will be bigger than the hospital, which I think is the largest single building in the state of Wisconsin. So, Phase I, II and III combined will comprise the largest facility created in the state. This is the Waisman Institute over here. And we had planned to make a bridge connection between the Waisman Center and the middle of Phase II. This is a schematic of how this builds up. The first two floors, which are in the basement and the first level will be Imaging and Radiation Sciences. And by imaging, we will be able to do radiation science, completely across the board, from humans, so there'll be magnetic resonance imaging in there, CT imaging, the full complement of human imaging in the context of basic and applied science, all the way down to looking at individual cells at the nano scale. 

The middle, green part here, are the two vivariums. The rodents are in the basement and the primates get a window. So the primates are on the so-called L1 level. And we have a temporary loading dock. We then pop-on the tower above that. This shows you the laboratory floors. The three that are built, and in fact now the two more that will be built completing the so-called Phase I part. This is the second tower, the so-called Phase II, which is the seven laboratory floors sitting on top of that. And room has been left in this place for the third phase of the project. This is what the whole thing would look like schematically. 

It's an enormous structure. These are our campus partners that we will have in there. We eventually expect to have a significant role from each of these different areas. That might take until Phase III, but a fair number of these will be involved in Phase II. Let me try and show you some pictures of what the floors look like. There we go. This gives you a little bit of a flavor of the scale of this enterprise. This distance from here to here is somewhat larger than a football field. So these are very large structures. Each floor has got about 30,000 assignable square feet, which is an enormous building. 

You've heard of the so-called Wisconsin Institutes of Discovery, WID project? The entire WID project fits on three floors of this facility. So this is like WID on steroids. These are the laboratory areas over here. In many cases, these are radiation producing devices or imaging science devices. They're largely underground because of the radiation aspects and shielding. This is an entirely new radiation therapy department. We purposely put this here so there's a smooth connection between the Comprehensive Cancer Center and the existing radiotherapy department. We did this to try and maximize the translation of discovery into application in the radiation science area. This is hopefully the CNL 1 level here, in a second, if this thing loads up. 

Okay, now this is one floor. These are large radiation-producing imaging instruments. So these are human magnetic resonance imaging devices. General Electric has supplied us with a complete suite of imaging apparatus for free. It was part of a research agreement. This will be the primate vivarium. We located the primate vivarium next to the human sized imaging devices, because you need that to take and understand the images from primates. And I'll close by showing you some cartoons. I really suggest you take a look. This is a wonderful exposure. 

We're standing east and looking west. There is some art in this building. I think the art in this building is spectacular. We had a wonderful artist, Cliff Gardner, build a fabulous sculpture that spans all five floors. It is well worth a look. So that's looking from east to west. This is looking a bit from, if you will, from north to south. This is what you see from the Waisman Center. The building is, I think, quite beautiful. And then this shows you the relationship between Phase II and Phase I. 

Keep in mind that these two towers join at the middle, so it's a very short distance for a scientist at the edge of a Phase II floor to walk and come to a scientist on the edge of Phase I. Not much more than going around the corner, or similar to changing floors in this building. I think I have one more slide here, if it works. This is a little better picture of the west campus area, showing you this structure. This is, of course, the patient parking area, the hospital and this new structure. This is all torn up right now because they're putting in a new power supply and chilled water feed line for that. So let me come to closure and leave a little time in for questions you might have. I think we've created a really vibrant growing organization. We're reaching out very strongly to the rest of campus. We've been very successful at that. 

Our focus is obviously medical applications. And our focus is more at the translational applied part of it than the basic discovery part of it, but there's an amazing amount of basic discovery that goes on out on the best part of campus. So we view this as fundamental to our success. And hopefully, within the next eight to ten years, you'll see a completely different medical school than you see now. Actually, in a few years, you should see it. So I'll stop. And I'm happy to take questions. Yes, ma'am. 
- When you talked earlier about the different areas of research, and various places, how is this going to impact that. Will all of those areas that are on the end of campus move? 

- There's some areas, for example, that do very well. Our department of genetics is actually a shared department between us and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. It's one department, but the faculty are from two different schools and colleges, and they occupy this building. There'd be absolutely no reason to move these individuals to the west campus area. It does create a problem, and that means there's an absence of that type of research out there. But you know, if you have that in a few areas, you can live with it. If you have it in all areas, it's problematic. So most of the enterprise will move to the west. The Medical Science Center is not going to get rebuilt. Most of it is going to get torn down. 

It's literally too old to reconstruct. Yes? 
- What is your point of view about the controversy about using lab animals? And also, are you worried that if you concentrate the vivarium in a large facility like that that there might be security considerations? 
- Well, there are certain security considerations. There's an almost continuous security situation. And you know, we worked very hard on the security issue. Quite frankly, though, animal research is fundamental to discovery. I mean, we'd like to think there's ways around it, and we work very hard to find ways around it. And in many cases, we have found ways around it where we haven't had to use animals in fundamental research. 

But there are some things you just simply can't avoid. For example, our ability to study the activities of genes and proteins, where we can manipulate the genes and create a different animal to study a specific process. There's no way to do that without using animals. So good, bad or indifferent, they are unfortunately important to our research. Yes, ma'am? 
- Is there space for behavioral science to be incorporated? 
- Most of the vivarium that's being built out there, I would say 60% of that space will be devoted to behavioral science, largely driven by a very strong group of behavioral scientists out of the Department of Psychiatry in collaboration with the faculty of the Waisman Institute. So there's a significant amount of behavioral science. Interestingly enough, it's largely focused in primates. So, there's a significant presence of behavioral science there. 

- What about focused on humans? 
- Well, we already have that. We don't have to build new facilities for that. We have an enormous existing program of behavioral science that takes place out at the CSC, the Clinical Science Center, over in collaboration with the Waisman Center. The laboratory component of behavioral science is what we're missing. We have the human part. We don't have the laboratory part. This will give us the laboratory part of behavioral science. Yes? 
- Do you covet the space that Nielsen Tennis Stadium? 

- I promise not to touch it. 
(laughter)
 We're not allowed. There are certain boundary conditions in this process. If I can spool this backwards here, we're not allowed to cross this road. 
(laughter)
 Chancellor Wiley, who's a close friend of mine, says, "Don't put your foot on the other side of that road." This soccer field over here would really be fabulous if we could get our hands on it. Nielsen's okay, there's not enough space. That soccer field, however, is a beauty. 

Yes? 
- What about Lot 60 and the track field? 
- Well, you have identified a problem. As a result of the density of people in this area, faculty, staff, scientists, traffic and parking are, you know, they're already difficult. It's going to be extremely difficult. We are, for example, this is the new parking structure. Obviously, it would've been much better to put this parking structure up five floors instead of two or three floors. You can get a vast amount of concentration if you do that. However, then you have a problem. The cars have to get in and the cars have to get out. 

And the access points, the access point, is really this intersection up here, which is, if you've tried to go through there between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning, is already horrific. So we need an advanced public transportation system on this. Big time. It's a real problem. Yes? 
- I thought she was first. 
- Well, I got your hand first! You're the more senior person. 
- Well, I have recollection of two events. One, when we were building the new McCardle laboratory in 1964. 

And the other was to be all designed by scientists, not architects. Architects just adjust things. And it's curious how this principle was used here. The second item was we finished the building only 30%, and 70% was open spaces. And it was -- laboratory finished during following five or ten years. The reason was because open space was $8 a square foot and finished was $24 a square foot, which means you could get three times more. And always, once the building has walls, etc., you'll always get money for remodeling. And because of that, the McCardle building cost only $1.8 million. I was curious, how are these numbers you are using, $8 per square foot unfinished. 

- How do they compare? 
- And designed by scientists, extremely easy. Whereas designed by architects, have to prove their point how clever they are. 
(laughter)
 And it's unusable, terrible. 
- Well your points are right on target. 
- Could you summarize those? 
- The points he makes are really twofold. One was, this a facility to do science in, so to what degree did science control the design of the building, as opposed to a non-scientist designing the building. The second point was, what was the relative--. 

Well, he made three points. The second point was the amount of what we call white space, or unfinished space compared to finished space to get the building constructed. And then the third point was, what's the cost change from the time McCardle was built in 1964 to the present time. So, we'll do those in exactly that order. We recognized your first point exactly. So our philosophy was to gather together three large groups of faculty representing three different types of science. What I call the classic wet bench type science, which you saw pictures of, laboratory benches, etc. The kind of science that's done, I don't call it wet bench, but it is hard laboratory science. So examples of that might be the neuroscience areas, where your laboratory consists of a lot of electronics and computers, and for example, either biological or animal samples that you're working on. Then the third area is what I would call the device driven science. 

And this would be imaging science and radiation science. These teams had some boundary conditions put on them. Namely, they had to help engineer facilities that were as flexible as possible, had as few walls as possible, which is a very controversial statement. There's a territorial instinct that scientists have, to put a wall around whatever they're doing. And we insisted there'd be no walls, a minimum amount of walls. That was a big stumbling block, to get past that. Then we brought in three consultants who had engineered facilities in each of these areas to work with these teams. These teams worked together to set the general layout, set the general bounding conditions. Then the architect was brought in. So the architects were not involved until the basic concepts and layouts had been generated by the science community. 

Now, the science community had to recognize that science was changing. So for example, the ratio of wet laboratory bench space to people has actually gone down dramatically, as the size and quantity of materials to do science has gone down. Nowadays, we work routinely with micro liters and nano liters of material. Twenty years ago, it was gallons, okay. So that was taken into consideration in some effort to project forward as to how that was going to look was done. So, all of these laboratory floors are close to cookie cutter. They're almost identical to structure, layout and size. We've allowed some customization with shared services. For example, there's cold rooms that are shared. There are various cell culture areas, which are shared. 

Other than customization like that, most of the laboratories are pretty much generic. Thirdly, we designed the actual laboratory so you could easily modify it. Everything is clip-on, drop down from the ceiling. If you don't want a bench there, you unsnap the connections, the bench goes out. Or, if you want two benches instead of one, the bench goes in. You clip on. It is as flexible as possible, and can modified as cheaply as possible. Then we made the so-called HVAC, heating, ventilating, air conditioning. Mirror that image. And then we brought in a high degree of computational infrastructure into the facility. 

So we worked very hard to address those issues that you raised. Now, the second point refers to the concept of white space versus built out space. And we recognize that also. And that was my point a few minutes ago, where we got permission from the state of Wisconsin to build a shell structure if we had the money for that, and to finish it sequentially, as we raised money to do that. So for example, we started out by finishing two floors. We built the whole structure. Finished two floors. Raised the money for the third. Then raised the money for the fourth. Now we've raised the money for the fifth, all during that build out process. 

You know, if you build it, they will come. It's much easier to raise money when someone sees the type of science that can take place, and you can do it. Now the bad news. A professor mentioned that McCardle was at about $8 a square foot, okay. Now I'm going to--. Pardon me? 
- Unfinished. 
- Unfinished. And I'm going to assume that that's $8 a gross square foot, as opposed to an assignable square foot. Our unfinished price for the laboratory floors is about $300 an unfinished square foot. 

It costs $300, okay. To finish that is about $450 a square foot. A square foot. It's ungodly. And this is not an extravagant building. The vivarium space is even more expensive, because the facilities required to house animals are much more expensive than to house people. People are very cheap, relative to mice. 
(laughter)
 So it's a scary number. Yes? 

I had a few over here, but ladies first. 
- Does all those scientists, and you quoted what, thousands? 
- There's about a thousand. 
- Do they each have their own office? 
- Yes, they do. 
- With a cot in it, so they can take a nap? 
- No cots! 
(laughter)
 No cots are allowed. They have to work. 

They haven't got time for cots. 
- They can put one in on their own. 
- That's their problem. Yes, ma'am. 
- How much square footage do they get per office? What's the standard? 
- We typically use a standard of around 150-180 square feet. We've had experience at about 120, and you get claustrophobic at 120. For example, scientists are paper driven, even in a computer age. There's a lot of books. 

You just can't do it below about 150-160. So our target was 180 square feet. Yes. 
- You mentioned the issue of territoriality, and the putting up of walls. I'm very curious how you're making the transition. If people had been academically raised with that mentality about space and territory around their work, by not having the walls, how are you negotiating this cultural change? 
- I'm waiting. 
(light laughter)
 I just simply am more persistent than they are. If they want a laboratory, that's their laboratory. 

Yes. 
- To what extent are these structures designed with energy conservation in mind, given a lot things the way they are. 
- A really good question. The question was, how green are the buildings. To what degree is energy conservation involved? This is a really tough issue, because for the most part, these buildings are laboratories. And because of the kind of work that takes place in a laboratory, you have an air exchange problem. These are like gigantic fume hoods. So you do have a lot of air being exchanged out of these buildings. We try and recapture the heat, for example. 

So the heat exhausts are all second regenerative heating. We try and use very high performance insulation throughout the facility. The windows, the shading on the windows for sun, etc., is all carefully engineered. And we do heat recovery as best we can, you know, on the exhaust. But quite frankly, when you're exhausting that much air, you just can't build it as green as you'd like. 
- Are there solar panels? 
- Solar panels and a facility, this is a very energy intensive building. So for example, there's a computational data room, where we have what are called large Beowulf clusters. Those rooms are in the zone of a half a megawatt of power going into those rooms. 

That kind of concentration of energy, you can use solar panels to kind of do the lights a little bit, but it's not a real efficient use of sun power, if you will. So, they're green, but we're still struggling with that. But we did work hard at that. Yes. 
- Is release Pathogens an issue at all for lab space like this, or is that something for other parts of the campus to be concerned about? 
- The question is about the control of pathogens in the laboratory space, and how big an issue is that. For the kind of space, we have certain lab areas, which are called BSL regulated. And there's BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3. You don't want to discuss BSL-4, okay. We have areas in this facility that are BSL-3 rated. 

Most of the areas are BSL-2 rated, which gives you a very high degree of pathogen control. I mean, you can do almost anything you want in BSL-3 facilities. 
(inaudible)
 No, because most of the culturing, where the pathogens would have highest concentration are actually done in isolated, controlled procedural rooms, which are exactly for that purpose. So you kind of try and condense the pathogen vulnerable areas to smaller regions as best you can. For example, the new Microbial Sciences building has really got an issue with pathogens, because there you have, you know, some very active pathogens that are quite dangerous. They're up to BSL-4. It's an issue. Yes, way in the back. 
- What relationship do you anticipate with the Center for Nanotechnology, Biotechnology and Information Technology that Chancellor Wiley would be associated with. 

- The so-called WID, Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery. We hope that we'll have a very tight relationship with them. In fact, we hope, you know, groups of our faculty will actually be located in that area. We'd like to think that they will be focusing shortly on the very basic levels of discovery. And we view ourselves a little bit further down the pipestream. So those discoveries, as they advance, can be applied in different areas, and then ideally moved into translational disease-based discovery. So we hope and expect, quite frankly, a strong relationship between this structure and the WID facility. A nice complement to each other. Yeah? 
- Do you have additional food services? 

- I'd like to not answer that question. Yes, ma'am. 
(inaudible)
 That's another extremely good question. The question was, are space assignments going to be departmental based. This is a real challenge. Faculty, like many groups of individuals, have what I call a cluster factor. They want to get together in groups of around 20. If the groups get much bigger than 20, they have arguments. If the groups get much below 20, they don't talk to each other, they don't have enough creativity. 

So they percolate at a very high level right around 17-25 people, generally. We call those groups departments. So how do you populate a facility like this without making assignments by departments. Well, let me give you some examples. The two towers, you'll have the Cancer Center in one tower and you'll have these other focus areas in the other tower. A lot of the science that's done in the Cancer Center actually is based on science that's done in the other tower. There's a sort of relationship between those. McCardle Laboratories is a really good example of that relationship. We would anticipate McCardle scientists to occupy, for example, one floor in the middle tower, and McCardle scientists to occupy floors in the other tower. But we will have to have some area that's department focused for the McCardle Laboratory, namely the Department of Oncology. 

So will have to have an add mixture of these kind of things. How is this going to work out? I don't know, to tell you the truth. It will be interesting. But if you don't try it, you'll never know. Yes? 
- Going back to the photographs of the older labs, who is responsible for inspecting and making sure they're safe? Does OSHA have any restrictions on campus? 
- There are a number of agencies that get involved in laboratory facilities. So for example, there's the Chemical Safety people. 

There's the Biological Safety people. There's OSHA Standards involved. If there's Radio-nuclides, or radiation-producing devices, there's Radiation people involved. There's the Fire Department, for example. Is that laboratory compliant with the fire code? All of those get involved. And we've had, frankly, incidences where we've had to shut down whole chunks of research space because it was not compliant with those requirements. And then do our best to rebuild it and get it in compliance. And probably, we're rapidly approaching the point in some of these areas where we just can't do it. Yeah? 

- When they build buildings now, do they take into account that they're going to be obsolete in a certain number of years, or that they'll take them down and replace them? 
- Not quite that way. What we take into account is design the building so that we can dramatically change the interior of the building at some point in the future. So for example, we use an organic kind of design. The ceilings are almost all fully exposed. So all of the plumbing, wiring, conduit, heating, everything is more or less exposed. So if you have to take an area and convert it from office area to laboratory area, you can do that quite efficiently. Where you want to take a floor and completely rearrange the floor, to a very large degree, you can gut that region quite efficiently and rebuild it in place, using the existing infrastructure. These buildings, remember, the buildings, 1928. I mean, that's not bad, right? 

I mean, we've used that building very efficiently since 1928. It's just kind of reached the end of its lifetime. And remember, it was a hospital. So hospitals don't remodel into laboratory space very well. So that's another issue associated with that. 
- Going back to Tom's question, basically build a huge city there. One of the big deals with the WID is they want to revive this area because compared to the east side of campus, we don't have much in the way for socializing, restaurants, bars, that type of thing. You guys have even less. What do you do to make it an appealing place to be early in the morning, late at night? 
- It's a really serious problem. 

I've tried to persuade the Wisconsin Union, for example, to consider building a Union West. Let me go back one, here. I must have hit the wrong button. To build a Union West, essentially somewhere in this region here. Either here or here, okay. And we were just not successful at doing it. There's an available footprint there. It could be done. But I was just not able to do it. And you're correct, around here, there's not much. 

Now, I did propose that we put a Pub up here, okay. Pardon me? 
- Can I donate to that? 
- The hospital felt it was kind of inappropriate for us to build a Pub next to the hospital. 
- It does go along with the collaboration. 
- I'd be happy if we could build a high-quality coffee area. That would be okay. We've left room in this structure to do that. But we still struggle to get the Union or if the Union gets out of the way, to let us bring in someone else. It's a problem. 

- There is a satellite food service type place. 
- Just that little kiosk. That one little kiosk. Remember, we do have the advantage of the hospital cafeteria, which is right in there. And that's huge. And it's really not bad. I mean, you can survive. Anything else? Well, I really enjoyed my opportunity to be with you. 
(applause)