The loss of a researcher such as Billy Hudson at the Kansas University Medical Center is a major blow to the university no matter how some KUMC officials may try to minimize the situation.
Hudson, one of the university's most distinguished researchers, will be moving to Vanderbilt University. He is being drawn to the private Tennessee school, he said, by better research facilities. One of the advantages he cited was an established department for proteomics, the study of proteins. Proteomics is a main focus of the initiative between KUMC and other Kansas City research entities.
Few members of the KU faculty have received as much national acclaim as has Hudson. The university and the state cannot afford to lose such individuals. The research dollars he brings to the university and the state are significant, but he also is a top-flight individual who garners much respect for the school. Not only does KUMC lose Hudson, but he will be taking 10 of his 12 researchers with him to Tennessee.
Great effort is being made to make Kansas City a world-recognized center for the study of life sciences, and Hudson has been a key player in developing the proteomics proposal that is an important cog in the life sciences project.
It is surprising and somewhat disappointing to have the KUMC dean of medicine say, "Billy's leaving is not in any way imperiling the proteomics project."
How can a top KU official say that the loss of a researcher who has been dean of research and chairman of biochemistry and molecular biology, along with the loss of 10 other researchers, will not "in any way" imperil the proteomics project? Why not be honest and admit that in proteomics or other areas of research it is a huge loss?
Hudson pointed out he is 60 years old and only has so much time to advance or finish his research. "I'm at that stage of my career where time is of the essence," he said. What he didn't say is that Vanderbilt offers him and his fellow researchers better or more research facilities than he has had at KUMC and he will have a better chance of advancing his research at Vanderbilt. He also questions how long it would be before KUMC would have similar research facilities. And chances are, he will receive higher compensation at Vanderbilt.
Hudson's decision to move to Nashville comes at a time when Kansas Board of Regents Chairman Clay Blair and several Kansas legislators including Rep. Kenny Wilk, Rep. Rocky Nichols, Sen. Paul Feleciano and Sen. Steve Morris have been spearheading an effort to encourage their fellow legislators to approve a new system of funding to build new research facilities at Kansas State University, Wichita State and KU.
At a joint gathering of Kansas legislators last week in Manhattan, representatives of each institution outlined their respective projects and why they were important to the state. Adding their support and help are U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran and U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts.
Everyone the universities, researchers and the state is a winner in this research effort. New jobs are created and new money is generated by the research that flows into the state. New jobs and new businesses associated with research provide added tax revenue. And research in the three projects presented to state lawmakers improved aircraft safety, better safeguards against bioterrorism and new ways to avoid or minimize strokes, Alzheimer's disease and migraine headaches touches almost everyone.
Within hours after last week's Manhattan meeting, news of Hudson's decision to leave KUMC for Vanderbilt was made public. This is just the kind of thing the state cannot afford.
As noted above, some may try to make light of Hudson's departure and claim it doesn't have a major impact on the Med Center's research efforts, but it does. KU, KSU and WSU cannot afford to lose men like Hudson.
What are legislators to think when a KUMC official suggests Hudson's move really doesn't harm his area of research at the Med Center. Wouldn't it be normal for Kansas lawmakers to point to such a statement as proof there really isn't much need to improve salaries and facilities? If we can lose a Hudson or others like him without retarding or setting back the school's research efforts, why should legislators push for additional research funding, especially for KUMC? The response of KUMC officials undercuts the current effort to convince lawmakers that additional funding for research facilities and higher salaries is needed to prevent the loss of top-flight researchers in Kansas.
The state needs more researchers like Hudson, and the only way to attract them is to have modern facilities for them to carry out their research and salaries that are competitive with those at other major research universities.
KU officials didn't send the right message to state lawmakers with the manner they publicly responded to Hudson's upcoming departure. Time and time again, KU fails to tell its story in a way that points out the importance for higher education and research to the state.
Legislators could vote as soon as next week on the matter of bond financing to build new research facilities at KU, WSU and KSU. How the legislators vote, whether for one, two, three or more of the projects outlined at the Manhattan gathering, should signal how much these lawmakers believe and respect the efforts of KSU President Jon Wefald, WSU President Don Beggs and KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway, as well as how effective these three school have been in telling their stories and convincing legislators of their relevance to the welfare and future of the state.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.