ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Panel 12 – science bio/geo
explain its rather unusual “diversity” that ranges from neurobiology
and genetics to plant physiology. In its own assessment the department
points out that such diversity is required for maintaining the standards
of teaching. Apparently, there was some pressure for this merger, which
in our opinion only makes sense if the “teaching argument” is accompanied
by some “functional research arguments”. However, such research
arguments we can only see in a few subgroups.
At present the department is located in four separate buildings which
clearly does neither aid the collaboration between groups nor does it provide
a lot of arguments for a merger. The formation of a real department
with its own identity, with true interdisciplinary collaboration and with a
novel and innovative research plan can only be achieved if all groups will
be located together in one building i.e. in very close proximity. In fact,
as outlined by the department itself, moving the various groups of COB
and the other mentioned departments such as Ecology and Undergraduate
Studies in Biology, to one large building, thus forming a “Biology
Center”, is the precondition for a successful and future fruitful merger.
If such a single location or “Biology Center” does not materialise, all
attempts in this respect are bound to fail as “virtual” units tend to remain
“virtual”. In addition, only if groups share the same location can synergies
in sharing large and expensive equipment be achieved. Thus, only
if there is a clear commitment for a “Biology Center” can a merger and
further new innovative research be successful beyond what are already
successful research areas.
2. Department of Ecology
2.1 Overall assessment
The very large Department of Ecology is highly heterogeneous. The
total number of scientists is listed as 150 (including Ph.D. students). The
department resulted from a merger of six sections, which are even now
quite independent (Plant Ecology and Systematics, Microbial Ecology,
Animal Ecology, Limnology, Theoretical Ecology and Chemical Ecology
and Ecotoxicology). Many of the scientists work on external funding, as a
high proportion of the departmental funding comes from outside sources
(about 50%). Collaboration between divisions seems good. Teaching is
exceptionally well integrated.
326