European Standards for PhD Education in Biomedicine and ...



EUROPEAN STANDARDS FOR PHD EDUCATION IN BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES (ORPHEUS ACTIVITIES 2004-2009)

Zdravko Lackovic 1 and Michael J. Mulvany 2

1 ORPHEUS President, University of Zagreb Medical School, Zagreb, Croatia and 2 ORPHEUS EC, Aarhus Graduate School of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

The modern concept of a doctorate or a PhD as an original scientific work, attributed to Von Humbolt, was developed in the nineteenth century together with the conception of universities as places of development of new knowledge. This was in contrast to the medieval doctorate which was, to all intents and purposes, only a certificate of the highest level of learning. For a long time, until today’s Bologna process, PhDs were produced mostly through the interaction of two people, the mentor and the mentee. However, because of the notion of a PhD produced via the “third cycle” of higher education, the PhD programme becomes the universities’ responsibility and a part of their organised activities.

Consequently, throughout Europe there is a growing emphasis on PhD education as the "third cycle" in the Bologna process. For the health sciences, this provides new opportunities for the advancement of clinical research as well as for strengthening basic research in the area. This is, however, dependent on the content and quality of the PhD degree, and it was for this reason that ORPHEUS was established ().

The “third cycle“ is, however, not only a new opportunity for the advancement and strengthening of science in Europe, but there are dangers as well. When the PhD programme was acknowledged as a “third cycle” of higher education this created pressure, and even a legally binding obligation in some countries, that all institutions of higher learning should have an organized PhD programme. Unfortunately, according to all scientometric research, the differences between European countries are tremendous. Even the simplest Public Medline search confirms this if we focus on a particular country in a defined time period. The insistence on creating PhD studies and programmes at universities lacking competitive setting, whose scientific tradition and visibility output is low can definitely be counterproductive and can only result in PhD holders with an even lower scientific competitiveness at an international level. Furthermore, the demand and desire for more PhDs could have a diametrically opposite effect; universities could cement themselves even harder in this unenviable situation or paradoxically make their poor scientific performance worse due to the growing number of scientifically uncompetitive PhDs. This is also one of the reasons that makes setting basic standards for PhD programmes in biomedicine crucial.

The overall aim of a PhD is to produce a qualified researcher, evaluated by the PhD thesis and an oral defence of the scientific results. However, even now the PhD theses differ considerably across Europe.

1. In German-speaking countries traditionally there is no PhD in clinical medicine (this is in the process of change now)

2. In some of the former Warsaw-pact countries traditionally there are two kinds of PhD with highly divergent quality demands,

3. In Scandinavian countries PhDs are based largely on research published in scientific journals (there are PhD thesis with more than 10 publications)

4. In contrast to Scandinavia, in some other countries (for example, in the countries of South-East Europe) there is traditionally a considerable percentage of PhDs which do not result in any paper published in scientific journals.

For these reasons it was necessary to achieve an international consensus on what a PhD is, which was accomplished in the so-called “ORPHEUS Zagreb declaration” in 2004. In the following conferences a number of very important issues was discussed and agreed upon: in Zagreb 2005 the organisation of doctoral studies, in Helsinki 2007 the clinical PhD to be summed up and integrated in the Aarhus 2009 position paper which represents the European standards for PhD education in biomedicine and health sciences. Consistent with the PhD being an international degree, and to promote mobility, it was important that the standard of the PhD in biomedicine and health sciences be defined.

ORPHEUS (Organization for PhD Education in Health Sciences and Biomedicine in the European System) was initiated in 2005 with a view to defining this standard. ORPHEUS has held four conferences, and is now an associate member of the Council for doctoral education (CDE) of European University Association (EUA).

The fourth meeting held in Aarhus, April 2009, extended the consensus statements from the previous conferences and produced a position paper: "Towards Standards for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences".

The position paper Aarhus describes the status of PhD programmes, identifies points of consensus, and makes recommendations. The paper is the result of extensive and fruitful consultation before, during and after the conference with the over 160 participants, from 72 faculties, and 33 countries. Here we will review the main points of the position paper:

Admission criteria. Admission to PhD programmes should normally be on the basis of a Masters' degree, or the expectation of obtaining this during the PhD programme. The candidate's qualifications should be such that he or she may be expected to complete the programme successfully. The project and the quality of the supervisors should be approved before admission. The resources for completing the project, including PhD student salary, should be available. Admission should be on the basis of a competitive and internationally open process, while allowing procedures which ensure a constructive supervisor-student relation.

Requirements of the PhD programme. Programmes should be limited to 3-4 years full time commitment. Clinical PhD programmes may be done part-time, providing the net time for the PhD is 3-4 years. Such a limit prevents the standard of a PhD degree from escalating, provides a means for ensuring effective utilization of time, and allows clear administrative structures to be implemented. The programme should consist of original research and scientific training where the PhD student performs hands-on research, including experience in methodology, experimental design, analysis and data presentation. Relevant courses of ~30 ECTS-points (6 months) should be followed. These should include a substantial number of courses in transferable skills. The progress of the student should be regularly assessed by an independent panel..

Supervision. There should be more than one supervisor. Supervisors should be active scholars, have PhD degrees, have extensive national and international networks, and have some supervisor training. They should be available throughout the student's PhD programme. The supervisor-student relationship is the key to a successful PhD programme, and requires mutual respect, with planned and agreed shared responsibility.

Thesis. It is recommended that the benchmark for the PhD thesis in biomedicine and health sciences should be the equivalent of at least three in extenso peer-reviewed papers published in international journals, together with a literature review and a full account of the project. The independent contribution of the student should be clearly delineated. To encourage internationalisation it is recommended that the thesis is written, and optimally also defended, in English.

Evaluation of PhD theses. To maintain quality at international level, the thesis should be evaluated by independent persons external to and without connection to the student's milieu, and with at least one member from another country. The supervisor should not be a member of the committee. There should be clear criteria for the assessment of a PhD thesis. The standard for a clinical PhD is the same as for other PhDs. Theses should be evaluated within three months. If the thesis or the subsequent oral defence is not satisfactory, there should be the possibility for requiring the thesis to be rewritten or the defence to be repeated at a later date.

Given the wide backing of the ORPHEUS position paper by representatives from almost all European countries, and ORPHEUS' associate membership in EUA-CDE, the position paper can provide support for graduate schools and faculties across Europe in their efforts to maintain and raise the standards of their PhD programmes. This process could be enhanced if ORPHEUS makes direct contact with national organizations to discuss the paper in depth in the context of local constraints. The accepted standards should help in defining the European and even global standards of doctoral education, an agreement reached between the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME), the Association of Medical Schools in Europe (AMSE) and the Organisation for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System (ORPHEUS). The standards accepted in Aarhus will be hard to implement for some countries. Namely, a PhD is a research degree and by considering PhD education as a “third cycle” of Bologna process, many faculties view themselves as incomplete without a PhD programme, disregarding their poor scientific facilities and output. The only way out of this situation is through national and international cooperation of medical schools and this is what the Vienna conference in April 2010 will discuss in detail.

The forthcoming fifth conference in Vienna, April 8-10, 2010, is entitled “The Advancement of European Biomedical and Health Science PhD Education by Cooperative Networking”. On this topic, keynote speakers will provide impulses that we will further discuss in workshops to elaborate guidelines and strategies on the following issues:

• How to stimulate and improve joint PhD degrees between different countries?

• How to stimulate a PhD education partnership between universities, research institutes and scientific societies?

• How to stimulate and manage a PhD education partnership between academia and industry?

• How to promote mobility of PhD candidates from less developed European countries?

• How to promote “healthy” brain drain and brain gain to raise the scientific potential both in the more highly developed as well as in the less scientifically developed countries? etc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download