PDF conference book - ORPHEUS

Editors: Roland Jonsson, Michael J. Mulvany & Zdravko Lackovic 

1

Editors 

Roland Jonsson 

Michael J. Mulvany 

Zdravko Lackovic 

Publisher 

Medicinska naklada 

10000 Zagreb, Croatia 

www.medicinskanaklada.com 

Represented by 

Anapplea RaiË 

Cover page design and layout 

Andrea KnapiÊ 

Print by MEDICINSKA NAKLADA - ZAGREB, April 2012 

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the 

National and University Library in Zagreb under 803730. 

ISBN 978-953-176-565-7 

2

ORGANISATION 

Executive Committee Members of ORPHEUS 

Zdravko Lackovic, Zagreb, President 

Michael Mulvany, Aarhus, Vice President 

Seppo Meri, Helsinki, General Secretary 

Andrea Olschewski, Graz, Treasurer 

Miroslav Cervinka, Hradec Kralowe 

Debora Grosskopf-Kroiher, Cologne 

Gul Guner-Akdogan, Izmir 

Konstantin Gurevich, Moscow 

Petr Hach, Prague 

Roland Jonsson, Bergen 

Luis Martinez Millan, Vizcay 

Jadwiga Mirecka, Krakow 

Andre Nieoullon, Marseilles 

Chris Van Schavendijk, Brussels 

3

Local Organising Committee 

- University of Bergen and Haukeland University Hospital 

Merete Allertsen, University of Bergen 

Robert Bjerknes, University of Bergen 

Ane Brorstad Mengshoel, University of Bergen 

Tone Friis Hordvik, University of Bergen 

Kate Frøland, University of Bergen 

Inger Hjeldnes Senneseth, University of Bergen 

Roland Jonsson, University of Bergen, Conference Chair 

Gry Kibsgaard, University of Bergen 

Anlaug Lid, University of Bergen 

Jan Petter Myklebust, University of Bergen 

Rune Nilsen, University of Bergen 

Torunn Olsnes, University of Bergen 

Ernst Omenaas, Haukeland University Hospital 

Berit Rokne, University of Bergen, Deputy Rector 

Marianne Stien, University of Bergen 

Reidar Thorstensen, Haukeland University Hospital 

4

The Programme at a Glance 

April 19, 2012 13:00 - 15:00 Registration 

15:00 - 15:30 Opening Ceremony 

15:30 - 17:15 Key Note Lectures - Need for quality PhD training 

April 20, 2012 09:00 - 10:30 Key Note Lectures - How to evaluate PhD training 

10:30 - 11:00 Break 

11:00 - 12:00 Key Note Lectures - How to evaluate PhD training cont. 

12:00 - 13:00 Lunch and Poster viewing 

13:00 - 14:45 Poster guided tours 

14:00 - 14:20 Key Note Lecture - The PhD standards document 

14:20 - 16:20 Workshops 

16:20 - 18:00 Key Note Lectures - How to improve quality of PhD training 

April 21, 2012 09:00 - 10:30 Key Note Lectures - PhD training around the globe 

10:30 - 11:00 Break 

11:00 - 12:30 Presentation of Workshop Papers 

and draft CONSENSUS DOCUMENT 

12:30 - 13:30 Lunch 

13:30 - 14:00 Acceptance of provisional CONSENSUS DOCUMENT 

and Closing Ceremony 

14:00- 15:00 ORPHEUS General Assembly 

5

Map: Bergen City with Hotels and Conference Venue 

Map: Conference Venue 

6

Welcome address 

With great pleasure we welcome all participants to the 7th ORPHEUS 2012 conference - an event, 

we believe, to be of major importance for the future and quality of PhD training programmes 

in Europe. 

University of Bergen is indeed proud to contribute in this field of knowledge building and transfer. 

Historically University of Bergen has been central in developing new national PhD regulations and 

new concept of Research Schools in Norway and has a prominent international profile. Key-persons 

at our university have been instrumental for founding Council of Doctoral Education (CDE) in Europe 

as well as participating in the EUA project “Innovation in the PhD training”. 

Throughout Europe there is a growing emphasis on PhD education as the “third cycle” in the 

Bologna process. For the health sciences, this provides new opportunities for the advancement of 

clinical research as well as for strengthening basic research in the area. This is, however, dependent 

on the content and quality of the PhD degree, and it was for this reason that ORPHEUS was 

established. 

ORPHEUS (Organisation for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European 

System) held its first conferences in 2004 and 2005, where standards for the health science PhD 

were discussed and defined. In particular, the “Zagreb declaration” was formulated, which defined 

the expected content of a PhD thesis in the biomedical context. The third conference in 2007, 

discussed the role of clinical PhD programmes in graduate schools in health science. The fourth 

meeting held in 2008 in Aarhus set the basic standards for the PhD degree in biomedicine and 

health sciences. The fifth conference was held in Vienna 2007, with the motto “The Advancement 

of European Biomedical and Health Science PhD Education by Cooperative Networking”. The most 

recent conference 2011 was held in Izmir, Turkey, with the theme: “Quality Indicators of PhD training”. 

The position papers from each of these conferences can be found on the ORPHEUS homepage 

(http://www.orpheus-med.org). ORPHEUS now has a membership of around 80 biomedical and 

health science faculties and institutions from almost all European countries. 

7

Recently, ORPHEUS in collaboration with Association of Medical School of Europe (AMSE) and World 

Federation for Medical Education (WFME) issued a joint document: Standards for PhD Education in 

Biomedicine and Health Sciences in Europe. The document is the product of discussion at numerous 

conferences with hundreds of participants. The aim now is to discuss how these standards can best 

be promoted and applied. In particular, whether some form of ORPHEUS label could be offered to 

institutions meeting these standards. Such actions could have an important effect on improving the 

quality of PhD training in European biomedicine and health sciences. 

The current seventh conference is on the theme “Establishing Evaluation of PhD Training”. On this 

topic, keynote speakers will provide impulses that we will further discuss in workshops to elaborate 

guidelines and strategies on ORPEHUS organized international evaluation of PhD training in Europe. 

On behalf of ORPHEUS and the Local Organising Committee we wish you cordially invited to Bergen. 

It is our sincere hope that you will find the conference both professionally worthwhile as well as 

culturally enjoyable. 

Very sincerely, 

Roland Jonsson Zdravko Lackovic 

7th ORPHEUS Conference Chair President of ORPHEUS 

8

GENERAL INFORMATION 

Registration 

Registration on site will take place at the Conference venue at Haukeland University Hospital, the BB 

building, where the registration desk will be available at the following hours: 

Thursday, April 19 from 14:00-18:00 hrs. 

Friday, April 20 from 08:00-17:00 hrs. 

Saturday, April 21 from 08:00-12:00 hrs. 

A hospitality desk will be available throughout the conference. 

Registration fees covers: 

V Participation in all sessions 

V Programme and conference proceedings 

V Lunch and poster session 

V Coffee and refreshments on the conference days 

V Opening session and welcome reception 

V Conference dinner 

The accompanying person fee includes: 

V Opening session and welcome reception 

V Conference dinner 

Scientific Sessions 

All sessions will be held in Auditorium 1 of the BB building. 

Oral presentations 

The oral presentations are expected to be uploaded well in advance of the respective session. Please 

contact technical staff in the front - left corner of the Auditorium for help with this uploading. 

Workshops 

The Workshops will be held in the following rooms: 

Workshop 1: Aud. B-301, Haukeland University Hospital 

Workshop 2: Aud. B-302, Haukeland University Hospital 

Workshop 3: Birkhaugsalen, Haukeland University Hospital 

Worskhop 4: Konferanserommet, BB-Building 

9

Poster Presentations 

All posters will be on display outside Auditorium 1 for the duration of the entire conference. 

Poster Guided Tours 

There will be six (6) simultaneous, guided poster tours Thursday 20th April starting at 13.00. All 

poster presenters are expected to be present at their respective poster during this presentation tour. 

It is expected that the poster owner gives a brief presentation. 

Poster Awards 

There will be 3 poster awards: 1st Prize - 1000 €, two 2nd Prizes - 500 € each. These will be 

announced at the Closing Ceremony at 13.30 Saturday 21st April. 

Bursaries for PhD students 

Bursaries for PhD students will be distributed after the Conference. 

Certificate of attendance 

Certificates of attendance will be provided in the congress bags. 

Liability and Insurance 

Neither the organisers of 7th ORPHEUS Conference 2012 nor the Conference Secretariat will assume 

any responsibility whatsoever for damage or injury to persons or property during the conference. 

Participants are recommended to arrange for their own personal travel and health insurance. 

Changes 

The organisers reserve the right to adjust or change the programme as necessary. 

Meals 

Coffee and lunch are included in the registration fee and will be served daily at the conference 

venue. 

10

Badges 

Each participant will receive a name badge upon registration. For security reasons all participants 

are requested to wear their badge during all the Meeting activities and social events. 

Language 

English. No simultaneous translation. 

Airport and Transport Information 

Local transportation to Bergen City Centre from the airport: 

Bergen airport is situated 20 km south of Bergen City Centre and takes approx. 30 min by car/bus. 

You can pay your bus-ticket by creditcard. 

Airport Express Coach (“Flybussen”) 

At the airport the Airport Coach is waiting outside the arrival area, and during daytime the bus 

departures every 15 min (Saturdays every 20 min). Late at night there are departures approx. 20 

min after your plane has landed. All scheduled f lights (not chartered f lights late at night) are being 

served by Airport Express Coach in Bergen. 

In Bergen city centre, on the way to the airport, the Airport Coach can pick you up outside Radisson 

Blu Royal Hotel, or Nonneseter Epressbusterminal (the terminal building). Please give the driver a 

signal. From Nonneseter express busterminal the coach has alternative service via Fjøsanger and 

Fyllingsdalen. 

Bergen Airport Flesland 

Service center: (+47) 55 99 81 55 

Taxi 

Bergen Taxi: 07000 

Norges Taxi: 08000 

There are also several taxi companies operating from the airport. The taxi stand is located just 

outside the terminal. 

Return to the airport by taxi: Taxis are available at the main Hospital Building. 

Price range is about 350 NOK (approx: 45 €) one way. 

11

Transportation to conference venue 

The Conference hotels are situated in the City centre, approximately 3 km from Haukeland University 

Hospital where the conference will be held. There will be shuttle busses available to and from 

Haukeland at set times. Timetables are available at the conference hotels as well as the Conference 

venue. 

Currency Exchange 

All Norwegian banks and major post offices exchange foreign currency. Currency exchange offices 

are also located at Bergen Airport Flesland and at the train station. 

Credit Cards 

The use of credit cards is widespread in Norway, and they are accepted everywhere. 

Eurocard, MasterCard, VISA, American Express and Diners Club are the most common. It is a good 

idea to check with your credit card company about the degree of acceptability and available services 

before you leave home. 

Note that most food stores however only accept debit cards. 

Climate 

The weather in Bergen in April is normally pleasant, but can also be cool. Bring an umbrella! 

For information about the weather in Bergen in this period, please visit www.yr.no 

Tipping 

Tipping is not mandatory, however, you can give up to 10% dependent on your personal decision in 

taxis and restaurants. 

Emergency Services 

Police - Dial 112 

Ambulance - Dial 113 

Fire Brigade - Dial 110 

12

SOCIAL PROGRAMME 

Thursday April 19, 2012 

10:00 - 12:00 Guided Tours (registered participants only) 

Alternative 1 - Hanseatic quarter and the fortress 

Alternative 2 - Hanseatic quarter and the Medieval City 

18:00 - 19:00 Reception by invitation of the City of Bergen in the Royal Stone Hall, 

Håkonshallen (King Haakons Hall) 

Friday, April 20, 2012 

19:30 - 23:30 Banquet dinner at Fløien Folkerestaurant 

13

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME 

April 19, 2012 

15:00 - 15:30 Opening ceremony of ORPHEUS 2012 

(Chair: Roland Jonsson) 

14 

Welcome - Roland Jonsson, Conference Chair 

Welcome and greetings from University of Bergen - Berit Rokne, Deputy Rector 

Welcome and greetings from ORPHEUS - Zdravko Lackovic, President 

Music entertainment 

15:30 - 17:10 Key Note Lectures - Need for Quality PhD Training 

(Chairs: Zdravko Lackovic, Michael Mulvany) 

15:30 Strategic challenges in doctoral training and the Innovation Union agenda 

of the EU - Stefaan Hermans, DG Research & Innovation, 

European Commission (EC) (L6) 

15:55 Strategic challenges in doctural education: Raising our game across 

Europe - David Gani, EUA Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE) (L3) 

16:20 Marie Curie Actions: Innovation and excellence in PhD training 

- Frederico Miranda, Marie Curie Actions, European Commission (EC) (L11) 

16:45 ESF-EMRC science policy briefing: Medical research education in 

Europe - Giovanni Pacini, European Science Foundation (ESF) (L14)

April 20, 2012 

09:00 - 10:30 Key Note Lectures - How to evaluate PhD training 

(Chairs: Melita Kovačević, Gul Güner-Akdogan) 

09:00 ORPHEUS: From development of standards toward international quality 

assessment and global PhD - Zdravko Lacković, 

ORPHEUS - President, University of Zagreb (L10) 

09:30 Quality assurance and doctoral education: Ref lections on the UK 

experience - Janet Bohrer, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 

for Higher Education, UK (L1) 

09:50 Evaluation of Norwegian PhD education - Taran Thune, Nordic Institute 

for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) (L17) 

10:10 The role of students in the evaluation of PhD programmes: How can we 

get involved and gain inf luence on our daily lives? - Tove Ragna 

Reksten, University of Bergen (L15) 

10:30 Break 

11:00 - 12:00 Key Note Lectures - How to evaluate PhD training cont. 

(Chairs: Seppo Meri, Anders Haugland) 

11:00 Evaluation of PhD training from standpoint of industry - Mike Hardman, 

European Medicines Research Training Network (EMTRAIN) (L4) 

11:20 Qualitative aspects of PhD for staff development in health services - 

Stener Kvinnsland, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen (L9) 

11:40 Balancing the Ying/Yang of doctoral education - evaluating and 

examining Intended Learning Outcomes - Robert Harris, 

Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (L5) 

12:00 Group Photo 

12:00 - 13:00 Lunch and Poster viewing 

13:00 - 13:45 Poster Guided Tours 

P25-P34 Evaluation of PhD education 

(Chairs: Debora Grosskopf-Kroiher, Karl A. Brokstad) 

P35-P39 From the candidates’ point of view 

(Chairs: Birute Strukcinskiene, Piotr Mydel) 

P40-P43 Internationalisation and mobility 

(Chairs: Luis Martinez Millan, Malin V. Jonsson) 

P44-P48 National reports 

(Chairs: Konstantin Gurevich, Line Wergeland) 

15

16 

P49-P59 Organisation of PhD education 

(Chairs: Andrea Olschewski, Nicolas Delaleu) 

P60-P66 Strategies to improve PhD education 

(Chairs: Robert Harris, Silke Appel) 

14:00 - 14:20 Key Note Lecture - The PhD standards document 

(Chairs: David Gani, Rune Nilsen) 

14:20 - 16:20 Workshops 

Are the ORPHEUS/AMSE/WFME standards appropriate for evaluation 

of PhD programmes? - Michael J. Mulvany, Aarhus University, 

Vice-president ORPHEUS (L12) 

Internal evaluation of PhD programmes (Chair: Miroslav Cervinka; co-chairs: 

Andrea Olschewski, Inger Senneseth, Jan Petter Myklebust) 

External evaluation of PhD programmes (Chair: Michael Mulvany; 

co-chairs: Jadwiga Mirecka, Ernst Omenaas) 

How to organize ORPHEUS labelling of PhD programmes 

(chair: Zdravko Lackovic; co-chairs Seppo Meri, Günther Gell, Rune Nilsen) 

The role of students in PhD training evaluation 

(Chairs: Kirstine Kj≥r Kirkegaard and Tove Ragna Reksten) 

16:20 - 18:00 Key Note Lectures - How to improve quality of PhD Training 

(Chairs: Andre Nieoullon, Robert Bjerknes) 

16:20 Experiences with a publishing incentive connected to institutional 

funding - Gunnar Sivertsen, Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, 

Research and Education (NIFU) (L16) 

16:40 Healthy brain drain? - Rune Nilsen, Centre for International Health (CIH), 

University of Bergen (L13) 

17:00 Assurance and enhancement framework to improve PhD training quality 

- Barry Hirst, Faculty of Medical Sciences Graduate School, 

Newcastle University, UK (L7) 

17:20 The Network of European Neuroscience Schools: Goals and 

developments - Pavle R. Andjus, School of Biology, University of 

Belgrade (P18) 

17:40 Certified-Science-Training (CST) - Support of science and incubator of 

the “Scientific Citizen” and The new thesis regulations of the Charité: 

Applying Orpheus Standards - Jörg-Wilhelm Oestman, Charité Faculty, 

Berlin (P23-24)

April 21, 2012 

09:00 - 10:30 Key Note Lectures - PhD Training around the Globe 

(Chairs: Hannes Stockinger, Ernst Omenaas) 

09:00 Doctoral education as a global phenomenon - Thomas Jørgensen, 

EUA Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE) (L8) 

09:25 Global doctoral education: Critical conversations - Karen P. DePauw, 

Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), USA (L2) 

09:50 PhD education in Kazakhstan - Raushan S. Dosmagambetova, Karaganda 

Medical State University, Kazakhstan (P19) 

10:00 Doctoral candidates’ view on standards of education at Polish medical 

schools - Agata Skrzypek, Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Medicine, 

Krakow (P22) 

10:10 Evaluation of PhD work in Russian Federation - Konstantin G. Gurevich, 

Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow (P20) 

10:20 Evaluating structured PhD programmes - Helen P. McVeigh, Royal 

College of Surgeons in Ireland, School of Postgraduate Studies, Dublin (P21) 

10:30 - 11:00 Break 

11:00 - 12:30 Presentation of Workshop Papers and draft Consensus Document 

(Chairs: Jadwiga Mirecka, Peter Hach) 

12:30 - 13:30 Lunch 

Workshop 1: Miroslav Cervinka 

Workshop 2: Michael Mulvany 

Workshop 3: Zdravko Lackovic 

Workshop 4: Tove Ragna Reksten - Kirstine Kj≥r Kirkegaard 

13:30 - 14:00 Acceptance of provisional Consensus Document and Closing Ceremony 

(Chairs: Zdravko Lackovic, Mike Mulvany) 

14:00 - 15:00 ORPHEUS General Assembly 

(Chair: Zdravko Lackovic; Co-chairs Helga Ögmundsdottir, 

Andrea Olschewski; Minutes: Debora Grosskopf-Kroiher) 

17

ABSTRACTS 

Abstract Editors: Torunn Olsnes, Marianne Stien and Roland Jonsson 

Contents by category. Abstract numbers (P18-P66) correspond to numbers on poster walls 

L1-L17 Keynote Lectures 

P18-P24 Abstracts selected for oral presentation 

P25-P34 Evaluation of PhD education 

P35-P39 From the candidates’ point of view 

P40-P43 Internationalisation and mobility 

P44-P48 National reports 

P49-P59 Organisation of PhD education 

P60-P66 Strategies to improve PhD education 

All abstracts within each category are listed in alphabetical order, by author surname 

18

Keynote Lectures 

L1 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION: 

REFLECTIONS ON THE UK EXPERIENCE 

Janet Bohrer 

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK 

s.sansom@qaa.ac.uk 

In the UK the primary responsibility for academic standards and quality rests with individual 

institutions. This is monitored by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA’s 

mission is to safeguard standards and improve the quality of UK higher education by reviewing UK 

higher education providers, reporting on how well they meet those responsibilities, identifying good 

practice, and making recommendations for improvement across all three of the Bologna cycles. 

This presentation will outline quality assurance and doctoral education from a UK national 

perspective. It will ref lect on how the European Standards and Guidelines and the Salzburg Principles 

are being embedded within our national documentation in the context of the current position in the 

UK. The presentation will include the ongoing work with the higher education sector developing the 

UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code) of which research degrees are covered in 

a separate chapter and will be published at the end of June 2012. The presentation will also refer to 

the development of the Doctoral degrees characteristics document published in September 2011, 

which drew on many documented sources as well as the work of the Orpheus group. Complementing 

Doctoral degree characteristics, QAA published a guide written with the National Union of Students 

- The UK doctorate: a guide for current and prospective candidates - which answers key questions 

candidates might wish to ask about doing a doctorate in the UK. 

Ref lecting on current work in the UK will show how these developments will help to continue QAA’s 

role in securing the reputation of the UK’s doctoral education. 

19


L2 GLOBAL DOCTORAL EDUCATION: 

CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS 

Karen P. DePauw 1 

1 Virginia Tech, Graduate School, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA 

kpdepauw@vt.edu 

The global landscape of doctoral education has changed and institutions of higher education 

worldwide are challenged to ensure that PhD training remains relevant. Efforts in the United States 

and in Europe have set forth guiding principles for graduate education especially doctoral education 

and offered proposals for change. 

Recent national reports and critiques require an examination of the basic tenants of doctoral 

education and its value for the future worldwide. This presentation will provide an overview of issues 

facing global doctoral education and offer some suggestions of the critical conversations in which 

we must engage. 

20


L3 STRATEGIC CHALLENGES IN DOCTORAL 

EDUCATION: RAISING OUR GAME ACROSS EUROPE 

David Gani 1 

1 University of Strathclyde, Deputy Principal, Glasgow, Scotland 

caroline.aitchison@strath.ac.uk 

The main features of the Salzburg Principles and how these are driving quality enhancement across 

Europe will be presented. The challenges in striving to create a quality-coherent European system 

which delivers diversity and excellence in each of the main Salzburg Principles will be described 

along with the progress that is being achieved. The potential for greater collaboration, best-practice 

sharing, enhancing the value of doctoral education in innovation and to non-academic employers 

and the need for coherent contracts and conditions will be emphasized. Key to realizing the full 

potential of European doctoral education and researcher training more generally is raised awareness 

amongst employer and government stakeholders, research users and university sector doctoral 

education providers on the substantial role that doctoral candidates and trainees in delivering and 

exploiting new knowledge for societal and economic benefit. The opportunities for Europe to provide 

international leadership in research training will be outlined along with the cultural, societal and 

future trading benefits. 

21


L4 EVALUATION OF PHD TRAINING 

FROM STANDPOINT OF INDUSTRY 

Mike Hardman 

1 EMTRAIN 

22 

1, 2 

2 AZ, Science Relations, Macclesfield, UK 

mike.hardman@astrazeneca.com 

PhD students are the new generation of scientists. They are enthusiastic, innovative and question 

traditional wisdom - all of these are essential for the future of science. They create the new ideas, 

which need to be nurtured in a “green-house” until we know which ones will grow. Given that only 

a minority (about 15%) of PhD students follow an academic career, it has become increasingly 

important to ensure that their training includes skills and competencies which equip them for a 

broader range of career options. Naturally the industry employers have an interest in the quality of 

the PhD students. 

Why are public private partnership PhDs so important to us? The pharmaceutical industry is 

increasingly looking to the academic community for partnerships/collaborations in all areas of 

research. Having scientists who better understand both the world of academia and the world of 

drug development is essential. Therefore, quality for us includes: scientific excellence, awareness 

of the industry needs and the application of science, additional transferable skills (innovation, 

entrepreneurship and collaboration) as well as communication across this community. These 

elements are critically important if Europe is going to remain competitive. 

EMTRAIN has developed a framework document for public private partnership PhDs. This was 

reviewed with the students at the recent PhD workshop in Manchester. Having an agreed syllabus 

for courses also helps us to understand what the PhD graduates can do, and this transparency is 

a part of the quality we are looking for. A summary of the industry interviews and the output from 

the workshop will be presented. However, it doesn’t stop there. We are looking to map the benefits 

of these interventions and drive life-long learning to ensure that our scientists continue to develop 

their professional competency.


L5 BALANCING THE YING/YANG 

OF DOCTORAL EDUCATION - EVALUATING 

AND EXAMINING INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES 

Robert A Harris 1 

1 Karolinska Institutet, Clinical Neuroscience, Stockholm, Sweden 

robert.harris@ki.se 

One of the current challenges to research group leaders is how to reconcile the requirement to 

produce scientific articles of high quality (Ying), the most usual measure used to merit grant funding 

and career advancement, with the requirements for the research education of a doctoral student 

(Yang). Current attitudes among many researchers view these as diametrically opposed, competing 

interests. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) provide a link between summative and formative 

assessments during a doctoral education, and efficient examination of ILOs necessitates focus on 

the learning underlying the scientific prowess. 

Productive science by PhD students will be the result of technical and analytical abilities learnt at the 

bench, combined with inspiration and both widening and deepening of knowledge gleaned through a 

variety of educational activities. I will suggest that an inability to intertwine these activities is a state 

of mind rather than reality, and also the result of inappropriate semantics. I propose that adoption 

of the term ‘Research Training’ with continual evaluation and specific examination of ILOs defined 

at Masters, Doctoral and Postdoctoral levels may provide the means of balancing the shades of grey 

more black and white. 

23


L6 STRATEGIC CHALLENGES IN DOCTORAL TRAINING 

AND THE INNOVATION UNION AGENDA OF THE EU 

Stefaan Hermans 1 

1 European Commission 

Stefaan.Hermans@ec.europa.eu 

To increase the research intensity of our economies and to reach the R&D target of 3% of GDP, 

the EU will need and estimated one million new research jobs. This will require a better matching 

of supply and demand. High quality, industry-relevant doctoral training is instrumental in meeting 

this demand for expert human capital. Doctoral candidates and graduates are the creators of new 

knowledge and the human carriers which ensure its transfer. Offering structured doctoral training 

can play a pivotal role in enabling universities to become innovation centres for their region. To 

foster research excellence and to increase its value for society and the economy, the European 

Commission is promoting the best practice based Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training. They 

refer to: 1) Research Excellence, 2) Attractive Institutional Environment (in line with the Charter & 

Code), 3) Interdisciplinary Research Options, 4) Exposure to industry and other relevant employment 

sectors, 5) International networking, 6) Transferable skills training, 7) Quality Assurance. 

The principles have been endorsed by the Council of Ministers in November 2011. Ministers agree 

that linking funding to the implementation of the EU Principles on Innovative Doctoral Training 

will allow Europe to train more researchers better and faster. Follow up actions are undertaken 

at national and European level. The ORPHEUS/AMSE/ WFME Standards provide sector specific 

guidance on how to apply the principles in a given area of research. They could set an example for 

other disciplines to follow. 

24


L7 ASSURANCE & ENHANCEMENT FRAMEWORK 

TO IMPROVE PHD TRAINING QUALITY 

Barry H Hirst 1 

1 Newcastle University, Medical Sciences Graduate School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 

barry.hirst@ncl.ac.uk 

Newcastle is a civic university with its roots in providing training in the medical (1834) and physical 

sciences. Newcastle University is a founder member of the Russell Group of research-intensive 

universities in the UK. 

Postgraduate research students are essential to the research of the university, while at the 

same time the university provides a structured research environment in which they are able to 

develop their research skills. In excess of 1700 students are registered for PhD studies. Newcastle 

University introduced a code of practice for research degree programmes, which maps to, although 

predates, the national Quality Assurance Agency code. Internal quality assurance includes annually 

reporting from academic units which host research degree students. This annual reporting includes 

performance statistics, such as national research assessment ratings and numbers of research 

student applications and registration. 

Research students and supervisory teams, research experts in the field of study and experienced in 

successful supervision, sign learning agreements, followed by development and approval of a project 

approval within the first few months of registration. Each student is provided with annual reviews of 

progress. Performance statistics include thesis submission, outcomes and completion (awards) rates. 

The incidence of complaints and appeals are also monitored. Commentary on the annual 

performance includes selection, admission and induction; research environment; student support 

and guidance; research training and skills; employability; student feedback and representation. 

Annual reports are reviewed by Graduate School Committee, looking for areas of best practice as 

well as indicators for improvements. These reports feed into the University Teaching, Learning & 

Student Experience Committee. Annual reports are followed by approximately sexennial review 

visits, to investigate support and research training at ground level. Engagement of units involved in 

the research training with these processes engenders a sense of ownership and thus enhancement 

of the research student training provision. 

25


L8 DOCTORAL EDUCATION 

AS A GLOBAL PHENOMENON 

Thomas E Jorgensen 1 

1 European University Association, EUA-CDE, Brussels, Belgium 

thomas.jorgensen@eua.be 

There is an increased focus on doctoral education across the world. This growing focus has led 

to interesting examples of convergence concerning the role of universities in delivering doctoral 

education, despite of the different contexts in developing, emerging and developed countries. 

Two common discourses form the underlying currents leading to convergence: The first common is 

the idea that investments in research and development are central for economic growth. 

Doctoral education in this context is seen as the breeding ground for new researchers and thus the 

human capital necessary to for high-level R&D. At the same time, the broader global expansion of 

higher education requires qualified research and teaching staff, adding a second boost to doctoral 

education. 

The second common discourse is the one of ‘grand challenges’: The world is facing global challenges 

such as energy security, climate change and demographic imbalances, and these challenges must 

be solved by technical and societal innovation. Here, doctorate holders are seen as part of the 

necessary investment to achieve such innovation. 

These common discourses have led to a high intake in doctoral education in many countries, and 

it has led to universities looking for new ways to attain the necessary critical mass of research and 

institutional support to provide for rising numbers of doctoral candidates. 

The presentation will show the results of a survey conducted through the EUA-led CODOC project, 

looking at doctoral education in Southern Africa, East Asia and Latin America. It will demonstrate 

the common tendencies and insert them in the perspective of the European development during the 

last decade. 

26


L9 QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF PHD FOR STAFF 

DEVELOPMENTS IN HEALTH SERVICES 

Stener Kvinnsland 1 

1 Hauekeland University Hospital (Helse Bergen), Norway 

stener.kvinnsland@helse-bergen.no 

There are many dilemmas in modern, specialised health services. To prioritize, be cost-effective 

and give high quality services according to best knowledge are expected in a situastion where no 

economy in the world can afford to offer everything that is possible. In addition, the best answer to 

these dilemmas is to have a staff of correct mix and the highest individual quality. 

The PhD training program fits nicely into this need. Training based on hypothesis setting, litterature 

search, methodology evaluation, statistical prerequisies and critical result analysis develops the 

attitude and skills wanted. It is very important that theoretical training that encompasses the spesific 

needs of clinical research is included in the program. 

A continuous critical assessment of new technologies and treatment is needed in modern 

medicine. This must be supported by clinical and tranlational research. The PhD training provides 

knowledge needed, and will continue to be one of the most important assets to make the right 

choices in the future. 

27


L10 ORPHEUS: FROM DEVELOPMENT 

OF STANDARDS TOWARD INTERNATIONAL 

QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND GLOBAL PHD 

Zdravko Lackovic 1 

1 ORPHEUS President, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia. 

lac@mef.hr 

The introduction of doctoral training as the “third cycle” of the Bologna process presented a 

challenge to European Universities. This third cycle should not only be research-based, but also 

provide graduates with skills to contribute to the knowledge society both within and outside of 

academia. The establishment of ORPHEUS in 2004 was a reaction to this. The first and second 

ORPHEUS conferences were held in Zagreb to exchange experiences and reach consensus 

regarding PhD education in biomedicine and health sciences. Importantly, criteria for the content 

and evaluation of the PhD thesis were established. Furthermore, guidelines for the structured 

organization of PhD programs were provided. The 2007 Helsinki conference discussed the 

importance of PhD training in clinical research, establishing that a clinical PhD should have the same 

standard as other PhDs in biomedicine. Results of past conferences were summarized at the 2009 

Aarhus conference in a document “Towards PhD standards in biomedicine and health sciences”. 

The 2010 Vienna conference emphasized the importance of cooperative networking for the 

development of doctoral studies. The 2011 Izmir conference discussed PhD quality indicators. Twentyfive 

universities from 16 European countries participated in Zagreb 2004, while at the last ORPHEUS 

conferences there were participants from over a hundred institutions from almost every European 

country. 

Based on the results of those conferences and in cooperation with Association of Medical Schools in 

Europe (AMSE) and World Federation for Medical Education (WFME), ORPHEUS has now developed 

a PhD standards document for PhD education in biomedicine and health sciences. As for the 

previous consensus documents, the PhD standards document is based on wide-spread consultation. 

And indeed, the PhD standards document has been well received. It now remains to discuss how 

the document can be used. Should we as academics resist the prescriptive nature of standards? 

Or should we take the opportunity to safeguard the reputation of the PhD not only as a research 

degree, but also to strengthen career opportunities for PhD graduates? And should we, given that 

Science knows no borders, go further and use our experience in Europe to discuss PhD standards 

globally? Do we see ORPHEUS MUNDUS in a near future? 

28


L11 MARIE CURIE ACTIONS: INNOVATION 

AND EXCELLENCE IN PHD TRAINING 

Frederico F. Miranda 1 

1 European Commission, Brussels, Belgium 

frederico.miranda@ec.europa.eu 

The Marie Curie action Initial Training Networks (ITN) aims at improving career perspectives of 

early-stage researchers both in the public and private sectors. This is accomplished by extending the 

traditional academic research training setting and by exposing the researchers to both academia and 

enterprise during their training. The action supports a trans-national networking mechanism, meant 

to structure the existing high-quality initial research training capacity throughout Member States and 

associated countries. Participation of private research organisations is considered essential in the 

action. 

The networks are composed by least three participants established in at least three different 

Member States or associated countries. Together, the participants create a joint research training 

programme, responding to well identified training needs in defined scientific or technological areas, 

with appropriate references to interdisciplinary fields. 

In 2012 two new modalities financing exclusively PhD candidates were introduced in the ITN action: 

the European Industrial Doctorates (EID) and the Innovative Doctoral Programmes (IDP). EID projects 

are composed of two participants established in two different countries: one academic institution 

and one participant from the private sector. PhD candidates recruited under an EID have to spend at 

least 50% of their time in the private sector. IDP projects are composed of a sole participant, which 

is typically a university or a research institution offering an innovative doctoral programme ensuring 

an international, interdisciplinary and intersectoral training. 

ITN projects are evaluated by independent experts coming from all over Europe, on the basis of 4 

criteria: quality of the science, quality of the training, implementation and impact of the project. The 

evaluation is done in light of the principles of the ‘European Charter for Researchers’ and the ‘Code 

of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers’. 

29


L12 ARE THE ORPHEUS/AMSE/WFME 

STANDARDS APPROPRIATE FOR EVALUATION 

OF PHD PROGRAMMES? 

Michael J Mulvany 1 

1 Vice-president ORPHEUS, Aarhus University, Biomedicine (Pharmacology), Aarhus, Denmark 

mm@farm.au.dk 

Since incorporation of doctoral studies in the Bologna Process as a third cycle, the nature of PhD 

education has changed dramatically. Historically, PhD training was the basis for an academic career. 

Now PhD programmes provide training not only for academia, but also for non-academic positions 

in the “knowledge society”. Indeed 80-90% of PhD graduates are likely to use their talents in 

nonacademic careers. Thus the old apprenticeship model for PhD training has to be replaced to 

ensure that PhD programmes contain, besides hands-on research, the development of managerial 

skills: setting up protocols, ensuring these are carried out (probably with some external assistance), 

obtaining financing, networking, publishing of the results and presenting these to scientific and 

nonscientific audiences, nationally and internationally. 

These characteristics of PhD programmes are those contained in the new ORPHEUS/AMSE/ 

WFME PhD standards document. The document builds on the results of the ORPHEUS conferences 

since 2004, and consultations with numerous graduate schools, scientific societies and other 

organizations across Europe, as well as intensive discussions in all three organizations during the 

drafting process. The document covers all aspects of PhD training programmes and has the format 

of previous WFME standards documents. There are basic standards that must be met, and standards 

that describe good practice (quality development). 

Annotations clarify, amplify or exemplify expressions in the standards. In preparing the standards, 

a balance has been struck between specificity and the need to accommodate differing but good 

practices in different European countries. 

The aim of the document is not to provide a strait-jacket but to ensure that PhD programmes offer 

all students the experience they will need after completing their studies, without compromising the 

research aspect. Thus there is emphasis on creative synthesis, initiative and resourcefulness. It is 

anticipated that the document can provide a practical way of supporting a quality assurance process. 

30


L13 HEALTHY BRAIN DRAIN? 

Rune Nilsen 1 

1 Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Norway 

rune.nilsen@cih@cih.uib.no 

Knowledge societies are central political goals in the most modern societies, and are becoming an 

important element in several emerging and developing economies worldwide. 

Flow of talents globally has for the USA and EUROPE very often meant that talents are moving to 

those areas. With the new global setting the competition for academic skills have become harder, 

and thus calls for new ways of securing f low of talents for the benefit of home regions. 

To address a new way of thinking and acting on this issue there are several items, which have to be 

addressed: 

Who should benefit from a f low of talents? The ethical challenges of moving often actively, talents 

from developing countries to the rich countries are obvious. The questions are: Do the rich part of 

the world has policies and tools to prevent this f low? Are there possibilities for sharing talents for 

the best of both home and recipient countries and institutions? Are the research agendas in the rich 

part of the world relevant for the majority of the big problems globally? Why is it that the majority of 

medical research is not addressing the globally biggest health problems? 

How can knowledge be a global open and free public good? Free access to knowledge is a 

precondition to prevent exploitation of young academic talents. Why is it so that talents in 

developing countries cannot find access to scientific publications related to their own area, or 

important subjects for own research? Is the lack of access to knowledge facilitating a brain drain to 

rich countries? The Open Access movement in Europe and USA and Australia should be put into top 

priority in order to ensure a proper access to knowledge and proper conditions for mobility. 

How can mobility of young talents be facilitated without ensuring global common criteria for 

degrees, and not at least common criteria for doctoral training and the doctoral degrees? Processes 

like the Bologna process, and the EU charter for researchers, and the dialogues like the Banff 

declaration (2007) are fundamental for an equity perspective on the f low of talents, and not 

exploitation. It is alarming that Low Income Countries are losing talents to rich countries in very high 

numbers. 

Can institutional partnerships between high, middle and low-income countries reduce the present 

negative brain drain? Brain sharing through partnership real agreements could strengthen the 

research and teaching on and funding for Global health in both High Income Countries and Low and 

Middle Income Countries 

In conclusion, the solutions for an ethically academically sound f low of academic talents must ref lect: 

V The global network of joint thinking on degrees and quality assurance 

V A global perspective on research agendas 

V A partnership between institutions facilitating joint degrees, joint research agendas and 

programmes, and open access to knowledge. 

31


L14 ESF-EMRC Science Policy Briefing: 

Medical Research Education in Europe 

Giovanni Pacini1 and Kirsten Steinhausen 1 

1 European Science Foundation (ESF), European Medical Research Councils, Strasbourg. 

giovanni.pacini@isib.cnr.it 

The European Medical Research Councils (EMRC) at the European Science Foundation (ESF) is the 

membership organisation for all the medical research councils in Europe. It runs strategic activities 

for the benefit of European medical researchers. One important recommendation for all these 

activities is to improve medical research education in Europe. Therefore, EMRC started a strategic 

activity to portray the current state of medical research education in Europe, to describe the main 

barriers to medical research education in Europe and to put forward some recommendations. The 

results of this still on-going activity will be published in autumn 2012. 

In many European countries, the number of medical doctors, who start or continue a research 

career is declining and medical research is performed by non-medical scientists. The situation is 

particularly serious in basic medical sciences where researchers with a medical background are 

virtually disappearing to be replaced by those with expertise in other disciplines. 

Main barriers: Recruitment & Career: career structures in the medical field are different from others 

and increasingly fewer medical doctors are interested in starting a research career. 

Curriculum and local infrastructure: after six years in medical school, followed by an internship in the 

hospital, many medical doctors are not motivated to start a research career. 

Lack of systematic quality control and standards: standardised quality assurance in medical research 

education is lacking in many European countries. In fact, there is no overarching controlling 

institution and there are no comparable standards among countries or even schools within the same 

country with regard to MD-PhD education. 

Recommendations: It will be necessary to develop different interdisciplinary career paths for medical 

doctors (e.g. integrated PhD programmes in parallel with daily hospital work, etc.). Several possible 

models should be devised and, possibly, implemented. 

In addition, it is necessary to enforce multidisciplinarity, i.e. the MD-PhD programme should comprise 

parts of those disciplines (e.g.: physics, mathematics, statistics, economy, ethics, cultural issues) 

useful for better understanding and interpreting research results. 

It will be helpful to elaborate common standards for MD-PhD programmes and other medical 

research education curricula and examinations, as developed by ORPHEUS and as to put forward 

control and evaluation tools for medical research education. Mobility of the “students” is another 

important issue which deserves attention. 

In conclusion, a lot of work has still to be done and it will be necessary to develop a strategy to 

implement the recommendations how to improve medical research education in Europe. 

32


L15 THE ROLE OF STUDENTS IN THE EVALUATION 

OF PHD PROGRAMMES: HOW CAN WE GET INVOLVED 

AND GAIN INFLUENCE ON OUR DAILY LIVES? 

Tove Ragna Reksten 1 

1 University of Bergen, Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Bergen, Norway 

tove.reksten@gades.uib.no 

Since medieval times, the doctorate degree (today: PhD) has been awarded as the highest degree 

obtainable at university level. According to the Bologna process, the PhD signifies the completion of 

the third cycle in higher education, and a long list of requirements to the PhD students is stated in 

the Qualifications Framework. But where along the road were the PhD students consulted? 

The PhD program is demanding everywhere, but there are great variations across Europe in 

what the student can expect from the program. First step towards increased quality of the PhD 

program is to ensure the students’ involvement at the organizational level in the evaluation and 

the development of the program. This is valuable experience for the student in terms of gaining 

networking and leadership skills, but a formal acknowledgement of their efforts could be granted 

to motivate hard-pressed students. Secondly, the attitude towards younger scientists must change, 

as many students feel their concerns and ideas are not taken seriously. Valuable time is spent 

on feedback and evaluation, but no change or acknowledgement is ever seen. With the research 

schools, students from diverse projects are brought together in a smaller organization that allows 

inexperienced students to test their skills and try their ideas before taking them to a higher level. 

The direct and frequent contact between students and administrational and scientific staff, 

permit a low-threshold forum for fruitful discussions and evaluations that may lead to program 

improvements, which can be tried in the smaller group before eventual implementation on a larger 

scale. Supervisors have an important role to play as involved and engaged role models, and should 

encourage their students to air own opinions and ref lections on own work and study environment. 

What kind of PhDs do we need: those with merely research skills, or those with ref lective capabilities 

and social skills necessary to bridge academia and the real world? 

33


L16 EXPERIENCES WITH A PUBLISHING INCENTIVE 

CONNECTED TO INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING 

Gunnar Sivertsen 1 

1 NIFU - Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway 

gunnar.sivertsen@nifu.no 

A small part of the funding of the public research institutions in Norway (universities, hospitals, 

university colleges and independent research institutes) is performance-based. The funding 

depends on documented research activity as measured by a bibliometric indicator which is based 

on complete data (in journals, series and books) for the scientific publication output at the level of 

institutions. 

Other European countries have established similar or different mechanisms for the same purpose. 

After introducing a typology of European solutions to performance-based funding of research, I will 

turn to the experiences so far in Norway, partly by using data available from the six years 2005-2010, 

partly by summing up the most important debates. These debates have led to a situation in 2012 

where the bibliometric indicator and its impacts are about to undergo an evaluation. 

Several questions have been raised as starting points for the evaluation. I will present and discuss 

some of the questions that are most relevant for young researchers and their advisors as they seek 

the best practice in scientific publishing. 

34


L17 EVALUATION OF NORWEGIAN PHD EDUCATION 

Taran Thune 1 

1 Nordic institute for studies of Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway 

taran.thune@nifu.no 

In 2011-2012 the Norwegian system of PhD education is undergoing a system review, about ten years 

since the last national evaluation of doctoral education in Norway. In 2002, an international expert 

panel concluded that doctoral education in Norway was of high quality and had many strengths, but 

also some challenges particularly in terms of efficiency and the age of graduates. But since 2002 

the doctoral training system in Norway has undergone substantial changes, both in terms of a large 

growth in the number of PhD candidates over a ten year period, a reform of the overall structure of 

the doctoral degree with the implementation of PhD degree, but also lots of changes stemming from 

initiatives that have emerged bottom-up to promote more structure and better quality and efficiency 

in doctoral training. 

With this altered landscape of doctoral training in mind, the evaluation will describe these changes 

and the impact of them. In light of these changes the evaluation will make an assessment of the 

quality, efficiency and relevance of PhD education in Norway today and make recommendations to 

national policy makers and to higher education institutions. 

The presentation will focus on the overall design of the evaluation, the data sources and 

investigations carried out and the analyses made to assess efficiency, quality and relevance of 

doctoral education. 

35


Abstracts selected for oral presentation 

P18 THE NETWORK OF EUROPEAN NEUROSCIENCE 

SCHOOLS - GOALS AND DEVELOPMENTS 

Pavle R Andjus 1 

1 School of Biology, University of Belgrade, Department for Physiology and Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia 

pandjus@bio.bg.ac.rs 

Recruitment of qualified and excellent European junior neuroscientists at the doctoral and post- 

doctoral level for university-based research has become increasingly difficult due to brain drain 

phenomena. As a cure, a substantial number of European universities and research institutes have 

established structured graduate programmes in this field. The areas of focus vary widely, ranging 

from basic to clinically-oriented programmes, from molecular and cell biology to cognitive or 

computational neuroscience. These programs also differ in their structure and in the types of degree 

that they award. This diversity in approaches enables graduate students to choose a programme 

that fits their specific research and career interests. 

Common aim of these programmes is to structure neuroscience education more effectively, and in 

long-term to gain a higher degree of compatibility of various programmes, allow greater mobility 

among students and obtain an effective antidote against brain drain. To address these issues, the 

Federation of European Neuroscience Societies founded the Network of European Neuroscience 

Schools (NENS). Today, 7 years since its foundation, this network includes 150 graduate schools based 

in 27 European countries. NENS seeks to enhance European education in neuroscience, generating 

synergies to raise the standard of neuroscience research, integrate neuroscientists across Europe and 

raise its visibility. Specifically, NENS aims to realize the following three primary goals: 

1. To promote state of the art structured PhD and Master’s degree programmes in neuroscience that 

incorporates the ideals of the Bologna agreement. 

2. To foster exchange and mutual support between graduate schools of neuroscience across Europe, 

leading to improved structured education in neuroscience. 

3. To increase options for young neuroscientists by supporting early stage training, providing 

information about NENS graduate schools, and creating a platform through which young neuroscientists 

can explore opportunities on their career ladder. Main actions in line with these goals are: 

V creation of an online database of key data of all NENS-registered schools 

V creation of a search engine that permits the localization and identification of NENS schools 

V establishment of the symposia and he annual general meeting that provide a platform for NENS 

schools interaction with workshops and open-forum discussions about the needs and developments 

of European neuroscience schools 

V initiation of an online database that aims to provide information about the curricular details of 

NENS schools and make lecture and teaching material available. 

V initiation of a monthly Newsletter 

V establishment of the NENS stipend for short term training stays within the network 

V creation of the Jobs Fair within the FENS Forum. 

The impact of these actions since NENS foundation will be presented. 

36



P19 PHD EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN 

Raushan S Dosmagambetova 1 , Yermek M Sraubayev 2 , Neila U Tankibaeva 3 and Ilya S Azizov 4 

1 Karaganda Medical State University, Rector, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

2 Karaganda Medical State University, Department of Public Health, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

3 Karaganda Medical State University, Science Department, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

4 Karaganda Medical State University, Vice-rector of Scientific Work, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

neila_tan@mail.ru 

At present, one process in Kazakhstan is a gradual transition from a traditional system of training 

and certification of qualified professionals to the international three-level model of higher education 

(Bachelor - Master - PhD). As with any transition model, the current transition has a number of 

peculiarities which distinguish it from the standard European model. 

According to the new law “On Research” in Kazakhstan mastership does not refer to the graduate 

level of education but is a postgraduate degree. Another difference is that the Bologna Declaration 

does not deal regulate the third level of higher education but delegates the right to Universities. At 

regulate present time medical schools of Kazakhstan offer the degrees of Interns and Bachelors with 

the study periods, 6 and 5 years respectively. 

The most critical of the PhD training program is three problems: to conduct responsible, independent 

research, according to principles of good research practice, to find the financial source for this 

project and to publish of research results in particularly high-ranking journals. 

Kazakhstan model can harmonize its system with the international system of training and 

certification of the teaching staff through the introduction of generally accepted basic requirements, 

which are used in the leading countries of the world. 

In the Leuven Communiqué (2009) the mobility and international openness is characterized by a 

distinctive feature of the European Higher Education Area. Due to the economic, financial and other 

reasons, sometimes mobility can be transformed into a training and guidance at a distance or by 

web- management. 

We have a real chance to improve medical PhD-programmes when we have international 

cooperation and free competition between institutions. 

37



P20 EVALUATION OF PHD WORK 

IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Konstantin G Gurevich 1 and Nikolay D Yuchshuk 2 

1 Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, UNESCO, Moscow, Russia 

2 Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Infectious Diseases, Moscow, Russia 

kgurevich@mail.ru 

It is specified by the Ministry of Education and Science that thesis research results shall be published 

in national press, at that at least 3 articles shall be published in journals included in the special list 

(peer-reviewed journals having high impact factor). This list of Russian-language journals is available 

on-line; foreign journals should be listed in one or more of the following citation indices: Web of 

Science: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities 

Citation Index. 

The results of postgraduate studies are assessed by public approbation (pre-defense) of the thesis 

in the 3rd year of studies. Representatives of at least 3 chairs shall take part in such pre-defense. Its 

aim is to define if the resulting conclusions and practical recommendations of the thesis are valid 

and it can be presented for public defense. Usually thesis and public defense are going in Russian; 

sometimes national languages of RF or former USSR-countries are applicable, but in this case the 

abstract have to be in Russian. 

Not later than 1 month before the defense date, the thesis summary (abstract) shall be sent out to 

the leading higher educational institutions and research institutes in the country, and also posted 

on the official site of the Academic Council. Defense of the thesis is held as an open discussion. All 

defense-related materials are submitted to a special Attestation Commission of the RF Ministry of 

Education and Science that verifies their compliance with all formal requirements and also resolves 

any arising disputes. The decision of the Commission on granting academic degrees shall be final 

and binding. 

38



P21 EVALUATING STRUCTURED PHD PROGRAMMES 

Helen P McVeigh 1 

1 Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, School of Postgraduate Studies, Dublin, Ireland hmcveigh@rcsi.ie 

Traditionally, biomedical PhDs have been 3-year programmes with the entire emphasis on research 

projects with little or no additional training in preparation for a career, particularly one outside 

academia. Evaluation of the degree was on the basis of a written thesis and an oral “viva voce” 

examination by one internal and one internal examiner. In recent years, structured PhD programmes 

have become more common in Ireland. These 4-year programmes incorporate taught modules, 

both core and specialized, plus laboratory rotations or research placements. At the end of first 

year, students select and develop their PhD project from a rotation or placement. Supervision is by 

clinicians and research scientists working in teams.For clinician scientists in training, the structured 

PhD programme is normally of three years duration. Candidates develop their PhD project at the 

beginning and complete taught modules, particularly those relevant to clinical academic careers, 

throughout the programme. 

A range of evaluation measures is used throughout a structured PhD programme. These may 

include Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) examinations and journal club presentations for taught 

modules plus annual Research Day presentation evaluations. In addition, annual progress is reviewed 

by students writing substantial reports which their individual Thesis Committee reviews in a practice 

viva. Feedback is given directly to the student as well as to the supervisor team. Evidence shows that 

students in three year non-structured PhD programmes take on average four years to complete 

their PhD whereas students in structured four year programmes complete within this timeframe. 

Students in structured programmes produce a larger number of peer-reviewed publications and 

other outputs during their PhD. This type of programme is very attractive to students and represents 

the ideal for PhD training preparing the student for work either within the academic sphere or in 

another career. 

39



P22 DOCTORAL CANDIDATES’ VIEW ON STANDARDS 

OF EDUCATION AT POLISH MEDICAL SCHOOLS 

Agata Skrzypek 1 , Magdalena Kurnik 2 , Anna Bogdali 1 and Adrian Gorgosz 3 

1 Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Medicine, Krakow, Poland 

2 Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Pharmacology, Krakow, Poland 

3 Jagiellonian University, Institute of Political Science and International Relations, Krakow, Poland 

agataskrzyp@gmail.com 

One of the implications of the Bologna Process was the development of the tertiary education 

system, that is: license, masters and doctoral programmes. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of 

comparable, compatible and unified teaching canons in Poland. A fair assessment of the present 

quality of the education for PhD studies does not exist as yet. 

To evaluate these issues a questionnaire was conducted among PhD students of 11 medical 

universities in Poland. Questions in this questionnaire were based on the Standards of The Izmir 

2011 Consensus Document and related to main aspects of the quality of education: Research 

Environment, PhD Thesis, PhD Supervision and Student Perspectives. Additional questions covered 

social issues and financial support. 

PhD students answered questions concerning the access to research equipment and other scientific 

institutions, their chance to take part in students exchange programs and conferences, the university 

background, duties of PhD supervisor’s, the issue of writing a thesis, the prospects for the future 

(post-doctoral). They were also asked if they should have more inf luence concerning the PhD studies 

programme. 

Lessons learned from the results of the questionnaire aims to identify the problems faced by the 

PhD students in biomedicine and health sciences in Poland. It is important to draw conclusions which 

could improve the quality of PhD education in these fields in Poland. The results also allow assessing 

issues related to the everyday life and the PhD students’ career paths. 

We hope that opinion of PhD students will eventually lead to an improvement of existing educational 

standards of students’ future career in an environment with the most demanding qualification 

needs. 

40



P23 CERTIFIED-SCIENCE-TRAINING (CST) 

- SUPPORT OF SCIENCE AND INCUBATOR 

OF THE “SCIENTIFIC CITIZEN” 

Jörg W Oestmann 1 , Silvia Pietschmann 2 and Lars Schneidereit 3 

1 Charité, Faculty, Berlin, Germany 


3 German Forces Medical Corps, Sanitätsamt, Munich, Germany 

joerg.oestmann@charite.de 

The Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin is introducing a certified-science-training (CST) environment 

to support scientifically oriented students in the 3. cycle of their studies of the life sciences. The 

environment is currently being expanded to support a bachelor of life sciences programme together 

with the German Army and Nato Medical Corps. The main principles of CST are as follows: 

V In analogy to the established system of CME (continued medical education) for clinical medicine 

CST certifies contents with relevance to the methodological, administrative and communication 

aspects of scientific work. 

V CST searches for, analyzes, evaluates and certifies contents from all sources that can supply the 

needed degree of quality. 

V Sources - amongst others - encompass extra-universitary institutions like science institutes, 

professional societies, industry as well as institutional and commercial schools. 

V CST credit points will be assigned to courses and their participants. 

V The credit points will be administered and their presentation will be mandatory for the students at 

the end of the doctoral phase. They can be used for professional enabling schemes and - potentiallyacademic 

programmes. 

V It is envisioned that CST will significantly improve the average quality of doctoral research within a 

decade. 

V If a critical mass of content can be deposited in the CST “content cloud” a bachelor programme of 

life sciences is envisioned. 

V Special emphasis is on the push towards a “scientific citizen” in a life-long-learning environment in 

Europe. 

41



P24 THE NEW THESIS REGULATIONS OF THE CHARITÉ: 

APPLYING ORPHEUS STANDARDS 

Jörg W Oestmann 1 


joerg.oestmann@charite.de 

The thesis regulations at the Charité-Univeritätsmedizin Berlin have been thoroughly revised. The 

ORPHEUS standards have been applied. The newest trends in grant management, science quality 

evaluation, scientific industry cooperation and third cycle impulses of the Bologna process Bergen 

communiqué have been incorporated. Traditional elements have been curtailed. 

V Peer reviewed publications have replaced the traditional monograph. The scientific work for 

a thesis is thus optimally integrated into the broader scientific activities and intra- and extrainstitutional 

rating systems. 

V Monographs require a prior permission by the thesis commission for all but medicine and dental 

medicine. 

V The requirements for a doctoral thesis in medicine are now in line with PhD standards: one major 

first-author-publication or three minor publications with one first authorship. 

V A novel form of thesis is introduced that permits temporary protection of intellectual property in 

order to facilitate Charité’s role as a partner for “cutting edge” research. 

V Cotutelle-de-thèse is fully integrated. 

V The review process has been optimized. 

V The ground is laid out for a third cycle certified science training (CST) environment. 

42


Evaluation of PhD education 

P25 EMBEDDING QUALITY ASSURANCE 

IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION 

Dejan R Bokonjic 1 , Dino M Mujkic 2 and Hans Guenther Sonntag 3 

1 University of East Sarajevo, Medical faculty, East Sarajevo, Bosnia 

2 WUS Austria, Higher Education, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 

3 University of Heidelberg, Medical faculty, Heidelberg, Germany 

dbokonjic@gmail.com 

Although having developed internal quality assurance systems (for evaluation and accreditation of 

study programs and Higher Education Institutions), all public universities in Bosnia & Herzegovina 

(B&H) currently face the difficult challenge of defining and delivering quality doctoral education, 

as one of the cornerstones of the Bologna reforms. Lacking institutional and research capacities, 

clear guidance and strategic approaches to institutionally integrated PhD education, all attempts to 

modernize doctoral education remain on the level of individual, faculty-based, mentorship programs. 

The wider objective of the EU TEMPUS project “Embedding Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education” 

is to promote and support the development of state-of-art doctoral education at 8 public universities 

in BH in line with Bologna and Salzburg principles and the Strategy for Development of Science in 

B&H 2010-2015. 

For the achievement of expected objectives and outcomes it is planned to organize special PhD units 

on the Partner Universities, to develop new models of PhD training, to train staff especially on the 

basis of international cooperation, to develop capacities of the institutions and to develop quality 

standards in PhD education. 

Expected results of the project are: 

1. Integration and more efficient management of doctoral education at 8 public B&H universities by 

the end of 2013 

2. Formulation and adoption of Quality Standards in Doctoral Education at university and state level 

by the end of 2013 

3. Development of one doctoral program per university (8 pilot projects) aligned with adopted 

procedures and quality standards by the end of 2014. 

43



P26 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

OF PHD TRAINING AT THE CHARLES UNIVERSITY 

FACULTY OF MEDICINE IN HRADEC KRALOVE 

Miroslav Cervinka 1 , Zuzana Cervinkova 2 and Jiri Mares 3 

1 Charles University Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Department of Medical Biology and 

Genetics, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic 

2 Charles University Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Department of Physiology, Hradec 

Kralove, Czech Republic 

3 Charles University Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Department of Social Medicine, Hradec 

Kralove, Czech Republic 

cervinka@lfhk.cuni.cz 

Formulation of Standards for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in Europe 

(ORPHEUS & AMSE & WFME) has been important step in the harmonization of PhD programmes 

in the European area. Next step is to measure quality assurance of PhD education - it means 

compliance with above mentioned Standards. Essential part of this continuous effort should be 

regular evaluation of PhD training. 

We strongly believed that the evaluation should be organized at several levels. Two of these levels 

are important and indispensable: extramural evaluation organized by the whole university; and 

intramural evaluation organized at the level of units responsible for PhD training (e.g. faculties, 

schools, departments). At both levels student’s opinions are of crucial importance. 

At the Charles University we have been organized regular evaluations covering all faculties and all 

PhD study programmes since 2004. We will present results from recent survey analyzing responses 

of students from biomedicine. Data from this study are very important; because they help us 

to identify specific aspects of PhD study in particular fields (comparison of social sciences and 

biomedicine), and differences between faculties of medicine (there are five in the frame of Charles 

University). This survey helps us to identify several specific problems related to our faculty. Data 

from the whole university are naturally not focused and detailed enough, thus they could not answer 

specific questions dealing with PhD training at our faculty departments. Therefore we have been 

conducted evaluation among our PhD students. In our presentation we will demonstrate examples of 

this feedback evaluation in education and training of statistics. 

Based on our experience we believe that student’s evaluation of PhD training programme should 

be performed at regular intervals and it should be organized both at extramural level and at the 

intramural (faculty) level. The university level survey should be used for monitoring overall quality 

and comparing different programmes. Evaluations at the level of the particular school could be very 

detailed and focused on specific areas. Both these evaluation activities are essential components of 

quality monitoring of PhD study programmes and have to be further developed. 

44



P27 EVALUATION OF THE RAW RESEARCH DATA 

ON WHICH A PHD THESIS IS BUILT 

Slobodan M Jankovic 1 and Nebojsa N Arsenijevic 1 

1 University of Kragujevac, Medical Faculty, Kragujevac, Serbia 

slobodan.jankovic@medf.kg.ac.rs 

Formal evaluation of PhD training quality has it limits, and is mostly outcome-based, through number 

of ISI-referenced full text publications stemming out of the PhD research. It is not surprising that 

many of PhD students in the very beginning of their research career become “beans counters”, and 

direct their efforts towards publications, instead of the research itself. From time to time cases of 

scientific fraud are unveiled, among the PhD students, as well as among senior scientists. However, 

serious and extensive research of this phenomenon is almost non-existent, probably because it is not 

interesting for editors of leading scientific journals. 

Therefore, an in-house mechanism of control of the raw research results of PhD students should 

be part of every University which organizes PhD training. A committee or a board of senior 

academicians should have periodic insight into the actual experiments and recorded experimental 

data from PhD students. Not only that fraud will be easily discovered, but the control mechanism 

itself will have preventative effect on those who did not yet make their mind about the issue of 

research honesty. 

Even announcement of future establishment of Committee for research control at Medical Faculty, 

University of Kragujevac, caused extensive discussions among PhD students and their mentors, 

with differing opinions. We believe that such a control mechanism will tackle the very core of PhD 

training, and significantly improve its quality. 

45



P28 ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF PHD PROGRAMME IN 

BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES OF THE SCHOOL 

OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB, CROATIA 

Robert Likic 1 , Ana Borovecki 1 , Drago Batinic 1 , Marko Jakopovic 1 , 

Jadranka Bozikov 1 and Zdravko Lackovic 1 

1 University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia 

abor@mef.hr 

Over 90 % of all PhD degrees in medicine in Croatia are awarded at the School of Medicine, 

University of Zagreb. Since 1998, we have been actively improving our PhD programme in keeping 

with the Bologna process and similar initiatives in other European countries. Today, our PhD 

programme encompasses a total of 138 methodological and field related courses covering: basic, 

clinical medical sciences, public health and health care. In September 2011, 141 PhD students filled in a 

survey on the quality of PhD programme at our medical school. The majority (76 %) stated that they 

found methodological courses useful for their scientific work. Similarly, 70 % of them described field 

related courses as helpful in their research. Moreover, 80 % of our students considered knowledge, 

skills and experience gained through the PhD programme valuable for their future careers. 

When enrolling in postgraduate classes their choices were chief ly based on the following course 

characteristics (from most to least important): course covering an issue that is close or similar to 

the PhD thesis topic, number of ECTS points, teacher quality, exam not being overly punitive and 

mentors’ suggestions. 90 % of them would recommend their mentor to a colleague. In contrast, only 

36 % of our postgraduate students reported no problems in their PhD work, 43 % described not 

having sufficient time (mainly due to residencies and teaching), while 11 % said material problems 

(most often lack of funding and lab consumables) were impeding their progress. In conclusion, it 

appears that our PhD programme is generally perceived as mostly useful, however better time 

management, coordination of clinical and teaching commitments and candidates’Research activities 

in addition to better funding support would likely yield higher scientific output and overall better 

quality of the PhD programme. 

46



P29 SELF-PERCEIVED QUALITY OF SCIENTIFIC 

INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE MEDICAL FACULTY 

OF OSIJEK - A COMPARISON BETWEEN 

PHD STUDENTS AND THEIR MENTORS 

Martina Mihalj 1 , Tamara Alkhamis 2 , Sandra Bilonic 3 , Ines Drenjancevic 1 and Jerko Barbic 2 

1 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Physiology and 

Immunology, Osijek, Croatia 

2 Medical Faculty, University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Pathophysiology, 

Osijek, Croatia 

3 Medical Faculty, University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Postgraduate Studies, 


martina.mihalj@gmail.com 

Most of PhD students working as full time teaching assistants and science novices at Medical faculty 

Osijek, Croatia (MEFOS) decide on fulfilling a part of their PhD program at other institutions at home 

and abroad. In the past, most of them were motivated by limited scientific infrastructure at home 

institutions. Since several generation of PhD students have changed now and some of them became 

mentors and professors, we were interested in their current opinion on the quality of scientific 

infrastructure at MEFOS and compared to their PhD students. 

A pilot study, self-grading survey on the quality of scientific infrastructure (availability of instruments, 

reagents, projects, animal models and qualified staff), participation in the teaching and research 

activities at MEFOS and between-institution mobility was carried out among PhD students working 

full time at MEFOS 77.4 % (24/31) and their mentors 22.4 % (24/107). 

Both students and their mentors were consistent and gave above average scores (3.08 to 3.96, in 

the range 1-5) for the quality of research infrastructure. Interestingly, students and mentors who 

went abroad gave significantly higher scores for the quality of available instruments at MEFOS 

(p=0.007). PhD students reported more research activities than their mentors (p=0.023), and both 

agreed on average load with teaching. More assessed students reported visit to foreign institution 

(66.7 %) then within the country (37.5 %). Domestic visits were mostly shorter than 1 month, 

whereas visits to foreign institutions lasted for at least 6 months. 41.7 % of them had defined PhD 

theses at the time of enrolling the PhD program, more frequently among the students who went 

abroad. 

Although, according to our study the quality of scientific and research infrastructure at MEFOS 

is satisfactory, most of the questioned students reported intention of going abroad motivated by 

personal development, foreign language training, establishment of friendships and cooperation, and 

higher quality of research activities at host institutions. 

47



P30 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 

OF THE INTERNATIONAL PHD PROGRAM 

“ENDOTHELIUM IN HEALTH & DISEASE” 

Iryna Parshyna 1 and Andreas Deussen 1 

1 Institute of Physiology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 

Dresden, Germany 

iryna.parshyna@tu-dresden.de 

Modern high quality graduate education and research in biomedicine and health sciences needs 

standardized evaluation criteria for its development and improvement. To enhance the quality of 

graduate education and to promote international research within the scientific community, the 

Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus of Dresden University of Technology offers an international PhD 

program “Endothelium in Health & Disease” which is funded by the German Academic Exchange 

Service (DAAD). The main goal of the program is to provide excellent training and research 

opportunities for both national and international students who want to gain a doctoral degree in the 

fields of endothelial cell biology and cardiovascular sciences. Currently 22 students from 7 different 

nationalities are enrolled in the program. The program comprises a 3-year formal curriculum in a 

combination with an experimental project. The teaching modules cover the main aspects of modern 

cardiology, immunology, oncology, physiology and microcirculation and are supplemented by lab and 

“soft skill” courses, journal clubs, scientific conferences and student retreats. 

To monitor the progress of the program we elaborated together with colleagues from the DAAD a 

set of following evaluation criteria: size of the program (number of students), international grade 

of the program (percentage of the international students), transparency of the program (number 

of presentations done by students per year), effectiveness of the program (number and grade of 

the dissertations finished per year), mobility of the students (number of students who participated 

in scientific conferences and research schools, student exchanges with other labs), degree of 

cooperation (number of projects done in collaboration with other institutions, collaborations with 

other MD or PhD programs), multidisciplinarity (number of the teaching units covering scientific 

topics which are not mainly in the focus of the program, number of the interdisciplinary research 

projects), transparency of the program (number of student applications received per year), 

sustainability of the program (number of projects which financially support the program), student 

feedback (via a standardized questionnaire). We will collect the appropriate data over the running 

time of the program (over 3 years). The obtained results will be then evaluated and used for the 

program assessment. 

48



P31 WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE TO START… 

STEPS IN DEVELOPING A POSTGRADUATE STUDENT 

SURVEY FOR EVALUATION OF YOUR PROGRAM 

Ferhan G. Sagin 1 

1 Ege University Medical Faculty, Medical Biochemistry, Izmir, Turkey 

ferhan.sagin@ege.edu.tr 

The quality and effectiveness of postgraduate educational programs can be evaluated based on 

measures important to faculty, students, administrators, funders and other stakeholders. Among 

these, student experience surveys can be a major source of information about students’ overall 

impression of the program / learning experiences/satisfaction from the learning environment. 

Recently, a guide to constructing reliable and valid survey scales was proposed (Gehlbach, 2010) 

based on seven consecutive steps; 1) literature review, 2) interviews and/or focus groups, 3) 

synthesizing data from the previous steps, 4) developing items, 5) expert validation, 6) cognitive 

pretesting and 7) pilot testing. 

This guide was adapted to develop a survey to collect data about our postgraduate program from 

students involved. Four primary areas were reviewed: 1) impressions of the overall program 2) 

general skills and knowledge development for the student, 3) specific laboratory skill development 

for the student, 4) professional development of the student. 

Data from student evaluations identified key areas, such as technology support, student- instructor 

interaction and led to changes in our curriculum. Higher education institutions and disciplines can 

rely on survey data for enhancement purposes if a valid and reliable survey is used. 

49



P32 WHERE DO WE STAND REGARDING 

ORPHEUS PHD QUALITY INDICATORS? 

Olivera Stojceva Taneva 1 , Nikola Jankulovski 1 , Sonja Alabakovska 1 , 

Daniela Miladinova 1 and Branko Stefanovski 1 

1 University “Sts Cyril and Methodius” Skopje, Medical Faculty, Skopje, Macedonia 

ostojceva@yahoo.com 

To evaluate the PhD quality indicators at the Medical Faculty - University “Sts Cyril and Methodius” in 

Skopje according to the Izmir 2011 Consensus Document for PhD quality indicators. The evaluation 

refers to the period since the beginning of the School for Doctoral Studies at a university level, 

February 2011. 

Research environment: there is a total of 94 supervisors who fulfill criteria for supervision (out of 

218), according to university regulations and the Law for higher education. In the period 2008- 

2010, a total of 839 papers were published in peer reviewed journals by the medical scientists at 

the Medical Faculty in Skopje, and 312 of them were on PubMed. A total of 135 PhD students were 

enrolled in the PhD study programme in 2011. A supervisor can have a maximum of 3 PhD students 

at a time. Since the School for doctoral studies started in 2011, those candidates awarded PhD 

degrees have started their PhD studies at a different level (by applying for a doctoral thesis, no study 

courses): 25 students were awarded PhD degree in 2011, and 8 in 2010. 

PhD Programme: The reforms in the third cycle of studies by establishing the School for doctoral 

studies in 2011 provided a “transparent organization”. The school has a website with all the details 

for the programmes and admission criteria. There is an educational council, as well as feed-back to 

students and teachers on quality surveys on teaching, independent jury for evaluation of the PhD 

thesis. 

PhD Supervision: all the quality indicators for effective supervision according to the Izmir document 

are met after implementation of the reforms in the third cycle at a university level, as well as in the 

law for higher education (defined qualifications for supervisors, defined relationship supervisor-PhD 

candidate etc.) 

PhD Thesis: the majority of indicators for the quality of the PhD thesis are met by the reforms in the 

third cycle, such as appropriate ethical committees, independent peer review and public defense, but 

there are still some to be improved, for example, at least 2 papers to be published in peer reviewed 

journals within the time of doing the PhD thesis (students should be encouraged to publish in 

international journals with impact factors). 

Combined PhD clinical specialization programmes: there are no combined programmes currently, 

but it would be worthwhile to take this issue into consideration. 

Student perspectives: all the indicators in the Izmir document are anticipated in the organization of 

the PhD studies in Skopje, but since they started in 2011, some time is needed in order to evaluate 

them. 

50



P33 FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION OF PHD STUDY 

PROGRAMMES AT THE FIRST FACULTY OF MEDICINE, 

CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE 

Michal Tomcik 1 

1 Institute of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, First Faculty of 

Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 

michaltomcik@yahoo.com 

First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University (CU) in Prague, Czech Republic, provides a 

postgraduate study programme together with 3 other medical faculties of CU, Faculty of Science 

University and biomedically oriented institutes of the Academy of Sciences and Research Institutes 

of the Ministry of Health. The standard length of study (originally 3 years) has been recently 

prolonged to 4 years. The studies may be attended on a full-time (4 years) or part-time (combined, 

up to 8 years) basis. PhD study programmes are provided in Czech and English language in 21 Czech 

and 20 English study fields in biomedicine. The minimum requirements for a successful completion 

of study are to pass the state doctoral examination in a chosen field and to defend a thesis, compiled 

on the basis of publication of 2 full text research papers. The manuscripts should be published in a 

journal with impact factor and in one of these papers the student should be the first author. 

In the period of the last 5 years (2007-2011), 2363 students in total participated in the Czech PhD 

study programme. Out of them 844 students (on average 169 yearly) were newly enrolled, and 

interestingly, 478 students (20 %) discontinued their studies during the 5-year period. Of particular 

interest, 397 students (17 %) passed the state doctoral examination and 316 (13 %) defended the PhD 

thesis. Majority of successful students (36%) defended their PhD thesis in the 8th year of study, 53 

% combined managed to do so within 5-7 years and only 11% succeeded in the 3rd or 4th year of 

study. 

Approximately 62 % studied in a part-time programme and the female-to-male ratio was 3:2. Only 4 

students studied in the English PhD programme; one thereof defended the PhD thesis. Students do 

not have any established means to evaluate their PhD programme. 

51



P34 EVALUATION OF THE PHD SCHOOLS 

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN. 

Bente Wold 1 

1 University of Bergen, Department of Health Promotion and Development, Bergen, Norway 

bente.wold@uib.no 

The aim is to describe the way the PhD schools at the University of Bergen (UiB) is organized, and 

to assess how different ways of organizing the schools are related to various characteristics of 

PhD training and resources, such as funding, staff availability, as well as frequency, stability and 

permanence of courses and activities. Moreover, the UiB quality criteria in effect for the schools 

were reviewed. 

A group with UiB representatives from different professions and scientific fields conducted the 

evaluation. A survey was conducted among leaders of the PhD schools, heads of faculties and 

departments (n=35). 26 PhD schools at four faculties were identified; the faculties of Medicine/ 

Dentistry; Psychology, Mathematics/Natural Sciences and Humanities (the PhD training at the 

faculties of social sciences and of law were not organized in schools). 

The results suggest that there were a large variation in ways of organizing the PhD training in 

schools, but two main categories emerged: i) schools that were based solely at the UiB; and ii) 

schools that were organized with several partners, either nationally or internationally. The main 

activities of the schools were centered on PhD courses, seminars and similar activities related to 

methods, theories and relevant subjects in the field of each school. Training related to supervision 

and work on the PhD thesis was not seen as a task for the schools, but for the research groups in 

which the PhD students were working. The funding varied between the schools, and the activities 

were primarily based on intrinsic interest and joint efforts of the staff with very limited little or no 

funding of the school. The feedback from the schools and faculty/department leadership suggests 

that the way they are organized has enabled a more effective use of scarce recourses across 

departments, faculties and in some instances institutions. 

The UiB quality criteria for PhD schools were deemed appropriate, in particular because they were 

seen as f lexible and non-bureaucratic, allowing for the satisfaction of the different needs of the 

various fields. 

52


From the candidates? point of view 

P35 CONSTRUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 

AND MEANING IN HEALTH SCIENCES: INTERNAL 

PERCEPTIONS OF PORTUGUESE DOCTORAL STUDENTS 

Cláudia Figueiredo 1 , Isabel Huet 1 and Maria R. Pinheiro 2 

1 University of Aveiro, Department of Education, Aveiro, Portugal 

2 University of Coimbra, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Coimbra, Portugal 

claudiafigueiredo@ua.pt 

The recognized lack of studies regarding the monitoring and evaluation of quality of doctoral 

education has result in the difficulty in designing quality assurance systems for this level of studies 

(Brooks & Heiland, 2007). One of the core features for the start of this discussion has to do with the 

definition of the competences students must develop to produce scientific knowledge. 

The present work focus on how higher education, specifically doctoral education, promotes, or 

can promote, levels of cognitive and psychosocial development that may allow students to solve 

problems in creative, autonomous and cooperative ways. This goal is considered of high relevance 

for doctoral education, given its focus on the production of scientific knowledge. 

As part of a wider PhD study2, we intend to collect information on recently doctorates perceptions 

of scientific meaning construction during the years of doctoral education. The collected evidences 

will contribute to the adaptation of instruments regarding the measure of cognitive and psychosocial 

development variables, as epistemological beliefs and self-authorship. 

The results will focus on semi-structured interviews made to doctoral students who finished the 

PhD in the last nine month in Health Sciences With this retrospective research design we aim at 

answering the following research objectives: 

1. To understand how doctoral students perceive their personal construction of meaning; 

2. To understand the personal beliefs about knowledge construction (epistemological beliefs); 

To understand how students perceived themselves in the process of scientific knowledge 

construction. This results and implications will be discussed regarding implications for the 

improvement in quality of research and doctoral education in health sciences. 

53



P36 ONE VOICE FOR THE DOCTORAL 

FELLOWS IN NORWAY - ASSOCIATION OF 

DOCTORAL ORGANIZATIONS IN NORWAY 

(STIPENDIATORGANISASJONENE I NORGE) 

Stine Huseby 1 

1 Association of Doctoral Organizations in Norway, Norway 

stine.huseby@umb.no 

Stipendiatorganisasjonene i Norge (SiN) is the umbrella association for local organizations for 

doctoral candidates and post doctors at Norwegian universities and university colleges. As such, SiN 

is represented in the Board of the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions (UHR) and 

gives input to different institutions relevant to Norwegian national higher education (e.g. Ministry of 

Education, Norsk studentorganisasjon - NSO). 

Being present in multiple national and international instances and hearings, we strive to support 

doctoral candidates and improve the quality of the doctoral education, both in Norway, as well 

as in Europe. At the European level we work through our membership in Eurodoc - the European 

Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. During the past year, SiN worked with issues 

related to the NSO’s political platform for research, Ministry of Education evaluation of the doctoral 

education in Norway, the European Gender Summit survey and the European Research Area survey. 

Moreover, SiN worked with gathering information relevant for and about PhD candidates in Norway, 

disseminating it on the webpage and through the member organizations, and playing the role of a 

discussions arena. 

For the moment, SiN is represented at all Norwegian Universities and at one university college. In 

SiN we believe that strong, local PhD organizations are an important tool for improving the doctoral 

education. Therefore, we are trying to help PhD candidates start up new organizations and join SiN, 

as by representing as many doctoral candidates as possible we become stronger and together we 

can make our voice heard. 

54



P37 PHD TRAINING EVALUATION: 

AN MD-PHD GRADUATE PERSPECTIVE 

Dorina Rama 1 

1 Hacettepe University, Oncology Institute, Basic Oncology, Ankara, Turkey 

dr.dorina.de@gmail.com 

I was a third-year student in medical school when I first heard about a new program offered by our 

university called ‘MD-PhD’, which aimed to integrate the clinical knowledge with basic research. I was 

fascinated by the idea that I could be a scientist one day and find the answers for many diseases socalled 

‘idiopathic’ by our professors. In the beginning, I was curious to take PhD courses from various 

disciplines. At the end, I was attracted by the complexity of cancer and immunology and I decided to 

apply for the Tumor Biology and Immunology program. By July 2011, I completed the requirements 

for graduation and succeeded in the dissertation exam. What I have learned during this four-year 

long period has changed my way of thinking; now, I believe that I acquired a scientific point of view. 

I was lucky to have a supervisor who encouraged and supported me during my training and also a 

co-supervisor who I could ask for any laboratory procedure or discuss the experimental settings. 

The whole teaching staff had a crucial role to inspire and enrich my establishment as a student, a 

researcher, and a scientist. 

The laboratory microenvironment was the place where I passed most of my time and it was crucial 

to share information and data and discuss with the other students enrolled in different projects. 

During this period, I also had an opportunity to join a research group as an intern in the USA. This 

experience made me think that the research in developed countries was not very distinct from ours 

in many aspects, except there is no need to argue that the amount of grant money matters (brings 

the distinction) in science. 

The research experience during my MD-PhD education taught me not to be sad if I cannot come 

across the expected results, because it is the scientific pathway which leads you to more exciting 

findings, of course if you are suspicious enough to see beyond your corners. 

55



P38 PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES OF MASTERS 

AND DOCTORAL CANDIDATES PHD ON MEDICAL 

SPECIALTIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN 

Yermek N Sraubayev 1 , Yermek M Turgunov 2 , Neila U Tankibayeva 1 and Bakhtiyar Serik 1 

1 Karaganda Medical State University, Public Health, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

2 Public Health, Karaganda Medical State University, Karaganda, Kazakhstan 

neila_tan@mail.ru 

Basic purpose of Bologna declaration is proclaimed by countries of Eurounion in 1999 - 

harmonization of national educational systems of higher education in the countries of Europe. The 

Accession to Bologna process, absolutely, is signified the recognition of it basic principles by 

Russia and Kazakhstan, basic of which are: transfer to three-stage system of higher education 

(bachelor’program - magistracy - doctoral candidacy PhD), mobility increase of students, teachers, 

managerial personnel (every student must be not less semester in other HEI, especially in foreign). 

For problem solution which connected with masters and doctors PhD training on specialties “Medical 

and Prophylactic Business” and “Public Health Care” in the Republic of Kazakhstan and in Karaganda 

State Medical University in particularly are necessary: 

V further advancement of educational system is necessary for deeper and detailed specialized 

program of medical and prophylactic profile specialist training 

V improvement of qualitative financing for science (particularly HEI, student science) 

V improvement of research scientists image, increase of research scientist profession prestige, 

especially for young scientists 

V involvement of top foreign scientists and specialists of this area as scientific managers, scientific 

consultants for work with masters and doctoral candidates, as well as education of masters and 

doctoral candidates on specialties “Medical and Prophylactic Business” and “Public Health Care” in 

top scientific HEIs. 

56



P39 THE OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 

OF NURSING PHD STUDENTS ABOUT SUPERVISION 

Tuğba Yardımcı 1 , Ayğegül Savcı 2 and Aylin Durmaz 2 

1 Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Nursing, Internal Medicine Nursing, Izmir, Turkey 

2 Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Nursing, Surgical Nursing Department, Izmir, Turkey 

agulsvc@gmail.com 

Supervisors: Assistant Professor Hatice Mert, Assistant Professor Özlem Bilik 

In nursing, the PhD program which has a content of research training, supported by some courses 

and practice, is a period which is considered as difficult and complicated by the students. During this 

period, the support of supervisor is important for the academic success of student. The purpose of 

this research is to identify the opinions and suggestions of PhD students about supervision, in the 

Faculty of Nursing at Dokuz Eylül University (FNDEU). 

This research is carried out with the permission of the Ethical Board of the Deanship of FNDEU 

and students of the faculty. Out of 34 PhD students of FNDEU which form the target group of this 

research, 18 students volunteered. In this research, an evaluation tool designed by the researchers 

was used in order to identify the opinions and suggestions of the students. 

All of the students expect their supervisors, (1) to guide them through the selection of the courses, 

(2) be a mentor with their experiences in life, (3) encourage them to participate in activities like 

conventions and others, (4) motivate them, (5) see them as colleagues, (6) give them efficient 

feedback and (7) be a role model for them. The students stated that their expectations were met 

as “most of the time” and “always” with the ratio of 88,9 %; 83,4 %; 88,9 %; 100 %; 100 %; 94,4 % 

and 94,4 %, respectively. On the other hand, 27,9 % of the students complained of not being given 

enough time and 27,7 % of them complained of not being encouraged to do research and projects 

besides their thesis. The students suggested that a better time management had to be done. 

The results have shown that most of the expectations of the students were met, while about 1/3 

of the students were not given enough time by their supervisors and they were not led to studies 

except their thesis. The results of this research may guide the stakeholders of PhD education to 

improve the quality of supervision in graduate programs. 

57


Internationalisation and mobility 

P40 IMPACT OF MOBILITY OF MENTORS AND THEIR 

PHD STUDENTS ON A POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION 

Ines Drenjancevic 1 , Aleksandar Vcev 2 , Jerko Barbic 3 , 

Ivan Dobric 4 , Pavo Filakovic 5 and Martina Mihalj 1 

1 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Dept. of Physiology and Immunology, 


2 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Dept. of Internal medicine, 

Gastroenterology Clinic, Osijek, Croatia 

3 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Dept. of Pathophysiology, Osijek, Croatia 

4 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Dept. of Dermatovenerology, Osijek, Croatia 

5 Medical faculty University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Dept. of Psychiatry, Osijek, Croatia 

ines.drenjancevic@mefos.hr 

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of mobility among current PhD program 

mentors and their students. In addition, we investigated the impact of mentors’ personal experience 

with mobility on their activities as mentors and researchers, and on promoting and encouraging 

mobility of their PhD students enrolled at postgraduate doctoral program of Biomedicine and Health, 

Faculty of Medicine University of Osijek, Croatia. 

A pilot study-survey was conducted on 24/107 (22 %) academic staff employed at Faculty of 

Medicine Osijek, status from PhD –scientific adviser to full professor. Questions were grouped to 

general information on status and field of scientific activity, number of PhD student mentored and 

their success (finished studies); mobility of mentor, and mobility of students, sources of financing and 

reasons for mobility. 

Among all questioned mentors 70.8 % (17) and 65.2 % (15) of them have reported previous stay 

at domestic and foreign institutions, respectively. Mentors who had spent some time abroad were 

more likely to encourage their PhD students to visit other institutions (66.7% compared to 12.5 

%, p=0.019). Most of them were users of funding available from bilateral cooperation with other 

countries 61.5 (8), followed by national funding (NZZ, UKF etc.). Only a minority of their students 

were users of ERASMUS mobility. Mentors with international experience reported having more PhD 

students but that had no impact on the number of their students that earned PhD degree at present. 

International and domestic f luctuation of scientific and academic staff presents a very important 

part of building research capacities at Medical faculty Osijek. Visiting foreign research institutions 

give the PhD students opportunity to gain new experiences and skills and to establish international 

research teams. Our study revealed that previous personal experience of mentors has an important 

impact on the way how they direct their students during PhD studies. 

58



P41 FREEDOM IN MOBILITY 

Fazriz Sani Fadzil 1 

1 University of Oxford, Department of Engineering Science, Oxford, United Kingdom 

fazriz.fadzil@seh.ox.ac.uk 

The argumentations on the mobility of the students in different research backgrounds during their 

doctoral residencies is regarded as deteriorating and a threat or an invasion of focal-quality of the 

traditional PhD Training, besides the large amount of expenditures that is presumably spent on those 

unrelated matters. 

University of Oxford with several governmental and independent funding bodies; for instance 

The Hanseatic Scholarship, established by the Alfred Toepfer Stiftung FVS offers the students to 

commence researches at doctoral or higher level in the projects that are not connected to their 

research degree, which also possibly lead to successful completion for German degrees. This type 

of freedom in research has shown that research students are not only bounded to their designated 

works, but enable them to cultivate multiple interests to develop their valuable skills that never been 

realized by their supervisors nor the peers. 

Several candidates conclude that the PhD Programs are rather monotonous than exhilarating. 

The workloads and the pressure to perform extremely well in the researches accumulate the awry 

sensation and lead to a tormented behaviour in keeping up the value of PhD. Losing the talented 

candidates due to such preventable causes would be definitely a wasteful event. Therefore, by 

encouraging and motivating them with interesting perks, freedom of mobility in research shall 

be treated in a way to boost up the confidence and enable them to explore meaningful ideas to 

enhance the research - nevertheless indicates the value of life-learning experience by incorporating 

different loops of knowledge and to correlate those for more interactive and collective results. 

The desires to be part of the great and powerful research group, orchestrate by the best supervisors 

at the most prestigious institutions sounds rather distinctive for PhD candidates in order to boost 

up their research-ecology. The reality is - not all groups nor research institutes are as fortunate as 

others, nor the capabilities of supervisions in tackling numerous thrusts in order to progress their 

research outputs. Due to the limitations in the collaborations and resources, the objectification of 

separation in education system, specifically in researches, has become more palpable. Therefore, we 

shall be more appreciative in rejoicing the mobility of research to enable our candidates and their 

researches to explore for broader visions. 

ERASMUS Mundus through its educational programs such as EuMAS and WISHES, has initiated 

both actual and virtual mobilities in education, but emphasis in research-based shall also be more 

prominent to provide a stronger platform for opportunities, specifically the networking and the 

financial support to strengthen the such programs for the PhD candidates during their residency. 

The initiative by ORPHEUS through the Zagreb Declaration 2004 in the development to increase 

the collaborations and to enhance the mobility and common practices to benefit PhD candidates 

at European Academic Institutions is seen as the eventual platform to evaluate the standardization 

of the programs; to offer a quality assessment of supervisions and a fairer and wider distribution 

59

of financial resources, and also to strengthen the development of research integrity among our 

precious candidates. 

The potential in every PhD candidates has bigger impacts and prospects. Progressing towards 

unified goals must be seen as the overall achievements rather than maintaining the exclusivity of 

certain academic institutions. World is moving forward, so does our students, therefore we should 

not see the traditional approaches as the solely points for success, but let the world familiar with 

their capabilities. 

60



P42 MOBILITY AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION 

PERFORMANCE AS A MEASURE OF STUDENT 

PROGRESSION 

Emre Meral 1 , Serkan Karaismailoglu 2 and Hakan S Orer 3 

1 Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences, Prosthodontics, 06100 Ankara, Turkey 

2 Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences, Physiology, 06100 Ankara, Turkey 

3 Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences, Pharmacology, 06100 Ankara, Turkey 

hakanorer@me.com 

Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences is the graduate (doctoral) school for allied health 

sciences that includes medicine, pharmacy, dentistry and other related fields. Graduate Student 

Council represents about 1000 students enrolled in institute’s more than 130 master’s and PhD 

programs and may serve as an instrument for monitoring the quality of the programs. The aim of 

this study is to assess scientific performance and career development of master’s and PhD students 

using periodical surveys. 

Two different surveys were conducted during fall 2011 and spring 2012 semester enrollment periods. 

Questions aimed to evaluate students’ involvement in diverse activities that promote scientific 

mobility and interaction, their participation in academic environment, personal effort for publication 

and submission of research proposals to the administration. On fall 2011, 402 Master’s and 473 PhD 

students and on spring 2012, 439 Master’s and 503 PhD students responded to the surveys. That 

numbers consist of the cohort of all students who are actively pursuing degree programs in the 

institute. 

Students in both Master’s (82.3 %) and PhD (92.6 %) programs are keen to attend scientific 

meetings. However, as an indication of active involvement in scientific research 74.5 % of PhD 

students (compared to 29.9 % of Master’s) presented their work in poster and/or oral presentation 

forms. Only 40.8 % of all PhD students proposed research projects to granting bodies. It is expected 

that the publication record of PhD students is higher than that of master’s students. Nevertheless, 

60.2 % of all PhD students and 86.3 % of all master’s students have not yet had any publication 

in indexed- journals. 24.9 % of PhD students (16.4 % of Master’s) have spent more than a month 

abroad for scientific and/or training purposes. 

It is concluded that graduate students, PhD students in particular, need to increase their publication 

records and take more initiative for obtaining research grants at an early stage of their studies. 

61



P43 EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND PROJECT SUPPORTING 

PHD TRAINING AND SCIENTIFIC WORK - AN UPDATE 

Jan Stasko 1 , Kamil Javorka 2 , Peter Galajda 3 , Andrea Calkovska 2 , 

Jan Hanacek 4 and Juraj Mokry 5 

1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Dept. of Hematology and Transfusiology, 

Martin, Slovakia 

2 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Institute of Physiology, Martin, Slovakia 

3 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Dept. of Internal Medicine 1, Martin, Slovakia 

4 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Institute of Pathological Physiology, Martin, Slovakia 

5 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Institute of Pharmacology, Martin, Slovakia 

stasko@jfmed.uniba.sk 

Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University (JFM CU) was privileged to receive the financial 

support from European Social Fund (ESF) (06/2010 - 05/2013) due to the project entitled ”Support 

of human resources development using the most modern methods and forms of education at JFM 

CU in Martin”. 

The aim of the project is as followed: 1) to increase the motivation of pregraduate students to 

scientific work; 2) direct support of the PhD training through activities popularizing the science; 3) 

to improve the quality of PhD training and scientific work; 4) to support the e-learning and 5) to 

establish the Faculty Simulator Centre with an idea of the virtual teaching methods development at 

JFM CU. 

Ten PhD trainees were awarded by the PhD grant for a period of two years with the aim to increase a 

quality of their scientific work. Till now many PhD trainees were supported by travel grant to present 

their scientific results at national conferences (n=27) and abroad (n=54) as well as turned profit 

from the study stay outward during 1-6 moths (n=11). In the framework of ESF Project there were 

organized brainstorming of PhD trainees and young scientific investigators with tutors directed to 

discussions about the research results and routing of their dissertations (n=15). The Awards of the 

Project for the best PhD students and tutors and publishing of faculty scientific journal “Acta Medica 

Martiniana” (4 issues per year) and textbook “Introduction to Scientific Work” were supported, too. 

Students´ Scientific Conferences of JFM CU with an active participation of pregradual students and 

PhD conferences were just awarded through ESF project and 35 students involved in scientific work 

received remuneration annually. 

Preliminary results testify that ESF project is extremely helpful for improving PhD training and 

scientific work at our faculty. 

62


National reports 

P44 PHD EDUCATION FOR CLINICIAN SCIENTISTS 

IN IRISH MEDICAL SCHOOLS 

Helen C Gallagher 1 

1 University College Dublin, School of Medicine and Medical Science, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland 

helen.gallagher@ucd.ie 

There are six medical schools in the Republic of Ireland. Although these are partially funded by 

central government, they are increasingly reliant on income generated through high fees paid by 

non-EU students who make up a significant proportion of the overall student population. At the 

postgraduate level, most of the medical schools offer a number of taught programmes at Diploma 

and Masters level and all are engaged in original research with several hundred students currently 

enrolled for MSc, PhD and MD degrees. While those enrolled for MDs all have medical backgrounds, a 

large proportion of the PhD students hold BSc or MSc degrees in the life sciences area, or degrees in 

allied health professions including nursing, radiography, pharmacy and physiotherapy. 

As medical doctors find that quality research is increasingly demanded for their career progression, 

the PhD degree is becoming more popular amongst medics, and the term ‘Clinician Scientist’ has 

come into common use in Ireland. In September 2007, the Irish Higher Education Authority awarded 

funding under the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions for a Clinician Scientist 

Fellowship Programme (CSFP) in translational medical research to be coordinated by Molecular 

Medicine Ireland. The CSFP aims to train the next generation of clinician scientists with the unique 

and specialized knowledge essential to fulfill Ireland’s research needs in translational medicine. It 

provides systematic training via a structured PhD programme for medical graduates of three years 

in duration. Upon graduation it is envisaged that the CSFP fellows will continue to engage in dynamic 

clinical and translational research throughout their careers and progress to become academic 

medical leaders. To date, 22 of these fellowships have been awarded. Since most of the CSFP fellows 

commenced studies between July 2008 and January 2009, most are now at the thesis-writing stage 

of their PhD. 

Other recent trends in doctoral education in the Irish medical schools include increased numbers 

of part-time PhD and MD registrants, and the introduction of several structured thematic PhD 

Programmes. In University College Dublin, for example, four thematic PhD programmes have been 

introduced in Bioinformatics and Computational Biomedicine, Translational Medicine, Global Human 

Development and Infection Biology. Students gain 30 ECTS credits by completing in-house taught 

modules and/or other relevant modules with the research project accounting for the remaining 

required credits (240). 

63



P45 PHD ALUMNI SURVEY IN SWEDEN 

Lena Lewin 1 , Johanna Ackemar 1 , Michael Fored 2 , 

Ingeborg Van Der Ploeg 1 and Anders Gustafsson 3 

1 Karolinska Institutet, Research and Doctoral Education, Stockholm, Sweden 

2 Karolinska Institutet, Dept of Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden 

3 Karolinska Institutet, Dept of Dental Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden 

lena.lewin@ki.se 

To evaluate the opinions of the quality of the doctoral education in retrospective and the entry into 

the labor market, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, together with the medical faculties in Gothenburg, 

Linköping, Lund and Umeå, initiated an alumni survey in autumn 2011. 

A survey was conducted by Statistics Sweden targeted towards those who received their PhD degree 

in the academic years 2003/2004 and 2007/2008. Of 1,508 people, 1,021 answered the survey (68 

%). 

Opinions about the doctoral education: The PhDs felt first and foremost that the education 

contributed to their personal development. The degree of satisfaction with the doctoral education 

was high (>90 %) and three-out-of-four were satisfied with the supervision. They were, however, less 

satisfied with the obligatory course curriculum. Nine-out-of ten had employment. 

The survey showed that 86 % had work during the reference week. Among those, more than 40 % 

worked within universities and colleges, a third worked within the healthcare sector of the county 

council and approximately 15 % worked within the private sector. Two thirds stated the doctorate 

degree as a formal requirement for their work during the reference week. 

Involvement in research: More than 40 % of all PhDs received research grants as principal 

investigators; slightly less than half have had “post-doc” positions or had received post-doctoral 

scholarships. Among those working in universities and colleges, 88 % stated that research was a 

part of their job. 

The most interesting outcome of the survey was that of those who had work, some 40 % worked 

within universities and out of those, 88 % worked in some aspect with research. Similar surveys will 

be conducted with regular intervals for future batches of PhDs. 

64



P46 THE MEDICAL STUDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM 

- A STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 

Gry Merete Omland 1 , Marie Farstad Høvik 1 and Karl Erik Müller 1 

1 University of Bergen, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Bergen, Norway 

gry.omland@student.uib.no 

The Medical Student Research Program allows ten percent of medical students in Norway to 

participate in organized research during their studies. The students are entitled to stipends and 

the research group receives extra funding. There are also five PhD stipends each year earmarked 

for students that have finished the program. We would like to highlight some of the benefits and 

challenges experienced by some of the students participating in this program. 

The students are generally satisfied with the program and think that it adds another dimension to 

their education. We believe that the program enhances the students´ critical thinking and provides 

another perspective on science in general and medicine in particular. 

The program offers a unique opportunity for an early start on a research education and a possibility 

to be an active part of an established research group. This promotes networking and deeper 

knowledge in a specific field of research. This is likely to prove beneficial in a future career in 

research and in clinical practice. Nonetheless, there are some challenges for students participating 

in the Medical Student Research Program. These challenges and the benefits will be discussed in 

greater detail at the conference. 

65



P47 DEVELOPMENT OF PHD STUDENTS’ GENERIC 

COMPETENCIES IN SERBIAN UNIVERSITIES 

Danica S Pirsl 1 

1 University of Nis, Faculty of Sport, Nis, Serbia 

danicapirsl@yahoo.com 

The research has shown the relevance of using the concept of competences as a basis for learning 

outcomes. The competences have been divided into two main groups: specific and generic. The 

former refer to subject specific knowledge and skills that are expected to be developed on the 

bases of the undergraduate program and the latter, also called “transferrable skills” represent 

competencies that undergraduate students should develop during the first cycle of tertiary studying 

that will prepare students to fit better in the future roles in the society. 

These so called generic competences include: Instrumental competences: cognitive abilities, 

methodological abilities, technological abilities and linguistic abilities, Interpersonal competences: 

individual abilities like social skills, Systemic competences: abilities and skills concerning whole 

systems (a combination of understanding, sensibility and knowledge; prior acquisition of 

instrumental and interpersonal competences required). This means that studies should comprise not 

only gaining knowledge in a particular field by studying theory and memorizing data but should also 

enable development of higher order thinking skills and skills for successful communication as well as 

the ability to combine them. 

There is an extensive list of 30 generic competences to name but a few: Capacity for analysis and 

synthesis, Capacity for applying knowledge in practice, Planning and time management, Basic 

general knowledge in the field of study, Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession in practice, 

Oral and written communication in your native language, Knowledge of a second language, 

Elementary computing skills, Research skills, Capacity to learn, Information management skills , 

Critical and self-critical abilities, Capacity to adapt to new situations, Capacity for generating new 

ideas (creativity), Problem solving, Decision-making, Teamwork, Leadership, Appreciation of diversity 

and multiculturalism, Project design and management, Initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, Will to 

succeed. The local academic scene (in Serbia) shows that participants in different scientific fields 

recognize different priorities concerning generic competencies and different ways of achieving 

them. 

66


National Reports 

P48 THE MEDICAL STUDENT RESEARCH PROGRAMME 

Marianne H Stien 1 , Torunn Olsnes 1 and Inger Hjeldnes Senneseth 1 

1 University of Bergen, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Bergen, Norway 

marianne.stien@mofa.uib.no 

The Medical Student Research Programme (MSRP) is a national education and grant scheme for a 

group of students in medicine and dentistry (up to 10 %) who wish to carry out research in parallel 

with their studies. The purpose of the programme is to increase recruitment of people with a 

standard medical and dental degree to medical and dental research. 

The students at the MSRP follow the ordinary medicine and dentistry study. In addition to this, they 

achieve an organized research education and get to perform their own research activity that might 

be the beginning of a PhD. The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry grants 5 scholarships each year for 

students who wish to finish their PhD immediately after their studies. 

The students can be affiliated with the MSRP from the second year of their studies. For students 

at the MSRP, the regulated time of study is prolonged by one year. Students at the MSRP perform 

one year of fulltime research training, and 0.2 years of part-time research training in parallel with 

their medical and dental studies, which sums up to 2 years of fulltime research training during their 

studies. 

The MSRP students have the same training component as the PhD candidates, and do not have to 

repeat this if they choose to complete a PhD later. 

A thorough evaluation of the programme was done in 2007. The evaluation found that the MSRP has 

led to an increase in the recruitment of graduated physicians to medical research in Norway. 

Completed MSRP will give a total of 120 ECTS, in addition to the credits in the professional studies in 

medicine or dentistry. 

67


Organisation of PhD Education 

P49 DOCTORAL STUDENTS REACHING OUT 

TO SOCIETY WHILE ALSO RECEIVING BACK: 

A MODEL FOR ORGANIZING GENERIC SKILL TRAINING 

Jarle Breivik 1 and Rebecca B Carver 1 

1 University of Oslo, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Oslo, Norway 

jbreivik@medisin.uio.no 

The European qualification framework states that doctoral graduates “can communicate with their 

peers, the larger scholarly community and with society in general about their areas of expertise”. 

To achieve this learning goal may be a challenge for both students and educators. Here we present 

a new model for organizing science communication training based on collaboration between the 

University of Oslo and a secondary school. 

Modern science teachers have a constant need for keeping up with scientific developments. At 

the same time they are highly trained in communicating science to a general audience. Doctoral 

students on the other hand, have considerable expertise in their field of research, but need qualified 

feedback on their communication skills. In order to exploit this win-win situation we therefore 

designed a doctoral course that involved structured dialogue between medical doctoral students and 

secondary school science teachers. 

The students were first given a one-day seminar on science communication, including writing of 

popular texts, visual aids and effective presentation techniques. As home work they were asked to 

design a popular presentation of their individual research projects. Divided over several afternoons, 

three students at a time then met with a group of science teachers. The seminar started with an 

introductory lecture about the dual aim of the course, promoting an open dialogue about both 

science and communication. The teachers were designated different listening positions, and the 

students gave their presentations, followed by discussion and evaluation. 

The course was evaluated by web-based questioners to all participating students and teachers. The 

students were all highly positive and confirmed that they had a valuable learning experience. The 

teachers were also generally positive, but would appreciate more in-depth discussion about the 

scientific issues. With minor adjustments, this design thus offers an effective approach for organizing 

and evaluating generic skill training in doctoral education. 

68



P50 BERGEN RESEARCH SCHOOL 

IN INFLAMMATION (BRSI) 

Inf lammation, Mucosal Immunobiology and Infectious 

Diseases: Graduate Training and Research School 

Karl A. Brokstad 1 , Kate Frøland 1 and Roland Jonsson 1 

1 Broegelmann Research Laboratory, The Gade Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University 

of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 

karl.brokstad@gades.uib.no 

The establishment of research schools has been a significant step forward in raising the quality of 

post graduate research education and training. The content and format of the research schools 

varies and ref lect the individual ideas, resources and environment from where they originate. The 

Bergen Research School in Inf lammation (BRSI) is a multidisciplinary covering basic, translational 

and clinical research training at both the University of Bergen and Haukeland University Hospital. 

BRSI was formally established in 2005 as the first research school at the Medical Faculty and one 

of the first at the University of Bergen. We chose a more pragmatic approach when starting our 

research school with support from the Broegelmann Research Laboratory. Since then we have 

developed into a strong and focused training unit with regular activities at least twice a week. 

The primary objectives of BRSI are to improve the quality of the PhD and post-graduate training, 

to facilitate PhD and postgraduate training and to develop professional skills and collaborative 

experience. Our ambitions and standards are: to be thematically focused; to create strong research 

training - networks to several groups and institutions; to keep the size above critical threshold; and to 

foster professionally additive and synergetic research training. 

69



P51 ORGANISATION OF AN INTERFACULTARY 

GRADUATE SCHOOL: UTRECHT GRADUATE SCHOOL 

OF LIFE SCIENCES (NL) 

Saskia B Ebeling 1 

1 Utrecht Graduate School of Life Sciences, Board of Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands 

s.ebeling@uu.nl 

In Utrecht, The Netherlands, a Graduate School of Life Sciences was founded in 2006, thereby 

uniting 12 research master programmes of six degree courses and 15 PhD programmes of three 

faculties: faculty of Science (dept. of Biology, dept. of Chemistry, dept. of Pharmacy), the faculty 

of Veterinary Medicine (Utrecht University) and the faculty of Medicine (University Medical Center 

Utrecht). The collective Deans of the three faculties head the Utrecht Graduate School of Life 

Sciences. A Board of Studies assists the Deans and is responsible for the organization and quality 

control of the Education & Training Programme offered to PhD candidates. 

The aim of the Utrecht Graduate School of Life Sciences is to uniformly organize PhD education 

and at the same time allow for facultary differences, when necessary. An inventory was made 

of the different responsibilities regarding the quality control of the PhD track. Consultation 

of representatives of the three faculties and the Board of Studies led to a harmonization of 

responsibilities with regard to the quality control of all aspects associated with a PhD track at the 

Utrecht Graduate School of Life Sciences. 

Importantly, unlike in many other countries, in The Netherlands the status of a PhD student, 

or rather, a PhD candidate, is not that of a student but that of an employee. For most of their 

appointment PhD candidates have the same rights and duties as other employees. In two ways 

the position of PhD candidates is different from other employees. First of all, the PhD candidate 

is offered the possibility to follow an Education & Training Programme provided by the Utrecht 

Graduate School of Life Sciences. Secondly, in order to obtain a doctorate the PhD thesis and its 

public defense has to meet defined standards. 

With regard to the quality control of the concise PhD track, 6 topics can be defined: 

1) progress of the research project; 2) quality of the research project; 3) compliance with rights 

and duties as an employee; 4) progress of the Education & Training Programme; 5) quality of the 

Education & Training Programme; 6) quality of the thesis. 

The first three items fall under the responsibility of the individual dean of the faculty of appointment. 

1) Progress of the research project is the responsibility of the supervisor and, ultimately, the 

individual dean of the faculty of appointment. 

2) In general, the quality of research conducted in a faculty, including that conducted by PhD 

candidates, is the responsibility of the dean of the faculty of appointment. 

3) Compliance with rights and duties as an employee is the responsibility of the employer, i.e. the 

70

dean of the faculty of appointment. 

4) Progress of the Education & Training Programme is the responsibility of the supervisor and, 

ultimately, the individual dean of the faculty of appointment, 

5) Quality of the Education & Training Programme is the responsibility of the Board of Studies of the 

Utrecht Graduate School of Life Sciences; 

6) Quality of the thesis is the responsibility of the Doctorate Board of Utrecht University that 

oversees the implementation of the doctoral regulations on behalf of the Executive Board of Utrecht 

University. 

The Utrecht Graduate School of Life Sciences offers 15 PhD programmes to a total of >1,300 

PhD students employed at three different faculties of Utrecht University. A clear definition of 

responsibilities permits a reliable implementation of the quality control plan that allows evaluation of 

all aspects of the PhD track. 

71



P52 NEW DOCTORAL STUDY IN MEDICAL 

PHARMACOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE 

Ljiljana C Gojkovic-Bukarica 1 

1 Medical faculty, University Belgrade, Institute of Clinical pharmacology, Belgrade, Serbia 

bukarica@rcub.bg.ac.rs 

In the winter semester of 2011 we began doctoral study at the Medical Faculty in Belgrade untitled 

Medical Pharmacology. Aim of the program, which is consistent with the objectives and goals 

of the Medical University of Belgrade is to provide quality education researchers, who would be 

after graduation to gain an integrative understanding of the mechanisms of action of drugs at 

the molecular, cellular, tissue, system level and the level of the organism as a whole, as well as the 

principles and importance of clinical pharmacology. Researchers would be able to independently 

planning and conducting experiments in laboratories, independent planning and conducting 

preclinical studies of drugs and evaluation of drug effects (mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics 

and pharmacokinetic properties, therapeutic effects, side effects and interactions) critical analysis of 

results and selection of the best ways to present the results of the scientific community. 

Medical Pharmacology last three years (180 ECTS). They consist of parts which is done through 

education subjects, compulsory and elective courses, research and study (SIR), which consists 

of seminars, laboratory rotations, attending exercise in clinical pharmacology, making the essay, 

making the protocol of clinical trials, meeting with work and relevant Ethics Committee, Research 

in Population and oral and written presentations of the candidate’s research and publishing papers. 

This research program leading to Diploma Doctor of Medical Sciences-Medical Pharmacology. 

During the PhD student is required to attend and pass the 6 cases (5 mandatory and 1 elective). 

The compulsory subjects are listening to the first two semesters, and obliged to share in the first 

semester, while others required in the second semester, while listening to an optional subject in the 

third semester. 

Doctoral Study in Medical Pharmacology should organize and train a quality education to students 

after graduation, be able to: 1) a personal contribution to the development of science in the field of 

experimental pharmacology, 2) contribute to the development of clinical pharmacology and rational 

use of drugs, 3) to be successful in obtaining and conducting research projects in the country and 

abroad in the development of new drugs and new therapeutic approaches, and 4) able to train 

students graduate and postgraduate studies in medical sciences. It is expected that students are 

capable of independently planning scientific experiments, setting up and testing hypotheses, the 

selection of scientific research objectives, selecting the right methodology and independently 

perform in vitro and in vivo experiments in different experimental models, self-planning experiments 

on humans, preclinical and clinical trials medicine, integrative understanding of the importance of 

ethics in the experiments and clinical trials of drugs and to be able to verbally and in writing present 

their scientific results. 

72



P52 SSPH+ PHD PROGRAM IN PUBLIC HEALTH 

- TEACHING, TRAINING, NETWORKING 

Sina J V Henrichs 1 and Charlotte Braun 1 

1 Swiss School of Public Health+, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland 

sina.henrichs@unibas.ch 

The SSPH+ PhD Program Public Health is a training- and networking program of the Swiss School 

of Public Health (SSPH+). The School is a joint initiative of seven Swiss Universities (Basel, Bern, 

Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Neuchatel and Zurich) and aims to provide students in the field of Public 

Health the best possible preparation for their role as public health scientists and experts. Since the 

start in 2008 183 students registered with in program, while 61 are still active. 

The PhD program organizes national doctoral courses comprising basic skills in public health 

research, advanced methods courses and thematic workshops with networking opportunities. 

Courses are taught by national and international experts and aim to provide high level education 

for PhD students. To take into account the interdisciplinary nature of public health research and the 

students’ varying background training tailor-made individual training plans are necessary. In addition 

to the courses the SSPH+ PhD program thus offers limited financial support for registered students 

to attend external national and international courses and workshops. Students also profit from 

a structured learning experience by using a self-assessment form that guides both students and 

supervisors with regard to the skills and competences that need development and facilitates regular 

assessment of progress. 

To evaluate the overall performance of the program and of the individual students’ quality indicators 

are currently developed and first results of the internal program evaluation will be presented. For 

more information please visit our homepage www.ispm-unibasel.ch/ssphplus 

73



P54 INTERDISCIPLINARY DOCTORAL STUDIES 

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GDAğSK 

Dorota Lesiak 1 

1 Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Gdańsk & Medical University of Gdańsk, 

Department of Molecular Virology, Gdańsk, Poland 

dorota.bartoszewska@biotech.ug.gda.pl 

Life Sciences and Mathematics Interdisciplinary Doctoral Studies (LiSMIDoS) at the University of 

Gdańsk were established in 2010 because of growing need to educate well qualified, professional 

scientists. The scientific councils of four faculties: Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology of the 

University of Gdańsk - Medical University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Biology, Faculty of Chemistry and 

Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics of the University of Gdańsk decided to establish the 

program of the studies. The program and structure were approved by the Senat of the University. 

The project received financing of about 3 000 000 PLN from the European Union Human Capital 

Programme. 

The main aim of the studies is to promote interdisciplinary approach to research in the fields of 

life sciences and mathematics, offering students of these studies the highest possible quality of 

education. This goal is achieved by performing PhD thesis research under the supervision of two 

promoters, each representing different field (domain of science). Moreover, one promoter may come 

from a foreign country, which improves the international and attractive nature of LiSMIDoS studies. 

The second aim of studies is to facilitate international exchange of students, researchers and 

teachers. Currently, 38 PhD students from four Faculties are educated within LiSMIDoS project. 

Teaching activities are carried out by academic teachers from both Polish and foreign institutions. All 

lectures and seminars are carried out in English and foreign students are welcome and encouraged 

to join LiSMIDoS. There is already one student from Italy in the first year of this programme. 

In October 2011 an agreement to start the cooperation was signed between International Institute 

of Molecular and Cell Biology (IIMCB) and the University of Gdańsk. Both institutions agreed, that, 

among other cooperative actions, lectures will be conducted in English in a modular form and 

transmitted as a videoconference between the University of Gdańsk and IIMCB. 

So far the LiSMIDoS project seems to be very promising and we are looking forward to developing it 

even further, offering all participants unique experience. 

74



P55 INTEGRATED PHD PROGRAMME 

FOR THEORETICAL AND CLINICAL DISCIPLINES 

- 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE FROM PRAGUE 

Bohuslav Ostadal 1 , Richard Rokyta 1 and Jan Herget 1 

1 Charles University and Academy of Sciences, Centre for doctoral studies in biomedicine, Prague, 

Czech Republic 

ostadal@biomed.cas.cz 

Foundation of the Prague centre for doctoral studies in biomedicine in 1992 was driven by the 

effort to provide for graduate students the highest possible level of scientific education. For this 

purpose, two main scientific institutions, the Charles University, Prague and the Academy of Sciences 

concluded the agreement, ensuring the participation of the best experts and research teams in the 

process of scientific training, independent of the original student’s school. This arrangement allows 

graduates from the three Faculties of Medicine, Faculty of Science as well as interested applicants 

from other faculties to select the most convenient research programme from the spectrum of 18 

biomedical basic research areas. 

Since the success of individual PhD programmes must be ensured by a strong theoretical 

background, training in basic science is obligatory also for MD graduates who want to continue their 

academic career in clinical disciplines. They can apply for scientific training e.g. in human physiology 

and pathophysiology, pharmacology, biology and cell pathology, neurosciences, molecular biology 

and genetics and experimental surgery. In addition, they have an adequate workload in clinical 

departments, enabling them to maintain contact with practical medicine. 

The essential precondition for successful submission of PhD thesis are at least two in extenso 

primary papers published in peer reviewed journals with an impact factor. It follows, therefore, that 

PhD thesis of MD students must meet the same standards as other PhD theses. The number of 

students accepted for postgraduate biomedical education in Prague each year varies from 320 to 

360. The ratio of accepted students/successfully defended theses, at the beginning relatively low 

steadily increased and during the last five years reached 42 %. 

We are convinced that the integration of intellectual and methodological capacities offered by 

different institutions in the Prague region as well as the training of MD students in basic science 

increases the scientific level of clinical research. 

75



P56 THE DRESDEN INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE 

SCHOOL FOR BIOMEDICINE AND BIOENGINEERING 

(DIGS-BB): A PARTICULARLY SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE 

OF SYNERGIES BETWEEN UNIVERSITY 

AND NON-UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS 

Gerhard Rödel 1 and Katrin Jordan 2 

1 TU Dresden, Vice-Rector for Research, Dresden, Germany 

2 TU Dresden, Rectorate, Dresden, Germany 

gerhard.roedel@tu-dresden.de 

Since its foundation in 2006, the Dresden International Graduate School for Biomedicine and 

Bioengineering (DIGS-BB), awarded by the German Excellence Initiative, has become one of the 

largest international PhD programs in Germany with 80 Principal Investigators from TU Dresden and 

four non-university research institutions (2 Max Planck Institutes, 1 Leibniz-Institute, 1 

Helmholtz-Center) and currently 224 doctoral candidates. Approximately 1,000 junior scientists from 

all over the world apply each year for admission to the three highly interconnected PhD programs 

in “Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology” (CellDevo), in “Regenerative Medicine” (RegMed) 

and in “Nanobiotechnology, Biophysics and Bioengineering” (NanoBio). As an integral component of 

Dresden’s excellence research fields, cell biology, biomedicine, bio-engineering and biophysics, the 

DIGS-BB makes - by educating and supporting the chosen young scientists - a vital contribution to 

the high standards and extraordinary dynamics that drive the science cluster Biopolis Dresden. The 

main factors that ensure the quality of DIGS-BB are: 

The selection of all DIGS-BB faculty members according to criteria which, besides scientific 

excellence, also require a high level of individual involvement - not only in the training modules, but 

also in supervision and mentoring, in examining boards, and Committees. 

V A highly competitive, multi-stage selection procedure for the applicants (online application and 

interview week for invited candidates). 

V A supervision and mentoring concept that is customized to suit each DIGS-BB PhD student 

individually and adjusted to the interdisciplinary orientation of the research project, with 

opportunities for support and measures for the assurance of scientific quality and of the progress of 

the theses. 

V Disciplinary, interdisciplinary and general training options, continually evaluated and adapted to 

meet the requirements of the PhD students. 

V The creation of optimal work conditions through intensive collaboration of the host university with 

its partner institutions (e.g. jointly-used infrastructure, resources, and joint scientific events). 

76



P57 DUTCH COMMON GUIDELINES 

FOR PHD TRACKS IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 

Marlies E.A. Stouthard 1 

1 AMC - UvA, AMC Graduate School, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 

m.e.stouthard@amc.nl 

In the Netherlands, the 8 university medical centres (UMC) cooperate in the NFU (Dutch Federation 

of University medical centres). An UMC integrates medical school, biomedical research and hospital 

into one organization, with one board. The mission of the NFU is to promote the interests of the 

Dutch UMCs in education, research and patient care. 

The aim of the present study was to explore the Graduate Schools’ organization, scope, size and 

activities amongst the UMCs in The Netherlands, and possibilities for standardization. 

Initiated by the NFU and AMC, in 2010-2011 the 8 UMCs made an inventory of their Graduate Schools, 

based on a questionnaire and subsequently individual interviews with representatives from the 

Graduate Schools of all eight UMCs. The results of the inventories were combined and presented in a 

meeting organized by the NFU, together with suggestions for further steps in standardization. 

Dutch UMC Graduate Schools vary in organization, scope and size. In all, over 1,000 PhD theses 

are successfully defended each year, and this number is increasing. Despite their differences, the 

Graduate Schools developed similar course programmes and agreed on the nature of PhD projects. 

The UMC Graduate Schools have decided to cooperate in order to maintain and consolidate their 

international position of high quality PhD trajectories. With respect for the Graduate Schools’ 

autonomy, joint guidelines on the PhD thesis, the PhD project, and the education of PhD students 

were formulated, that further accentuated the ORPHEUS standards. The deans of the eight UMCs 

have assented to these guidelines. 

Dutch UMC Graduate Schools have emerged since the middle of the first decade of this century, 

building on diverging already existing structures. The overview of their organization, scope, size and 

activities was an important first step in the formulation of common guidelines. The willingness to 

further discuss standardization of doctorate education in The Netherlands offers the UMC Graduate 

Schools with the challenge to harmonize despite their differences. Next, focus will be on the further 

description of competences for PhD students. The ultimate goal is to improve the internationally 

high level of doctorate education and PhD research in The Netherlands across all UMCs. 

77



P58 NTNU PHD COURSE KLMED8001 

RESEARCH TRAINING IN PSYCHIATRY (ELF) 

Einar Vedul-Kjelsås 1 

1 NTNU/St.Olavs Hospital, Psychiatry (AFFU)/Neuroscience (INM), Trondheim, Norway 

kjein@ntnu.no 

Presentation of NTNU PhD kurs KLMED8001 Research Training in Psychiatry. The aim of the course is 

to teach and facilitate research through the basic components in the research process from problem 

formulation, design and method, to preparation of a manuscript for publication. 

Admission requirements; Completed Masters Degree or enrolled in a Master Program. The students 

must prepare a protocol for a research project that will be discussed in the group during the course. 

Recommended prerequisites; Basic research knowledge and 2 years of experience in a health 

profession (medical doctor, psychologist, nurse etc.) are strongly recommended. 

Course description; ELF is scheduled for two years (4 semesters), 24 credits with 1.5 hours weekly 

seminars (7-9 weeks each semester). In addition, there are 3-5 full day seminars per semester. 

The seminars will be given as lectures (20 %) and exercises/workshops (80 %) in: (a) Literature 

search (b) Problem solving /hypothesis (c) Experimental design (d) Statistical methods (e) Writing a 

scientific paper. 

After completing the course, the student should 1) have knowledge of basic research methods 

within psychiatry; 2) be able to assess when to use different methods and processes within clinical 

research; 3) have knowledge of ethical issues related to doing clinical research within psychiatry; 4) 

have concrete and practical insight into research work as well as being able to participate in other 

researchers’ projects; 5) be able to communicate - both orally and in writing - research results 

through national and international channels of communication++. 

78



P59 PHD TRAINING IN BERGEN - BASIC COURSE 

IN MEDICAL AND HEALTH RELATED RESEARCH 

Line Wergeland 1 , Anette S.B. Wolff 1 and Malin V Jonsson 2 

1 University of Bergen, Institute of Medicine, Bergen, Norway 

2 University of Bergen, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Bergen, Norway 

line.wergeland@med.uib.no 

PhD training at the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen (UiB), is based on a 3-year 

program consisting of a 6-month training period, and 2.5 years of research. 

The mandatory Basic Course in Medical and Health Related Research (MEDMET1) encompasses 

various elements of medical and health related research. An important aspect of the course is also 

to establish networks between candidates. 

The two-week full-time course is organized as lectures, group-work and homework. It is offered in 

English, biannually, to research students and PhD candidates at/affiliated with the UiB. Research 

ethics and philosophy are presented by the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, 

and innovation presented by Bergen Technology Transfer Office; otherwise lecturers are invited from 

staff at the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. One (100%) or two (50%) course- supervisors act as 

contact-point between the students, lecturers, course-leader, and student administration, and take 

part in teaching, group-work and examination. 

Brief ly, topics covered are communication of research (30 %), research ethics and philosophy of 

science (20 %), principals of statistical analyses and epidemiological designs (10 %), administrative, 

ethical and legal issues (10 %), and new perspectives in biomedical research (10 %). Introduction and 

group discussions of individual projects with manuscript-, poster- and oral presentation-exercises 

make up the remaining (20 %). The number of students varies from 30 to 60, with larger classes in 

the fall semester. Previous and current course evaluations indicate that the majority of the course 

participants are satisfied with the course and rate it as good or very good. Ratings are usually better 

from PhD students in an early rather than a late phase of the PhD training. Group-work also seems 

more appreciated than lectures alone. 

In general, MEDMET1 represents a decent, well-tolerated introduction to basic concepts of medical 

and health related research. 

79


Strategies to improve PhD Education 

P60 INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AND 

COLLABORATION AS A MEASURE OF A PHD 

PROGRAMME QUALITY: AN OSIJEK EXPERIENCE 

Tamara Alkhamis 1 , Martina Mihalj 2 , Ines Drenjančević 2 , Sandra Bilonić 3 and Jerko Barbić 4 

1 Faculty of Medicine University of J. J. Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Pathophysiology, Osijek, Croatia 

2 Faculty of Medicine University of J. J. Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Physiology and 

Immunology,Osijek, Croatia 

3 Faculty of Medicine University of J. J. Strossmayer Osijek, PhD studies Office, Osijek, Croatia 

4 Faculty of Medicine University of J. J. Strossmayer Osijek, Department of Pathophysiology, Osijek, Croatia 

talkhamis@mefos.hr 

It becomes increasingly clear that the evaluation and comparison between PhD programmes is 

extremely complex. However, there is a positive side to this incoherence, too: PhD students can 

benefit of international trainings during their PhD programme, acquiring complementary skills and 

participating in different work organization schemes. 

The aims of the survey were to assess the international publishing and international collaboration in 

an abroad lab of PhD students at the Faculty of Medicine Osijek during their PhD programme. A total 

of 46 out of 300 students were included in the survey. 

Fifteen out of the 46 PhD students surveyed have participated in some sort of international training 

in an abroad lab. The internationally collaborating groups have published almost 3 times more 

papers than the domestic only group (3.4 articles compared to 1,219). Majority of the involved 

students have spent either less than 3 months abroad, either over 12 months. Surprisingly, the 

average number of publications is also the highest in these two ends: students which have spent 

between 3-12 months abroad have the smallest number of publications. 

The results show that the most fruitful time in the abroad training in terms of international 

publishing is either less than 3 months, either 2 years and longer. Finally, over 80 % of our surveyed 

students stated they find their abroad training very important for their career, and over 90 % 

considers it extremely important for their thesis research. All of the PhD candidates would definitely 

recommend this kind of collaboration to a fellow student. 

80



P61 THE ORPHEUS “SELECTION IMPROVEMENT 

TOPICAL TEAM” INITIAL STEPS 

Francesco Saverio Ambesi-Impiombato 1 , André Nieoullon 2 , 

Andrea Olschewski 3 , József Tímár 4 , Ingeborg Van der Ploeg 5 and Paola Zanovello 6 

1 University of Udine, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, Udine, Italy 

2 Université de la Méditerranée, Campus de Luminy, Marseilles, France 

3 University of Gratz, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, LBI for Lung 

Vascular Research, Gratz, Austria 

4 Semmelweis University, 2nd Department of Pathology, Budapest, Hungary 

5 Karolinska Institutet, Central Director of Doctoral Education Faculty Office, Research and Doctoral 

Education, Stockholm, Sweden 

6 University of Padua, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Padua, Italy 

ambesi@uniud.it 

The Quality Control of the initial step in all Ph.D Programmes, the Students Enrollment selection 

process, is critical for achieving THE final goal in each Ph.D. Programme, i.e. its excellence. 

Besides the quality of the other components, such as: a) Curricular organization and activities; 

b) Supervisors; c) Tutors, d) Research environment and f) Facilities, the enrolled Students’ quality 

certainly plays a major role. 

With this in mind, during last year’s ORPHEUS Conference in Izmir, the idea of forming a “Selection 

Improvement Topical Team” (SITT) was launched by one of us, to address this specific yet relevant 

problem. 

After discussing the possible common interests and goals, initially at the Izmir meeting and later 

by electronic means of communication, the Authors of the present Communication agreed to 

effectively start the SITT and then to share ideas. 

The SITT is still an open structure. Anyone willing to positively contribute may apply with the first 

Author to join in. A broader representation from different Ph.D. programs, preferably located in 

different Countries, would represent a benefit for the Team. 

Working together, a consensus on a common SITT road map was soon reached. We thus agreed to: 

V Create a database of the present selection strategies, already applied in the participating 

Universities; 

V Compare the pros & cons of the different methods, considering the Quality Control strategies 

under discussion at this Congress for other aspects of PhD Programs 

V Develop a consensus on Quality Indicators (QI) for PhD applicants, also considering the possibly 

different cultural background; 

V Propose evaluation grids and methods for positively selecting the defined QIs during the PhD 

program Admittance Selection process. 

81

Results of the above mentioned first step’s activities will be presented in detail at the ORPHEUS 

Bergen Conference. Brief ly, the first collected data clearly show that many differences exist among 

Ph.D. Programs, even within Europe. Some of the Programs leave the Students free to follow their 

own research pattern, after their being agreed upon among the Teaching staff. In other Programs, a 

predetermined set of research subjects are publicized in advance, and Applicants are then selected 

for the best proposals, designed to carry on the project of choice among the several publicized for 

that Academic Year. 

It is thus desirable that a broader audience within ORPHEUS may set the general guidelines for 

defining the best possible European Ph.D Program structure. 

82



P62 TOWARDS CUSTOMIZED PHD PROGRAMS: 

PLANTING THE SEEDS OF LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH 

Laura De Santis 1 and Stephanie Clarke 2 

1 Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Doctoral School, Lausanne, Switzerland 

2 Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Director of the Doctoral School, Lausanne, 

Switzerland 

laura.desantis@unil.ch 

Research in Life Sciences is multidisciplinary. It is crucial to train new generations of researchers 

to meet future challenges in this field. At UNIL, PhD students have the opportunity to conduct a 

personal and original research in one of the groups of the Faculty of Biology and Medicine and work 

at the interface of bioscience, medicine and human sciences1. 

How to prepare a challenging Ph.D. education sufficiently varied to be customized to the learning 

and career objectives of each student? Several doctoral programs are being set up by the Doctoral 

School and other University Institutions (e.g. CUSO2, ...). Twelve programs were offered in 2011: Life 

Sciences (general path), Cardiovascular and Metabolism, Microbial Sciences, Integrated Experimental 

and Computational Biology, Cancer and Immunology, Ecology and Evolution, Neuroscience, 

Bioinformatics, Public Health, StarOmics, Molecular Plant Sciences and a MD-PhD program. 

These extensive programs (around 200-250 courses) prepare students to the challenges in their 

research field. Many programs promote also transversal competences, such as English and project 

management, useful for future careers in the academia, industry and other public institutions. 

The next step is to control and improve the development of PhD education. At present, the only 

tool we use to analyze the relevance of these programs is the number of registrations per year 

(see poster). However, this is not sufficient to ensure their strategic development. The next step is 

to create a 360 degree assessment tool. In this perspective, we are planning to do three surveys: 

for the alumni (through the alumni web network launched by UNIL this autumn), for the academic 

teachers and for the current PhD students. The collected data will enable us to measure the 

inf luence of each program on the alumni’s careers and to use feedbacks as a tool for improvement. 

However, this analysis requires some programs reach “maturity”, i.e. the oldest was created 10 years 

ago, but the most recent started 2 semesters ago. Thus, for now, we are still watching thematic 

programs grow. 

1Indeed, the training is open (under certain conditions) after a Master in Biology, Medicine, Physics, 

Chemistry, Sociology, Psychology, Computer Science, Mathematics, Chemistry, Geography, Economy, 

Human Art and Human Science (The grade has to be recognized by the UNIL Admission Service. For 

more information, check our PhD Rules, http://www.unil.ch/edfbm). 

83



P63 MIDWAY EVALUATION OF PH.D CANDIDATES 

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL DENTISTRY 

June-Vibecke K Indrevik 1 , Tone F Hordvik 1 and Anne Isine Bolstad 1 

1 UiB, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Bergen, Norway 

june-vibecke.indrevik@iko.uib.no 

The midway evaluation has been a part of the academic follow up of the candidates at the 

Department of Clinical Dentistry since 2006, and at the University of Bergen as a whole, since 2009. 

The midway evaluation of the research candidates has the following goals: 

V To evaluate status regarding the progression and development of the project 

V To give the candidate the possibility to present the whole project for a committee of scientific staff 

and get feedback from the committee 

The midway evaluation committee consists of one academic member of the Research board, and 

one internal academic member from the Department. Present at the evaluation is the committee 

and the candidate, and the supervisors are expected to participate as observers. The timeframe for 

the committee seminar is one hour. The candidate is informed about the forthcoming evaluation 2 

months before it takes place so that the candidate has time to prepare for submission of the written 

material and to make the presentation. Two weeks before the seminar, the candidate has to submit 

all written documentation in regards of the PhD project: 

V Written report which includes how far the candidate has come, an overview of the work so far, 

anda time schedule for the remaining period 

V Project report 

V Finished manuscripts, manuscripts in the work 

V Courses taken and presentations made 

The candidate does a 30 minute presentation of the status for all work so far in relation to scientific 

method, goals and results. As a main rule the presentation is held in English. The presentation of 

the candidate is open to all interested parties and is announced to the PhD candidates and scientific 

staff at the Department by E-mail. After the presentation, the doors are closed for the audience and 

the committee evaluates the candidate´s work. The committee also evaluates whether the ethical 

guidelines are taken care of in the project. The midway evaluation gives the candidate 1 ECTS credit 

in the training component for the PhD Programme at the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. The 

Department of Clinical Dentistry has good experience with the midway evaluation. The candidates 

are very satisfied with the arrangement, and from our experience, it is a useful way of following up 

PhD candidates. 

84



P64 PUBLICATION ANALYSIS 

AND QUALITY CHECKLISTS 

Jakob Ousager 1 and Hans Jørn Kolmos 1 

1 University of Southern Denmark, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark 

jousager@health.sdu.dk 

At The Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, we are developing a 

new evaluation policy for the PhD-program. The aim is to develop an evaluation policy that: 

V shows the extent to which our PhD program meets international standards 

V can be used actively in the quality development of our research education 

V contains elements from both educational evaluation (achievement of educational goals) and 

research evaluation (assessment of scientific output) 

V is administratively manageable and builds on already established practices of evaluation 

The main elements in the evaluation are: 

1. A bibliographic analysis documenting ‘our’ PhDs’ scientific production (an analysis of more 

than5000 publications - and still counting!) 

2. A description of the extent to which we achieve nationally defined goals for the PhD education 

3. A description of the extent to which we comply with international quality standards 

4. Indications of external stakeholders’ assessment of the PhD program 

5. PhD-students’ and supervisors’ evaluation of the study program 

Bibliographic analysis plays a key role in the evaluation because it - despite some limitations - is 

the most obvious tool to assess and document the scientific production that comes out of the PhD 

projects. 

Quality checklists play another key role, because they are an efficient way to assess and document 

the extent to which educational goals and quality standards are met. 

ORPHEUS ‘standards and the EUA-CDE Salzburg principles may be well suited as starting points 

for the development of quality checklists. Quality checklists should be developed in collaboration 

between graduate schools in order to make them even more suitable for benchmarking and quality 

development. 

85



P65 SCIENTIFIC IMPACT OF THE PHD THESIS 

IN DOCTORAL PROGRAMME „BIOMEDICINE 

AND HEALTH SCIENCES“, AT THE UNIVERSITY 

OF ZAGREB SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

Jelka Petrak 1 , Jadranka Bozikov 1 , Ana Borovecki 1 and Zdravko Lackovic 1 

1 University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia 

aborovec@gmail.com 

There is a synergy between a doctoral (PhD) programme and scientific activity of the community. 

Doctoral programmes that impose more demanding requirements on PhD candidates and their 

supervisors foster the productivity of the entire scientific community, namely the quality and 

international visibility of published papers. At the same time, improved scientific productivity enables 

higher quality of doctoral programmes. 

This presentation aims to investigate the interaction between PhD programme (“Biomedicine 

and Health Sciences” at School of Medicine University of Zagreb) characteristics, particularly 

requirements regarding publishing activity of students, and duration/successfulness of one’s PhD 

study, including the publication of a thesis in a form of scientific article(s). 

The overview of the scientific impact of the PhD theses defended in 2009, 2010 and 2011 will be 

presented. 25 PhD theses were defended in 2009, 36 in 2010, and 32 in 2011. They come from 

different fields of medicine (clinical sciences, public health, basic sciences). 604 papers in CC indexed 

journals and 791 papers in Medline indexed journals in total were authored or co-authored by the 

PhD candidates. They were first authors in 172 papers published by CC indexed journals. 

86



P66 JOIMAN - JOI.CON: TRAINING FOR SUCCESS 

IN JOINT PHD PROGRAMMES 

Ingunn Wergeland 1 and Gry Kibsgaard 1 

1 University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 

gry.kibsgaard@gades.uib.no 

The Joiman Network (Joint Degree Management and Administration Network) investigated 

obstacles and challenges usually faced by coordinators of Joint Programmes on Master and Doctoral 

level. The positive feedback and demand for practical solutions persuaded the network to start a 

second phase of the project, Joi.Con turning the JOIMAN results into an innovative training method. 

Joiman has produced a set of results which included surveys, analyses, and international 

conferences and seminars. These findings are shared with the Higher Education Community at large 

with the aim to support institutions in overcoming administrative and management difficulties in the 

development and implementation of Joint Programmes. Joi.Con is a project aims at training present 

and future coordinators of Joint Programmes. Its milestones are two international conferences and 

an embedded training, more specifically a Joint Programme simulation. Therefore, the aim of the 

JOI.CON project is to exploit and disseminate findings of JOIMAN on a deeper level. 

Through the Joi.Con project we train practical competences of present and future coordinators by 

leading them through the set-up of a fictive Joint Master or Joint PhD Programme in a safe and 

supervised laboratory situation. This is a 5 month long training programme with a high degree of 

interactivity between trainers and trainees. The training ends with a conference where the trainees 

present their learning outcomes through the demonstration of their fictive joint programmes with 

all documentations, agreements and regulations needed to set up a joint degree. All challenges met 

during the construction of a joint programme are displayed and solutions offered. 

By training managers and academics in setting up a joint programme in a laboratory setting, the 

trainees have a safe and creative learning environment where they are challenged to overcome 

obstacles related to their own institutional and national rules and regulations. Overcoming these 

obstacles represent building competences for succeeding in the management of joint programmes. 

87

SPONSOR´S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The 7th ORPHEUS Conference was generously supported by 

88

PDF conference book - ORPHEUS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?