University Times - University of Pittsburgh

Transcription

F
E
A
T
U
R
I N
E
What makes the best assistive
technology? See page 8.
T H I S
I S S U E
One of two Ohio men who
threatened on YouTube to release
confidential Pitt data has been
sentenced..........................................2
UNIVERSITY
Average full-time faculty pay here
rose 3.7 percent in FY13, an annual
report says........................................4
MAY 30, 2013
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
TIMES
VOLUME 45 • NUMBER 19
In 2011, Dixon again
was highest paid here
M
en’s basketball head
coach Jamie Dixon
topped the list of Pitt’s
five highest-paid non-officer
employees in 2011, displacing
then-head football coach David
R. Wannstedt, who topped the
list in 2010.
Wannstedt, who resigned in
December 2010, fell to No. 3.
As part of its annual IRS form
990 filing, the University must
disclose, among other financial
information, compensation paid
to its five highest-paid non-officer
employees.
Tax-exempt organizations are
required to list on form 990 their
officers, directors and trustees,
plus current key employees who
are paid more than $150,000.
They also must list former officers, key employees and highestcompensated employees who had
more than $100,000 in reportable
compensation, and former directors and trustees who had more
than $10,000 in reportable compensation in that capacity during
the calendar year.
Highest-paid non-officers
According to Pitt’s form 990, in
calendar year 2011 Dixon earned
$2,445,682 in total compensation,
made up of: base compensation
($1,350,020); bonus and incentive
compensation, which for coaches
includes media programming
revenue and contractual performance incentives ($925,862);
other reportable compensation ($25,260); retirement and
other deferred compensation
($129,400), and nontaxable benefits ($15,140).
Rounding out the top five:
• Former head football coach
Michael T. Graham earned
$1,982,793 million, made up of
base compensation ($1,010,120);
bonus and incentive compensation
($916,399); other reportable compensation ($18,619); retirement
and other deferred compensation
($27,973), and nontaxable benefits
($9,682).
Graham, who was hired as head
coach in January 2011, left Pitt for
the head coaching job at Arizona
State in December 2011.
A notation elsewhere in the 990
document indicates that Arizona
State University reimbursed Pitt
$1 million on behalf of Graham.
• Wa n n s t e d t e a r n e d
$1,296,065, including base
compensation ($14,159); bonus
and incentive compensation
($1,275,600); other reportable
compensation ($2,048); retirement and other deferred compensation ($3,619), and nontaxable
benefits ($639).
• Athletic Director Steven
C. Pederson earned $844,008,
including base compensation
($500,161); bonus and incentive compensation ($283,333);
other reportable compensation
($10,674); retirement and other
deferred compensation ($35,525),
and nontaxable benefits ($14,315).
• University of Pittsburgh
Cancer Institute director Nancy
E. Davidson earned $660,956,
including base compensation
($635,752); other reportable
compensation ($600); retirement
($5,004).
University officers
The University reported 2011
compensation for Pitt officers:
• Arthur S. Levine, senior vice
chancellor for Health Sciences and
dean of the School of Medicine,
$846,748 in total compensation,
($4,021).
• Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg, $764,296 in total compensation, made up of: base compensation ($556,588); bonus and incentive compensation ($38,297);
• Jerome Cochran, executive
vice chancellor, $592,948 in total
compensation, made up of: base
compensation ($459,362); bonus
and incentive compensation
The rite of spring
Grounds crew member
Channing King lifts up a
flowering basket for fellow
grounds crew member Paul
Migale to hang on a Cathedral of Learning light pole.
Sophomore Chris Smallidge,
left, who is working with the
grounds crew this summer,
helped as teams hung 86
baskets in one day earlier
this month.
Photos by Kimberly K. Barlow
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
Levine warns of med school budget woes
M
edical students and
patients alike may be
asked to open their wallets wider as Pitt’s medical school
seeks ways to shore up its budget.
In his annual state of the
medical school address, Arthur
S. Levine, senior vice chancellor for the Health Sciences and
dean of the School of Medicine,
said tuition hikes could be on the
horizon as the medical school
looks for ways to make up for the
loss of funding due to the federal
sequester.
Philanthropy is another avenue
for bolstering the school’s coffers,
said Levine, who noted that while
the school historically has done
well with foundation donations, it
has lagged in obtaining individual
contributions.
“We have to turn that around,”
he said, telling faculty that their
relationships with patients and
their families offer opportunities.
Although it may be difficult to
ask patients and their families for
donations, Levine said, “We’re
going to have to learn how to
do that with tact and grace and
comfort or we’re not going to be
able to improve our philanthropic
stance.”
Other funding sources
The school is seeking to
improve partnerships with industry, Levine said, citing as one
example Pitt and UPMC’s involvement in developing commercial
diagnostic tests with GE Healthcare.
The school’s financial administrators have negotiated an increase
in the school’s indirect cost rate
from 51.5 percent to 54 percent,
which Levine said is “helping
somewhat.”
The school also is looking
overseas for revenue.
“We have something to
export,” Levine said. “We’re seen
as a valuable resource by countries
elsewhere,” he said, citing work
with the government of Kazakhstan to design and implement a
Western-style medical school.
“We are building a medical
CONTINUED ON PAGE 7
1
U N I V E R S I T Y TIMES
YouTube threatener sentenced
I
n sentencing one of two men
arrested in connection with a
YouTube video that threatened
to release sensitive University
data, a federal judge on Tuesday
said the act was “not a simple
prank” and that serious consequences were merited.
“That means jail time,” Judge
Joy Flowers Conti told Alexander
Waterland as she imposed a sentence of one year and one day in
federal prison, followed by two
years of supervised release on one
count of extortion.
Among the provisions of his
supervised release, Waterland
would be permitted to have access
to a computer and the Internet,
but must allow monitoring of
his computer, cellphone and
electronic communication or
electronic storage devices.
Waterland remained free on
bond under the conditions of his
pretrial release pending instructions on where and when to report
to federal prison to begin serving
his sentence.
Waterland, 25, of Loveland,
Ohio, pleaded guilty earlier this
year in connection with a video,
“Anonymous Message to the
University of Pittsburgh,” posted
in late April 2012 that claimed
to be from the hacktivist group
Anonymous.
The video demanded an apology by the chancellor for failing
to care for students’ data and
threatened to release sensitive
computer data if the apology was
not posted on the University’s
home page. (See May 3, 2012,
University Times.)
Conti said she took into
account the fact that no sensitive
data actually were taken from the
University’s servers, but also had
to consider that the threat was
made public, which prompted
calls to the University’s computer
help desk and public affairs office
from concerned students, parents
and employees.
Conti said the threats — which
included not only the initial
video, but postings in response
to comments on the video,
Twitter messages and emails to
University officials reiterating
the demands — not only diverted
University employees from their
regular work, but “actually caused
distress” to individuals who were
concerned that sensitive data
would be released.
Assistant U.S. Attorney James
Kitchen said the initial cyberthreat
sent University IT staff “into
a code red alert on a Saturday
night,” adding that the cyberthreateners’ action took the form
of a series of threats, delivered in
the wake of a series of bomb threats
on campus. The video was posted
five days after multiple hoax bomb
threats to the Pittsburgh campus
ceased on April 21. Scottish
nationalist Adam Busby of Dublin,
Ireland, was indicted in August in
connection with more than 40 of
the emailed hoaxes. (See Aug. 30
University Times.)
In a victim impact statement
submitted to the court last week,
Ted P. Fritz, Pitt’s associate general
counsel, stated that losses came in
the form of personnel hours rather
than dollars.
As for the threat and demand
for a public apology, “In a vacuum,
this was serious,” Fritz stated.
“However, this threat was more
than serious because it came on
the heels of a six-week siege of
bomb threats to the University,
some of which were electronically
conveyed. Consequently, when
the University was starting to feel
some relief from bomb threats
that appeared to have ended in
late April, these new cyberthreats
occurred and swung the general
emotions at the University to ones
of alarm and concern that the
University was under a new type
of cyberattack,” he stated.
“The University’s Computing
Services and Systems Development department (IT team) was
once again pressed into action to
determine if an attack occurred,
to implement enhanced security
measures that restricted system
usage and performance, and to
fend off a substantial increase in
probes of the University’s system
from around the world.”
Fritz stated, “Specifically, the
IT team faced a complex, timepressured obligation that took
several days of confirming that
no data breach actually occurred.
The staff of over 35 people worked
around the clock to increase
system logging, to analyze any
anomalous network traffic, to
check to ensure data security was
not only appropriately set at the
time of the alleged breach but also
to ensure increased measures were
emplaced. Because of the publicity
and resultant probes for system
weaknesses by potential hackers
or other wrongdoers, the IT team
was forced to tighten the security
settings of the system and increase
monitoring for weeks.”
The higher security impacted
network availability for some Pitt
end-users and diverted CSSD
employees from their regular
work.
“Instead of doing their dayto-day work to keep a research
university connected, many of the
staff were trying to explore the
extent of what turned out to be a
non-existent breach,” he stated.
According to the University’s statement, the threat also
prompted a federal Department
of Education inquiry “with the
University having to show to this
regulatory body that no breach
occurred and sufficient protective measures were in place,” an
inquiry Fritz stated has yet to be
formally closed.
Waterland’s attorney, Anthony
M. Bittner, countered that the
University knew the YouTube
threat was hollow and that there
had been no compromise of data
or penetration of the server. The
information Waterland purported
to have taken was “all public
information” and the threat was
“a complete ruse,” he said. He
added that Waterland and another
man who also pleaded guilty in
connection with the cyberthreats
were not involved in the bomb
threats, nor did they wish to be
associated with them, arguing that
once they learned that they were
being linked to the prior threats,
they posted that they had no ties to
those threats and did not condone
violence.
Waterland’s father, Thomas
CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
L E T T E R S
Regulatory burdens
UNIVERSITY
TIMES
N. J. Brown
EDITOR
412/624-1373
njbrown@pitt.edu
WRITERS
Kimberly K. Barlow
Marty Levine
412/624-1379
kbarlow@pitt.edu
412/624-1374
martyl@pitt.edu
BUSINESS MANAGER
Barbara DelRaso
412/624-4644
delraso@pitt.edu
Events Calendar: utcal@pitt.edu
The University Times is published bi-weekly
on Thursdays by the University of Pittsburgh.
Send correspondence to University Times,
308 Bellefield Hall, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260; fax to 412/624-4579
or email: njbrown@pitt.edu.
Subscriptions are available at a cost of $25 for
the publishing year, which runs from September through July. Make checks payable to the
University of Pittsburgh.
The newspaper is available electronically at:
www.utimes.pitt.edu.
2
To the editor:
In his erudite and humorous
article on regulatory burden
(University Times, May 2), Vice
Chancellor Randy Juhl states:
“Our research enterprise is burdened with a raft of individually
well-intentioned, but collectively stifling, requirements that
confuse, frustrate and delay the
important work of our faculty.”
This sentence shows an
impressive talent for understatement. One cannot escape the
suspicion that the “intention” of
these things is primarily CYA.
Consider some of the following:
1. Conflict of Interest “training”: To minimize (not eliminate)
COI issues among a small subset of
faculty, this “educational” activity
demands an inordinate expenditure of time by all faculty. No
faculty member should attempt
the qualifying “quizzes” without
legal counsel sitting nearby.
2. Responsible Conduct of
Research “training”: Let’s set aside
with detached amusement the
extremely insulting notion that
faculty members who may have
conducted responsible research
for decades need to be “re-trained”
every few years. The “educational”
materials were obviously written by someone with unseemly
relish for legal sophistry. The
quiz questions are full of double
and triple negatives. Every time a
faculty member does this module,
it diminishes the sum of human
knowledge.
3. Pitt’s online “ecrt” system:
At a time of exceptional fiscal
stringency, what genius decided
that highly paid faculty are best
used as clerical help?
I could go on, but I have paperwork to do.
Lewis Jacobson
Professor
Department of Biological
Sciences
LJAC@pitt.edu
U N I V E R S I T Y
M
M A
A T
T T E R S
S E N A T E
/ Anthony
Bledsoe
Nathan Hershey
From the perspective of
the student affairs committee
The National Research Council’s report on “Research Universities and the Future of America” makes specific recommendations
with regard to the reform of graduate education, as well as securing the full benefits of education for all Americans. These recommendations are particularly germane to the work of the University
Senate’s student affairs committee. During the 2012-13 academic
year, the committee has focused on the special needs of students
who are veterans, the associated issues of disability and of faculty
awareness of disabilities, and the needs for guidelines for faculty
sponsors and advisers of undergraduate organizations.
• The student affairs committee recognizes that veterans, particularly those from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, face unique challenges, and we can see many benefits from improving the academic
experience of veterans, not the least of which is increased retention.
Many veteran students are young but possess a substantially more
worldly perspective than their non-veteran peers. In addition,
some veterans face disabilities as a consequence of battle injuries
that require particular attention within academic and personal settings. The committee has sought to identify ways to help veterans
fit in well in these settings and succeed academically. Committee
member Jay Sukits, a faculty sponsor of Pitt’s Student Veteran
Association, has noted that the establishment of a veterans transition course and a veterans resource center could assist veterans in
moving from military to academic arenas. Ryan Ahl, director of
Pitt’s Office of Veterans Services, provided input to the committee
on these issues, and clarified what resources already are available
to Pitt veterans. Ahl is a critical resource to students, faculty and
staff, having served two tours of duty in Iraq as a member of the
infantry, rising to the rank of staff sergeant before he was commissioned a second lieutenant.
The student affairs committee is considering specific recommendations to improve the academic experience of veterans at the
University.
• The committee also has addressed the needs of students with
disabilities. Although the committee recognizes that many faculty
are sensitive to these needs and understand their associated responsibilities, other faculty do not understand the academic challenges
that disabilities can bring or know about the resources available to
help faculty and students.
To that end, we are developing video resources to assist faculty
in understanding disability and the ways they, and the University
in general, can help students with disabilities succeed. With the
help of Kathy Humphrey, vice provost and dean of students (and
the chancellor’s liaison to the committee), and Lynnett Van Slyke,
director of the Office of Disability Resource Services, the committee has identified specific video vignettes that can educate faculty
about their responsibilities and the associated resources. These
videos are in production, and the committee is developing ways to
engage faculty in using these resources.
The committee’s focus on students with disabilities has led us to
realize that this is a complex area of importance to the University,
and we suggest that a University Senate plenary session on the
topic is warranted.
• The student affairs committee also has addressed the need for
guidelines to assist faculty sponsors and advisers of undergraduate organizations. All formally recognized student organizations
require faculty sponsors, yet beyond the mere act of agreeing in
writing to become a sponsor, many sponsors do not know their
exact responsibilities, or sometimes whether an organization they
have sponsored still exists.
Committee member Gordon Louderback, president of the
Student Government Board, has pointed out that the Student
Organization Resource Center (SORC) requires all Pitt certified
student organizations to have financial accounts managed through
SORC, thereby freeing faculty from most obligations in this area.
He has also noted that the obligations for student organizations
fall on the students themselves, and that this is part of the development of student organizational and leadership skills. The committee agrees with this perspective, but we have identified several
changes that can help faculty in their roles. Student organizations
require recertification each year, and one suggestion is to make
sure faculty sponsors are notified upon recertification. In addition,
Dean Humphrey has noted that University oversight is important
for organizations that interact with minors who are not University
students. The committee will continue to investigate recommendations to assist faculty in their roles as organization sponsors. n
Anthony Bledsoe, a faculty member in biological sciences, is chair
of the Senate’s student affairs committee.
University Times letters policy
Letters should be submitted at least one week prior to publication. Persons
criticized in a letter will receive a copy of the letter so that they may prepare a
response. If no response is received, the letter will be published alone.
Letters can be sent by email to njbrown@pitt.edu or by campus mail to 308
Bellefield Hall.
The University Times reserves the right to edit letters for clarity or length.
Individuals are limited to two published letters per academic term. Unsigned
letters will not be accepted for publication.
MAY 30, 2013
Romoff earned $6 million in 2011
U
PMC President and CEO
Jeffrey A. Romoff topped
the list of the health care
system’s highest-paid employees
with compensation of $6,069,750
in calendar year 2011.
In UPMC’s most recent IRS
form 990, which must be filed
by tax-exempt organizations,
Romoff ’s base compensation
was reported as $958,992. His
total compensation also included
$2.933 million in bonus and incentive compensation, $426,754 in
other reportable compensation,
$1,728,427 in retirement and
other deferred compensation, and
$22,577 in nontaxable benefits.
In the form 990 released earlier
this month, UPMC stated that
157 individuals, including those
named in the form 990, received
more than $100,000 of reportable
compensation from the organization in 2011.
Highest compensated
non-officers
Excluding officers, directors and trustees, five surgeons
were listed as UPMC’s highestpaid employees. Compensation
includes base compensation,
bonus and incentive compensation, other reportable compensation, retirement and other
deferred compensation and nontaxable benefits. They were:
• Neurosurgeon Ghassan Bejjani, $2,482,944.
• Neurosurgeon Richard
Spiro, $1,854,825.
• Orthopaedic surgeon Mark
Rodosky, $1,821,221.
• Transplant surgeon Abhinav
Humar, $1,355,801.
• Neurosurgeon Adnan Abla,
$1,359,098.
Key employees
In addition to Romoff, those
specified as key employees
included in the UPMC 990
filing were:
• Charles E. Bogosta, UPMC
executive vice president and president, International and Commercial Services Division, $1,641,872.
• Robert J. Cindrich, UPMC
senior adviser to the president,
$1,535,591.
• Elizabeth B. Concordia,
UPMC executive vice president,
$2,510,988.
• Andrea Cotter, senior vice
president and chief communications officer, $628,794.
• Sandra N. Danoff, UPMC
senior vice president for strategic
planning, $1,315,599.
• Daniel Drawbaugh, UPMC
senior vice president and chief
information officer, $2,236,740.
• David M. Farner, UPMC
senior vice president and chief of
staff, $1,780,722.
• C. Talbot Heppenstall Jr.,
UPMC senior vice president and
treasurer, $1,133,766.
• Diane P. Holder, UPMC
executive vice president and
president, UPMC Health Plan,
$1,910,367 (all from related organizations).
• W. Thomas McGough,
legal officer, $1,049,127.
• Gregory K. Peaslee, UPMC
human resources and administrative services officer, $2,120,920.
• Steven D. Shapiro, chief
medical and science officer,
$961,661 and $203,237 from
related organizations.
• Marshall W. Webster,
UPMC executive vice president,
$1,264,111 and $131,417 from
related organizations.
University of Pittsburgh
Physicians (UPP)
The UPMC filing included
compensation for members of
the UPP faculty-physician partnership.
Amounts represent compensation for UPMC duties, not
University pay, although UPP
member physicians also were Pitt
faculty. Compensation includes
base compensation, bonus and
incentive compensation, other
reportable compensation, retire-
ment and deferred compensation
and nontaxable benefits, as well
as compensation from related
organizations, where applicable.
q
The following department
chairs/division heads were among
those compensated by UPP,
according to the UPMC 990:
• Derek Angus, critical care
medicine, $495,926.
• K. Ty Bae, diagnostic radiology, $560,243.
• Timothy R. Billiar, Division
of General Surgery, $684,665 and
$254,215 from related organizations.
• Michael Boninger, physical medicine and rehabilitation,
$188,963.
• Louis D. Falo Jr., dermatology, $443,211.
• Robert M. Friedlander,
neurological surgery, $1,159,013.
• Freddie H. Fu, orthopaedics,
$1,303,697.
• Joel S. Greenberger, radiation oncology, $483,577.
• W. Allen Hogge, obstetrics/
gynecology, $514,783.
• Jonas T. Johnson, otolaryngology, $695,501.
• David A. Lewis, psychiatry,
$445,128.
• Barry London, medicine/
cardiology, $467,720.
• James D. Luketich, cardiothoracic surgery, $2,014,849.
• George K. Michalopoulos,
pathology, $428,092.
• Joel B. Nelson, urology,
$824,088.
• David Hirsch Perlmutter,
pediatrics, $459,642.
• Joel S. Schuman, ophthalmology, $550,047.
• Jeannette E. South-Paul,
family medicine, $199,804.
• Lawrence Wechsler, neurology, $588,224.
• John P. Williams, anesthesiology, $517,956.
• Donald Yealy, emergency
medicine, $298,571.
Highest-paid contractors
UPMC’s five highest-paid
contractors were:
• General contractor Baton
Malow PJ Dick JV, Pittsburgh,
$69,958,643.
• General contractor AIM
Construction, Pittsburgh,
$20,354,757.
• Lab services provider ITXM
Clinical Services, Pittsburgh,
$17,699,747.
• General contractor Rycon
Construction, Pittsburgh,
$19,641,768.
• Rehabilitation services provider Centers for Rehab Services,
McKeesport, $23,308,055.
UPMC stated that 137 independent contractors received
reportable compensation from
the organization.
q
UPMC’s 990 filings can be
found at www.upmc.com/about/
finances/irs-filings
—Kimberly K. Barlow
n
In 2011, Dixon again was highest paid at Pitt
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
($12,402).
• Arthur G. Ramicone,
($330,860); bonus and incentive compensation ($25,531),
• Patricia E. Beeson, provost and senior vice chancellor,
Pitt’s highest-paid
non-officers in FY12
Under Pennsylvania’s 2008 right to know law, the University
must disclose the compensation of its 25 highest-paid non-officers.
In fiscal year 2012, they were:
1. James P. Dixon II, athletics — $2,281,656.
2. Michael T. Graham, athletics — $1,936,042 (of which $1 million
was reimbursed by Arizona State University).
3. David R. Wannstedt, athletics — $1,290,357.
4. Steven C. Pederson, athletics — $789,583.
5. Nancy E. Davidson, medicine — $637,000.
6. Michael J. Becich, biomedical informatics — $457,293.
7. Agnus M. Berenato, athletics — $440,655.
8. Donald S. Burke, public health — $437,216.
9. Thomas W. Braun, dental medicine — $401,092.
10. Steven L. Kanter, medicine — $400,000.
11. Massimo M. Trucco, pediatrics — $396,703.
12. Alan J. Russell, surgery — $396,345.
13. Douglass Lansing Taylor, computational and systems biology
— $368,096.
14. Loren H. Roth, psychiatry — $366,709.
15. Jean-Francois Richard, economics — $362,595.
16. Marc Shane Malandro, Office of Technology Management
—$361,895. 17. Angela M. Gronenborn, structural biology — $356,689.
18. David Gur, radiology — $353,309.
19. John Jeffrey Inman, business administration — $352,133.
20. Rocky Sung Chi Tuan, orthopaedic surgery — $348,081.
21. Bruce A. Freeman, pharmacology and chemical biology —
$346,801.
22. Jeffrey L. Masnick, Schools of the Health Sciences —
$345,000.
23. Charles A. Perfetti, Learning Research and Development
Center — $343,700.
24. Alexander Davidovich Sorkin, cell biology — $343,633.
25. Johnny Huard, orthopaedic surgery — $343,321.
n
($11,216).
• Amy Krueger Marsh,
($14,198).
• B. Jean Ferketish, secretary
of the Board of Trustees, $251,188
in total compensation, made up
of: base compensation ($197,220);
The bonus and incentive
compensation for Nordenberg,
Cochran and Ramicone represent
a six-month share of retention
incentive bonuses, plus interest,
Ramicone told the University
Times.
The retention incentive, initiated by Pitt trustees in 2002,
was a five-year plan designed to
encourage four members of Pitt’s
senior leadership team to remain
at the University through the end
of the 2007 fiscal year. Nordenberg’s incentive bonus was $75,000
a year; then-Provost James V.
Maher, Cochran and Ramicone
each were awarded $50,000 per
year bonuses under the plan.
The bonus program was
renewed on an annual basis until
trustees ended it, effective Dec.
31, 2010.
Because the incentive was
based on the University’s fiscal
year, a half-year share was awarded
and paid in January 2011. (See
Pitt’s highest-paid non-officers in 2011 were, from left: Jamie
Dixon, Todd Graham, Dave Wannstedt, Steve Pederson and Nancy
Davidson.
December 8, 2011, University
Times.) q
Maher stepped down and was
named provost emeritus in mid2010. Pitt’s form 990 reported his
compensation as $305,239, made
up of $288,873 in base compensation, $2,044 in other reportable
compensation and $14,322 in
nontaxable benefits.
q
The University reported that
1,652 individuals (including those
listed by name) received more than
$100,000 in reportable compensation in 2011.
Family member employees
The IRS requires institutions
to report financial information
on employees who are related to
senior officers, trustees or highestpaid employees.
Receiving compensation from
Pitt in 2011 were:
• Joshua Cochran of Public
Safety, who earned $57,119. He
is a family member of Executive
Vice Chancellor Jerome Cochran.
• Anita P. Courcoulas of the
Department of Surgery, who
earned $210,165. She is a family
member of trustee Ira J. Gumberg.
• Maryjean Lovett of alumni
relations, who earned $36,148.
She is a family member of trustee
Robert G. Lovett.
• Erin Nordenberg of the
Clinical and Translational Science
Institute, who earned $40,997.
She is a family member of the
chancellor.
• Werner Troesken, a faculty
member in economics, who
earned $170,608. Troesken is a
family member of Provost Patricia
E. Beeson.
• Robin Maier, who earned
$60,654, and John Maier, who
earned $50,000, both of family
medicine. The two are family
members of former Provost James
V. Maher.
Highest-paid contractors
Pitt paid 616 independent
contractors more than $100,000
each for services during 2011. The
top five were:
• Sodexo, Atlanta, food service:
$29,369,318.
• PJ Dick, Pittsburgh, construction services: $20,928,844.
• Mascaro Construction Co.,
Pittsburgh, construction services:
$18,871,489.
• SSM Industries, Pittsburgh, construction services:
$11,878,971.
• Turner Construction
Co., construction services:
$10,493,389.
q
The 2012 form 990 was posted
May 15 at www.cfo.pitt.edu under
“right-to-know disclosures.”
n
3
Average Pitt faculty pay rose 3.7% in FY13
A
n annual University
report showed that the
average full-time continuing faculty member’s salary
increased 3.7 percent in fiscal
year 2013.
The document, prepared by
Pitt’s Management Information
and Analysis office, was presented
to the University Senate budget
policies committee May 17.
With the exception of faculty
in the basic science departments,
medical school faculty were
excluded from the analysis.
Also excluded were faculty
employed in fall 2011 but not in
fall 2012; those hired between
fall 2011 and fall 2012; those
whose contract bases changed
(for example, from a 9-month
to a 12-month contract or vice
versa); those on leave of absence
without pay; those who went from
full-time to part-time (or vice
versa); academic administrators at
the level of dean or above; visiting faculty; faculty who changed
responsibility centers, and faculty
with a decline in salary.
Salary increases
Of 1,992 full-time continuing faculty members included in
the salary analysis, 862 received
salary increases of 3 percent or
more, while 1,130 received pay
increases less than the 3 percent
rate of inflation. Continuing faculty included in the report made
up 82.9 percent of the 2,404 fulltime faculty at Pitt.
Of those full-time continuing
faculty whose increases were less
than 3 percent, 52 had increases of
1.49 percent or less, an indication
of unsatisfactory performance,
given that the FY13 salary pool
increase included 1.5 percent for
salary maintenance for employees
whose work had been assessed as
satisfactory.
The 3 percent salary pool
increase also provided 1 percent
for merit, market and equity
adjustments at the unit level, and
0.5 percent to be distributed by
senior officers to address imbalances among units. (See July 26,
2012, University Times.)
Of the 862 full-time continuing faculty whose salary increases
kept pace or exceeded inflation,
572 received increases of 3-4.99
percent; 146 got 5-7.49 percent;
50 got 7.5-9.99 percent and 94
got 10 percent or more.
In comparison, of 1,883 fulltime continuing faculty in the
2012 salary analysis, 121 received
salary increases below the 1.5 percent rate of inflation. The FY12
salary increase pool was 2 percent:
1.5 percent for satisfactory performance and 0.5 percent for merit,
market and equity.
Last year’s continuing faculty
salary report was not presented
in an open BPC session due to
concerns that discussion of faculty
pay increases could affect the University’s state appropriation. (See
March 22, 2012, University Times.)
In other business:
• BPC discussed University
Planning and Budgeting Committee (UPBC) recommendations for
the FY14 budget in closed session.
Baker told the University
Times following the meeting
that the committee endorsed
the UPBC recommendations
for next year’s budget and made
one recommendation of its own,
should additional revenue become
available.
• In response to questions
that have arisen regarding how
part-time Pitt faculty are reported
for the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS),
David N. DeJong, vice provost for
academic planning and resources
management, explained that a
longtime Human Resources definition separates part-time regular
faculty from part-time temporary
faculty based on eligibility for
health benefits.
Part-time regular faculty, a
subset of all part-time faculty, are
reflected in the IPEDS numbers,
DeJong said.
• Baker noted that longtime
BPC member Balwant N. Dixit of
the School of Pharmacy has retired
from the University after 48 years
as a faculty member.
• Baker said he would poll BPC
members on whether to meet in
June. No decision had been made
as of press time.
n
University of Pittsburgh
FY 2012 - FY 2013 Full-Time Continuing Faculty
Responsibility Center Totals and Summaries
Responsibility Center
# of
Continuing
Faculty
Total Salaries of Continuing Faculty
In FY 2012
In FY 2013
Percent Increase Based on:
Avg of Individual
Total Salaries Faculty Members'
Percent Increases
Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences: Humanities
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences: Natural Sciences
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences: Social Sciences
Joseph M. Katz Grad Sch Bus
School of Education
Swanson School of Engineering
School of Law
Grad Sch of Pub & Int'l Affrs
School of Social Work
School of Information Sciences
Univ of Pgh at Johnstown
Univ of Pgh at Greensburg
Univ of Pgh at Titusville
Univ of Pgh at Bradford
University Library System
Other
225
260
110
73
94
113
46
25
31
22
118
67
19
63
58
34
$16,569,429
$22,807,419
$10,281,692
$11,834,257
$7,257,299
$12,110,730
$5,567,336
$2,687,360
$2,528,800
$2,093,193
$6,924,883
$3,892,355
$1,111,025
$4,013,599
$3,925,563
$5,064,033
$17,155,548
$23,503,683
$10,677,143
$12,218,896
$7,510,009
$12,660,041
$5,757,296
$2,789,528
$2,613,505
$2,183,565
$7,196,848
$4,021,232
$1,159,137
$4,149,137
$4,099,403
$5,250,493
3.5%
3.1%
3.8%
3.3%
3.5%
4.5%
3.4%
3.8%
3.3%
4.3%
3.9%
3.3%
4.3%
3.4%
4.4%
3.7%
3.4%
2.9%
3.8%
3.3%
3.4%
4.8%
3.5%
3.9%
3.4%
4.2%
4.0%
3.5%
4.4%
3.5%
3.9%
3.5%
Senior Vice Chancellor Health Sciences
School of Dental Medicine
School of Nursing
School of Pharmacy
Graduate Sch of Public Health
School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences
Other
77
72
66
130
93
24
$8,687,578
$5,793,891
$7,474,604
$14,594,488
$7,570,296
$1,617,577
$8,967,022
$6,040,612
$7,732,301
$15,187,358
$7,846,929
$1,694,974
3.2%
4.3%
3.4%
4.1%
3.7%
4.8%
3.4%
4.6%
3.5%
4.1%
3.6%
5.4%
172
$21,778,138
$22,657,251
4.0%
4.0%
1,992
1,820
1,358
$186,185,545
$164,407,408
$118,668,974
$193,071,912
$170,414,661
$122,945,466
3.7%
3.7%
3.6%
3.7%
3.7%
3.6%
595
462
634
$49,658,540
$45,738,434
$67,516,572
$51,336,374
$47,469,195
$70,126,446
3.4%
3.8%
3.9%
3.3%
3.9%
4.0%
School of Medicine Division
School of Medicine, Basic Science Depts
Summaries
University, Total
University, excludes Medicine in total
Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences: Humanitites,
Natural Sciences and Social Sciences
Health Sciences1
Health Sciences and Medicine2
1
Health Sciences, excludes Medicine in Total
2
Medicine includes only the Basic Science Departments
4
Source: Pitt’s Office of Management Information and Analysis
MAY 30, 2013
Changes considered for A&S non-tenure stream faculty
G
overnance changes aimed
at giving voting privileges to some non-tenure
stream (NTS) faculty in the
School of Arts and Sciences
and better defining the role and
career path of NTS faculty within
the school are on their way to a
faculty vote.
Lack of a quorum prevented
formal votes on five motions presented at a May 21 called meeting
of Dietrich school faculty. The
Dietrich school council approved
the motions before they were
placed on the faculty meeting
agenda, said John Cooper, dean
of the school.
Changes to school bylaws
must be voted on through an electronically mailed ballot. In accord
with school bylaws, a majority of
members present at the meeting
exercised the option to send the
other three proposals to a mailed
ballot as well.
According to school officials,
Alarmed
the deadline for voting will be July
15 and changes will be effective
upon ratification, with full implementation taking place over the
coming academic year.
The dean’s office plans to send
an email on June 10 to all Dietrich
school department chairs providing instructions for voting, ballot
numbers and a list of eligible
voting faculty members in their
respective departments. Department chairs will be
asked to contact eligible voting
faculty members within their
departments and encourage them
to vote. A reminder email is to be sent
to chairs June 17 and, during the
week of June 24, an email from
the dean’s office is to be sent to
eligible voting faculty members
to encourage them to vote.
q
James F. Knapp, the Dietrich
school’s senior associate dean,
explained at the faculty meeting
Photos by Kimberly K. Barlow
Above: Art McMorris, the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s
peregrine falcon coordinator, protects Dan Brauning, wildlife
diversity division chief, from Dorothy as he removes her peregrine chick from the nest atop the Cathedral of Learning.
Below: The male chick, the sole survivor in this year’s nesting, is examined by veterinarians and fitted with identification bands inside the Babcock Room before being returned
to the nest. The chick, banded May 17, hatched in late April
and is expected to begin flying, or fledge, soon. He is the
20th chick produced by Dorothy and her mate E2 since 2008.
Dorothy, who was born in Milwaukee in 1999, has nested at
Pitt since 2002. She and her previous mate, Erie, raised 22
chicks over seven years.
that the process of clarifying the
NTS issues began with a visit by
Irene Frieze last fall. He noted that
faculty had presented a petition in
February seeking voting privileges
for NTS faculty.
Frieze, a faculty member in
psychology, chaired the non-tenure stream faculty subcommittee
of the Senate anti-discriminatory
policies committee’s gender
subcommittee, which recently
made recommendations that
were approved by the University
Senate. (See Jan. 10 University
Times.)
Frieze said that as incoming
vice president of the University
Senate, she plans to examine issues
related to part-time NTS faculty
as well. She encouraged faculty
members to contact her with their
thoughts on those issues.
Cooper said that the Dietrich
school has about 500 tenure/
tenure-stream (T/TS) faculty
and last fall had 145 full time
NTS faculty, creating a ratio of
approximately 3:1.
He noted that an effort has
been made over the past five or
six years to consolidate part-time
positions into full time, adding
that he intends to look again this
summer for other consolidation
possibilities.
Proposed bylaws changes
On the meeting agenda were
two amendments to Dietrich
school bylaws:
• One change would remove
full-time NTS faculty from the
list of “persons excluded” from
the school’s voting faculty.
Currently, the bylaws exclude
from Dietrich school membership
adjunct professors, research professors, visiting professors, lecturers, research associates, teaching
associates, assistant instructors,
acting instructors, instructors not
in the tenure stream, teaching
fellows and teaching assistants.
Cooper noted that, by excluding lecturers and senior lecturers
from the Dietrich school’s voting
faculty, school bylaws are inconsistent with University bylaws.
• A related motion would
amend the school’s bylaws to
give full-time NTS faculty representation in school-level faculty
government.
The proposed amendment
would place three new NTS representatives, elected by division, on
the school council, undergraduate
council and planning and budget
committee.
The amendment also would
require that the slate of candidates
for the Dietrich school’s nominating committee be made up of two
tenure-stream faculty members
and one full-time lecturer from
each of the school’s three divisions.
In addition, the motion redefines faculty representation on
the school’s graduate council to
include six elected members of
the graduate faculty.
Other proposed changes
Three other proposals do not
involve bylaws changes.
• One would establish criteria
for appointing, evaluating and
re-appointing non-tenure stream
faculty in the Dietrich school. In
addition to setting criteria for lecturer and senior lecturer appointments, the change would create
a working title, lecturer/master
teacher, to provide a promotion
for lecturers.
Knapp explained that the new
“rank” is actually a “working title”
because “to actually put a new title
through the whole University
system is extremely difficult.”
Lecturers
Under the proposal, lecturers
are defined, in part, as full-time
NTS faculty whose main responsibility is teaching, but whose duties
also may include such activities
as advising, supervising graduate
student teachers, administering
programs and technical or artistic
support.
Their initial appointment is for
one year and may be renewed for
up to two more years. Lecturers
in their third year may be recommended for three-year subsequent
renewals and, in their sixth year,
be considered for promotion to
lecturer/master teacher.
Evaluations and recommendations for contract renewals or
promotions would be by a vote of
T/TS faculty and NTS faculty at
the lecturer/master teacher and
senior lecturer ranks.
Lecturer/master teachers
Lecturer/master teachers are
defined as full-time NTS faculty
with the same duties as lecturers,
but who have “demonstrated
consistent excellence as a teacher,
and, if appropriate, as an advisor,
or in other assigned service to a
department.”
Appointments are for three
years and are renewable, with
evaluations and recommendations for renewals, as well as
recommendations for promotion
to senior lecturer by a vote of T/
TS faculty and NTS faculty at the
senior lecturer rank.
Senior lecturers
Senior lecturers are defined as
“persons of considerable professional attainment, of eminence,
or with recognized expertise in
their fields of scholarship or in the
creative arts.” Their appointments
are for five years and renewable.
Evaluations and recommendations for renewals are by a vote
of T/TS faculty.
• Another proposed change
adds to the basic departmental
governance guidelines to be
observed across the Dietrich
school.
The proposal would add that:
— In consultation on major
departmental issues, T/TS faculty
should take the lead on curricular
issues.
— In decisions on appointing
and reappointing department
chairs, “A secret ballot shall be
used to determine the balance of
faculty judgment” with “a full and
complete report of the faculty recommendation” to be provided to
the dean, “including a distinction,
if appropriate,” between the views
of the T/TS and the NTS faculty.
It also would add that “open
discussions of departmental directions and challenges is encouraged” and that, in formulating
recommendations regarding
appointment and reappointment,
T/TS faculty would take the lead.
• The final proposed change
would modify departmental procedures on first appointments to
bring wording into alignment with
the expectation that faculty vote
on appointments at their rank or
below and that tenured faculty
have a vote on appointments with
tenure regardless of rank.
Procedures already note that
all members of a department
should participate in the new
faculty appointment process; the
addition would state that “faculty
have voting privileges on appointments at their own rank or below”
and add that certain considerations apply particularly to the
appointment of TS instructors
and assistant professors.
The proposal states that, after
candidates for a position have been
fully evaluated, the chair shall
canvass the views of all department
members “with voting privileges
at the rank of the appointment”
to determine whether there is
consensus favoring a particular
candidate. It would add, “In the
case of a tenured appointment,
each tenured faculty member has
a vote on the award of tenure,
even if he/she does not have a
vote on rank.”
q
The full proposals appear
here: http://www.as.pitt.edu/sites/
default/files/SpecialMay2013Gazette.pdf.
n
YouTube threatener sentenced
Waterland, noted his son’s efforts
to atone for his actions and cited
his character and lack of a prior
record, telling the judge that the
“harm of incarceration would
outweigh the good.”
Likewise, family friend Edwin
Esparra detailed what he labeled
an emotional and impactful presentation Waterland made to technical school students that aimed
to dissuade them from doing what
he had done.
Waterland spoke briefly on his
own behalf, apologizing for the
pain, suffering and disappointment he had caused and asking
the judge for forgiveness.
In imposing the sentence,
under which, with good behavior, Waterland likely would
serve approximately 10 months
in prison, Conti said the penalty
needed to serve as a deterrent. “I’d
hate to see another young person
with your talents and abilities
standing before some other federal
judge,” she said.
Waterland, who had been a
computer specialist at a mailorder pharmacy firm in Ohio,
faced a maximum of five years in
prison and a $250,000 fine on the
felony charge. HIs sentencing was
postponed several times from its
initial March 15 date.
Waterland’s former co-worker,
Brett Hudson, 26, of Hillsboro,
Ohio, pleaded guilty to conspiracy
in October in relation to the cyberthreats. His sentencing, originally
set for Feb. 8, now is scheduled
for June 18.
n
5
TOUGH
TIMES
at the
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Dean addresses concerns about non-clinical faculty pay
“M
oney is going to be
very tight for the
next few years so
we have to interrogate every dollar
and every one of us has got to earn
our keep,” Pitt medical school
Dean Arthur S. Levine told faculty
members in his annual state of the
medical school address last week.
In comments on faculty performance evaluations and salary policies that have raised controversy in
the medical school, Levine, who
also is senior vice chancellor for
Health Sciences, said, “It just is
absolutely imperative that every
faculty member put as much effort
and time into how it is they’re
going to justify their compensation as is imaginable.”
In his talk, titled, “Faculty
Performance: Opportunities in a
Time of Threats,” Levine said he
wanted to dispel the rumor that the
School of Medicine has changed
its salary reduction policy, which
allows a 20 percent reduction in
salary for tenured faculty who fail
to meet performance standards.
“We’ve had the same salary
reduction policy since 1997,” he
said, inviting faculty to view the
policies and guidelines at www.
medfaculty.pitt.edu.
Concerns have been aired in
University faculty government
meetings regarding the school’s
stated goal of obtaining from
research support 75 percent of
non-clinical faculty salaries. (See
April 4, University Times.)
“I do not expect every faculty
member doing research to earn
75 percent of their compensation
from research. What I do expect is
that they will cover their time and
effort as specified in the grant,”
Levine said.
He said the school recently has
“tweaked” the faculty evaluation
system to make it more objective,
noting that the evaluations now
review “the specific number of
dollars and percentage of effort
derived from externally funded
research with regard to compensation,” and take into account the
6
percentage of teaching, clinical,
service and administrative activity in the assessment. “But it has
to total 100 percent, and that is
how we will evaluate 2013 and
set expectations for 2014,” Levine
said.
The tweaked version, he said,
aims to “shed ambiguity and subjectivity and I believe that this will
be fairer to the faculty members as
well as to the institution.”
Levine said faculty members
and their supervisors must agree
at the beginning of the pay cycle
what the expectations for the
year will be, adding that there is
an appeal process if agreement
cannot be reached.
“Every faculty member will
differ one from the other. For
example if a faculty member does
nothing but research, my expectation is that they will cover 100
percent of their salary through
research,” Levine said, acknowledging those faculty are “a rare
minority” given that few faculty
members do full-time research.
“Most spend at least some time
teaching or something else that
makes up the difference,” he said.
“There will be plenty of faculty
members who do full-time teaching and no research and there will
be plenty of faculty members who
primarily see patients and do a
limited amount of teaching.
“These percentages are going
to differ from one faculty member
to the next. But once again, the
golden rule here is that we have
to basically earn our keep.”
“If they don’t make up their
salary by research it ought to be
by teaching or it ought to be on
some other activity specified in
the evaluation plan,” Levine said.
Beyond the numbers, he called
attention to a portion of the evaluation based on professionalism.
“It says that leadership qualities
are important in all medical school
faculty members,” Levine said.
“Evaluators should comment
on the faculty member’s ability to
perform as an effective leader in
a point at which, just as I said,
uppermost in our mind has to be
the viability of the institution.”
Becker also inquired about the
effects on research faculty whose
salary exceeds the NIH cap.
Levine said, “I know very
few, if any, faculty members who
are at the NIH cap who aren’t
also having some money from
teaching.”
In addition, “This entire
system depends upon maturity,
vision and wisdom. My assumption is that the supervisors in positions of leadership will obviously
negotiate an arrangement with
their individual faculty members
that makes sense.”
He continued: “We’re talking
about a small minority of faculty
members who for whatever reason
are not up to any task the institution needs, but I can count on the
fingers of two hands that number
of faculty. This will not apply to
the preponderance of faculty. The
preponderance of faculty, together
with their supervisors, will find a
way to justify their compensation.”
In response to a question by
faculty member Maria Kovacs,
Levine reiterated that the 75
percent figure is an “aspirational”
goal, noting that the medical
school has $150 million to cover
the cost of research.
“It’s not going to be more than
that in the foreseeable future. So,
in order for us to function, we
must make sure that we spend
every dollar appropriately. That
doesn’t mean that every faculty
member has to bring in 75 percent,
or that even every department has
to bring in 75 percent. But across
the medical school we have to
approximate 75 percent.”
Levine said, “I do not expect
every faculty member doing
research to bring in 75 percent
of their compensation. What I do
expect is that they be transparent
and direct with the percentage of
effort that they put on grants and
the percentage of effort that they
spend on that grant. ... I’ve also
made the point that all of our chairs
and division directors and institute
directors will work very hard with
every faculty member to make sure
that they have an opportunity to
meet their compensation, if those
opportunities exist.”
q
A link to Levine’s talk can be
found by clicking on “health sciences” at http://mediasite.cidde.
pitt.edu.
n
settings that call for that role and/ again, we now have to shepherd
or as an effective team member every dollar.
“My responsibility is to mainin settings that call for that role.
Evaluations should focus on the tain the viability and momentum
specific setting wherein the faculty of the institution and while I am
member works and the faculty sympathetic to the plight of indimember’s ability to solve problems vidual faculty members, it’s the
creatively to maintain personal plight of the institution that has to
composure in difficult situations be transcendent,” he told faculty.
to promote and/or participate in
“We’re in a sad situation,” he
changes in the work environment said in response to faculty member
and to contribute to improving James T. Becker, who expressed
quality and productivity,” he said. concern for faculty who have no
“This is a singularly important clinical appointment, noting, “I’m
aspect of the evaluation because not quite sure what a PhD or an
we’re not going to win together MD who doesn’t have clinical
unless we achieve our collective skills is going to do if their funding
goal in an atmosphere of col- starts to drop.”
legiality, generosity, civility and
Levine said few faculty fall into
collaboration.”
that category, adding, “Many of
He said supervisors in their our researchers do teach,” and that
yearly evaluations will determine there are positions for PhDs as
whether the faculty member sur- well as opportunities for teaching.
passed, achieved or didn’t meet the
“We will always try to find
goals in determining the basis for other opportunities for people so
excellent, satisfactory or unsatis- that they can support their comfactory performance.
pensation, but we won’t always be
Levine said faculty evaluations able to find those opportunities.
were completed in December and I think that we certainly will give
letters warning of a possible salary credit to people who are trying as
reduction in July were sent to those hard as they can, but there comes
with unsatisfactory evaluations.
“If the progress report this
June is unsatisfactory, salary
will be reduced
for next fiscal
year,” Levine
said, adding,
“This is true
of people with
tenure. People
who are untenured, if they’re
unsatisfactory,
unless they’re on
a time-limited
contract, will be
terminated.”
Levine said
such action is
necessary, “as
unfortunate as
that may be,
because, once Dean Arthur Levine, who also is senior vice chancellor for Health Sciences, delivers the annu
MAY 30, 2013
A
s part of his annual state of the medical school address,
Arthur S. Levine, senior vice chancellor for the Health
Sciences and dean of the School of Medicine, shared some
figures about Pitt’s medical students.
By the numbers
In the 2012-13 academic year, 589 students — 47 percent women,
53 percent men — were enrolled in Pitt’s medical school.
One-quarter were Pennsylvania residents, while three-quarters
hailed from outside the state. “This is truly a national medical school
and certainly competitive as a national medical school,” Levine said.
Eighteen percent of Pitt’s medical school students are from underrepresented minorities, placing Pitt in the top 10 among non-minority
medical schools with respect to its percentage of underrepresented
minority student population, Levine said.
Levine said 297 students were enrolled in the medical school’s PhD
programs and 83 students were preparing to receive both medical and
PhD degrees through the medical scientist training program.
Full-time medical school faculty numbered 2,267 and teaching
compensation — derived mainly from students’ tuition dollars —
totaled $18.5 million.
A look
at Pitt’s
medical
students
Scholarly research
This year’s medical school class is the fifth to have been required to
complete a scholarly research project. “We are one of the few medical
schools nationally that require all of our medical students to participate
in research throughout their medical school years,” Levine said. “They
need not work in a laboratory. They can engage in clinical research,
they can engage in health services research or outcomes research.”
He cited what he called a “precipitous decrease in the number of
physicians embarking on investigative careers over the last 25 years
in this country.
“My colleagues and I are quite focused on seeing if we can expose
more students to a life in research, at least if not in all of their career,
in part of their career.
“Perhaps an even more important rationale for exposing all of
our students to research is we believe they will learn the full reach
of their creative and imaginative potential and how to exercise that
potential with independence — and how to do so with analytic
rigor. And we think, having done all that, they will become better
physicians.”
Student output
The 2012 graduating class garnered 64 fellowships, grants and
national awards, 29 School of Medicine awards and made more than
227 national presentations and abstracts, “an absolutely extraordinary
figure,” Levine said.
In addition, students in the class published more than 200 peerreviewed papers and abstracts with more currently in review.
Residencies
Sixty-seven percent of 2013 graduates have matched to one of the
top residencies in their fields nationally, Levine said, and 19 percent
are staying in UPMC top-tier residencies. Fourteen percent matched
in surgical specialties, 35 percent in primary care specialties and 38
percent in hospital-based specialties.
Student debt
In-state tuition at the medical school is $44,726, while out-ofstate students pay $45,846, Levine said.
Eighty-eight percent of the medical school’s 2012 graduates left
with debt, averaging $146,659. Sixty-seven percent of the graduates
owed $100,000 or more; 25 percent of them owed at least $200,000,
Levine said, noting that high debt constrains students’ choice of
specialty and location.
n
Levine warns of med school budget woes
school there. We will make money
for it and that money will be
brought back to Pittsburgh and
invested in our academic mission.”
In under a year, Levine said the
partnership had generated “a little
less than $2 million,” with another
$6 million expected this year.
In addition, the School of
Medicine has clinical care and
research relationships in Italy
and a partnership with Tsinghua
University that, when at capacity,
will bring 90 Chinese students to
Pittsburgh to study.
“The government of China
pays compensation for these
students just as the government
of Italy pays the stipends and lab
expenses for our postdoctoral fellows from Italy.”
The students represent cash
in kind, Levine said. “They’re a
tremendous workforce that we
don’t pay for. If we have to replace
those two cohorts with our own
graduate students and postdocs,
it’s worth millions and millions
of dollars.”
Design for an Italian government-funded research facility in
ual state of the medical school address.
Sicily is almost complete, Levine
said, adding that Pitt’s medical
school, which also manages a
hospital in Palermo, will manage
the research complex.
Why the need?
Cuts in federal funding and
reductions in health care reimbursements are creating a “perfect
storm” when it comes to medical
school budgets, Levine said.
“It is a new era in health care
reimbursement and that could
have an effect on the medical
school,” he said.
The medical school is “joined
at the hip with UPMC,” Levine
reminded faculty in his May 22
presentation in Scaife Hall. “We
have a dependence on UPMC
for our academic mission, which
is critical to our viability and
momentum.”
Kimberly K. Barlow
The budget
Fiscal year 2012 figures show
$2.07 billion in revenue in the
University’s health science and
related budgets. That includes
$703.8 million in School of Medicine revenues, nearly $178 million
in other health sciences revenues
and nearly $1.2 billion in hospital and University of Pittsburgh
Physicians (UPP) practice plan
support.
Levine noted that the University revenue includes about $63
million in support of basic science
and practice plan revenue includes
about $93 million, primarily for
clinical research.
Grant awards
Pitt ranks No. 5 in the number
of National Institutes of Health
(NIH) awards received, with a
five-year average of 1,083 awards.
It ranks behind Harvard
(2,808), Penn (1,306), Johns Hopkins (1,279) and is close to tying
the University of California-San
Francisco (1,098) for No. 4.
Noting that it is difficult to
objectively measure the quality
of teaching and patient care, the
number of grants is “the only
objective metric we have in a
nationally competitive context
judged by peer review that tells us
anything about the overall quality
of our institution,” said Levine. “If
we rank that highly in research, we
probably know how to teach and
how to give adequate patient care.”
Covering research costs
“In the best of circumstances,
the NIH covers about 75 percent
of the true cost of research,” or
about $450 million in Pitt’s case,
Levine said.
The gap exists because NIH
does not provide start-up packages
for new faculty, bridge funding
for established investigators who
are between grants or funding for
renovation, he explained, adding,
“They support less and less lab
construction and less and less
equipment.”
For Pitt, that means $150
million in institutional support is
needed to make up the remaining
25 percent, most of which, Levine
said, comes from UPMC directly
through UPP.
Between fiscal year 2010 and
2012, the School of Medicine
received an average of $150.3 million annually in academic support
from UPMC, he noted.
“This leverage we have from
UPMC has been a key ingredient
in the remarkable ascendancy
we have had since 1998 in our
funding from the NIH,” Levine
said, calling Pitt’s rise as the sole
medical school in the past 20 years
to reach and remain in the top
10 in NIH funding, “the largest
and the fastest increase in federal
support for biomedical research
of any institution in this country’s
modern history.”
Federal cuts
“I think all of us are deeply
concerned about the sequester,”
Levine said, calling it a “real
threat” that is a problem nationwide, not merely for Pitt.
Through the federal sequester, NIH has lost 5.5 percent of
its appropriation. Applying that
percentage to Pitt’s NIH funding, Levine said the University
could lose about 50 grants and be
forced to close 45,000 square feet
of lab space.
However, NIH isn’t the sole
source of federal grants. Factoring in other agencies’ share of the
sequester, Levine estimated the
total at about $26 million, or the
equivalent of 58 grants. About 70
percent of that amount, or $18 million, covers compensation, salaries
and fringe benefits, he said.
If that money isn’t replaced,
“We’d have to lay off about 324
people” — approximately the
equivalent of 18 full-time employees per $1 million lost. “This is
serious stuff,” he said.
“What I don’t know, however,
is how many of these grants we’re
really going to lose,” he said,
adding that it could range from
losing none to losing all.
Pitt traditionally has outperformed in its success in securing
NIH grants, typically at double the
national rate. “If the NIH success
rate is 30 percent, ours has been
about 60 percent,“ he said.
However, in FY14, “the NIH
success rate will be about 10 percent. So, even if we get 20 percent,
we will have lost a great deal from
the 60 percent historically,” the
dean said.
NIH competing research project grants in 2013 totaled 8,283,
the lowest since 1998, Levine said,
adding that NIH is maintaining
that low number of grants by
reducing the amount of each.
About 400 of Pitt’s NIH grants
will terminate in 2014. Levine
offered some advice to faculty
who are supported by those grants:
“Institutes and centers are all over
the map with respect to whether
or not they’re protecting new and
competing grants as opposed to
continuing grants.” He advised
researchers to check the appropriate institute on the NIH web
site “and decide whether or not
you want to go back through an
institute that is not protecting its
new and competing grants.”
UPMC’s finances
UPMC “has been the main
leverage for our obtaining all
that sponsored research money,
but now UPMC is challenged
by its operating income,” Levine
said, noting that in the first three
quarters of the current fiscal year,
UPMC operating income fell to
$146 million from $313 million
for the same period in 2011.
“That’s a cause of concern at
UPMC and it should be a cause
of concern for us. Obviously, if
UPMC’s operating margin slips,
their ability to provide us with the
leverage that they’ve been able to
historically, is obviously a possible
cause for concern,” Levine said.
Declining reimbursement for
health care is behind the problem,
he said.
“Many people think this a
consequence of Obamacare, but in
fact it started four years ago when
General Motors declared bankruptcy and corporate America
realized that the reason for that
was that GM had to add $1,500
to the cost of a Chevy for health
benefits,” Levine said.
“Even independent of the
Affordable Care Act, reimbursement for health care is already
ratcheting down and we think this
will continue.
“Now nobody knows for sure
what will happen in the next few
years as a consequence of the
national economy, the corporate
focus on the erosion of their profit
margins by employer-sponsored
insurance and what the impact,
ultimately, of the Affordable Care
Act will be,” Levine said.
“Suffice it to say, at the moment
we’re in a perfect storm: We’ve
been caught by the sequester on
the one hand and a ratcheting
down of health care reimbursement on the other,” he said.
“This is not to say that UPMC
has reduced its support for the
medical school at this point. They
have not. But they’re also not in
a position to increase their support. So, they’re not in a position
to compensate for the sequester.
We will have to find other ways
to do that.”
n
7
W
hat makes the best
assistive technology? What are the
criteria for assessing current assistive technologies, and for creating
new ones?
Michael L. Boninger posed
these questions to the audience
at his May 16 talk in Scaife Hall,
titled “And the Winner Is …
Reflections on Assistive Technology,” part of the Provost’s
Inaugural Lecture Series.
Boninger is professor and the
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Endowed Chair in the School
of Medicine and director of the
UPMC Rehabilitation Institute.
He has conducted extensive
research on spinal cord injuries
associated with wheelchair use,
especially injuries resulting from
repeated transfers to and from
wheelchairs, as well as brain-computer interface technologies that
allow human thoughts to control
robot arms. In introducing Boninger, Arthur S. Levine, senior vice
chancellor for the Health Sciences
and dean of the School of Medi-
cine, said that Boninger’s work has
resulted in “profound and very
meaningful improvements to the
lives of people affected by spinal
cord injuries.”
While describing advances in
assistive technology, Boninger
also traced his career as a medical
student at Ohio State University,
a resident at the University of
Michigan and a post-doctoral
student at Pitt, where he joined
the faculty and helped found the
Human Engineering Research
Laboratories (HERL), currently
serving as its medical director.
He also highlighted dozens of
individuals who aided his career,
from early teachers and mentors
to colleagues and students —
and Pitt leaders who pushed the
University toward improvements
in rehabilitation medicine education and services before Boninger
arrived here.
One of his biggest accomplishments, he said, was becoming a
physician despite an unpromising
start. “I was a problem child in high
school,” Boninger explained, dis-
The most effective
way to capture reader
attention!
To advertise on a sticky note contact:
412-624-4644 or utimes@pitt.edu
University Times
FRONT PAGE
STICKY NOTES
Put your ad
FRONT & CENTER
with
HIGH-IMPACT
Front Page Sticky Notes
in the University Times.
CALL 412-624-4644 for details!
8
playing a copy of his high-school
report card, with its smattering of
C’s. “The important thing is that
I did make it to the end. My mom
would say, ‘It’s all right, grades
don’t matter. They’ll matter at
college.’”
Then, in his first semester at
Ohio State, he did poorly once
again — and his mother told him
that grades didn’t matter there
either. He persisted, pursuing an
engineering major. “But I knew I
wanted to be a physician from the
beginning,” he said.
Later, in medical school at the
same college, he saw a patient
walk into the hospital for a heart
operation, only to have a bad
reaction to the dye used in a test
performed on him.
“I watched the person’s function decline,” Boninger recalled.
“About a month later he couldn’t
walk but his heart was fine.” Then
a physical rehabilitation doctor
joined this patient’s care team.
Boninger knew nothing of that
specialty, but he marveled at the
patient’s improvement. Now he
believes physiatry, or rehabilitation medicine, is “the greatest
branch of medicine” because it
allows physicians to restore functional ability and quality of life.
“The best assistive technology
is something people don’t think
about anymore,” he said, citing
eyeglasses, which improve poor
eyesight without being much of
a bother to the user. And while
the wheelchair remains “the only
prescription you’ll ever write that
will take someone who is stuck in
bed and turn him into somebody
who is fully functional,” it is
hardly as “transparent, effective
and accepted” as eyeglasses, he
pointed out.
In the last decade, surveys
of wheelchair users asked what
limited them most, particularly
in public transportation.
The biggest hindrance they
cited was not their paralysis,
but their wheelchair. Forty-four
percent of wheelchair users had
experienced at least one wheelchair failure in the past six months.
They were stranded, injured or
missed work, school or a medical
appointment.
While there remains much
wrong with wheelchair technology today, assistive devices that
purport to help the paralyzed walk
again are more troubling, Boninger said. “Can I walk again?” is
of course the primary question of
those with leg paralysis. However,
he asked, “Is focusing on walking
hurting people?” Another survey
found that patients who start out
attempting to walk after an injury
and end up in a wheelchair have
less paralysis but more pain than
those whose progress goes from
wheelchair to regained mobility.
Boninger asked the audience to
decide which assistive technology
was best among seven items.
• First was the Pro-Sock. Boninger helped develop this device
at Michigan, although it never got
past the prototype stage. While
conducting research on peripheral neuropathy — numbness
or pain in the extremities — he
developed the Pro-Sock, which
increased sensation in parts of the
wearer’s feet.
• Boninger’s second contender
was the wheelchair, which has
Mary Jane Bent/CIDDE
What makes the best assistive technology?
Michael L. Boninger
been central to so much of his
work at Pitt, especially at HERL,
cofounded by Rory Cooper, FISA/
PVA Endowed Chair and a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Science
and Technology, School of Health
and Rehabilitation Sciences.
• But wheelchair users get
rotator cuff tears and other shoulder injuries, so Boninger helped
develop the third contender for
best piece of assistive technology:
the Natural-Fit push wheel, which
reduces the pain and fatigue of
propelling a wheelchair.
A wheelchair user pushing
for 14 minutes exceeds the daily
limit the federal government puts
on factory workers for repetitive motion, he notes. Boninger
and his colleagues studied the
causes of nerve inflammation and
bone deterioration, which were
common among wheelchair users.
They found that there was a lot
of wasted force. They decided to
change the diameter of the push
wheel, which hadn’t been changed
since World War II. They also
developed a new pushing motion
— a semi-circle instead of an arc
— that helped reduce strain on
users as well.
When physical medicine and
rehabilitation became a School
of Medicine department in 19992000 with eight faculty members,
Boninger was the research director for their one grant from the
National Institutes of Health.
Eventually, their researchers were
able to figure out the specific
forces affecting a wheelchair user’s
shoulders at propulsion, and that
the harder the user pushed, the
more likely the user would have
injuries.
“I think that’s what every medical researcher is there for — to
change people’s lives in some way,”
Boninger said.
• The fourth contender is the
SmartWheel for the wheelchair,
also developed here, whose
circuitry allowed for the biomechanical analysis of an individual’s
wheelchair use.
• The ReWalk, Boninger’s
fifth contender, was the only one
in which he was not involved. He
did not hide his doubts about this
device. The ReWalk puts a robotic
exoskeleton around paralyzed
legs, allowing the user to walk
again. A woman in a ReWalk completed the London marathon, but
it took her 17 days, with assistants
walking behind her to replace
the device’s batteries, Boninger
pointed out. “If Rory Cooper had
run that race in his wheelchair, he
would have finished ahead of the
runners,” he said.
• Then came beer — the sixth
entrant in Boninger’s contest. He
included it, he said, because beer
helped facilitate a meeting that
pinpointed which faculty to recruit
to his department, leading to the
development of the first study
involving the implanting of brain
electrodes that allowed a paralyzed
individual to control movement of
an object on a screen.
• Eventually, this led to the
development of the neuroprosthesis, or robot arm — the seventh
and final assistive device Boninger
asked his audience to consider.
Since the first electrode
implantation, Boninger and colleagues have demonstrated that
they could help the paralyzed
patient develop three-dimensional
control of a robot arm, and later
control it in seven dimensions —
the combination of hand movements, wrist movements and
grasping ability. They are on the
verge of a prosthesis with sensory
capabilities. “The science is here,”
Boninger said.
“This is the kind of team that
crosses all sorts of disciplines
and can make this sort of amazing research happen,” he added.
“This is the kind of team you
can only find at the University of
Pittsburgh.”
Indeed, he said, even with those
seven assistive technologies, none
is more significant than the people
creating them: People are the best
assistive technology of all.
“It’s this group of people who
have fostered my career and fostered this department academically,” he concluded.
—Marty Levine
n
MAY 30, 2013
R E S E A R C H
N O T E S
Jet engine plant
not associated
with brain
cancer increase
Researchers at the Graduate
School of Public Health have concluded a 12-year, multi-part study
into a perceived increase in brain
cancer at the Pratt & Whitney
jet engine manufacturing plant
in North Haven, Conn., and have
found no statistically significant
elevations in the overall cancer
rates among the workforce.
In May 2000, the Connecticut
Department of Public Health
began an investigation of a
reported increase in brain cancer
at the North Haven facility and
identified several cases of glioblastoma (GB), the most common
form of brain cancer. A preliminary comparative cancer incidence
analysis was inconclusive, and the
public health department recommended Pratt & Whitney hire an
independent research group to
conduct a comprehensive study.
In 2002, Gary Marsh, director of the public health school’s
Center for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology, and
a colleague from University of
Illinois-Chicago began an investigation to determine whether
mortality from or the incidence
of central nervous system (CNS)
neoplasms, or tumors, including
GB, were elevated among workers at the North Haven plant or
seven other Pratt & Whitney
facilities serving as comparison
sites, and whether those rates were
associated with specific workplace
exposures.
Researchers analyzed the
records of almost a quarter million
subjects over a 53-year period,
making it one of the largest and
most comprehensive cohort studies in an occupational setting.
Marsh said it was the first largescale study of workers in the jet
engine manufacturing industry.
Pitt epidemiologists and biostaticians studied the employment
records and death certificates
of more than 223,000 Pratt &
Whitney workers employed
during 1952-2001. Researchers
identified 723 workers diagnosed
with CNS neoplasms from 1976
to 2004. Those tumors were
malignant, benign or unspecified, and included 277 GB cases.
Researchers interviewed workers
or family members to gain more
information on behavioral and
lifestyle factors. Low participation rates precluded analysis of
this data, but the Pittsburgh casecontrol study provided the basis
for a more refined assessment of
workplace exposures.
The exposure assessment considered 11 chemical or physical
agents on the basis of known or
suspected carcinogenic potential that could affect the central
nervous system or other organs.
Researchers generated quantitative exposure estimates for soluble
and mineral oil metalworking
fluids, nickel, cobalt, chromium,
solvents and a combustion aerosol
generated during high-speed and
high-temperature grinding that
was unique to the North Haven
plant. They assigned qualitative
exposures for ionizing radiation,
electromagnetic fields, polychlorinated biphenyls and lead-cadmium. Exposure to one or more
of 20 jet engine-part families and
16 process categories created for
the study also was assigned.
The quantitative estimates
showed workers had decreasing
exposures to these chemicals over
the course of the study period; in
addition, the quantitative exposure levels were similar to or lower
than those in published data from
other industries.
At the conclusion of the study,
researchers found no statistically
significant increase in overall CNS
neoplasm rates among the Pratt &
Whitney workforce as compared
with the corresponding rates in
the general populations of the
United States and Connecticut.
Comparisons among the Pratt &
Whitney plant groups revealed a
slightly higher incidence of CNS
neoplasms and GB among workers at the North Haven plant;
however, further evaluation found
no association with estimated
workplace exposures.
“If not due to chance alone, the
slightly elevated GB rates at the
North Haven plant may reflect
external occupational factors that
we did not measure, or other factors unique to North Haven or the
baseline plant used in the internal
comparisons,” said Marsh.
During an overall evaluation of
mortality rates from all causes of
death, researchers noted elevated
chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD)-related mortality
rates in two of five plant groups
studied, but found no association
with the occupational factors
examined in the study. Researchers could not rule out exposures
workers received outside of the
workplace, or other risk factors,
such as smoking, as reasons for the
observed COPD excesses.
Pitt co-authors were Ada O.
Youk, Jeanine Buchanich and
Sarah Downing of the Department of Biostatistics. Other coauthors include those from the
University of Illinois-Chicago,
Indiana School of Medicine and
ChemRisk.
Pratt & Whitney contributed funding for the study. The
research results will be published
in the June edition of the Journal of
Occupational and Environmental
Medicine.
Drug reverses
Alzheimer’s
deficits in mice
An anti-cancer drug reverses
memory deficits in an Alzheimer’s
disease mouse model, Graduate
School of Public Health researchers have confirmed.
The research reviewed previously published findings on the
drug bexarotene, approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in cutaneous T cell
lymphoma. The Pitt researchers
were able to verify that the drug
significantly improves cognitive deficits in mice expressing
gene mutations linked to human
Alzheimer’s disease, but could
not confirm the effect on amyloid
plaques.
Said senior author Rada Koldamova, faculty member in the
Department of Environmental
and Occupational Health: “We
believe these findings make a solid
case for continued exploration of
bexarotene as a therapeutic treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.”
Koldamova and her colleagues
were studying mice express-
ing human apolipoprotein E4
(APOE4), the only established
genetic risk factor for late-onset
Alzheimer’s disease, or APOE3,
which is known not to increase
the risk for Alzheimer’s disease,
when a Case Western Reserve
University study was published
last year stating that bexarotene
improved memory and rapidly
cleared amyloid plaques from the
brains of Alzheimer’s model mice
expressing mouse apolipoprotein
E (APOE). Amyloid plaques
consist of toxic protein fragments
called amyloid beta that seem to
damage neurons in the brain and
are believed to cause the associated
memory deficits of Alzheimer’s
disease and, eventually, death.
Bexarotene is a compound
chemically related to vitamin A
that activates retinoic X receptors (RXR) found everywhere in
the body, including neurons and
other brain cells. Once activated,
the receptors bind to DNA and
regulate the expression of genes
that control a variety of biological processes. Increased levels of
APOE are one consequence of
RXR activation by bexarotene.
The researchers began studying
similar compounds a decade ago.
Said co-author Iliya Lefterov,
also an environmental and occupational health faculty member: “We
were already set up to repeat the
Case Western Reserve University
study to see if we could independently arrive at the same findings.
While we were able to verify that
the mice quickly regained their
lost cognitive skills and confirmed
the decrease in amyloid beta peptides in the interstitial fluid that
surrounds brain cells, we did not
find any evidence that the drug
cleared the plaques from their
brains.”
The researchers postulate that
the drug works through a different biological process, perhaps
by reducing soluble oligomers
which, like the plaques, are composed of the toxic amyloid beta
protein fragments. However,
the oligomers are composed of
smaller amounts of amyloid beta
and, unlike the plaques, are still
able to “move.”
“We did find a significant
decrease in soluble oligomers,”
said Koldamova. “It is possible
that the oligomers are more dangerous than the plaques in people
with Alzheimer’s disease. It also
is possible that the improvement
of cognitive skills in mice treated
with bexarotene is unrelated to
amyloid beta and the drug works
through a completely different,
unknown mechanism.”
In the researchers’ experi-
ments, mice with the Alzheimer’s
gene mutations expressing human
APOE3 or APOE4 were able to
perform as well in cognitive tests
as their non-Alzheimer’s counterparts 10 days after beginning
treatment with bexarotene. These
tests included a spatial test using
cues to find a hidden platform
in a water maze and a long-term
memory test of the mouse’s ability to discriminate two familiar
objects following introduction of
a third, novel object.
Bexarotene treatment did
not affect the weight or general
behavior of the mice. The drug
was equally effective in male and
female mice.
First author Nicholas F. Fitz
and co-author Andrea A. Cronican both are public health faculty
members.
The work, funded by the
National Institute on Aging of
the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and the Alzheimer’s Association, was published in the
journal Science.
Skipping
medication
requires
treatment
Doctors should assess their
patients to determine if they are
consistently taking prescribed
medications for long-term ailments and treat patients’ nonadherence behaviors as they
would other medical problems,
according to School of Medicine
researchers.
Noted Zachary A. Marcum,
geriatric medicine faculty member
and corresponding author of the
paper: 30-50 percent of U.S. adults
do not adhere to long-term medication regimens, leading to an
estimated $100 billion in preventable costs annually. Despite the
widespread prevalence and cost
of medication non-adherence,
the problem goes undetected
and undertreated in a significant
proportion of adults, he said.
While there are reliable screening tests to “diagnose” medication
non-adherence, the authors noted
most clinicians are not trained to
do this or on how best to treat
the problem.
They also observed that diagnostic accuracy can be improved
by focusing on some of the most
common underlying patient
factors that often lead to nonadherence:
• a lack of understanding that
medication adherence fosters
improved health;
• a belief that the cost of a
medication is not balanced by its
benefit;
• complex or confusing regimens that are hard to follow;
• lack of vigilance in taking
medications regularly;
• inaccurate, irrational or conflicted beliefs about medications;
• perceptions that medication
isn’t working.
“Each medication non-adherence behavior requires different
diagnostic tools and treatments, in
the same way that specific medical
conditions require specific treatCONTINUED ON PAGE 10
SummersetAtFrickPark.com
Start Living.
Townhomes • Homes • Condos • Apartments
Our low-maintenance Townhomes offer the benefits of a convenient
Squirrel Hill location while providing high-quality new construction.
Experience city living redefined, at Summerset at Frick Park.
Now leasing: Summerset at Gateway Apartments 412.422.1144
Call Melissa Reich 412.420.0120
3rd Annual
June 10 – 11
University Club
To register and for more information, please visit:
www.upmcphysicianresources.com/VisionRestoration
REGENERATE
CONGREGATE
EDUCATE
Who should attend?
• Clinicians with an interest
in ophthalmology
• Scientists and engineers
interested in tissue engineering,
cellular therapies and assistive
technologies
• Students, postdotoral fellows,
residents, and research staff
www.foxcenter.pitt.edu
9
R E S E A R C H
N O T E S
ments,” said Marcum. “An incorrect diagnosis can waste resources
and cause harm to the patient.”
Educational interventions with
behavioral support and regular
patient outreach can improve
medication adherence for diseases
such as hypertension and myocardial infarction, the authors noted.
They also suggested that medication non-adherence be included in
electronic health records to allow
for sharing of information among
health care professionals and
monitoring of trends over time.
Co-authors of the article
included Mary Ann Sevick and
Steven M. Handler, both in the
School of Medicine.
The article was published in
the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Grant funds
development
of social
personalized
learning
architecture
Peter Brusilovsky, faculty
member in the graduate information science and technology program of the School of Information
Sciences, has been awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Contracting Command to participate in the
Advanced Distributed Learning
(ADL) Initiative. Brusilovsky’s
contract, for $623,005 over three
years, will support his work on
the architecture, algorithms and
interfaces for a Personal Assistant
for Learning (PAL), one of the
major endeavors undertaken by
the ADL Initiative.
Through a PAL, the ADL Initiative will provide state-of-the-art
education and training — using
technology and innovative learning methodologies — for workforce members in the Department
of Defense (DoD) and the federal
government. Specifically, Brusilovsky will explore the benefits
of open social learner modeling
and adaptive navigation support
to PAL users; he then will develop
the infrastructure and algorithms
necessary to implement social personalized learning over multiple
domains as part of the ADL.
Introduced in 1999, the ADL
Initiative is part of the DoD Office
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Readiness. Its
mission is to employ learning
and information technologies to
standardize and enhance learning
and training in the government.
The ADL’s goals are to identify and
recommend training software and
educational services standards,
foster development of technical
training standards and develop
guidelines for the development,
implementation and assessment
of learning systems.
Experimental
treatment for
asthma made
in lab
An experimental, lab-made
molecule was able to stick to
certain inflammatory proteins
and reduce acute breathing prob-
lems among people with a type
of moderate-to-severe asthma,
according to School of Medicine
researchers.
According to senior author
Sally Wenzel, faculty member
in the Division of Pulmonary,
Allergy and Critical Care Medicine and director of the Asthma
Institute, recent estimates suggest that 24.6 million Americans
have asthma and 10-20 percent of
them don’t have optimal control
of their symptoms despite modern
medications. Effective treatment
of persistent, moderate-to-severe
asthma has been challenging.
“We suspect that there are different underlying causes that lead
to the clinical syndrome of asthma,
so different treatment approaches
are likely needed depending on
what type of asthma a patient has,”
said Wenzel. “A one-size-fits-all
strategy might not, in fact, work
for everyone.”
For the Phase IIa trial, the
researchers assessed asthma
patients who were taking moderate to high doses of inhaled
steroids and airway-opening drugs
called long-acting beta agonists
and had high counts of eosinophils, a kind of white cell usually
associated with allergy. For 12
weeks, 52 participants received
weekly injections of a placebo and
52 others received weekly injections of dupilumab, a monoclonal
antibody that inhibits the activity
of signaling molecules involved in
inflammation. After four weeks,
both groups stopped using their
long-acting beta agonist. Between
The University Times Research
Notes column reports on funding
awarded to Pitt researchers and on
findings arising from University
research.
We welcome submissions from
all areas of the University. Submit
information via email to: utimes@
pitt.edu, by fax to 412/624-4579
or by campus mail to 308 Bellefield Hall.
For submission guidelines,
visit www.utimes.pitt.edu/?page_
id=6807.
the sixth and ninth weeks, they
gradually stopped taking the
inhaled steroid.
Three patients in the dupilumab group (5.8 percent) had
asthma attacks compared to 23
(44.2 percent) in the placebo
group, a reduction of 87 percent.
The experimental agent was
associated with lower levels of biomarkers of inflammation. Minor
irritation at the injection site and
of the nose and throat, headache
and nausea occurred more frequently in the dupilumab group.
“Our findings suggest that
dupilumab holds promise for the
treatment of moderate-to-severe
asthma,” Wenzel said. “However,
further studies are needed to better
define the patients who will do
the best with this new approach,
as well as longer-term efficacy
and safety.”
The study team included other
researchers from Pitt; Colorado
Allergy and Asthma Centers; California Allergy & Asthma Medical Group; Peninsula Research
Associates; Sanofi, and Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals.
The research was funded by
Sanofi and Regeneron and published this month by the New
England Journal of Medicine
and presented concurrently at
the national convention of the
American Thoracic Society.
State water
quality data
missing for
shale region
What to do with Marcellus
shale wastewater is one of the
biggest concerns in Pennsylvania,
and few published studies have
evaluated wastewater effects on
regional groundwater, according
to a review undertaken by lead
author Radisav Vidic, William
Kepler Whiteford Professor and
Chair in the Swanson School of
Engineering’s Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, and a colleague at Penn
State.
The review stresses the need
for scientific data on water pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing and cites a lack of monitoring stations and confidentiality
requirements for documentation
as potential causes.
Said Vidic: “Since the advent
of hydraulic fracturing, more
than one million treatments have
been conducted with perhaps only
one documented case of direct
groundwater pollution resulting
from the injection of chemicals.
There is no evidence of groundwater contamination — even if it
does exist.”
Vidic cites state regulations as
a possible cause.
“This gaping hole is likely
there because Pennsylvania is one
of only two states in the entire
CONTINUED ON PAGE 11
If we got any closer,
we’d have to enroll.
Get retirement plan advice
right on campus.
For decades, TIAA-CREF has been helping University of Pittsburgh employees invest for the kind
of retirement they want and deserve. Now we’re offering advice and guidance right on campus.
Call us to schedule an appointment — because no matter where you are in your life or career,
retirement is closer than you think. And now, so are we.
To schedule an appointment, call 800 732-8353
or visit www.tiaa-cref.org/schedulenow.
Investment, insurance and annuity products are not FDIC insured, are not bank guaranteed, are not bank deposits, are not insured by any federal government agency, are
not a condition to any banking service or activity, and may lose value.
TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC, member FINRA and SIPC and Teachers Personal Investors Services, Inc., members FINRA, distribute securities products.
©2013 Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), 730 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
C10733
10
MAY 30, 2013
R E S E A R C H
N O T E S
United States that doesn’t require
monitoring for water quality in
individual well supplies,” he said.
Intensive gas extraction from
the Marcellus Shale began in the
eastern United States in 2005; it
quickly has become one of the top
five unconventional gas reservoirs
in the country. Previous studies
have estimated this area could
yield 489 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, an amount requiring
high volumes of water use for what
is often referred to as “slickwater
fracturing.” In this method, no
viscosity modifiers (thickening
agents) are added to the water
before being injected into wells.
“It is likely that the water needs
will change from these initial projections as the industry continues
to improve and implement water
reuse,” said Vidic. “However, it is
still necessary to develop specific
policies regarding when and where
water can be taken from streams
to be used for fracturing.”
Vidic noted that it is well
known that a large portion —
nearly 90 percent — of slickwater is not recovered during
the flowback period, indicating
the importance of documenting
potential transport pathways and
the ultimate disposition of the
water. In addition, “stray gas” or
gas leakage is a concern for the
region.
“As these well fields mature and
the opportunities for wastewater
reuse diminish,” said Vidic, “the
need to find alternative management strategies for this wastewater
will likely intensify. Now is the
time to work on these issues in
order to avoid an adverse environmental legacy similar to that from
abandoned coal mine discharges
in Pennsylvania.”
Co-authors were Jorge Abad
and Julie Vandenbossche, both
of engineering.
The study was published this
month in Science.
Postdoc wins
research award
Dio Kavalieratos, a postdoctoral student at the RANDUniversity of Pittsburgh Health
Institute, has received the Young
Investigator Award from the
American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
(AAHPM).
He presented his abstract titled
“What Do Providers Perceive
as Patient-level Palliative Care
Uptake Barriers in Heart Failure?
A Qualitative Analysis” to the 2013
AAHPM scientific subcommittee.
His research examined why
patients with advanced heart
failure use palliative care less often
than do patients with advanced
cancer, despite similarities in
symptoms and prognosis.
Heart failure affects 5.7 million
Americans, according to the CDC.
Through his research, Kavalieratos found that many physicians
are hesitant to discuss palliative
care with patients, fearing they
will interpret this as the doctor’s
“giving up” on them. Palliative
care often is misinterpreted narrowly as end-of-life care, but it
also is focused on relieving pain,
symptoms and stress related to
a serious illness, relief that can
improve overall care.
Kavalieratos interviewed cardiologists, primary care physicians
and other health-care providers
and found that “the term ‘palliative
care’ was at best ambiguous and at
worst misleading.” He said physicians waited for patients to have
severe symptoms to refer them to
palliative care, or until patients
faced the end of life, whereas palliative care may be useful from the
day of diagnosis, since the proper
trigger for offering palliative care
is a decrease in function.
Added Kavalieratos: “If they
are using the wrong triggers to
refer patients out, patients may
not receive the best care when
they need it most.”
Biological
pathway to
organ rejection
found
Transplant researchers in the
School of Medicine have challenged a long-held assumption
about how biologic pathways
trigger immune system rejection
of donor organs. Their study
suggests a different paradigm is
needed to develop better antirejection therapies.
Explained senior author Fadi
Lakkis, Frank & Athena Sarris
Chair in Transplantation Biology, surgery faculty member and
scientific director of the Thomas
E. Starzl Transplantation Institute: Immune system T-cells
migrate to transplanted organs,
fighting the foreign tissue. Until
now, scientists had thought these
T-cells were drawn to the site by
chemokines, proteins secreted
by cells in the lining of the blood
vessels, or endothelium, of the
organ when it becomes inflamed.
“The prevailing view was
that when the endothelium gets
inflamed, it gets a little sticky, so
T-cells that are zipping by in the
bloodstream begin to slow down
and bind to chemokines that
trigger their arrest and migration into the affected tissue,”
Lakkis said. “We decided to test
that hypothesis and found out to
everyone’s surprise that’s not the
way it works.”
If the chemokine receptors
on T-cells were blocked, the
researchers reasoned, the cascade
of immune events would not
happen, stalling rejection. So two
days after mice received a heart or
kidney transplant, they received
T-cells treated with pertussis
toxin, which irreversibly binds to
a key molecule in the receptor to
inhibit its activity, and presumably
prevent the migration of memory
and effector T-cells already sensitized to recognize the foreign
proteins of the donor tissue.
Using a technique called
two-photon microscopy, which
allows real-time visualization
of living tissue, they found that
pertussis-treated T-cells invaded
the donor organs just as they did
if they were untreated, leading to
organ rejection.
“This showed us that chemokines are not necessary to start the
rejection response,” Lakkis said.
“So then we wondered which cells
were sounding the alarm to the
immune system.”
The sophisticated microscopy
technique revealed that the donor
kidney’s dendritic cells, which
identify antigens or foreign proteins and present them on their cell
surfaces to be recognized by other
immune cells, “stick their feet,” as
Lakkis put it, in the bloodstream,
thereby exposing donor surface
antigens to the recipient’s immune
system.
“So, anti-rejection therapies
that target chemokine responses
have very little effect,” he said.
“But novel drugs that interfere
with antigen presentation by the
endothelium or the dendritic cells
could be very helpful.”
Lead author was MD/PhD student Jeff Walch; co-authors were
from the Starzl Transplantation
Institute and the departments of
surgery, immunology and medicine in the School of Medicine,
as well as from Yale.
The project was funded by
NIH and published online in the
Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Bright
nanoscale
alloys may
have medical
applications
Alloys like bronze and steel
have been transformational for
centuries, yielding top-of-the-line
machines necessary for industry.
As scientists move toward nanotechnology, however, the focus has
shifted toward creating alloys at
the nanometer scale — producing
materials with properties unlike
their predecessors.
Research led by principal
investigator Jill Millstone, chemistry faculty member in the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences,
demonstrated that nanometerscale alloys possess the ability to
emit light so bright they could
have potential applications in
medicine.
Said Millstone: “We demonstrate alloys that are some of the
brightest, near-infrared-lightemitting species known to date.
They are 100 times brighter than
what’s being used now. Think
about a particle that will not only
help researchers detect cancer
sooner but be used to treat the
tumor, too.”
Millstone presented alloys with
drastically different properties
than before — including nearinfrared (NIR) light emission
— depending on their size, shape
and surface chemistry. NIR is an
important region of the light spectrum and is integral to technology
found in science and medical settings, said Millstone. She used a
laser pointer as an example.
“If you put your finger over
a red laser [which is close to the
NIR light region of the spectrum],
you’ll see the red light shine
through. However, if you do the
same with a green laser [light in
the visible region of the spectrum],
your finger will completely block
it,” said Millstone. “This example
shows how the body can absorb
visible light well but doesn’t absorb
red light as well. That means that
using NIR emitters to visualize
cells and, ultimately, parts of the
body, is promising for minimally
invasive diagnostics.”
Millstone’s demonstration
showed, for the first time, a continuously tunable composition for
nanoparticle alloys; this means the
ratio of materials can be altered
based on need.
In traditional metallurgical
studies, materials such as steels
can be highly tailored toward the
application, say, for an airplane
wing versus a cooking pot. Alloys
at the nanoscale follow different
rules, said Millstone. Because the
nanoparticles are so small, the
components often quickly separate, like oil and vinegar.
In her paper, Millstone
described using small organic
molecules to “glue” an alloy in
place, so that the two components
stay mixed. This strategy led to the
discovery of NIR luminescence
and also paves the way for other
types of nanoparticle alloys that
are useful not only in imaging,
but in applications like catalysis
for the industrial-scale conversion
of fossil fuels into fine chemicals.
Millstone said that taken
together these observations provide a new platform to investigate
the structural origins of small
metal nanoparticles’ photoluminescence and of alloy formation in
general. She believes these studies
should lead directly to applications
in such areas as health and energy.
The paper was published in the
Journal of the American Chemical
Society. Funding was provided by
the University’s Central Research
Development Fund.
Two receive
pulmonology
honors
Two of the four honorees
receiving “Recognition for Scientific Accomplishments” awards
from the American Thoracic Society are leaders from Pitt’s Division
of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical
Care Medicine (PACCM).
Mark Gladwin, PACCM
chief and director of the Vascular
Medicine Institute, and Naftali
Kaminski, PACCM faculty
member and director of the
Dorothy P. and Richard P. Simmons Center for Interstitial Lung
Diseases at UPMC, received the
scientific awards.
Said John J. Reilly, Jack D.
Myers Professor and Chair,
Department of Medicine: “The
fact that two of the four honorees
this year come from the same
program is emblematic of the
overall strength of the PACCM
program.”
n
A Play by Nancy Harris
based on the Tolstoy novella
Travel with Pozdynyshev, an
enigmatic stranger weaving a
tale of love, loss and betrayal.
Hear his sensuous wife playing
piano while his old friend plays
the violin, Beethoven’s Kreutzer
Sonata between them, powerful
and evocative. Was this music
the soundtrack to their illicit
passion, or has Pozdynyshev
made a terrible mistake?
May 30 - June 22, 2013
Henry Heymann Theatre, Oakland
Tickets available through PITT ARTS
pittarts.pitt.edu or 412-624-4498
picttheatre.org
11
C A L E N D A R
May
Thursday 30
Chemistry Seminar
“Sulfur & Indole: Old Friends,
New Methods,” Jimmy Wu,
Dartmouth; 150 Chevron, 2:30
pm (chemrcpt@pitt.edu)
HSLS Workshop
“EndNote Basics,” Linda Hartman; Falk Library classrm. 2,
2:30-4:30 pm (lhartman@pitt.
edu)
Friday 31
UPCI Seminar
“Determining T Cell Fate
& Anti-Tumor Immunity in
Ovarian Cancer by mTOR
& Co-inhibitory Molecules,”
Kunle Odunsi, Roswell Park
Cancer Inst.; Hillman Cancer
Ctr. Cooper classrm. D, 3:30 pm
(coutchsl@upmc.edu)
Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
Lecture
“Implants,” Mark Ochs; G33
Salk, 4 pm (fordam@upmc.edu)
Thursday 6
CTSI Workshop
“Nuts & Bolts of DSM Reporting,” Stephen Wisnieswki; S100A
BST, 11 am (www.ctsi.pitt.edu/)
Public Health Kim SuttonTyrrell Memorial Symposium
Ballrm. B UClub, 1 pm (3838849)
June
Sunday 2
Episcopal Service
Heinz Chapel, 11 am (Sundays:
http://pittepiscopalchaplaincy.
wordpress.com/)
Monday 3
Hepatology Research &
Pathology Seminar
“Native Liver Pathology”; 7
East 24 Montefiore, 7 am (joj2@
pitt.edu)
Tuesday 4
IRB Workshop
“FDA Regulated Research:
Updates & Insights,” Cindy
Kern; S120 BST, noon (www.
irb.pitt.edu)
HSLS Workshop
“Prezi for Presentations,” Julia
Jankovic; Falk Library classrm.
2, 12:30-2:30 pm (jcj6@pitt.edu)
Faculty Assembly Mtg.
UClub conf. rm. A, 3 pm
Wednesday 5
Pathology Seminar
“Imaging Predatory T Cells,”
Christopher Hunter, Penn; 1104
Scaife, noon
CTSI Workshop
“Developing & Optimizing
Collaborative Research Interactions,” Gerald Gebhart; 7039
Forbes Twr., noon (www.ctsi.
pitt.edu)
CTSI Workshop
“Demonstrating Respect &
Enhancing Trust: Mastering
the Informed Consent Process,”
Michael Green, pediatrics; 7039
Forbes Twr., 1 pm (www.ctsi.
pitt.edu)
Vision Restoration Conf.
“Regenerative Medicine in
Ophthalmology”; UClub, 7:30
am-5 pm (through June 11: www.
upmcphysicianresources.com/
visionrestoration)
Hepatology Research &
Pathology Conf.
“Liver Research”; 7 East 24
Montefiore, 7:30 am (joj2@
pitt.edu)
Provost’s Inaugural Lecture
“Modern Liver Surgery & Transplant: The Brave New World,”
Abhinav Humar, transplant
surgery; Scaife lect. rm. 6, 4 pm
Tuesday 11
HSLS Workshop
“Painless PubMed,” Ester
Saghafi; Falk Library classrm.
1, 3:30 pm (esaghafi@pitt.edu)
Friday 7
Wednesday 12
• Summer 6-week-1 session
deadline for students to submit
monitored withdrawal forms
to dean’s office.
grades must be approved by
instructors by 5 pm before
final posting can begin.
Bradford Campus Admissions
Session
KOA Dining Hall, UPB, 10 am
(www.upb.pitt.edu/visit.aspx)
HSLS Workshop
“Painless PubMed,” Michele
Fedyshin; Falk Library classrm.
1, 11:30 am (kleinf@pitt.edu)
Pgh. Neighborhood & Community Information System
Conf.
Greg Sanders; U Club, 1-4:30 pm
Oakland Farmers Market
Schenley Plaza, 3-6 pm (Fridays
through Oct. 25; www.oaklandfarmersmarket.org)
add/drop period ends.
Saturday 8
ends. Final exams scheduled
during last class meeting.
Greensburg Campus 1960’s
Dinner Party
Ridilla Athletic Fields, UPG,
5:30-8:30 pm (register: www.
greensburg.pitt.edu/croquet)
Monday 10
Hepatology Rounds
“PHTN Conf.”; Kaufmann 9th
fl. conf. rm., 7:30 am (joj2@
pitt.edu)
Pathology Seminar
“The Separation of Benign &
Malignant Mesothelial Proliferations,” Andrew Churg, U of British Columbia; 1104 Scaife, noon
SAC Mtg.
630 WPU, noon
CTSI Workshop
“Strategies for Effective Teaching & Mentoring of Students,”
Bill Yates; 7039 Forbes Twr.,
noon (www.ctsi.pitt.edu)
HSLS Workshop
“Introduction to Pathway Analysis Tools,” Ansuman Chattopadhyay; Falk Library classrm. 2, 1-3
pm (ansuman@pitt.edu)
Senate Council Mtg.
2700 Posvar, 3 pm
Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
Lecture
“Implant Restoration,” Edward
Narcisi; G33 Salk, 4 pm (fordam@
upmc.edu)
enrollment period ends &
classes begin.
UNIVERSITY
publication schedule
June 13-27
June 27-July 11
July 11-25
July 25-Aug. 29
Submit by
June 6
June 20
July 5 (Fri.)
July 18
For publication
June 13
June 27
July 11
July 25
The University Times events calendar includes Pitt-sponsored events as well as non-Pitt events held on
a Pitt campus. Information submitted for the calendar should identify the type of event, such as lecture
or concert, and the program’s specific title, sponsor, location and time. The name and phone number of
a contact person should be included. Information should be sent by email to: utcal@pitt.edu, by FAX
to: 412/624-4579, or by campus mail to: 308 Bellefield Hall. We cannot guarantee publication of events
received after the deadline.
12
Thursday 13
SHRS Seminar
“Virtual State of the Science
Conf.”; 10 am-1 pm (online at
www.rerctr.pitt.edu)
Provost’s Inaugural Lecture
“Causation: Interactions
Between Philosophical Theories
& Empirical Research,” James
Woodward, history & philosophy of science; 2500 Posvar, 4 pm
Nursing Fundraiser
“An Evening With Lou Holtz”;
Oakmont Country Club, 6 pm
(jmw100@pitt.edu)
Defenses
A&S/Neuroscience
“Development of Cortical GABA
Circuitry: Identifying Periods of
Vulnerability to Schizophrenia,”
Gil D. Hoftman; June 3, LRDC
2nd fl. aud., 10 am
GSPH/Behavioral & Community Health Sciences
“A Participatory Approach to
Physical Activity Among People
With Severe & Persistent Mental
Illness,” Kamden Hoffmann;
June 3, A638 Crabtree, 2:30 pm
GSPH/Epidemiology
“Ovarian Cancer Epidemiology:
Risk, Diagnosis & Prognosis,”
Michelle Kurta; June 4, UPMC
Cancer Pavilion conf. rm. 4C,
2 pm
Nursing/Acute & Tertiary
Care
“Evaluating Indices of Delayed
Cerebral Ischemia & Poor Outcomes after Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Role of Cerebral
Perfusion Pressure in Disease
Pathogenesis,” Khalil Yousef;
June 5, 451 Victoria, 10 am
GSPH/Biostatistics
“Robust Partial Least Squares
Regression & Outlier Detection
Using Repeated Minimum Covariance Determinant Method & a
Resampling Method,” Dilrukshika Singhabahu; June 5, A216
Crabtree, 10 am
A&S/Chemistry
“Hybrid Materials Based on
Carbon Nanotubes & Graphene:
Synthesis, Interfacial Processes,
& Applications in Chemical
Sensing,” Mengning Ding; June
6, 307 Eberly, 10 am
Medicine/Neurobiology
“Neuroplastic Changes in a
Mouse Model of Pancreatic
Ductal Adenocarcinoma,” Rachelle E. Stopczynski; June 10, 1495
BST, 9 am
GSPH/Epidemiology
“Youth & Adolescents With Type
1 Diabetes in the Life for a Child
Program in Rwanda, Africa,”
Sara Marshall ; June 10, 2nd fl.
conf. rm. DLR Building 3512
5th Ave., 3 pm
Medicine/Immunology
“Anti-tumor & Pro-tumor Interactions of Human NK Cells in
Cancer,” Jeffrey L. Wong; June
11, 1105A Scaife, 9 am
SHRS/Rehabilitation Science
“Predictors of Performance of
Activities of Daily Living & Gait
Speed for Specific Diagnostic
Groups of People Receiving
Home-Based Rehabilitation,”
Faisal Asiri; June 11, 4014 Forbes
Twr., 10 am
Medicine/Integrative Molecular Biology
“Investigating Src Family Tyrosine Kinase Signaling in Mouse
& Human Embryonic Stem
Cells,” Xiong Zhang; June 11,
503 Bridgeside Pt. II, 2 pm
GSPIA
“Delivering Change: Comparing
Reform at the French & German
Post Offices,” Harrison Grafos;
June 13, 3430 Posvar, 10 am
Deadlines
Greensburg Summer Day
Camp in Career Exploration
Registration deadline is May
31. (www.greensburg.pitt.edu/
quest)
Basic to Clinical Collaborative
Research Pilot Program
Submission deadline is June 15.
(www.ctsi.pitt.edu/documents/
BaCCoR.pdf)
Event Deadline
The next issue of the University
Times will include University
and on-campus events of June
13-27. Information for events
during that period must be
received by 5 pm on June 6 at 308
Bellefield Hall. Information may
be sent by fax to 4-4579 or email
to utcal@pitt.edu.
n
C L A S S I F I E D
TIMES
Events occurring
Jewish Studies Roundtable
“Past, Present, Future: Squirrel Hill & Pittsburgh’s Jewish
Community,” moderator: Adam
Shear; Jewish Community Ctr.,
Squirrel Hill, 7 pm (sqhill@
pitt.edu)
• $8 for up to 15 words; $9 for 16-30
words; $10 for 31-50 words.
• For University ads, submit an account
number for transfer of funds.
• All other ads should be accompanied by
a check for the full amount made payable
to the University of Pittsburgh.
• Reserve space by submitting ad copy
one week prior to publication. Copy and
payment should be sent to University
Times, 308 Bellefield Hall, University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh 15260.
• For more information, call Barbara
DelRaso, 412/624-4644.
HOUSING/WANTED
REGENT SQUARE
Homesick Pittsburgher wants to move back
immediately. Can pay cash for 2- or 3-BR house
with off-street parking, close to Frick Park. If
you’re thinking of moving, please contact me
ASAP: EJK1168@gmail.com.
SERVICES
MARKS•ELDER LAW
Wills; estate planning; trusts; nursing home/
Medicaid cost-of-care planning; POAs; probate
& estate administration; real estate; assessment appeals. Squirrel Hill: 412/421-8944;
Monroeville: 412/373-4235; email michael@
marks-law.com. Free initial consultation. Fees
quoted in advance. SUBJECTS NEEDED
WOMEN’S HEALTH STUDY
University of Pittsburgh researchers are looking for healthy women ages 40-60 for a study
looking at cardiovascular disease risk factors.
The research study includes: wearing study
monitors; a fasting blood draw; completing
diaries & questionnaires; ultrasounds of arm &
neck arteries. Compensation is $150. Email:
MSHEARTSTUDY@gmail.com or 412/6487096; 412/624-2016.

University Times - University of Pittsburgh

Transcription

Similar documents

africa and the middle east compensation and benefits

CLIVE CUSSLER CHECKLIST

SOLD! - Country Home and Land for Sale in Pitt County, NC! Flyer

37 Acres of Timber Land For Sale in Pitt County NC!

SOLD! 51.59 Acres of Timber Land For Sale in Pitt County NC! Flyer

UNLEASH THE BEAST WITHIN YOUR SALESPEOPLE

capabilities - McWilliams Creative

AN ULTIMATE NIGHT OF DOO-WOP

BizConnection - UPJ Business Alumni Website