2019 | Appendices International Advisory Board Contents A. SciLifeLab responses to the IAB comments from 2017...........................A1 B. List of stakeholders, committees and participants at the site visit....... B1 C. White paper – Research Integrity: Good infrastructure practice and risk management (draft)........................................................................C1 D. White paper – Industrial Collaboration (draft)...................................... D1 E. White paper – Clinical Collaboration (draft)............................................E1 F. SciLifeLab Drug Discovery and Development (DDD) Platform Report... F1 G. Strategy, principles and processes for allocation of space at SciLifeLab at Campus Solna.......................................................................... G1 H. SciLifeLab infrastructure report............................................................... H1 I. SciLifeLab bibliometric analysis.................................................................I1 J. SciLifeLab Research Community Programs (RCPs)................................... J1 K. SciLifeLab Fellows..................................................................................... K1 3 A. Appendix A. SciLifeLab responses to the International Advisory Board (IAB) comments from 2017 (Originally approved by the SciLifeLab Board in 11/2017, then updated 11/2018 for discussion and version approval at the board meeting on Feb 2019) Contents Global context............................................................................................... A3 Challenges facing SciLifeLab........................................................................ A3 Governance and structure............................................................................ A4 Platforms........................................................................................................A6 Research.........................................................................................................A10 Non-biomedical life sciences.........................................................................A11 SciLifeLab Fellows program..........................................................................A12 SciLifeLab Faculty...........................................................................................A14 Research integrity..........................................................................................A15 Human resources...........................................................................................A16 Branding.........................................................................................................A16 Innovation and industrial collaboration......................................................A18 Clinical collaboration.....................................................................................A19 Future reviews...............................................................................................A19 Global context 1. SciLifeLab is a major strategic initiative and its operations need to be optimized to maintain the competitive- ness of Sweden and the “Mälardalen” (Greater Stockholm) region in molecular life sciences. Re: SciLifeLab is first and foremost financed as a national infra- have strengthened the coordination with the host universities in structure, designed to benefit researchers in the whole of Swe- a number of ways, including regular meetings between manage- den, but also aspires to create a powerful research environment ment and the host university rectors, heads of departments and between the host universities. SciLifeLab needs to balance these SciLifeLab committees. Our research environments have been focuses and make its infrastructure, research, training and collab- further strengthened by research community programs (RCPs), oration activities also benefit academia, industry and societal sec- technology development programs (TDPs) and improved coordi- tors nationally. The government sees SciLifeLab as one of the three nation of the SciLifeLab Fellows program, in coordination with major infrastructures in Sweden, along with MAX-IV and ESS, the SciLifeLab committees and the host universities. Additional and SciLifeLab is the only one dedicated exclusively to life science. funding provided to the Data Center is aimed to design and im- plement cross-university procedures and policies for sustainable SciLifeLab complements Swedish universities by addressing tech- and long-term data management and to promote research integ- nological challenges that universities cannot tackle alone and by rity. Finally, we have extended our involvement with non-host avoiding unnecessary redundancy. To optimize the operations of universities outside the Uppsala-Stockholm region to further SciLifeLab our goal is to synchronize SciLifeLab funding with that enhance the national engagement. of universities and external funders. During the last two years, we Challenges facing SciLifeLab 2. The IAB advocates the combined model of both national infrastructure provider and major research center in order to fulfil the new vision and mission statement and to enable SciLifeLab to compete with forefront international centers in Europe and elsewhere. Re: This recommendation is in accordance with our ambitions, have granted funding to TDPs, for updating our infrastructure, and aligns with the new mission and vision statements for and RCP aiming at bringing researchers together for utilizing SciLifeLab. Although the infrastructure and research missions and strengthening the infrastructure. SciLifeLab also needs are independently funded, we believe a successful model of to achieve balance and clarity in communication and brand- mutual benefit has been achieved for maintaining cutting-edge ing of both the national infrastructure mission, and its Stock- infrastructure embedded within excellent research environ- holm-Uppsala focused research center mission. ments. To encourage and support this development further, we 3. However, if the universities are unable to take the further steps necessary in terms of integration in support of SciLifeLab then the creation of the SciLifeLab with its own legal personality remains the only way forward. Re: SciLifeLab is a collaborative effort across the four host uni- under the SciLifeLab name. The organizational restructuring versities, a model that has major advantages in e.g. resource of the SciLifeLab management in 2017 now facilitates much commitment from the host universities, flexible collaboration improved joint decisions and interactions between SciLifeLab platforms across the host universities, and host university stakeholders. Other developments are underway in 2018-2019, support for SciLifeLab in HR, purchasing, financial and IT including the launch of a dedicated external relations office for matters. However, this model also presents practical challeng- SciLifeLab, as well as a review together with the host universi- es, such as administrative and legal complexity internally, and ties regarding the legal representation of SciLifeLab. the lack of a contractual ability to engage external stakeholders A3 Governance and structure 4. There should be increased coordination between the four universities not only at the Rectors’ level but at all levels (including Departmental Heads and other faculty levels) to support SciLifeLab’s mission. Re: This is an excellent recommendation. There are indeed -al it is a challenge to connect to them all, taking their differences ready multiple levels of coordination in place between SciLife- into account. Some departments employ 100s of scientists and Lab management and the host universities. The new organiza- facility staff at SciLifeLab, and hence have a keen interest to tional structure of SciLifeLab launched in 2017 introduced the follow the developments of SciLifeLab. Other departments have role of Integration Directors (IDs) at each host university as the only limited commitments in SciLifeLab, and therefore the level crucial link between SciLifeLab management and host univer- of engagement, interest and knowledge about SciLifeLab varies sities. IDs facilitate links with the SciLifeLab committees of each widely among the individual departments and their leadership. host University that make decisions about SFO funding as well The management group arranged two joint meetings for all de- as links to the multitude of departments associated with SciL- partment heads and their representatives in 2018. These meet- ifeLab at each host University. SciLifeLab Management Group ings have been positively received and have contributed to the meeting is arranged 2-3 times per semester together with the IDs clarification of collaborative relations, and will continue bi-an- to facilitate this coordination. In addition to the IDs, the host nually. In addition, department heads are regularly informed university representatives in the board provide a link to the host about important decisions involving facilities where they have universities, to complement discussions with the Rectors. The staff employed. We have also updated a “Facility Agreement host universities indeed undertake many critical responsibilities and Terms & Conditions for Funding” (Appendix H), contain- and services for SciLifeLab by providing resources for e.g. HR, ing general guidelines about governance and policies for the legal, financial, communication, procurement, etc. More than facilities, which is signed by the host university department to 30 university