The large lecture theatre in the Bartholin Building was almost full when the Dean and his staff stopped by the Department of Biomedicine on Tuesday 28 January. They came to hear what was happening at the department and to answer questions from the employees.

And there were plenty of questions in connection with the spending cuts that the department is facing.

Revenues and expenses were discussed
The FTE revenues were one topic. Questions were asked about whether they correspond to the teaching that is delivered. Dean Allan Flyvbjerg informed the audience that for technical reasons, it would not be possible to see if this was the case before the turn of the year, and he also promised that the balance would be examined again at that time.

Another item that was debated was the large research centres and their share of the department’s deficit. The centres are financed by large external grants, which do not always cover derived expenses to e.g. administration and rent. The department must therefore pay for front and back offices from its internal funds. This was, according to a number of people in the audience “a crazy system” and a structural problem, which Allan Flyvbjerg explained:

“Running the large centres has an administrative price. The contribution is determined such that it depends on the level of activity, so those with a low level of activity make a little contribution, while those who have a high level of activity contribute more, as they also draw more on HR, finance and so on. The senior management team has adopted the model and we believe that it is the best possible solution. But in the future we will have to be more restrictive in relation to how we accept funding for the large centres, so it it covers derived expenses to a greater extent.”

Allan Flyvbjerg stated that this is an issue he draws attention to in all relevant contexts and that he was already involved in a dialogue with the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Lundbeck Foundation, who were both receptive.

Differences of opinion were debated
AU’s financial problems also impact on the graduate school, as no PhD scholarships are being awarded in the first half of 2014. This concerned several researchers, who stated that this would cause special problems for the newly employed group leaders. The lack of PhD students can, for example, make it more difficult to compete for the attractive ERC grants. Vice-Dean Lise Wogensen drew attention to the fact that this was only a temporary stop, which should be seen in light of the fact that 202 PhD students were enrolled last year, which were 30 more than budgeted. The Dean confirmed that there was considerable focus on not ruining the talent development that had taken several years to build up, but that the graduate school must also make savings just like other areas.

“Everybody must pull together in this situation. We have tried to spread the savings so they impact as few as possible, as little as possible. The cost reductions are based on a percentage of the turnover, so that those with the broadest shoulders will bear most. But it is clear that this is the art of the possible so we can keep the place running,” said Allan Flyvbjerg.

He was pleased that there was a real debate:

“It is fantastic that you have turned up and dared to say what you think, and that we have an environment where things can be said directly. That is very valuable to us. And this is not just ‘bullshit’ and empty talk. We listen and take your comments on board and really try to make things work so that we will be impacted as little as possible, so thank you for your frankness.”

Praise for the staff
At the meeting, department head Thomas G. Jensen also provided a provisional status for 2013. This showed that more articles were published than previously, more teaching was delivered, impressive awards were won, and external funding increased. In the past year SDD interviews were held for the entire department, as were focused meetings to discuss the issues of stress and dissatisfaction with the outlook for the future, which the psychological workplace assessments showed were a particular problem at Biomedicine.

The two vice-heads of department, Morten Nielsen and Thomas Corydon, could both report on a year with a number of reorganisations caused by the new research centres, which have been necessary in order to make room for both equipment and staff. But also on a great deal of goodwill and flexibility among the staff, who have made a difference. 

On this basis Thomas G. Jensen concluded that 2013 “wasn’t so bad” even though the year did not end well due to the cost reductions:

“We merged two years ago and how are things actually going at Biomedicine? Last year great articles were published, we were given more external grants and we had more teaching than previously. And we have talked to one another to make the department function even better. The effects of the fusion have worn off and we mustn’t forget that things are going really well.”