2015-2016 Student Handbook

Transcription

Irell & Manella
Graduate School
of
Biological Sciences
at City of Hope
Student
Handbook
2016-2017
1
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Message from the Dean .................................................................................................................... 8
Graduate School Administration .................................................................................................. 9
Graduate School Standing Committees Current Members, 2016-2017 ..................... 10
Professor-Series Graduate School Faculty Members 2016-2017 ................................ 11
Current Student List (August 2016) ........................................................................................ 20
Academic Calendar 2016-2017 ................................................................................................ 24
Course Numbering as of May 27, 2016 ................................................................................... 28
Academic Program Overview.......................................................................................................... 31
The First Year ................................................................................................................................... 31
Laboratory Education ............................................................................................................... 31
After The First Year ........................................................................................................................ 32
Credits ................................................................................................................................................. 32
Grading System ................................................................................................................................ 33
GOC Suggested Grading Scale ................................................................................................ 33
Grade Change Policy ...................................................................................................................... 33
City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute and University of Southern California
Residency and Graduate Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine ......... 34
Policies ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Academic Standards ....................................................................................................................... 36
Sanctions ............................................................................................................................................ 38
Dismissal and Suspension Policies ........................................................................................... 39
Grievance Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 39
Title IX - Equal Education Opportunities ............................................................................... 40
Harassment / Discrimination ................................................................................................ 41
Reasonable Accommodation.................................................................................................. 41
Use of Alcohol / Illegal Substances........................................................................................... 41
Alcohol ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Drug Policy .................................................................................................................................... 42
Tobacco Policy ............................................................................................................................. 43
Respectful Treatment of Others ................................................................................................ 43
Payroll Categories ........................................................................................................................... 43
Payroll Method - Payroll (W-2) versus Accounts Payable (1099) ............................... 44
2
Direct Deposit ................................................................................................................................... 44
PeopleSoft Access............................................................................................................................ 44
Attendance ......................................................................................................................................... 44
Leave of Absence ............................................................................................................................. 45
Parental Leave .................................................................................................................................. 45
Vacation .............................................................................................................................................. 46
International Students .................................................................................................................. 46
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 47
Student Fees ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Student Loans ................................................................................................................................... 47
Hardship Supplement.................................................................................................................... 47
Degree Requirements......................................................................................................................... 48
Transfer Credit ................................................................................................................................. 49
Graduate Student Travel Awards .................................................................................................. 50
Path to Graduation.......................................................................................................................... 51
Ethical Principles and Practices ..................................................................................................... 52
Academic Honesty of Students - Academic Integrity Committee Overview ............ 52
AIC Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................ 52
AIC Membership .............................................................................................................................. 52
AIC Duties ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Learning Outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 55
The Leading-Edge Lectures.............................................................................................................. 57
Journal Club Seminars ........................................................................................................................ 59
A Guide to the Evaluation of a Student Journal Club Presentation .............................. 60
Laboratory Rotations ......................................................................................................................... 62
Qualifying Examinations ................................................................................................................... 64
Qualifying Examination Part 1. Original Research Proposal ......................................... 64
PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................ 64
POLICY ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Additional Information ................................................................................................................. 67
Suggested Due dates ................................................................................................................. 67
Qualifying Examination 1 Committee................................................................................. 67
Graduate School Action: Approval Topic, Biosketch, and Qualifying Examination
1 Committee ................................................................................................................................. 67
3
Graduate School Action on the Written Proposal .......................................................... 68
Extension of Deadlines ............................................................................................................. 68
Comments for Written Proposal Qualifying Examination for each Committee
Member ............................................................................................................................................... 69
Qualifying Examination 1 Committee and Graduate School Actions on the Oral
Defense ................................................................................................................................................ 71
Possible Aids for the Written Proposal................................................................................... 72
Qualifying Examination Part II. Dissertation Proposal ................................................... 74
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Policy ............................................................................................................................................... 74
Written QE2 Proposal Guidelines ........................................................................................ 75
Written QE2 Proposal Submitted or to be submitted to an Outside Funding
Organization ................................................................................................................................. 75
Oral Defense ................................................................................................................................. 76
Final Outcome of Qualifying Exam 2 ................................................................................... 77
Graduate School Action Following the Oral Dissertation Proposal Defense ....... 77
Plagiarism...................................................................................................................................... 77
Training Program in Bioscience Management ......................................................................... 78
Dissertation Committee Meetings ................................................................................................. 79
Dissertation Examination Committee .......................................................................................... 81
Graduation Guidelines Check List.................................................................................................. 81
Guidelines for Writing and Defending a Doctoral Dissertation ......................................... 82
Principles Underlying the Ph.D. Degree ................................................................................. 82
Format ................................................................................................................................................. 83
Inclusion of Previously Published Material ..................................................................... 83
Margins ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Spacing............................................................................................................................................ 83
Pagination ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Figures and Tables ..................................................................................................................... 84
Number of Copies ....................................................................................................................... 84
Paper ............................................................................................................................................... 84
Typeface ......................................................................................................................................... 85
Manuscript Arrangement ............................................................................................................. 86
Title Page, Approval Page, and Abstract ............................................................................ 86
Electronic Submission .............................................................................................................. 87
4
Publishing Your Dissertation ................................................................................................. 87
Acceptability of Dissertation.................................................................................................. 87
Approval of the Written Document ..................................................................................... 88
Title Page Sample ....................................................................................................................... 89
Table of Figures Sample: ......................................................................................................... 90
Electronic Dissertation Submission ......................................................................................... 91
Publishing Options ..................................................................................................................... 91
Dissertation Details ................................................................................................................... 92
Alumni Positions .................................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix A: Request for Academic/Administrative Exception Form............................. 98
Appendix B: Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope
...................................................................................................................................................................100
Title IX Complaint Procedures .................................................................................................100
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Introduction........................................................................................................................100
Definitions.......................................................................................................................100
Procedures ......................................................................................................................100
Appeal ...............................................................................................................................103
General Considerations .............................................................................................103
Appendix C: Absence Request Form...........................................................................................104
Appendix D: Hardship Supplement Request Form ...............................................................106
Appendix E: Graduate Student Academic Travel Awards ..................................................108
Appendix F: Pre-LEL Evaluation Form ......................................................................................110
Appendix G: Evaluation of Student Journal Club Seminar Presentation Form ..........112
Appendix H: Laboratory Rotation Evaluation Form ............................................................114
Appendix I: Qualifying Examination 1 Form ...........................................................................117
Appendix J: Qualifying Examination 2 Form ...........................................................................121
Appendix K: Oral Defense and Dissertation Committee Report Form.........................125
Appendix L: Graduation Guidelines Check List ......................................................................129
Appendix M: Transcript Request Form .....................................................................................131
Appendix N: Abbreviations List ...................................................................................................133
5
Introduction
The mission of the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences of City of Hope is to
train students in an academically stimulating, collaborative and diverse environment to apply
their creativity, curiosity and talents to advance understanding of the complexities of the life
sciences and to apply research discoveries to the cures for disease.
City of Hope was founded in 1913, in Duarte, California, by working-class men and women who
believed in helping those less fortunate than themselves. Although initially a tuberculosis
sanatorium, research programs were initiated at City of Hope in 1951 and expanded rapidly until
by the late 1970s approximately 130 Ph.D.-level investigators were conducting a broad range of
research programs throughout the institute. In 1983, Beckman Research Institute of the City of
Hope was established with generous support from the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation.
The Institute is comprised of basic science research groups within the departments of Cancer
Biology; Cancer Immunotherapeutics & Tumor Immunology; Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases
Research; Experimental Therapeutics; Immunology; Molecular and Cellular Biology; Molecular
Medicine; Molecular Pharmacology; Developmental and Stem Cell Biology; Population Sciences,
Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics; Virology; and several smaller divisions.
City of Hope’s innovative research programs continue to evolve and grow in many promising
areas, including production of functional human hormones, radioimmunotherapy,
neurosciences, stem cell research, and gene therapy.
City of Hope is a pioneer in the field of hematopoietic cell transplantation, and research into this
therapy has been supported by a National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health
program project grant since 1981. The Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation program provides
opportunities for basic science investigations, as well as developing mechanisms for delivery of
genetic material and novel therapeutic agents.
Chemically synthesized genes produced in the Biology Division were used to develop the first
recombinant human peptide hormones which led to the commercial production of human
insulin (Humulin, now used by millions of people with diabetes worldwide).
The study of monoclonal antibodies against the cancer antigen CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen)
led to establishment of the Radioimmunotherapy Program. Genetically engineered antibodies
carrying radioactive isotopes are being used in cancer therapy trials and in studies designed to
localize tumors in patients. The humanized monocolonal antibodies developed at City of Hope
made possible the “smart” cancer drugs such as Herceptin, Rituxan, and Avastin, which are
saving and extending lives.
Recent advances in neurosciences programs include the gene therapeutic “rescue” of
neurotransmitter-deficient fruit flies; the discovery of necessary interaction between
extracellular matrix molecules and neurotransmitter receptor gene expression; the
identification of a motor neuronal-specific antigen that may be involved in the maintenance and
6
regeneration of neuromusculature junctions; and the development of an organotypic spinal
cord culture, valuable in studying nervous system development.
7
Message from the Dean
City of Hope and Beckman Research Institute (which hosts the Irell & Manella Graduate
School of Biological Sciences) have a remarkable history of innovation in science and
medical care. Our faculty members have made major contributions in biological sciences
and biomedicine and are widely recognized as leaders in their fields. The biotech
industry was launched by investigators at City of Hope when they created the
technology that led to the first human recombinant gene products, insulin and human
growth hormone, which are now in use by millions of people worldwide. The most
recent class of blockbuster drugs, humanized monoclonal antibodies, is based upon a
core technology developed by Beckman Research Institute researchers. Both basic
science and translational biomedical research flourish here, in a collegial atmosphere
where cross-communication thrives and basic science findings are often applied to the
cure of life-threatening diseases.
The graduate school enrolled its first class of students in 1994. Our graduates have
gone on to academic appointments and postdoctoral fellowships at some of the nation’s
best universities, as well as to positions in major biotech and pharmaceutical
companies. City of Hope’s interdisciplinary research programs provide students with
many opportunities to enrich their graduate education by interacting with other
graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty members outside of their own areas
of specialization. City of Hope has a strong track record in training both predoctoral
students and postdoctoral fellows. In addition, we host undergraduate and high school
researchers in our extensive summer internship program.
Welcome to the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences.
8
Graduate School Administration
John R. Rossi, Ph.D., Dean
John E. Shively, Ph.D., Associate Dean
Kate M. Sleeth, Ph.D., Interim Associate Dean of Administration and Student
Development
Adam Bailis, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Career Development
Ren-Jang Lin, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Curriculum
Queenie Du, MBA, Registrar
Jocelyn Cumming, MBA, Business Director
Stephanie Patterson, Academic Programs Administrator
Sarah Bannister, Academic Programs Specialist
Marina Sanchez, Administrative Assistant
9
Graduate School Standing Committees Current Members, 2016-2017
ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE
David Ann (co-chair)
Janice Huss
Wenyong Chen
Mei Kong
Yilun Liu (co-chair)
Zuoming Sun
Dustin Schones
ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Mark Boldin (chair)
John Burnett
Dustin Schones
Kate Sleeth
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
Ren-Jang Lin (chair)
Kevin Morris
Dustin Schones
Jacob Berlin
David Ann
Student Representative
Russell Rockne
Markus Kalkum
John Williams
Tim O’Connor
Tijana Talisman
GRADUATE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
John Rossi
John E. Shively
Kate Sleeth
Ren-Jang Lin
Queenie Du
Adam Bailis
David Ann
Vaidehi Nagarajan
Student Representative
Kevin Morris
Mark Boldin
Jeremy Stark
Jocelyn Cumming
Markus Kalkum
Stephanie Patterson
Sarah Bannister
10
Professor-Series Graduate School Faculty Members 2016-2017
Unless granted an exception by the Graduate Oversight Committee and the Dean,
students will conduct rotations and their doctoral research with these Professor-Series
faculty members.
#
Name
1.
Karen Aboody, M.D.
Appointment
Year
2003
2.
David Ann, Ph.D.
2006
Purdue
University
3.
Benham Badie, M.D.
1989
UCLA
4.
Adam Bailis, Ph.D.
1993
5.
Michael Barish, Ph.D.
1989
Albert
Einstein
College of
Medicine
Stanford
University
6.
Jacob Berlin, Ph.D.
2010
7.
Mark Boldin, M.D.,
Ph.D.
2011
8.
John Burnett, Ph.D.
2008
9.
Edouard Cantin, Ph.D.
1983
University of
Cambridge
10.
Angelo Cardoso, Ph.D.
1998
11.
Wing-Chun (John)
Chan, M.D.
2013
University
Paris-Sud,
France
University of
Hong Kong
11
Professional
Training
Mount Sinai
School of
Medicine
Department
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Neurosurgery/
Surgery
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
California
Institute of
Technology
Weizmann
Institute of
Science
(Israel)
UC Berkeley
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology/
Neurosurgery
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology
Molecular
Medicine
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
Molecular
Immunology
Center for Gene
Therapy
Pathology
#
12.
13.
Name
Saswati Chatterjee,
Ph.D.
Ching-Cheng Chen,
Ph.D.
Appointment
Year
1991
2010
Professional
Training
Georgetown
University
University of
Alabama
14.
Mike Y. Chen, M.D.,
Ph.D.
2015
15.
Shiuan Chen, Ph.D.
1985
16.
WenYong Chen, Ph.D.
2005
17.
Yuan Chen, Ph.D.
1993
18.
Zhen Chen
2010
19.
Warren Chow, M.D.
1994
20.
Jessica Clague DeHart,
Ph.D., M.P.H.
2010
21.
David Colcher, Ph.D.
1974
22.
Thanh Dellinger, M.D.
2004
23.
Don Diamond, Ph.D.
1989
Harvard
University
24.
Richard Ermel, Ph.D.,
D.V.M., M.P.V.M
Stephen Forman, M.D.
2002
UC Davis
1979
University of
Southern
California
25.
12
Thomas
Jefferson
University/
Medical
College of
Virginia
University of
Hawaii
University of
Alabama
Rutgers
University
UC Riverside
Chicago
Medical
School
UT School of
Public Health
Columbia
University
UC Irvine
Department
Surgery
Hematopoietic
Stem Cell and
Leukemia
Research
Neurosurgery
Cancer Biology
Cancer Biology
Molecular
Medicine
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Medical
Oncology &
Therapeutics
Populations
Sciences, Cancer
Etiology
Molecular
Immunology
Gynecologic
Surgery
Experimental
Therapeutics
Comparative
Medicine
Hematology/HCT
#
26.
Patrick Fueger, Ph.D.
Appointment
Year
2004
27.
Carlotta Glackin, Ph.D.
1993
University of
Southern
California
28.
Robert J. Hickey Ph.D.
2011
29.
David Horne, Ph.D.
2006
30.
Wendong Huang,
Ph.D.
2006
31.
Janice Huss, Ph.D.
2006
City University
New York
Massachusett
s Institute of
Technology
University of
Texas Health
Sciences
Center
University of
Wisconsin
32.
Keiichi Itakura, Ph.D.
1974
33.
Rahul Jandial, M.D.,
Ph.D.
Jeremy Jones, Ph.D.
2008
2013
36.
Tijana JovanovicTalisman, Ph.D.
Marcus Kalkum, Ph.D.
37.
Mei Kong, Ph.D.
2010
38.
Marcin Kortylewski,
Ph.D.
2005
34.
35.
Name
2009
2003
13
Professional
Training
Vanderbilt
University
Tokyo College
of Pharmacy
UC San Diego
Stanford
University
Columbia
University
Free
University of
Berlin
McGill
University
Univ. School
of
Medical
Sciences
Department
Molecular and
Cellular
Endocrinology
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
Molecular
Medicine
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Molecular and
Cellular
Endocrinology
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
Neurosurgery
Cancer Biology
Molecular
Medicine
Molecular
Immunology
Cancer Biology
Cancer
Immunotherapy
& Tumor
Immunology
#
Name
39.
Hsun Teresa Ku, Ph.D.
Appointment
Year
2007
40.
Ya-Huei Kuo, Ph.D.
2008
41.
Larry W. Kwak,
M.D.,Ph.D.
2015
Northwestern
University
42.
Peter Lee, M.D.
2011
UC San Diego
43.
Ren-Jang Lin, Ph.D.
1993
44.
Yilun Liu, Ph.D.
2011
45.
Qiang Lu, Ph.D.
2002
Pennsylvania
State
University
Einstein
College of
Medicine
UC San Diego
46.
Linda Malkas, Ph.D.
2011
47.
Edwin Manuel, Ph.D.
2008
48.
Marcia Miller, Ph.D.
1975
49.
Kevin Morris, Ph.D.
2001
50.
Rama Natarajan, Ph.D.
1990
51.
Susan Neuhausen,
Ph.D.
2009
14
Professional
Training
Medical
University
South
Carolina
University of
Connecticut
Department
Developmental
& Translational
Diabetes and
Endocrine
Hematopoietic
Stem Cell and
Leukemia
Research
Stephenson
Lymphoma
Center
Cancer
Immunotherapy
& Tumor
Immunology
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology
City University Molecular &
of New York
Cellular Biology
Harvard
Experimental
University
Therapeutics
UCLA
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
UC Davis
Center for Gene
Therapy
Indian
Diabetes
Institute of
Complications
Science
and Metabolism
University of
Minnesota
Population
Sciences
#
52.
53.
54.
Name
Edward Newman,
Ph.D.
Vu Ngo, Ph.D.
Appointment
Year
1981
2010
Professional
Training
Yale
University
UC San
Francisco
Timothy O’Connor,
Ph.D.
Arthur Riggs, Ph.D.
1996
56.
Russell C. Rockne,
Ph.D.
2013
57.
Andrei S. Rodin, Ph.D.
2013
58.
Bart Roep, M.D., Ph.D.
1992
59.
Steven Rosen, M.D.
1976
60.
John Rossi, Ph.D.
1996
61.
Paul Salvaterra, Ph.D.
1977
62.
Dustin E. Schones,
Ph.D.
2010
SUNY Stony
Brook
63.
Victoria Seewaldt,
M.D.
Binghui Shen, Ph.D.
1989
UC Davis
1996
Kansas State
University
55.
64.
1969
15
Purdue
University
California
Institute of
Technology
Department
Cancer Biology
Hematopoietic
Stem Cell and
Leukemia
Research
Cancer Biology
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Washington
University,
Seattle
University of
Texas,
Houston
Mathematical
Oncology
Leiden
University
Northwestern
University
Diabetes
Immunology
Stephenson
Lymphoma
Center
Molecular &
Cellular Biology
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Population
Sciences
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
University of
Connecticut
SUNY Buffalo
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
#
Name
Appointment
Year
2004
Professional
Training
Northwestern
University
65.
Yanhong Shi, Ph.D.
66.
Ben Hung-Ping Shih,
Ph.D.
2007
Oregon State
University
67.
John E. Shively, Ph.D.
1975
University of
Illinois
68.
Steven Smith, Ph.D.
1982
UCLA
69.
Jeremy Stark, Ph.D.
2006
70.
Cy Aaron Stein, M.D.,
Ph.D.
2012
University of
Washington
Stanford
University
71.
Zuoming Sun, Ph.D.
2005
72.
Zijie (ZJ) Sun, Ph.D. Dsc 1988
73.
Timothy Synold,
Pharm.D.
1994
74.
John Termini, Ph.D.
1998
75.
Debbie C. Thurmond,
Ph.D.
2015
76.
Nagarajan Vaidehi,
Ph.D.
2005
16
Duke
University
Shanghai
Medical
University
UC San
Francisco
Columbia
University
University of
Iowa
India Institute
of Technology
Department
Developmental
and Stem Cell
Biology/ Cancer
Genetics and
Epigenetics/
Diabetes &
Metabolic
Diseases
Diabetes and
Metabolic
Diseases
Research
Molecular
Immunology
Urolology and
Urologic
Oncology
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
Medical
Oncology &
Therapeutics
Molecular
Immunology
Cancer Biology
Cancer Biology
Molecular
Medicine
Molecular and
Cellular
Endocrinology
Molecular
Immunology
#
Name
77.
Jeffrey Weitzel, M.D.
Appointment
Year
1996
78.
John Williams, Ph.D.
2008
79.
Yanzhong (Frankie)
Yang, M.D., Ph.D.
2015
80.
Jiing-Kuan Yee, Ph.D.
1998
81.
Hua Yu, Ph.D.
2005
82.
2002
83.
Xiaochun Yu, M.D.,
Ph.D.
John Zaia, M.D.
84.
Defu Zeng, M.D.
2002
1980
17
Professional
Training
University of
Minnesota
Columbia
University
Shanxi
Medical
University/
Fudan
University
University of
Texas, Austin
Department
Medical Oncology
& Therapeutics
Research/
Population
Sciences
Molecular
Medicine
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
Columbia
University
Kurume
University
Harvard
University
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
ImmunoOncology
Cancer Genetics
and Epigenetics
Center for Gene
Therapy
Fuijan
Medical
University
Diabetes
Complications
and Metabolism
Graduate School Instructors 2016-2017
#
Name
1.
Trinka
Adamson,
D.V.M.
2.
Alexander
Annala,
Ph.D.
2010
University of
Southern
California
Developmental and
Stem Cell Biology
3.
Christine
Brown,
Ph.D.
2002
University of
California,
Berkeley
Hematology/HCT
4.
Daniela
Castanotto,
Ph.D.
Larry
Couture,
Ph.D.
1989
University of
Messina (Italy)
Medical Oncology &
Therapeutics Research
1998
Albany Medical Center for
College
Biomedicine and
Genetics
6.
Fong Fong
Chu, Ph.D.
1987
SUNY Buffalo
Cancer Genetics and
Epigenetics
7.
Ali Ehsani,
Ph.D.
2008
City of Hope
Molecular & Cellular
Biology
8.
Steve
Esworthy,
Ph.D.
1985
Iowa State
University
Cancer Genetics and
Epigenetics
9.
Chris
Gandhi,
Ph.D.
Nancy
Linford,
Ph.D.
2003
UC Berkeley
Faculty Support
2013
University of
Washington
Faculty Support
5.
10.
Appointment Professional
Year
Training
2010
Louisiana State
University
18
Department
Comparative
Medicine
Name
Appointment Professional
Year
Training
1997
UCLA
Department
11.
Glenn
Manthey,
Ph.D.
12.
Kate Sleeth,
Ph.D.
2009
University of
Reading (UK)
Graduate School
Administration
13.
Piotr
Swiderski,
Ph.D.
1989
A. Mickiewicz
University
(Poland)
Molecular Medicine
14.
Keely
Walker,
Ph.D.
2006
UC San Diego
Faculty Support
15.
Robert
Whitson,
Ph.D.
1985
University of
Southern
California
Biology
16.
Sharon
Wilczynski,
Ph.D., M.D.
1989
UCLA and
Medical
College of
Pennsylvania
Anatomic Pathology/
Cytology
17.
Xiwei Wu,
M.D., Ph.D.
2004
Loma Linda
University
Biology
18.
Paul Yazaki,
Ph.D.
1996
UC San Diego
Molecular
Immunology
19
Biology
Current Student List (August 2016)
Last Name
Ahrens
First Name
Brad
Bargoma
Emilee
Batalla
Jennifer
Bauer
Benhajsalah
Brandon
Marwa
Bhargava
Ragini
Carson
Caree
Cassady
Kaniel
Cha
Chiang
Seung
Jiarong
Chin
Ciminera
Andrew
Alexandra
Clear
Mentor
John Shively, Ph.D.
& Richard Ermel,
Ph.D., D.V.M.
Ren-Jang Lin, Ph.D.
Karen Aboody,
M.D.
New 8/16
John Rossi, Ph.D.
Dept/Div
Molecular Immunology;
Animal Resources
Center
Molecular and Cellular
Biology
Developmental and
Stem Cell Biology
Biology
Jeremy Stark,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
Cancer Genetics and
Epigenetics
Diabetes Immunology
Alissa
Defu Zeng,
M.D./Arthur Riggs,
Ph.D.
John Shively, Ph.D.
Markus Kalkum,
Ph.D.
Emily Wang, Ph.D.
John Termini,
Ph.D.
Adam Bailis, Ph.D.
Cornejo
Costello
Cui
Yvonne
Kevin
Qi
New 8/17
New 8/16
Yanhong Shi, Ph.D.
Davis
Delgado
Du
Alicia
Daniel
Juan
El Zein
Karla
Elison
Elix
Kathleen
Catherine
New 8/16
John Shively, Ph.D.
Dustin Schones,
Ph.D.
Debbie Thurmond,
Ph.D.
Jacob Berlin, Ph.D.
Jeremy Jones,
Ph.D. & David Ann,
Ph.D.
20
Molecular Immunology
Cancer Biology
Molecular Medicine
Biology
Developmental and
Stem Cell Biology
Diabetes Complications
and Metabolism
Endocrinology
Molecular Medicine
Cancer Biology;
Diabetes & Metabolic
Diseases Research
Last Name
Epps
First Name
Elizabeth
Estephan
Ghazarian
Gutierrez
Herrera-Ortegon
Ho
Renee
Haike
Roberto
Alberto
Michelle
Holguin
Hung
Ishak Gabra
Jacobo
Leo
Yu-Wen
Mari
Christina
Jaramillo
Richard
Johnson
Benjamin
Kang
Kim
Yanan (Elaine)
Byung-Wook
Kuo
Cheng-Fu
Kurata
Jessica
Lee
Michael
Lennon
Kathleen
Li
Chen
Li
Li
Liu
Liu
Alice
Xuxiang
Ma
Xiaoxiao
Mentor
John Rossi, Ph.D. &
John Burnett,
Ph.D.
New 8/17
John Shively, Ph.D.
New 8/16
New 8/16
John Rossi, Ph.D. &
John Burnett,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
New 8/16
Mei Kong, Ph.D.
Debbie Thurmond,
Ph.D.
John Termini,
Ph.D.
Don Diamond,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
Wendong Huang,
Ph.D.
Dept/Div
Biology
Biology
Cancer Biology
Endocrinology
Molecular Medicine
Experimental
Therapeutics
and Metabolism
Stephen Forman,
Hematopoietic Cell
M.D.
Transplantation
Ren-Jang Lin, Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular
Biology
Dustin Schones,
Ph.D.
and Metabolism
Tijana Talisman,
Molecular Medicine
Ph.D.
John Burnett,
Ph.D.
Biology
Yanhong Shi, Ph.D. Developmental and
Stem Cell Biology
Jacob Berlin, Ph.D. Molecular Medicine
John Chan, M.D. & Cancer Biology
Emily Wang, Ph.D.
Wendong Huang,
Molecular Diabetes
Ph.D.
21
Last Name
Magilnick
First Name
Nathaniel
Mentor
Mark Boldin, M.D.,
Ph.D.
Jeremy Start, Ph.D.
Mendez
Carlos
Minnix
Murad
Megan
John
Ortiz
Jose
Park
Paulekas
Ramos
Anthony
Shayla
Cassandra
Roberts
Cai
Samarasimhasubhashchandra
Vishnu
Sandhu
Manbir
Nagarajan Vaidehi, Molecular Immunology
Ph.D.
Setten
Ryan
Shahin
Sophia
John Rossi, Ph.D. &
John Burnett,
Ph.D.
Carlotta Glackin,
Ph.D. & John Rossi,
Ph.D.
Shalabi
Shevchenko
Soco
Sundus
Galina
Charmaine
Stapleton
Kenneth
Tapia
Jazma
Janice Huss, Ph.D.
Thunen
Tiet
Alyssa
Pamela
Emily Wang, Ph.D.
Jacob Berlin, Ph.D.
John Shively, Ph.D.
Stephen Forman,
M.D.
Hung-Ping Shih,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
New 8/16
David Ann, Ph.D.
Dept/Div
Biology
Cancer Genetics and
Epigenetics
Hematopoietic Cell
Transplantation
Translational Research
and Cellular
Therapeutics
Diabetes and Metabolic
Diseases Research
Carlotta Glackin,
Developmental and
Ph.D. & John Rossi, Stem Cell Biology;
Ph.D.
Biology
Rama Natarajan,
Ph.D.
and Metabolism
New 8/16
New 8/16
Don Diamond,
Ph.D.
Rama Natarajan,
Ph.D.
22
Biology
Developmental and
Stem Cell Biology;
Biology
Experimental
Therapeutics
Diseases Research
Endocrinology
Cancer Biology
Molecular Medicine
Last Name
Tobin
First Name
Steven
Tongyuan
Tran
Tremblay
Xue
Thai
Jacob
Tsai
Tu
Urak
Wang
Jill (Linda)
Jui (Rose)
Ryan
Dongrui
Wang
Wei-Le
Wang
Xichun
Weist
White
Wise
Michael
Ethan
Jonathan
Xiong
Min
Zhang
Zhang
Yijia
Jing
Zirbes
Arrianna
Mentor
Tijana JovanovicTalisman, Ph.D.
New 8/16
Mei Kong, Ph.D.
Hsun Teresa Ku,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
New 8/16
New 8/16
Stephen Forman,
M.D.
Mark Boldin, Ph.D.
Dept/Div
Molecular Medicine
Cancer Biology
Diseases Research
Hematopoietic Cell
Transplantation
Biology
Andrei Rodin,
Ph.D.
Diseases Research
John Shively, Ph.D. Molecular Immunology
Arthur Riggs, Ph.D. Diabetes and Metabolic
& John Rossi, Ph.D. Diseases Research &
Biology
Mark Boldin, M.D., Molecular and Cellular
Ph.D.
Biology
Zuoming Sun,
Ph.D.
New 8/16
23
Academic Calendar 2016-2017
2016
August 2016
3, 10, 17, 24, & 31
15 - 19
600B Scientific Writing core course for the 2015 incoming graduate
students
1st day of enrollment for the 2016 nineteen (19) incoming graduate
students
Orientation week for the 2016 incoming graduate students
15 - 18
1st week of Responsible Conduct of Research core course
18, 19, 23, 25,
26, & 30
22 - 25
Faculty research presentations
22, 24, 26, 29, & 31
Lab Techniques and Concepts in Molecular Biology and Genetics
core course
Introduction to Grant Writing core course
15
29 - 31
2nd week of Responsible Conduct of Research core course
September 2016
1
Faculty research presentations
1
Due by noon - the 2015 incoming graduate students doing the 4th
lab rotations to provide the Petition for Selection of Advisor for
Dissertation Research forms to the registrar
Introduction to Grant Writing core course
1, 2, 6, 7, 8 & 9
2
2, 6, & 8
5
7, 14, & 21
Due by noon - the 2016 incoming graduate student to provide the
list of three (3) potential faculty members for lab rotations to Kate
Sleeth, PhD, the Associate Dean of Administration and Student
Development
Lab Techniques and Concepts in Molecular Biology and Genetics
core course
Labor Day holiday
9 - 30
600B Scientific Writing core course for the 2015 incoming graduate
students
Biochemistry and Structural Biology core course
9 - 30
Principles of Gene Expression core course
12 - 30
First laboratory rotation
24
30
Deadline for the 2014 incoming graduate students to pass
Qualifying Exam II (QE II) oral presentations and written reports
October 2016
1
2015 incoming students transitioning to second year
3 - 31
3 - 31
3 - 31
31
Due by noon - the 2016 incoming students to provide to the
registrar the names of the 2nd lab rotation mentors
November 2016
1-4
1 - 30
2 - 30
4
Beckman Symposium
8
First laboratory rotation presentations - Graff Library conference
room, 2pm - 5pm
Due by noon - the 1st laboratory rotation reports to be submitted
to the registrar
Second laboratory rotation
11
14 - 23, & 28 - 30
15
24 - 25*
* Nov. 25 is the day
off for only the
2016 incoming
students.
Deadline for the 2015 incoming graduate students to pass the
Qualifying Exam I oral presentations and written reports.
Thanksgiving holiday
December 2016
1 - 19
2 - 19
2 - 19
20 - 30*
Christmas holiday
* Dec. 20 - 23, & 27
- 30 are the days
25
off for only the
2016 incoming
students.
2017
January 2017
2
New Year holiday
3 - 20
3 - 31
Cell Biology core course
4 - 30
Biostatistics core course
16
Due by noon - the 2016 incoming students to provide to the
registrar the names of the 3rd lab rotation mentors
Second laboratory rotation presentations, Beckman Center 5th
floor conference room #5201, 2pm - 5pm
Due by noon - the 2nd laboratory rotation reports to be submitted
to the registrar
Third lab rotation
24
27
30 - 31
February 2017
1 - 20
Biostatistics core course
1 - 28
1 - 28
Third lab rotation
7, 14, 21, & 28
600A Scientific Writing core course
24 & 27
Computational Molecular Biology core course
March 2017
1 - 24
Third laboratory rotation
1 - 27
1 - 27
Computational Molecular Biology core course
7 & 14
600A Scientific Writing core course
15
Due by noon - the prospective graduates to confirm via email with
the registrar if they plan to participate in the 2017 Graduation after
receiving the approvals from their dissertation committees
Third laboratory rotation presentations, Argyros Auditorium, 2pm 5pm
28
26
30
30 - 31
*Only for the 2016
incoming students
Due by noon - the 2017 graduates to submit to the registrar the
Graduation Guidelines Checklists signed by their mentors
Spring break
April 2017
1
3-5
*Only for the 2016
incoming students
6, 13, 20, & 27
30
Due by noon - the 3rd laboratory rotation reports to be submitted
to the registrar
Spring break
Fundamentals of Scientific Research Core Course
Research Staff Organization Event in Lake Arrowhead, CA
May 2017
1-2
Research Staff Organization event in Lake Arrowhead, CA
4, 11, 18, & 25
Fundamentals of Scientific Research core course
29
Memorial Day observed
June 2017
1, 8, & 15
Fundamentals of Scientific Research core course
9
Graduation
July 2017
1
4
Due by noon - the 2016 incoming graduate students to provide the
Petition for Selection of Advisor for Dissertation Research forms to
the registrar
Independence Day
27
Course Numbering as of May 27, 2016
COURSE ID
COURSE NAME
BIOSCI 500
BIOSCI 505
BIOSCI 502
BIOSCI 510
BIOSCI 520
BIOSCI 530
BIOSCI 540
BIOSCI 542
BIOSCI 543
BIOSCI 550
BIOSCI 560
BIOSCI 561
BIOSCI 562
BIOSCI 580
CREDIT
UNITS
GRADE
Responsible Conduct of Research [R]
2
P, I, or F
Concepts in Molecular Genetics Laboratory [R]
2
P, I, or F
Introduction to Grant Writing [R]
Biochemistry and Structural Biology [R]
Principles of Gene Expression [R]
1
4
4
Cell Biology [R]
4
Biostatistics [R]
2
Bioinformatics [R]
2
Computational Molecular Biology [R]
2
Fundamentals of Scientific Research [R]
5
Laboratory Rotation I [R]
Laboratory Rotation II [R]
Pathology Mini-Course [E]
offered by Dr. Cardiff, 2016 Graduate School Distinguished Visiting
Professor from UC Davis
28
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
5
P, I, or F
5
P, I, or F
5
Laboratory Rotation III [R]
P, I, or F
1
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
BIOSCI 600
Scientific Writing [R]
BIOSCI 600 A Scientific Writing A [R]
BIOSCI 610
Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Biology and Medicine [E]
BIOSCI 615
Advanced Topics in Comparative Medicine: The Mouse in Biomedical
Research [E]
Advanced Comparative Medicine I [E]
BIOSCI 620
Advanced Cancer Biology [E]
BIOSCI 616
BIOSCI 625
BIOSCI 630
BIOSCI 635
BIOSCI 640
BIOSCI 645
BIOSCI 650
BIOSCI 655
BIOSCI 660
BIOSCI 680
BIOSCI 700
BIOSCI 701
Advanced Comparative Medicine II [E]
1
P, I, or F
2
3
3
3
3
Advanced Immunology [E]
3
Advanced Neurosciences [E]
3
Advanced Virology [E]
3
Advanced Stem Cell Biology [E]
Advanced Stem Cell Research and Medicine [E]
Advanced RNA [E]
Advanced DNA Repair, Epigenetics, and Cancer [E]
Advanced Epigenomics [E]
Advanced Topics in Medicinal Chemistry: Drug Delivery [E]
Comparative Medicine Journal Club [E] *
Current Science Journal Club [E] *
P, I, or F
1
BIOSCI 600 B Scientific Writing B [R]
BIOSCI 601
2
29
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
A~ C
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
BIOSCI 702
DNA Repair Journal Club [E] *
1
P, I, or F
BIOSCI 704
Immunology Journal Club [E] *
1
P, I, or F
BIOSCI 703
BIOSCI 705
BIOSCI 706
BIOSCI 707
BIOSCI 708
BIOSCI 709
BIOSCI 710
BIOSCI 711
BIOSCI 730
BIOSCI 740
BIOSCI 760
BIOSCI 800
Epigenetics & Chromatin Structure Journal Club [E] *
Protein Post-Translation Modification Journal Club [E] *
RNA Journal Club [E] *
Signaling and Regulation with Translational Focus Journal Club [E] *
Stem Cell Journal Club [E] *
Structural and Chemical Biology Journal Club [E] *
Tumor Immunology Journal Club [E] *
RNA and Epigenetics & Chromatin Structure Journal Club [E] *
Leading-Edge Lecture Seminar [E]
*
Lab Research [R] - after lab rotations and before advancement to
candidacy *
Independent Study [E]
Research for Dissertation [R] - prerequisite: advancement to candidacy *
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
3
12
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
P, I, or F
* = Repeatable course
E = Elective. Students are required to take two 600 series elective courses after the first year of study & be continuously enrolled in at least
one of BIOSCI 700 - BIOSCI 729 Journal Clubs .
F = Fail
I = Incomplete
IP = In Progress
P = Pass
R = Required
W = Withdraw
30
Academic Program Overview
City of Hope's Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences offers a rigorous
program of course work and laboratory research culminating in a Ph.D. degree. The goal
is to develop professionally trained scientists, prepared for a career in academic,
medical or industrial research. Time to complete the program varies, depending on a
student’s previous experience and the dissertation project chosen.
The First Year
During the first year, the student must complete:
•
•
•
Core Curriculum
Three laboratory rotations (~8 weeks each). Students are required to write a
report and make an oral presentation for each lab rotation.
Two Leading-Edge Lecture Seminars
The Core Curriculum is the main lecture requirement. It consists of eight courses, one
lab and an advanced topic course.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Responsible Conduct of Research (taken during Orientation)
Biochemistry and Structural Biology
Principles of Gene Expression
Cell Biology
Biostatistics
Computational Molecular Biology
Fundamentals of Scientific Research
Scientific Writing
Laboratory Education is the foundation of the Ph.D. program. The lab rotations enable
the student to focus on a research topic and mentor.
The Leading-Edge Lecture (LEL) Series is a student-run endeavor. Each year the students
select eight biomedical scientists to present a research seminar. Before each talk, the
students and a LEL faculty advisor will meet for a presentation and discussion session.
Here, a student sponsor will summarize one or two of the most relevant articles by the
invited scientist and lead a discussion of the techniques and data with the other
students. Students will then attend the seminar and lead the question and answer
session that follows. First-year students are required to attend at least two LeadingEdge Lecture events.
31
Toward the end of the first year, students are required to select the laboratory for their
dissertation research. They also select the topic and faculty committee for their
qualifying examination part one.
After The First Year
•
•
•
Take two additional advanced topic elective courses
Join a journal club to review current literature
Complete qualifying examination two and advance to candidacy
Present a written dissertation for examination by four members of City of Hope staff
and one qualified member from an outside institution.
Credits
One hour of credit is defined as at least one hour of classroom instruction and a
minimum of two hours of outside-of-classroom study for ten weeks for one trimester
hour of credit. Laboratory research and seminar courses shall have an equivalent level
of effort, with one credit hour being awarded for three hours of research or study. Fulltime status is defined as a minimum of fifteen hours per trimester.
Each core course provides the student with 1-5 credits. Each seminar, workshop,
research report meeting, journal club or tutorial will provide two credits per semester of
attendance at City of Hope's Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences.
Research and dissertation preparation provides 10 credits per semester, following
completion of the core curriculum and research proposal. This will result in the
accumulation of a minimum of 30 credits per year.
The written dissertation must be presented by the student for examination by four
members of the City of Hope staff and one qualified member from an outside
institution. The dissertation must be orally defended, and completion of the
requirement will be finalized by approval of the document by the dissertation
committee.
32
Grading System
Students will receive letter grades for their course work. Students must receive a grade
of 80 percent or above (B- or better) in all course work to continue in the program.
Non-graded courses receive a Pass, Fail or Incomplete.
GOC Suggested Grading Scale
Letter Grade
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
Grade Change Policy
Percentage
97% - 100%
93% - 96%
90% - 92%
87% - 89%
83% - 86%
80% - 82%
77% - 79%
73% - 76%
70% - 72%
67% - 69%
63%-66%
60% - 62%
0% - 59%
GPA
4.00/4.00
4.00/4.00
3.67/4.00
3.33/4.00
3.00/4.00
2.67/4.00
2.33/4.00
2.00/4.00
1.67/4.00
1.33/4.00
1.00/4.00
0.67/4.00
0.00/4.00
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Evaluating student work and maintaining academic standards are the responsibility of
the faculty, and faculty decisions about grades will only be overruled in cases where
there is clear evidence of arbitrary and/or inconsistent grading. If a student wishes to
challenge a grade, the student should discuss the grade with the course coordinator. If
the matter cannot be resolved at this level, the student should make a request to the
Dean to appoint a three person Grade Change Committee, which will include the course
coordinator, and two faculty actively involved in teaching and/or curriculum, but
excluding the Dean or Associate Deans. The Dean will also appoint one member as the
Chair (not the course coordinator), who will work to find consensus, but the final
decision will be made by committee majority vote. This committee will consider the
grading issue separate from any potential consequences of the grade for the student's
academic standing, which is covered under a separate policy (see Academic Standards
section).
33
City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute and University of Southern California
Residency and Graduate Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine
The City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute (COH/BRI) and University of Southern
California (USC) Residency and Graduate Training Program in Laboratory Animal
Medicine is a 3-year residency training component (primarily at USC – laboratory animal
medicine resident) and 5-year combined residency and graduate training component
(primarily at COH/BRI – laboratory animal medicine fellow) program designed to
support preparation toward American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM)
board certification and to prepare individuals for academic careers in the biomedical
sciences, laboratory animal science, and comparative medicine.
The training program includes a full spectrum of clinical rounds, seminars, special
projects pertaining to laboratory animal medicine, diagnostics, animal care and use, and
teaching assignments. Laboratory animal medicine residents/fellows provide clinical
services and veterinary care to the centrally administered support service for animal
research and teaching programs at the COH/BRI Department of Comparative Medicine
(DCM) Animal Resources Center (ARC) and USC Department of Animal Resources (DAR)
facilities. The training program provides postdoctoral (DVM) laboratory animal
medicine residents/fellows with the intellectual depth and breadth, and appropriate
clinical and research training in laboratory animal medicine, laboratory
animal/comparative pathology, and comparative medicine.
Training includes a research component that involves the application of the scientific
method as applied to a basic or clinical research project. The laboratory animal
medicine residents/fellows may fulfill this requirement through the conduct of an
independent, original project or as a collaborator working within the laboratory of an
established investigator. Preparation of a manuscript for presentation/publication in a
refereed journal in an appropriate discipline is required for successful completion of the
training program. The Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in Biological Sciences is utilized as
the graduate degree component of the 5-year combined residency and graduate
training program and provides ample opportunities for specific training in the
development of biomedical models and research methodology as well as in other areas
important for specialty board certification by the ACLAM.
The Training Program Directors are:
Dr. Richard W. Ermel DVM, MPVM, PhD, DACLAM
Chair/Professor – Department of Comparative Medicine
Director – Animal Resources Center; City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute
Dr. Donald Casebolt DVM, MPVM, DACLAM
Director – Department of Animal Resources
Associate Professor – Clinical Pathology; University of Southern California
34
Residency and Graduate Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine
Schedule for Laboratory Animal Medicine Fellows (4 Quarters/Year)
Year 1
Summer
Fall
Winter
15% Didactic Training
85% Clinical Rotations
Courses: Advanced Topics in
Comparative Medicine
(ATCM); Responsible
Conduct of Research
Courses: ATCM; Grant
Writing; Scientific Writing;
Gene Expression;
Biochemistry and
Structural Biology
Courses: ATCM;
Biostatistics; Cell Biology;
Computational Molecular
Biology
Spring
15% Didactic
Training
Courses: ATCM;
Fundamentals of
Scientific Research;
Scientific Writing
50% Laboratory Rotation
(eight-week rotation)
Course: ATCM
50% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
Research Proposal PhD
Qualifying Exam - Part I
15% Didactic
Training
35% Clinical
Rotations
50% Thesis
Research
Course: ATCM
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
Dissertation PhD
Qualifying Exam - Part II
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
15% Didactic
Training
85% Thesis
Research
Course: ATCM
Year 4
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
85%Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
15% Didactic
Training
85% Thesis
Research
Course: ATCM
Year 5
85%Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
85% Thesis Research
Course: ATCM
Defend PhD
Thesis/Dissertation
Course: ATCM
Year 2
Year 3
50% Laboratory Rotation
(eight-week rotation)
Course: ATCM
35
Policies
Academic Standards
The Faculty and Staff of the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences value
high academic standards and believe that they are critical to ensure the overall quality
of the Graduate School. The Graduate Oversight Committee (GOC), in consultation with
the Deans of the School, shall oversee the academic standards of the Ph.D. program
including verification of fulfillment of academic and graduation requirements.
Satisfactory Academic Progress
All enrolled students are required to demonstrate good academic standing and
satisfactory progress toward their degree. Students with particular questions concerning
satisfactory progress should contact the registrar or the interim Associate Dean of
Administration and Student Development. The following policy statements describe the
general parameters for satisfactory academic progress at the Irell & Manella Graduate
School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope.
Academic Standing
Students are expected to make satisfactory academic and professional progress
throughout their academic program.
Satisfactory Academic Progress
Satisfactory Academic Progress and good academic standing are generally defined as:
• Meeting the professional and academic expectations as defined in the degree
requirements section in the Student/Faculty Handbook
• Behaving consistently with professional and ethical standards as outlined in the
• Ethical Principles and Practices in the Student/Faculty Handbook
• Completing academic and educational projects, reports, and programs by
deadlines
Unsatisfactory Progress
The following are grounds for determining that satisfactory progress in the academic
program is not being made:
• Failure to maintain a B average
• Failure to complete required seminars, journal club, or rotations by deadlines
• Failure to complete required seminar or rotation reports by due dates as
indicated in the Student/Faculty Handbook
• Failure to adhere to all Qualifying Examination guidelines and deadlines as
defined in the Student/Faculty Handbook
36
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Failure to adhere to all Dissertation guidelines, meetings, and deadlines as
defined in the Student/Faculty Handbook
Receipt of a “Fail” or “Incomplete” grade in a course, seminar, journal club,
required activity, or laboratory rotation
Failing a qualifying examination
Violation of professional or ethical conduct policies
Little or no progress on the dissertation, as determined by dissertation mentor
and/or yearly committee meetings
Failure to comply with school and/or City of Hope rules and procedures
Failure to submit student fees
Evidence of personal factors (interpersonal or intrapersonal) that may hinder the
student’s professional and academic competence
Violation of Student/Faculty Handbook policies and procedures
Violation of City of Hope policies and procedures
Failure to Meet Standards
At the close of each semester the academic status of every student will be audited. All
students who have met standards for academic progress will be deemed to be in “Good
Standing”. Any student who has failed to meet the standards described above will have
their file reviewed by the GOC.
The following sanctions will apply to any student not in Good Standing:
•
•
•
A registration hold may be placed on the student record which will prohibit
registration for courses. This also includes auditing a course.
The student may not apply for travel funding, institutional fellowships, or other
Graduate School funding.
The student may not submit to or collect business requests from the registrar’s
office. This may include certifications, loan deferrals, proof of student status,
academic audits, diploma requests, official or unofficial transcripts, and grade
requests.
Exceptions to Academic Regulations
A request for an exception to a published Graduate School academic policy or a request
for any special academic privilege must be made in writing and initiated through the
submission of the Academic/Administrative Exception Form (See appendix A for form).
All documentary evidence in support of each application for academic exception or
academic privilege should be submitted with the written request. Each case will be
decided on its own merits. All exceptions, waivers and special privileges are subject to
review by a Dean and/or the GOC for a final decision. Students are encouraged to
maintain their own personal copies of all paperwork submitted.
37
Sanctions
When a student does not meet the standards for adequate academic progress, the
following procedures will be used to determine whether the student is failing to make
satisfactory progress and/or whether an ethical or behavioral problem exists.
The GOC will review all student cases of students who are not in Good Standing and for
cases which result in a finding of insufficient academic performance or progress,
professional practice field training unsuitability, or unethical or inappropriate behavior
the following actions may be recommended.
1. Warning
Warning Status, with or without a remediation plan, can be recommended by the GOC
when a student’s academic work or professional development falls below the Graduate
School’s standards but the nature of the difficulty or infraction does not require more
serious or more immediate action.
2. Probation
Probationary status is recommended when a student’s academic progress or
professional development has been inconsistent with the Graduate School’s
requirements. A student is given a specific amount of time (usually one term) in which
to remediate the cause(s) of probation or will otherwise face dismissal from the
program. The GOC will make the final determination regarding the length of time to
remediate.
When the GOC acts to implement Warning or Probation status, the interim Associate
Dean of Administration and Student Development in conjunction with the Academic
Deans will be responsible for monitoring and advising the progression of a student in a
remediation plan. The process for monitoring students includes regular reports from
students and/or their advisors, reviewing student files and, as necessary and
appropriate, recalling students to the GOC. It shall be the responsibility of the GOC in
such circumstances to review the case and to determine whether the student has
completed all of the requirements of the remediation, in which case the removal of the
Probationary status will be recommended. In the event that the GOC determines that
the conditions that resulted in Probation have not been remediated, the GOC may
recommend other action including a) continuance of the status of Probation or b) that a
more severe sanction be imposed.
3. Mandatory Leave of Absence
A student is recommended for Mandatory Leave of Absence in those cases in which the
academic work or professional development, in the opinion of the Dean of the Graduate
38
School, and taking into consideration the GOC’s recommendations, requires serious
remediation that necessitates withdrawal from the Graduate School in order to
complete the required remediation. Required leave of absences may result in the
termination of stipend payments.
4. Termination
A student may be terminated from the academic program when conditions are judged
to be of a serious nature and are not judged to be remediable, insufficient grade point
average and/or multiple Incompletes or Fail grades occurs, or when a serious violation
of the Graduate School’s standards of conducts and ethics occurs or when a student has
failed to remediate previously identified deficiencies within the specified time.
Dismissal and Suspension Policies
Students may be suspended or dismissed as a result of unsatisfactory performance as
judged by their advisor or dissertation committee.
The grounds for dismissal are:
1. twice failing a required course;
2. failing a qualifying examination;
3. unsatisfactory performance as judged by the thesis committee;
4. unethical performance - scientific misconduct, plagiarism, cheating;
5. unexcused failure to meet graduate school requirements;
6. prolonged, unexcused absence;
7. violation of applicable laws and policies, including but not limited to those set
forth herein, or other inappropriate misconduct, as may be determined by the
Dean of the Graduate School;
8. unauthorized leaves of absence or failure to return from an approved leave.
One of the consequences of unsatisfactory academic performance is that it inevitably
slows a student’s progress toward the doctoral degree. A student who has failed two of
the first-year courses is not eligible to take the Fundamentals of Scientific Research
course. A student who has not passed the core curriculum courses may not take the
qualifying examination until the course(s) has been passed. Another consequence of
unsatisfactory academic performance is that a student is not eligible for travel grants
and merit fellowships.
Grievance Procedure
Student appeals and grievances should be addressed to the Dean of the Graduate
School within thirty days of the date of the action notice. Students will be entitled to a
39
hearing, if an appropriate, timely request is made, as determined by the Dean. The
request for a hearing should include the student's reasons for requesting the meeting
and name parties, if any, who the student believes are pertinent to the grievance.
Within thirty days, the Dean will constitute an ad hoc grievance committee comprising
at least two faculty members, two student members, and one Associate Dean who will
chair the committee. None of the members of the committee should be personally
involved in the subject matter of the grievance. The grievance committee shall
interview parties as they see fit, including those suggested by the student, and gather all
materials from the Graduate School that allow them to make a fair and unbiased
decision which they should submit to the Dean within thirty days after constitution of
the committee.
The Dean shall inform the student of the committee's decision within fifteen days of
receipt of the decision, and indicate if the Dean supports the committee's decision. If
the Dean does not support the committee's decision, the Dean shall indicate the reason
in writing.
All cases for dismissal will be brought before the GOC who will make a recommendation
to the Dean of the Graduate School.
The Dean will make the final decision in all cases. The proceedings shall become part of
the student's record.
Title IX - Equal Education Opportunities
The Graduate School wants its students to be fully informed about Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (1988), which prohibits sex
discrimination in federally assisted education programs.
This law states in part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .
The Title IX coordinator for City of Hope's Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological
Sciences is George Vukazich, Senior Director of Human Resources, located in Human
Resources, Modular 146, (extension 68812).
40
The purpose of the Title IX coordinator is to coordinate the Graduate School’s efforts to
comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX. The graduate school has
adopted grievance procedures to govern the resolution of complaints alleging any
action prohibited by Title IX. These procedures are attached as Appendix B to the
student handbook disseminated annually to students and are also available from the
Title IX coordinator.
Harassment / Discrimination
The Graduate School is committed to providing an environment that is free from
discrimination and harassment. No one may be discriminated against because of
national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, race, age, color,
citizenship or disability. Harassment in any form is prohibited, including verbal, physical
and visual sexual harassment. Any student who believes he or she has been harassed by
a fellow student, staff member, advisor, or representative of the institution should
promptly report the incident to Title IX Coordinator, George Vukazich, Senior Director of
Human Resources, located in Human Resources, Modular 146, (extension 68812).
Reasonable Accommodation
The Graduate School complies with the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and has adopted a policy that assures continued
reasonable accommodation will be provided for students with disabilities so they can
participate fully in the educational program and activities.
The general definition of a student with a disability is any person who has “a physical or
mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life
activities,” and any person who has “a history of, or is regarded as having, such an
impairment.” The Graduate School is not required by law to change the “fundamental
nature or essential curricular components of its programs in order to accommodate the
needs of disabled students,” but it must provide reasonable academic accommodation.
Students with learning disabilities as well as physical disabilities may register for
accommodations with George Vukazich, Senior Director of Human Resources, located in
Human Resources, Modular 146, (extension 68812).
Use of Alcohol / Illegal Substances
Use of alcohol or drugs that violates applicable laws is strictly prohibited. In addition,
students must comply with rules regarding campus activities involving the legal use of
such substances.
41
The illegal or abusive use of alcohol and/or other drugs by student’s impacts educational
outcomes. For this reason, the Graduate School is committed to providing an
environment free of illegal drug and alcohol use. Students needing assistance in
addressing issues involving drug or alcohol use are encouraged to seek help through the
Horizon Health assistance plan offered to students, which may be accessed by calling
(888) 293-6948 / TTD (866) 846-5949. This service is available 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year.
Alcohol
Expectations regarding alcohol use include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The purchase, possession, or consumption of any alcoholic beverages (including
beer and wine) by any person under the age of 21 is prohibited.
2. Alcoholic beverages will not be provided to individuals under 21 years of age.
3. The selling, either directly or indirectly, of alcoholic beverages (including beer
and wine) except under the authority of a California Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board license is prohibited. This includes selling cups, mixes, ice, tickets for
admission, required donations, etc.
4. The serving of alcohol to an intoxicated person or to the point of intoxication is
prohibited.
5. The act(s) of being drunk and disorderly in public view, including on campus and
public sidewalks and walkways surrounding the campus, is prohibited.
6. Behavior that is disruptive or abusive to others as a result of using intoxicants.
Alcohol and Event Planning
Individuals planning on serving alcohol at any on-campus function must get prior
approval. Contact the Registrar for additional information. Approval must be obtained
for all events on campus.
Drug Policy
The Graduate School expects all students and student groups to comply with all local,
state and federal laws regarding the use, possession, sale or consumption of illegal
drugs. It is the responsibility of each individual to be aware of, and abide by, all federal,
state and local ordinances and university regulations regarding the same. Current laws
provide for severe penalties for violations which may result in criminal records.
42
Tobacco Policy
The use of tobacco is prohibited on City of Hope premises, including in student housing.
Respectful Treatment of Others
The Graduate School is a multicultural community of people from diverse racial, ethnic
and class backgrounds, national origins, religious and political beliefs, physical abilities,
and sexual orientations. Our interactions are enriched by our acceptance of one
another, and we strive to learn from each other in an atmosphere of positive
engagement and mutual respect. Students are expected to take responsibility for
awareness of racism, sexism, ageism, xenophobia, homophobia, and other forms of
oppression.
Discrimination will not be tolerated in our community. This includes, but is not limited
to, verbal or written abuse, threats, harassment, intimidation, or violence against
person or property. In this context, we do not accept alcohol or substance abuse as an
excuse, reason, or rationale for such abuse, harassment, intimidation, or violence. Such
inappropriate behavior will subject a student to discipline.
Payroll Categories
Students are not employees. They may receive stipends or other forms of
compensation and such payments may be processed via City of Hope’s payroll system.
For purposes of payroll, graduate students will be separated into two categories with
the following titles:
•
Graduate Student/Non-Employee (this designation is only for students provided
a Graduate Research Assistantship; that is, students in the second year and
beyond)
•
Graduate Student/Non-Employee1 (this designation is only for students provided
a stipend)
These distinct categories will allow the administration to better track required tax
withholding for domestic and foreign students, and will provide a means to ensure the
accuracy of time and effort reporting.
43
Payroll Method - Payroll (W-2) versus Accounts Payable (1099)
•
Graduate Student/Non-Employee
Even though the Graduate Student/Non-Employee (students in their second year
and beyond) is not an “employee,” they may receive stipends or compensation
via the COH payroll system so that the required tax withholdings can be
adequately calculated and tracked. Students, unlike employees, are exempt
from paying Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
Graduate Student/Non-Employees will receive a W-2 and will need to file a tax
return annually, per Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and California Franchise Tax
Board (FTB) guidelines. These students will need to complete a new W-4 form
and provide updated home address information by April 1.
•
Graduate Student/Non-Employee1
Graduate Student/Non-employee1 (first-year graduate students), will receive
stipends or compensation via City of Hope’s Accounts Payable system. Foreign
students in this category will receive a 1042-S and will need to file a tax return
annually, per IRS and California FTB guidelines.
City of Hope cannot set up a savings account for student taxes. Students are free
to set up their own savings accounts and set aside funds for taxes.
Direct Deposit
All graduate students will have the ability to have their payments “direct deposited.”
Any student wishing to participate in direct deposit must complete a direct deposit form
and attach a canceled check, and submit these items to Payroll.
PeopleSoft Access
Graduate students in their second year and beyond will be active in PeopleSoft and will
be able to log in and access personal information.
Attendance
Students are required to be in attendance full time for both instructional and research
activities. A leave of absence will be granted in exceptional cases only by the Dean of
the Graduate School.
44
The student commitment is full time, with reasonable consideration for holidays,
vacation, illness, and maternity leave, as described below. Students are expected to
work hard and make steady progress on their dissertation topic because the outcome of
their research impacts their advisors, colleagues in the lab, and the entire institute.
Students are discouraged from engaging in part-time employment on the side as this
will diminish the quality of their research and slow their progress toward degrees.
Occasionally, an advanced student may begin to transition to his/her next position, such
as teaching part-time at night, but this or any other part-time employment may be done
only with the permission of the student’s advisor.
Leave of Absence
The student’s advisor and the Graduate School Office must be informed when a student
is not available to conduct his/her lab research or attend classes. Students are provided
ten sick days per year. If a student has a serious illness or personal emergency that
requires more than ten days, he/she may request a leave of absence from his/her
advisor and the Graduate School Office by submitting the Absence Request Form
(Appendix C). If a student goes on approved leave, the School or the advisor will
continue stipend payments and benefits up to a maximum of thirty working days per
calendar year, provided that the student is in good academic standing. After thirty days,
if the student is unable to return due to illness, he/she may receive only 60% of his/her
stipend by applying for short-term disability insurance. To get a
claim form, students must contact Candace Nicholson at [email protected] or 949-583-2925 x414.
If at all possible, students should avoid going on leave as this may slow their progress
and could require developing a new project upon their return. The maximum leave is
one year; longer leaves must be approved by the Dean. Students returning from a leave
must inform the Graduate School Office at least one month before returning. In the
case of leaves shorter than two months, prior to commencing the leave, the student and
the Graduate School Office may agree upon a return date and any required advance
notification prior to return. Students with questions regarding leaves should contact the
Graduate School Office for more information.
Parental Leave
When a student learns that he/she is expecting a baby, he/she should tell the advisor
and Graduate School Office immediately to plan for the event. Expectant mothers and
fathers may take thirty working days for parental leave, during which time the student
will continue to receive stipend and benefits. Students should submit the Absence
Request Form (Appendix C) in advance of the leave. The student could extend the leave
using some of the 22 days mentioned in the next "Vacation" section, but should caution
against using all 22 days at once, since these days are meant to last the year. Deadlines
45
and requirements may be extended to accommodate the parental leave. Students with
questions regarding parental leaves should contact the Graduate School Office for more
information.
Vacation
The graduate school encourages students to take vacation days and holidays as part of
maintaining a healthy work/life balance. The Graduate School offers students ten days
of vacation, and twelve holidays, for a total of 22 days per year. The number of holidays
is based on six standard holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving, and Christmas) and six floating holidays. While vacation days are for
personal time off, holidays are distinct from vacation days in that they refer to particular
days of some for personal significance, such as a cultural holiday, or a day surrounding
standard holidays (e.g. the day after Thanksgiving). However, in practice holidays and
vacation days can be used interchangeably (with a total of 22 days per year).
To use a vacation day or holiday, students should take the following steps.
1. Vacation or holiday plans should be discussed and approved by the student's
mentor.
2. A filled-out Absence Request Form should be submitted to the student's mentor
for approval before submitting it to the Graduate School Registrar, and the
mentor's business manager. The purpose of this Absence Request Form is to
have accurate information on who is on campus, which is important in the case
of an emergency, as one example. In contrast, this form is not to be used to
reflect any change in the students status. The student stipend is guaranteed
regardless of vacation or holiday usage. For standard holidays, an Absence
Request Form is not required.
It is the responsibility of the mentor to implement the policy by monitoring student
attendance. A student that exceeds the days allowed by this policy is subject to
academic probation. In such an instance, mentors should contact the Interim Associate
Dean of Administration and Student Development. In general, the Interim Associate
Dean of Administration and Student Development can be contacted regarding questions
or conflicts about how to implement the policy. Any such conflicts or details that are not
readily resolved at this stage will be reviewed by the GOC.
For Absence Request form see Appendix C.
International Students
When travelling internationally ensure your I-20 document has been signed by a
designated institutional official. These are the interim Dean of Administration and
Student Development, the Academic Programs Administrator or Sherri Pattanakiat.
46
Benefits
Students receive medical and dental benefits through Garnett Powers, and they are
administered through City of Hope Human Resources. Details about benefits may be
found at http://www.garnett-powers.com/coh .
Student Fees
Student fees of $75 are collected twice a year. First-year students must pay by check or
cash. Advanced students pay by payroll deduction (October 1 and March 1).
Student Loans
There are very few avenues for graduate student loans.
• Stafford loans: Most graduate students can borrow up to $20,500 a year in federal
Stafford loans and cannot exceed $138,500 between undergrad and grad school. Those
limits jump to $47,167 annually, with a lifetime cap of $224,000, for students in certain
health fields. Graduate students only qualify for unsubsidized Stafford loans, which
begin accruing interest immediately.
• Perkins loans: Graduate students with limited financial resources may qualify for a
Perkins loan, but experts warn that these funds are few and far between. While the
Perkins loan is a federal program, the funds are doled out by the institution and loan
payments are made directly to the school. Qualifying students can receive up to $8,000
a year in Perkins loans, which come with a fixed interest rate of 5 percent. Unlike
Stafford and PLUS loans for graduate students, interest on Perkins loans does not begin
accruing until nine months after graduation.
The registrar of the Irell and Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences of City of
Hope assists its graduate students in good academic standing to defer their government
and private undergraduate study loans. When a graduate student in good academic
standing needs to provide a certification of current enrollment letter to his/her private
loan agency, the registrar can also help with this matter.
Hardship Supplement
Students with demonstrable financial hardship can apply to the graduate school for an
annual “Hardship Supplement”. Supplements will be provided as funding permits.
Applications should be submitted to the Interim Associate Dean for Administration and
Student Development. Form can be found in Appendix D. To apply the student must
also supply a complete budget with a request for a specific dollar amount per month.
Additional documentation may be requested to demonstrate financial hardship. The
supplement if awarded will be available for one year and must be renewed by
reapplication each year. The student must demonstrate that they are eligible for each
request. To qualify students must be in good academic standing.
47
Degree Requirements
The Graduate Program in Biological Sciences will grant a Ph.D. degree upon completion
of all of the necessary requirements. The time spent in the program will be devoted to
full-time study and research, and the number of years dedicated to this pursuit will
depend on the student’s prior training and the dissertation project chosen. As students
approach graduation, they may have opportunities to teach part-time, with the
permission of their dissertation advisors.
Though courses, qualifying examinations, and time spent conducting experiments are all
necessary, they are not sufficient for obtaining a Ph.D. The standards by which a
student’s research and dissertation are evaluated by the faculty are set forth below.
During the first year, the student must complete the core curriculum and three
laboratory rotations (~8 weeks each). Students must receive a grade of B or better in all
course work to continue in the program. If a student does not pass a class for any
reason, the GOC will determine whether the student must repeat the entire class or
simply the sections that the student failed.
Students who cannot complete a class for any reason are responsible for
communicating with the course instructors and the school administration regarding
their reasons for withdrawing. It will be at the discretion of the instructors, course
coordinator, and GOC to decide whether the student will receive a fail or an incomplete.
Because classes are only offered once a year, students are strongly discouraged from
withdrawing from a class.
Students who fail a class will have an F on their permanent record, but if they repeat
and pass the class the new grade will also be recorded on the transcript and the fail will
not be calculated on the grade point average.
Rotations earn ten credits each and are graded P/ F. Students must pass three rotations
to advance to candidacy.
The core curriculum is the main lecture requirement. It contains eight courses:
Biochemistry and Structural Biology, Principles of Gene Expression; Cell Biology,
Biostatistics, Computational Biology, Fundamentals of Scientific Research (FSR),
Responsible Conduct of Research, and Scientific Writing.
Students must be in good academic standing to take the qualifying examinations and
advance to candidacy.
48
A credit is defined as one hour of contact per week, per semester. (Fall and Spring
comprise the semesters, with laboratory work conducted throughout the Summer as
well.) The Core Curriculum provides the student with 16 credits.
After completing the first-year courses, the student must pass a two-part Qualifying
Examination. Part One, the Research Proposal, is an NIH-style hypothetical
experimental proposal. Part Two, the Dissertation Proposal, is an NIH-style
experimental proposal based on the student’s actual dissertation topic.
Students after the first year are required to take a two-credit literature based journal
club every year, graded P/F. Special tutorials may be provided, as needed, on an
individual basis. Students are also required to attend and participate in the two-credit
Leading-Edge Lecture Series, a seminar series conducted by the students. Each year the
students invite eight prominent scientists to present a seminar. Advanced students
must attend six sponsors meetings and seminars to pass; first-year students must attend
two sponsors meetings and seminars.
Research and dissertation preparation provide 10 credits per semester. This will result
in the accumulation of a minimum of 38 credits per year. Each graduating student has
up to six months to finish his/her written dissertation after he/she passes the oral
defense. Although a student may receive a Ph.D. diploma, he/she will not be considered
a graduate of the program unless the written dissertation is timely completed.
Transfer Credit
Transfer credit as defined by Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences
includes two distinct situations. First, transfer credit for classes taken prior to
acceptance into the graduate program will not be given. This includes classes taken
while the student was an undergraduate and a graduate student, no matter the courselevel. Second, transfer credit for classes taken after acceptance into the graduate
program will be given. Only one such course may be transferred to the graduate
program. All courses to be taken for transfer credit must be approved by the GOC and
be recorded on the students’ transcript as such. Students must earn a B or better to
receive course credit.
49
Graduate Student Travel Awards
The Graduate School encourages second-year graduate students and beyond to attend
national and international scientific meetings. Students planning to attend meetings are
expected to apply to the meeting organizers for student assistance funds. In addition,
as funding permits, the School will grant up to $1000 of support to graduate students
who wish to present their work at scientific meetings to offset the costs of registration,
travel, lodging, and food. Students will be reimbursed for expenses after submitting
their receipts to Marina Sanchez. To qualify, students must be in good academic
standing and presenting their research at the conference.
Students must apply before the meeting. Applications should be submitted to the
Interim Associate Dean of Administration and Student Development. The application
must include an abstract of the research the student will be presenting, proof that the
student has applied for meeting assistance, an itemized budget (see below), and a copy
of the meeting announcement. Preference will be given to students who have not
previously received an award.
Graduate Student Travel Budget Request
Student Name:
Advisor:
Application Date:
Destination:
Purpose of Trip:
Dates of Trip:
Registration Fee:
Estimated Travel Costs:
Estimated Lodging and Per Diem Food Costs:
Total Costs:
Form can be found in Appendix E.
50
PATH TO GRADUATION
53
Ethical Principles and Practices
Academic Honesty of Students - Academic Integrity Committee Overview
Since the scientific research enterprise is built upon a foundation of trust, unethical
student activity, such as fabrication, plagiarism, and cheating, shall be dealt with firmly.
The Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) (chaired by the Associate Dean) will investigate
allegations of improper student behavior, including fabrication, plagiarism and cheating.
The findings of the Committee will be transmitted to the Dean, and the Dean, in
consultation with the GOC, shall determine what, if any, disciplinary action shall be
taken. The possible consequences of violations of academic integrity range from a
reprimand in the student’s file to suspension or dismissal from the program. Appeals
should be addressed to the Dean of the Graduate School.
AIC Jurisdiction
The AIC will fall under the jurisdiction of the Graduate Student Organization (GSO) and
the GOC. When necessary, the AIC will present updates to the GSO Student Body at GSO
meetings being sure to maintain individual students’ anonymity. Also, when necessary,
the GSO President will present the recommendations of the AIC to the members of the
GOC.
AIC Membership
The AIC will be composed of three voting members. These voting members will be the
President and the Secretary of the Graduate Student Organization (GSO) unless the
issue is regarding one of these students.
The Associate Dean will serve as the AIC Chair. The AIC Chair will be responsible for
organizing AIC meetings, delegating responsibilities amongst the other members of the
AIC, and reporting to the GSO Student Body at GSO meetings.
In addition to the AIC Chair, one voting member will be elected by the committee to
serve as the AIC Secretary. The AIC Chair cannot serve as the AIC Secretary. The AIC
Secretary will be responsible for taking detailed notes at AIC meetings, compiling
written academic integrity investigation reports, compiling written AIC
recommendations to the GOC, and compiling an annual report in September that
describes the cases investigated by the AIC to be submitted to the Associate Deans.
52
In addition to the three voting members, the current GSO President will serve as a nonvoting member and will act as the AIC’s liaison with the GOC.
AIC Duties
Recommended Measures to Prevent/Deter Academic Dishonesty
Each year, the AIC will compile a list of recommended measures that will prevent/deter
cheating, plagiarism and other acts of academic dishonesty. These recommendations
will be submitted to the GOC, and it will be the responsibility of the members of the
GOC to implement these measures as they deem fit.
The initial list of measures will be based off of the Student Academic Integrity Survey
results obtained in March/April of 2009. This list of recommendations will be revised
annually by the newly elected AIC, incorporating new ideas and altering old ideas in
order to best represent the current students’ opinions.
Investigation of Academic Dishonesty/Suggestion for Consequences
The AIC will serve as the first step in enforcing the academic integrity policy of the
Graduate School. The AIC will perform the initial investigations of academic dishonesty
allegations. These investigations will include: 1) interviewing the person(s) making the
allegation, 2) evaluating the merits of the allegation, 3) interviewing the accused
student, 4) interviewing other parties involved in the incident, and 5) compiling the
above findings.
Following the investigation of each academic dishonesty allegation, the AIC will compile
a written report of the investigation that concludes with suggestions for the GOC
regarding consequences for the student’s infringement. The guilt of the individual and
the suggested consequences should be voted upon by the AIC, and the results of these
votes should be included in the written report. The GSO President will present the
report to the GOC, and it will be the responsibility of the members of the GOC to
implement the AIC recommendations based on the ruling of the GOC.
Annual Report: Summary of Academic Dishonesty Cases
Each September, the AIC will compile an annual report that summarizes the cases
investigated by the AIC during the previous year’s term. This annual report will remove
student’s names from the cases and refer to the accused students as Student A, Student
B, and so on. Each case will be briefly summarized to include: the alleged incident of
academic dishonesty, the main findings of the investigation, the AIC votes, the
recommendations of the AIC to the GOC, and the consequences to the accused student.
53
The report will be submitted to the Associate Deans and distributed to the GSO Student
Body following revision by the Associate Deans to ensure that student anonymity is
maintained. Investigation notes reports, and related documentation will be maintained
confidentially by the Registrar.
54
Learning Outcomes
1. Graduates have general knowledge of the biomedical sciences.
Outcome 1.1: Graduates have a solid understanding of the concepts of genetics,
biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, and bioinformatics.
Outcome 1.2: Graduates are familiar with the biomedical literature, with particular
emphasis in their chosen discipline.
Outcome 1.3: Graduates have technical skill in employing the latest technology.
2. Graduates ask meaningful questions and display critical thinking.
Outcome 2.1: Graduates can critically evaluate the design, findings, and implications
of published biomedical research.
Outcome 2.2: Graduates can design experiments, critically examine research data,
and troubleshoot protocols.
Outcome 2.3: Graduates can write and defend research proposals that persuasively
present the purpose, hypotheses, specific aims, experimental design, anticipated
results, analysis, and contingency plans.
3. Graduates make significant, original contributions to biomedical research.
Outcome 3.1: Graduates can identify researchable questions, conduct critical
literature reviews, and design effective laboratory experiments.
Outcome 3.2: Graduates have generated research data that advances the
understanding of biological phenomena.
Outcome 3.3: Graduates have generated ideas, data, and writing of sufficient quality
to be accepted by professional peer reviewers.
4. Graduates possess the professional skills required for success as scientists.
Outcome 4.1: Graduates recognize ethical issues arising from research and abide by
established ethical guidelines.
Outcome 4.2: Graduates are reliable, collegial, and professional in their conduct.
55
Outcome 4.3: Graduates can write professional-quality articles and grant
applications.
Outcome 4.4: Graduates can orally present and discuss research findings in formal
and informal settings with students, scientists, and laymen.
Outcome 4.5: Graduates successfully compete for postdoctoral fellowships and
academic and industry positions.
Outcome 4.6: Graduates complete program in a timely fashion.
Outcome 4.7: Graduates possess a commitment to lifelong learning.
56
The Leading-Edge Lectures
Description: The Leading-Edge Lectures (LEL) is sponsored by the Irell & Manella
Graduate School of Biological Sciences Graduate School students. Each year the
students select eight outstanding biomedical scientists to present a research seminar.
Before each talk, the students and the faculty administrator will meet for a presentation
and discussion session. Here, the student sponsor will summarize one or two of the
most relevant articles by the invited scientist and lead a discussion of the techniques
and data with the other students. Students will then attend the seminar and lead the
question and answer session that follows.
Objectives: The best and most current scientific information is most often obtained
from seminars. However, presenters often omit important information in the interest of
brevity, or fail to discuss interesting implications. In these circumstances it is the
obligation of the seminar audience to bring these issues forward in the form of
questions to the speaker. Primed with the proper questions, the period following a
seminar can be where the speaker’s best thinking on the subject is revealed. Asking
questions of the caliber that will compel the speaker to reveal such information after
the lecture requires that the attending scientists possess the capacity to rapidly
assimilate information during the lecture. Since familiarity with a subject greatly
improves this capacity, the summary and discussion session that precedes the lecture
should greatly facilitate the students’ participation in the post-seminar questioning.
Speaker Selection: The student body is responsible for assembling the list of speakers.
The students will suggest possible speakers and vote to determine who will be invited.
Student Sponsorship: Each speaker will be represented by a student sponsor
responsible for arranging the speaker’s visit, assisted by the Graduate School
administration. The sponsor will also select the papers, summarize the relevant papers
at the pre-seminar meeting, lead the discussion, introduce the speaker before the
seminar, and lead the question and answer session. Any student may sponsor a speaker.
However, more senior students are particularly encouraged to be sponsors as their
greater insight and experience will be useful in introducing the material to their fellow
students. LEL is intended to promote teaching and teamwork skills.
Grading/Attendance: LEL is required. Grading will be pass/fail, based solely on
attendance at both the pre-seminar meeting and the seminar. Attendance at six of the
eight pre-seminar/seminars per year is required to pass. First-year students are
expected to attend two sessions (both sponsor’s meeting and talk. Graduating students
are still required to take LEL until they pass the dissertation oral defense and the
required points will be prorated. LEL grades become a permanent part of the student’s
transcript. If a student must miss more than two sessions and wishes to avoid a failing
grade, the individual may write a 3-5 page paper based on the speaker’s research that
57
will be evaluated by the student sponsor, the faculty administrator, and a faculty
member with expertise in the field. If satisfactory, it will count for attendance.
For Pre-LEL Evaluation From see Appendix F.
58
Journal Club Seminars
Every student after the first year is required to participate in a journal club, where
members take turns presenting a current research article to the group. Participants
must attend all seminars and make at least one presentation. General format is one
hour for a seminar and discussion. It is a required course, graded pass (P), incomplete
(I) or Fail (F).
Available Journal Clubs (All 2 Units)
Comparative Medicine
Coordinator: Richard Ermel, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Current Science
Coordinator: Michael Barish, Ph.D.
DNA Repair and Recombination
Coordinator: Jeremy Stark, Ph.D.
RNA Epigenetics & Chromatin Structure
Coordinator: Mark Boldin, M.D/Ph.D. & Dustin Schones, Ph.D.
Immunology
Coordinator: Zuoming Sun, Ph.D.
Protein Post-Translation Modification
Coordinator: Yuan Chen, Ph.D.
Signaling and Regulation with Translational Focus
Coordinator: David Ann, Ph.D.
Stem Cell Biology
Coordinator: Hsun Theresa Ku, Ph.D.
Structural and Chemical Biology
Coordinator: John C. Williams, Ph.D.
59
1. Students must register for a journal club each year.
2. The Journal Club leader is responsible for scheduling the student presentation, and
for assigning one or more faculty members present to be the evaluator.
3. The faculty evaluator fills out the forms and discusses the evaluation with the
student.
4. Copies of the final evaluation form are submitted to the Graduate School, the student
and the student's mentor.
A Guide to the Evaluation of a Student Journal Club Presentation
Academic
1. Choice of paper: Did the work attempt to make a significant advance in the field?
Was the paper appropriate for the target audience?
2. Did the student provide relevant background information for understanding the
paper? Did this information go beyond what was stated in the paper introduction, e.g.
was there an appropriate review of previous or concurrent related literature? Did the
student fit the work into the context of the field?
3. Did the student understand what he/she was talking about? Was he/she prepared?
Was he/she honest about an issue that he/she did not understand?
Paper Presentation: Did the student appropriately present and evaluate the data?
1. Hypothesis: Did he/she state the hypothesis being tested?
2. Explanation of Methods: Did he/she describe how the assays were done? Did he/she
state whether the experimental system(s) or methods were appropriate?
3. Explanation of experimental rationale and data: Did he/she explain the purpose of
each experiment, what the controls were, point out data presented in figures?
4. Critique: Did the student evaluate whether the findings were convincing or not? Did
he/she state whether the hypothesis was proven or whether alternatives should have
been considered? Did he/she evaluate the significance of the paper?
5. Future directions: Did the student propose additional experiments that might have
been done to make the work more convincing? Did the student discuss potential future
experimental directions that might be taken?
60
Style
1. Eye contact with audience? Annoying mannerisms?
2. Appropriately answering/discussing audience questions or comments?
3. Figures large enough to be viewed on projector; figures well labeled?
4. Language usage precise, jargon explained?
For Evaluation of Student Journal Club Seminar Presentation Form see Appendix G.
61
Laboratory Rotations
Each first year graduate student is required to have a minimum of three lab rotations.
The purposes of the rotations are (1) to help students find the research area and lab in
which they want to conduct their dissertation research, (2) to learn experimental
techniques, (3) to expose students to a broad range of intellectual and technical
approaches to address current research challenges, and (4) to develop students’ skills in
public speaking and scientific writing. The rotation advisor should help the student
understand how their experiments fit into the overall approach of the laboratory to the
biomedical problem under investigation, and the strengths and limits of different
techniques.
Each lab rotation is carried out in a different lab and lasts approximately eight weeks.
The student is expected to spend a minimum of 20 hours per week in the lab during a
rotation. It is also expected that the student perform at an exceptional level in course
work during this time and thus should be allowed some leeway to study during weeks
when they have examinations. The purpose of the rotation is learning, not labor.
For the first rotation, first-year students submit a list their top three choices and the
Deans make the final selection. Please send your selections to the Interim Associate
Dean of Administration and Student Development by noon on September 2. For the
second and third rotations, students are free to approach any professor from the
Professor-Series Graduate School faculty Members list in this handbook, with the advice
of the Graduate School. Again, to distribute the students as widely as possible, no
professor may take more than one rotation student at the same time without the
permission of the Graduate Oversight Committee. Students are not permitted to rotate
in a lab at City of Hope in which they have previously worked.
Students begin their rotations in the middle of September. By July 1st, students must
have established a dissertation advisor, or have started an optional rotation. Students
that choose to perform an optional rotation should find a rotation advisor well in
advance of the end of FSR, and begin the rotation no later than the Monday following
the last session of FSR, and contact the registrar to provide a record of this selection.
The optional rotation session does not have a defined end date, but the final deadline
for establishing a dissertation advisor is September 1st, or the student may be subject to
dismissal.
Start
End
First Rotation
Second Rotation
September 12
November 14
November 4
January 20
Third Rotation
Optional
January 30
No later than
March 24
No set date
62
Oral
Presentation
November 8
January 24
Report Due
March 28
April 1
November 11
January 27
Rotation
June 20th
Students are required to write a report at the end of each rotation. The report should
be 5-8 pages in length and summarize your entire project in the context of the field. The
report should include the following sections: background and significance (1 pg),
methods and materials (1-2 pgs.), results (1-2 pgs.), discussion (1-2 pgs.), future
experiments (1 pg.), and references. And most importantly, it should be written in
general language accessible to an educated, intelligent reader, not only to scientists
and the people in that laboratory.
All of the first-year students have been enrolled in a rotations class on turnitin.com, our
online plagiarism software. The log-in information will be sent to you in late September.
Please submit your reports to Turnitin.com prior to emailing them to the Graduate
School Office.
Students are also expected to present talks about their rotation project. One of these
should be to the lab group. There will be another group meeting in which all first-year
students publicly describe their project and respond to questions. These talks should be
5-6 minutes long, with a couple of minutes for questions and answers. The talk should
roughly follow the format of the paper, with one or two PowerPoint slides for each
major point. The first group meeting is scheduled for Tuesday November 8 from 2:00 to
5:00 p.m. The second is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday January 24.
The professors who host rotation students should attend the presentation and must
read the written report. They should give the student constructive feedback and turn in
an evaluation of their performance. The final corrected report should be given to the
registrar and becomes a permanent part of the student file. Students who do not
receive a laboratory rotation evaluation, from their mentor by the deadline set by the
Graduate School, will receive an incomplete grade on their transcript.
Rotations are required and graded Pass/Fail. Students who do not perform to the
satisfaction of their professor, and who do not turn in a rotation report, will receive a
Fail on their transcript and risk dismissal from the graduate school.
For the Laboratory Rotation Evaluation form see Appendix H.
63
Qualifying Examinations
Qualifying examinations identify students who are Ph.D. candidates based on their
performance. Thus, these examinations are a point at which the student and/or the
Qualifying Examination Committee can evaluate the suitability of a student to continue
in the program.
Qualifying Examination Part 1. Original Research Proposal
PURPOSE
• To test rigorously student capacities to:
• Survey the literature and identify knowledge gaps
• Formulate a hypothesis and choose experimental models
• Evaluate approaches and design experiments to test the hypothesis
• Discuss potential pitfalls and alternative approaches
POLICY
• Eligibility for Qualifying Examinations:
• Students must complete and pass the first year core curriculum.
• Students must have a thesis advisor.
• Date for oral defense and submission of Qualifying Examination 1 committee
recommendation to the Registrar:
o November 15 of the second academic year (recommended times are
indicated in Additional Information).
• For students who take additional time to complete the first year core curriculum,
the deadline to complete Qualifying Examination 1 is 5 months after passing the
last required course.
• The student must write a proposal on a topic that is different from prior research
and the planned dissertation. The student must defend it by presenting a public
seminar and answering questions.
o The Qualifying Examination 1 requirement will be considered fulfilled
only if a majority of voting members of the Qualifying Examination 1
Committee (QE1 Committee) agrees in writing on the quality of the
written proposal and the oral defense.
Topic choice
The Qualifying Examination 1 topic must be developed independently by the student
and be approved by the GOC.
64
The QE1 Committee is composed of the thesis advisor (non-voting) and at least 3 other
Graduate School Faculty members, one of whom will be identified as Chair. Additional
voting or non-voting members may be added when necessary.
Students will submit an NIH-style Biosketch to GOC for approval, with a personal
statement that includes:
(1) The proposal topic,
(2) The student’s past research experience,
(3) The planned research or research interests of the advisor’s laboratory,
(4) The names of the QE1 Committee members and the QE1 Committee Chair
The Graduate Oversight Committee or Curriculum Associate Dean will inform students
whether the topic documents are acceptable. If not acceptable, the student will be
given 1 week to revise.
Written Proposal
• Students may seek the advice or comments from their Advisor, other faculty
members, and/or researchers, but are encouraged to work as independently as
possible.
• The format for the proposal follows that of NIH Pre-Doctoral Fellowships for
the Specific Aims and Research Strategy sections.
• Page limits: 1 page Specific Aims, 6 pages Research Strategy
• Within 2 weeks of receiving student’s written proposal, the QE1 Committee
members will each prepare a brief written critique to the student and indicate
whether the proposal is ready for oral defense (using comment sheet under
Additional Information).
• The oral defense can only be scheduled once a majority of the QE1 Committee
members agrees that the proposal is ready for the oral defense.
• Students will submit a written response to each of the critiques along with a
revised written proposal to the QE1 Committee prior to the oral defense.
Oral Defense
• A formal professional seminar presentation of 40-50 minutes that describes
the ideas of the written proposal.
• A public question and answer period.
• A private exam period during which the QE1 Committee asks questions
relevant to the proposal or to core curriculum.
• The QE1 Committee will vote in the absence of the student concerning the
student’s performance of Qualifying Examination 1 and will include the written
proposal and the oral defense in the decision.
• There are three possible decisions for the Qualifying Examination 1 at the oral
defense:
(1) ‘Pass’: The result is communicated to the Registrar along with a
written report from the QE1 Committee.
65
(2) ‘Re-Examination/Revision: The QE1 Committee 1 can recommend that
the student repeat or revise any part of the examination that is
judged deficient. The QE1 Committee will decide the measures
necessary to improve the body of work to have the student fulfill
Qualifying Examination 1. The interim result will be communicated to
the Registrar.
(3) ‘Fail’: The QE1 Committee judges that the work in the QE1 is not of
sufficient quality to qualify the student as a potential doctoral
candidate. The result is communicated to the Registrar along with a
written report.
Final Outcome of Qualifying Exam 1
• The QE1 Committee Chair will submit a single final report on or before
December 15 to the Registrar that summarizes the opinions of the committee
and describes the outcome of the exam. The possible final outcomes for
Qualifying Examination 1 are:
(1) ‘Pass’: the QE1 Committee recognizes the proficiency of the student in
the written, oral, and questioning parts of the examination. ‘Pass’
permits the student to continue to the Thesis Proposal.
(2) ‘Fail’: the QE1 Committee has judged that the student did not
adequately complete the requirements of the Qualifying Examination
1. The GOC will examine the student’s file and determine the action
required.
66
Additional Information
Suggested Due dates
Students should use the following dates as guidelines to complete their Qualifying
Examination 1 requirements in a timely manner:
Topic/Biosketch Approval
July 15
Written proposal
October 1
Presentation of the oral defense
November 1
Qualifying Examination 1 Committee
The QE1 Committee has a central role in defining and assisting the student in this initial
step toward candidacy.
The QE1 Committee should approve the QE1 topic prior to submission of the Biosketch
to the Graduate Oversight Committee.
Students are encouraged to work independently, but to discuss their ideas with their
QE1 Committee members and other experts who could assist in clarifying ideas and the
use of different experimental systems.
QE1 Committee members are not required to serve and may not be appropriate to be
part of the student’s Thesis Committee.
Graduate School Action: Approval Topic, Biosketch, and Qualifying Examination 1
Committee
The Graduate Oversight Committee will forward the names of students with an
acceptable topic for Qualifying Examinations along with the composition of the
Qualifying Examination Committee to the Registrar within 1 week of receiving the
information from the student.
The Graduate Oversight Committee has 3 main roles for approval of the Qualifying
Examination I outline:
(1) To verify that the student’s chosen subject conforms to the policy that it
does not overlap with prior experience or the planned dissertation
research.
(2) To verify that no two student proposal topics are identical.
(3) To verify that the composition of the QE1 Committee and its Chair is
appropriate for the suggested topic. Other QE1 Committee members
can be suggested or the student and the student’s advisor can suggest
67
other members if the Graduate Oversight Committee decides that a
different composition of the student’s committee is warranted.
Graduate School Action on the Written Proposal
Within 2 weeks following submission of the written proposal to the QE1
Committee, each member of the Committee will provide written comments to the
student on the proposal (see comment sheet in the Additional Information) that include
the suitability of the proposal for an oral defense or revision/resubmission of the
proposal.
Extension of Deadlines
The deadline for completion may not be extended unless there is a compelling
and legitimate reason. If a student seeks to extend the deadline for completion, a
completed copy of the written proposal with a brief memo describing the reason(s) for
the delay in completion of the requirements should be submitted to the Associate Dean
of Curriculum by November 1 and reviewed by the Graduate Oversight Committee.
68
Comments for Written Proposal Qualifying Examination for each Committee
Member
Overall Evaluation: Ready for Oral Defense, Not Acceptable, Modify/Resubmit
(Please choose one of the three possibilities)
Significance
Strengths
•
Weaknesses
•
Rationale/Hypothesis
Strengths
•
Weaknesses
•
Innovation
Strengths
•
Weaknesses
•
Approach
Strengths
•
Weaknesses
•
Significance—Is the problem addressed one that will have an impact on biological
and/or biomedical research? Does the subject investigated have wider implications
for other areas of biology or science? Has the student cited critical literature?
69
Rationale—Has the student presented a good background to support the proposed
project and cited relevant, critical literature?
Hypothesis—can the hypothesis presented by the student be tested experimentally in a
reasonable time (2-3 years)?
Innovation—How innovative is the project? A high level of innovation is not necessary.
However, innovation must be addressed in the proposal and the research proposed
must not yet be published in the literature.
Approach—Will the aims presented address the hypothesis and will the aims be able to
be completed? Will the experiments described represent a good approach to
address the hypothesis? Are the Expected Results reasonable? Have Alternative
Outcomes/Approaches been correctly identified?
70
Qualifying Examination 1 Committee and Graduate School Actions on the Oral
Defense
Following the QE1 Committee questioning,
• The student is required to leave room.
• The QE1 Committee is allowed to deliberate concerning the student’s overall
performance and to reflect on the suitability of the student to take Part II of
the qualifying examination.
• The QE1 can also request that the Advisor leave the room if further discussion
is necessary and for voting.
• The QE1 Committee members, not including the Advisor, are responsible for
deciding the outcome and any modifications.
• The QE1 Committee Chair is responsible for composing a brief written
evaluation form that is submitted to the Registrar. This should be done within
one week of the presentation.
71
Possible Aids for the Written Proposal
Sections on Significance and Innovation are available on the NIH web site.
There is no formal requirement, but it is highly recommended that ~2 weeks following
Graduate Oversight Committee topic approval students submit a copy of their
Hypothesis and Specific Aims to their QE1 committee prior to writing the complete
document. This will help reduce re-writing of the written proposal and provide students
with guidance
Another helpful source of information from which some of this is derived is the “The
Grant Application Writer’s Workbook” by Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison.
These sections must be included and an organization for the Research Strategy section is
suggested:
Specific Aims (Limited to 1 page). Detail a rationale for studying the problem that has
been identified and present an introduction to the problem. Briefly, use the rationale to
set up the reasons to test the hypothesis. Identify the gap in the knowledge to be
investigated. Clearly state the central hypothesis that will be tested. List the broad,
long-term objectives and what the proposed research is intended to accomplish.
Testable sub-hypotheses must be stated for each aim. Concisely describe what the
experiments in the aims are expected to show.
Significance. (~0.5-1 page) State the significance of your proposal. What makes doing
the work that is important? In any proposal, this is one of the most critical elements.
Innovation. (~0.5 page) State the novel aspects of the proposal (new vectors, new
approaches, change in method, etc.). Innovation is considered an integral part of new
grant applications.
Research Strategy (~5 pages). Generally, to complete the research in 2-3 years, there
should not be more than 2 aims. The outline for each specific aim in the Research
Strategy section is as follows:
paste])
Specific Aim (restate the specific aim from the Specific Aim section [use copy1.1 Rationale and Feasibility- Provide a brief background that includes a
rationale for the experiments and the sub-hypothesis of the aim.
Preliminary data from the literature that support the hypotheses must be
discussed. Proper references to the literature are required. The gaps in
the knowledge must be identified for the experiments suggested. The
experiments suggested must test the sub-hypothesis and contribute to
testing the central hypothesis.
72
1.2 Research Design- Describe experiments that will be performed and the
procedures to be used to accomplish only this specific aim. Include how
the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Describe any new
methodology and its advantage over existing methodologies.
1.3 Expected Results- Summarize the results anticipated from the described
experiments and how those results support the aim. Do not use
“fabricated data” to describe expected results. Although this is a good
visual aid during presentations, including “fabricated data” is to be
avoided in written proposals.
1.4 Alternative Outcomes/Approaches- Discuss the major potential
difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures and other viable
means that could be used to achieve the aims if the original experiments
are unsuccessful.
Figures and Tables. All Figures and Tables must be clear with legible labels and captions.
Moreover, all Figures and Tables must be referred to in the text. If these are taken from
references, they must be properly cited. The Figures and Tables should appear in the
text immediately following their appearance and not at the end of the document.
Literature Cited. List all references. The in text format for references is not specified,
but in the literature cited section, each reference must include the title, complete list of
all authors, book or journal, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication.
The references should be limited to relevant and current literature. While there is no
page limitation, it is important to be concise and to select only those literature
references pertinent to the proposed research. It is suggested that the number of
references not exceed 100. A reference program such as EndNote or Reference
Manager is highly recommended for this purpose.
The Assessment form for qualifying examination 1 is found in Appendix I.
73
Qualifying Examination Part II. Dissertation Proposal
Purpose
To test rigorously student capacities to:
• Survey the literature and identify knowledge gaps in the dissertation research
area
• Establish an initial plan for dissertation research
• Formulate a hypothesis and choose experimental models
• Evaluate approaches and design experiments to test the hypothesis with
preliminary data
• Discuss potential pitfalls and alternative approaches
• Demonstrate a capacity to address the dissertation research area in writing,
presentation, and responses to questions
Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
Qualifying Examination 2 (QE2) generally follows Qualifying Examination 1.
- Exceptions to that are permitted for students who submit proposals
for external funding. Students, who wish to prepare the QE2
Examination prior to Qualifying Examination 1, must be in good
academic standing, and obtain prior approval from the GOC and the
QE2 Committee
Date for completion and submission of QE2 final report to the Registrar:
September 30 at the end of second academic year.
For students who take additional time to finish the first year core
curriculum, the deadline to complete QE2 is 9 months following the
completion of Qualifying Examination 1.
The QE2 Committee composition:
- The QE2 Committee consists of 4 Professor series faculty members,
one of whom is the student’s Dissertation Advisor.
- Optional: An additional member may be included from the ranks of
Research Professor or Clinical Professor series researchers.
- The Chair of the QE2 Committee must be a Professor series faculty
member.
- There is no requirement for the QE2 Committee to be identical to
that of the Qualifying Examination 1 Committee.
The QE2 Committee shall be approved for the purpose of faculty status by one of
the Deans by February 1.
Proposal outline submitted to the Committee by May 1.
The procedure for QE2 is similar to that of Qualifying Examination 1, except that
the whole process is conducted by the QE2 Committee.
74
•
The student must write a proposal on the dissertation topic and defend it by
presenting a private seminar to the QE2 Committee and responding to relevant
questions.
•
The Dissertation Proposal requirement will be considered fulfilled only if a
majority of voting members QE2 Committee agrees in writing on the quality of
the written proposal and the oral defense.
The QE2 Committee will provide a written evaluation of their findings to the
graduate school Registrar which will become a permanent part of the student’s
record. This report includes specific evaluative comments and addresses the
suitability of the student to be admitted to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree.
Students are strongly encouraged to use the QE2 Research Proposal as an
opportunity to construct a graduate fellowship proposal.
•
•
Written QE2 Proposal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students are encouraged to seek the advice or comments from their Advisor,
other QE2 Committee members, other faculty members, and/or researchers, but
work as independently as possible on the written proposal.
The format for the proposal follows that of NIH Pre-Doctoral Fellowships for the
Specific Aims and Research Strategy sections.
Page limits: 1 page Specific Aims, 6 pages Research Strategy
Written proposal submitted to the Committee June 15
Within 2 weeks of receiving student’s written proposal, the QE2 Committee
members will each prepare a brief written critique to the student and indicate
whether the proposal is ready for oral defense (using comment sheet under
Additional Information).
The oral defense can only be scheduled once a majority of the QE2 Committee
members agrees that the proposal is ready for the oral defense.
Students will submit a written response to each of the critiques along with a
revised written proposal to the QE2 Committee prior to the oral defense.
Written QE2 Proposal Submitted or to be submitted to an Outside Funding
Organization
Students are encouraged to submit original research proposals to outside organizations
to obtain funds that would also support their dissertation research. In order to use
those proposals for the QE2 Proposal, students shall obtain permission from the QE2
Committee.
•
NIH Pre-Doctoral Fellowship format is acceptable for the QE2 Examination
without modification.
75
•
Other Agencies: If the agency is not the National Institutes of Health Predoctoral Fellowship program, students must submit the outlines of the
requirements of the proposed funding agency to the Dissertation Advisor and
the QE2 Committee.
- For other organizations, the requirements of the proposal can differ and
students are required to adhere to the formats required by the funding
organization.
- Equivalency: The decision of equivalency must be a unanimous decision
made by the QE2 Committee prior to preparing the QE2 document. If the
QE2 Committee decides that the outside organization requires sections
or equivalent sections to those of the NIH Pre- Doctoral Fellowship, there
is no need for the student to submit separate documents.
- Non-Equivalency: If the QE2 Committee decides that further
information is necessary for evaluation, the following documents are
recommended for submission by the student:
o Specific Aims (limit of 1 page)
o Significance (limit of 1 page)
o Innovation (limit of 1 page)
o Research Plan of 4-6 pages (if the research plan for an
outside organization is 2 pages or less)
- Outside proposals must also be submitted to the Graduate School Registrar as a PDF
document.
Oral Defense
•
•
•
•
•
The deadline for the oral defense is August 1
A private, formal, professional seminar presentation of 40-50 minutes that
describes the ideas of the written proposal
An examination period during which the QE2 Committee asks questions relevant
to the proposal and to core curriculum if deemed necessary
The QE2 Committee will vote concerning the student’s performance of QE2 and
will include the written proposal and the oral defense in the decision
There are three possible decisions for the QE2 at the oral defense:
(1) “Pass”: The result is communicated to the Registrar along with a written
report from the QE2 Committee.
(2) “Re-Examination/Revision”: The QE2 Committee can recommend that the
student repeat or revise any part of the examination that is judged deficient.
The QE2 Committee will decide the measures necessary to improve the body
of work to have the student fulfill QE2. The interim result will be
communicated to the Registrar.
76
(3) “Fail”: The QE2 Committee judges that the work in the QE2 is not of
sufficient quality to qualify the student as a potential doctoral candidate.
The result is communicated to the Registrar along with a written report.
Final Outcome of Qualifying Exam 2
The QE2 Committee Chair will submit a single final report on or before September 30 to
the Registrar that summarizes the opinions of the committee and describes the
outcome of the exam. The possible three final outcomes for QE2 are:
(1) “Pass”: the QE2 Committee recognizes the proficiency of the student in
the written, oral, and questioning parts of the examination. “Pass” permits
the student to continue to Doctoral Candidacy.
(2) “Fail”: the QE2 Committee has judged that the student did not adequately
complete the requirements of the QE2. The GOC will examine the student’s
file and recommend to the Dean the action required.
Graduate School Action Following the Oral Dissertation Proposal Defense
The QE2 Committee will submit a report of the Oral Dissertation Proposal Defense
within one week of the examination. It is the responsibility of the QE2 Committee Chair
to submit the report to the Registrar.
Following the report, the Graduate Oversight Committee will be contacted regarding the
student’s progress. If a student has completed all other course requirements, Qualifying
Examination I, and Qualifying Examination II, that student will be admitted as a Ph.D.
candidate and informed of the change in status by the Registrar.
Plagiarism
For both Parts I and II of the Qualifying Examination, students are warned that
submitted documents are subject to review by electronic methods to scan for potential
plagiarism. Significant instances of plagiarism brought to the attention of the Graduate
Oversight Committee can be referred to the Academic Integrity Committee. Any
procedures that are required by such action should be strictly adhered to by all involved
parties.
The Assessment form for qualifying examination 2 is found in Appendix J.
77
Training Program in Bioscience Management
The Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences in collaboration with the Keck
Graduate Institute (KGI) of the Claremont Colleges is proud to offer a Management
Training Program for graduate students. In order to participate the student must have
passed Qualifying Exam 2, advanced to candidacy, and receive the full permission of
their research advisor. Students will receive full scholarships to take business-related
courses at KGI and to earn a certificate in bioscience management. The program is
designed to prepare students for intellectually challenging careers in the private sector.
Required course include marketing, finance, strategy, accounting and organizational
behavior. This program provides excellent preparation for careers in biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies as science and disease concepts are integrated with
management and industry.
78
Dissertation Committee Meetings
Every semester students receive a pass or fail grade on their transcript for their
dissertation research. To receive a grade of pass, a student must make progress on their
dissertation research and hold an annual dissertation committee meeting. The first
dissertation committee meeting must be held by the end of June of the third year.
Failure to hold this meeting will result in an Incomplete on the transcript that will turn
into an F.
The Dissertation Committee is formed directly after a student has selected a research
mentor and a dissertation topic.
The Committee consists of no less than three faculty members from at least two
Beckman Research Institute departments/divisions or Medical Center
departments/divisions involved in graduate student training. These voting members will
be chosen jointly by the student and his/her research mentor. They should be familiar
with the research area that encompasses the student’s dissertation project.
In addition, the student’s research mentor will participate as a non-voting member.
He/she will serve primarily as an advisor to the Committee and to facilitate discussion.
The Committee is chaired by a member other than the student’s research mentor. The
GOC may review the committee membership, as necessary. The committee
membership may be reconstituted whenever the student’s dissertation topic is
significantly modified. Committee vacancies will be filled promptly, and, in all cases,
prior to the next meeting following a member’s resignation or reassignment.
The Committee will meet with the student at least once a year to discuss the progress of
the student’s research project. It has been found that meetings more frequent than
once a year help a student make better progress towards their degree. The student is
expected to initiate meetings which will be scheduled jointly by the student and his/her
mentor after consultation with the committee chairperson. The Committee may
schedule more frequent meetings with the student whenever a review indicates that
the student’s progress may benefit from such additional consultation. Prior to each
meeting, the student will provide each committee member with a two- page progress
report on the work that has been conducted since the last meeting and the material
that will be discussed during the meeting. The focus should be on how well the
experiments are achieving the specific aims and proving the hypothesis.
After each meeting, the Committee must prepare a concise appraisal of the student’s
progress and any recommendations for adjustments in the research program. The
report will be signed by all members. The report will be submitted to the Graduate
79
School Office, which will forward a copy to the Dean for his/her information. Any
conflicts between the student, the student’s mentor, and the voting members of the
Dissertation Committee will be resolved by the GOC. Any of these principals may
petition the GOC for a review when an excessive delay in or acceleration of the
preparation or evaluation of a dissertation is encountered.
For the Oral Defense and Dissertation Committee Report see Appendix K.
80
Dissertation Examination Committee
The Dissertation Examination Committee is composed of the members of the student’s
Dissertation Committee augmented with a qualified investigator from another
academic/research institution who is knowledgeable in the area of research that is the
subject of the dissertation. The student and his or her advisor will discuss the selection
of the outside member. Then, in consultation with the student’s research mentor, the
student’s Dissertation Examination Committee will approve the external member. The
outside member should be determined at least two months before the dissertation
defense. At its discretion, the GOC may augment the committee with additional City of
Hope or external members. The Dissertation Examination Committee will be chaired by
one of the City of Hope faculty voting members who served on the Dissertation
Committee.
The Dissertation Examination Committee is appointed as described above when the
Graduate School Office is notified that the student, the student’s mentor, and the
Dissertation Committee have agreed that the student has accumulated sufficient
research findings to prepare a defensible dissertation.
Each member of the Committee is expected to review the dissertation and attend a
public seminar in which the degree candidate presents the dissertation research
findings. Immediately thereafter, the Committee will meet privately with the student to
review any aspect of the dissertation including the research methodology, findings, and
conclusions.
Approval of the dissertation requires the dated signature of all members of the
Dissertation Examination Committee. Committee members who decline to approve the
dissertation must submit individual statements explaining their decision. If one or more
members of the committee feel unable to pass the student, the student would have to
revise their work to meet the member(s) objection. If the objections are seemingly
arbitrary or impossible to meet, the student has the right to create a new dissertation
committee, with approval of the GOC. If a Committee unanimously agrees that a
dissertation is unacceptable, a single statement signed by all members will suffice. The
signed dissertation or dissenting statement should be submitted promptly to the
Graduate School Office.
Graduation Guidelines Check List
A signed and completed Graduation Guidelines Check List must be submitted to the
registrar before the degree is conferred. The checklist can be found in Appendix L.
81
Guidelines for Writing and Defending a Doctoral Dissertation
Principles Underlying the Ph.D. Degree
The Ph.D. degree is awarded by City of Hope to a candidate who has made a significant,
original contribution to scientific knowledge by the submission of a satisfactory
dissertation. All other requirements, such as course work, examinations, and rotations,
must be completed prior to the awarding of the degree. With rare exceptions, the
dissertation research will have been conducted at City of Hope after enrollment in the
graduate program.
The writing of the dissertation should prove that the candidate can conduct research,
can think analytically, and can critically relate their research to that of others in their
field. The dissertation is an account of the candidate’s own research. If parts of the
dissertation are the result of team-based research, the candidate should indicate the
nature and degree of collaboration involved.
Though the candidate works under the supervision of their advisor, the doctoral
dissertation demonstrates the candidate’s intellectual independence. By granting a
Ph.D. degree, Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope
certifies that the candidate is sufficiently expert in the techniques of research as to be
able, without further supervision, to apply these techniques to other research projects,
and sufficiently familiar with their area of investigation to be able to conceive of original
ideas for further research.
The significance of the dissertation may be measured in different ways. The research
should be timely relative to current research. The research should be of publishable
quality, having either already been accepted for publication in recognized refereed
research journals or at least having, in the opinion of the Dissertation Committee
members, the potential for publication.
The originality of the dissertation has several aspects. The candidate may have
confronted a new question or have taken a novel approach to an existing question. The
dissertation may investigate previously ignored material or apply new techniques.
The dissertation must be written in English, at a professional level of expression and
presentation.
82
Format
Inclusion of Previously Published Material
If inclusion of previously published, co-authored material is used, the published material
must be incorporated into a larger argument that binds together the whole dissertation
or dissertation. The common thread linking various parts of the research, represented
by individual papers, should be made explicit, and you should join the papers into a
coherent unit. You are required to prepare introductory, transitional, and concluding
sections. As a matter of courtesy, you should give credit to the publisher.
Use of copyrighted works in your dissertation without securing permission and without
paying royalties is permissible when the circumstances amount to what the law calls
"fair use," that is, when the following factors are weighed: the purpose and character of
the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
A statement from the copyright owner giving you permission to use the material must
be submitted with the dissertation. This permission letter must state that the copyright
owner is aware that ProQuest/UMI may supply single copies upon request and may
proceed under the contract on the agreement form.
Margins
For binding purposes and later ease in copying, every page of the dissertation or
dissertation needs to be kept within the following margins: Top: 1 inch; Right: 1 inch;
Bottom: 1 inch; Left: 11/2 inches (Binding edge).
All manuscript material must fit within these margin requirements (including tables,
headers and footers, figures, and graphs). The page number can be positioned outside
of these margins, but no less than 3/4 inch from the paper edge. When full-page prints
of photographs are desired, the image area of the print must conform to the same
margins as the text.
Spacing
The dissertation must be double-spaced on one side of the page. Footnotes,
bibliographic entries, long quoted passages, and items in lists, tables, and appendices
may be single-spaced.
83
Pagination
Each page of the entire manuscript must be numbered, except where stated below, in
the upper right corner or the bottom center of the page, no less than 3/4 inch from the
edge of the page. The placement of page numbers should be consistent throughout the
manuscript. Pages should be counted or numbered sequentially throughout as follows:
1. The title page is not numbered, although it is counted as "i" in the pagination
2. The approval page is not numbered, although it is counted as "ii" in the pagination
3. The copyright page, if included, is not counted or numbered
4. The abstract is numbered in Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.). It has separate pagination
from the remainder of the manuscript
5. The remaining preliminary pages are numbered with lower case Roman numerals (iii,
iv. v, etc.) Begin numbering the preliminary pages with "iii”. Preliminary pages may
include: dedications, tables of contents, lists of figures, tables, symbols, illustrations, or
photographs, prefaces, introductions, acknowledgments, and vitae, if included in the
manuscript
6. The main body of the text is numbered with Arabic numerals beginning with page "1"
and continuing throughout, including text, illustrative materials, bibliography and
appendices
Figures and Tables
Figures, tables, and images must be clear and legible. If necessary, print figures on
photo-quality paper to enhance their clarity.
Number of Copies
An original and three copies of your doctoral dissertation on approved paper must be
submitted to the Graduate School Office. One copy is for the Lee Graff Medical and
Scientific Library. One copy is for the Graduate School, one copy is for the student, and
one for the mentor. An electronic copy must be submitted to the Graduate School and
to the Lee Graff Medical and Scientific Library. Color figures or graphs must be printed
on color copier paper. Additional copies for the student may be purchased for $35.
Paper
The original and library copy of the dissertation must be on approved white bond paper,
20 lb weight, 25% Cotton Fiber.
84
Typeface
Any legible typeface, except script, italic, or ornamental fonts, is acceptable for the body
of the text. The chosen typeface should be used consistently throughout the
manuscript. Italics may be used appropriately. Type used for appendices, charts,
drawings, graphs, and tables may differ from that used for the text. The recommended
font size for text is twelve.
85
Manuscript Arrangement
The manuscript should be arranged in the following sequence:
Preliminary Pages:
1. Title Page
2. Approval Page
3. Copyright Page or a blank page
4. Abstract
5. Dedication Page (optional)
6. Table of Contents
7. List of Figures, List of Tables. List of Symbols (if applicable)
8. Preface or Introduction (if any)
9. Acknowledgments (optional)
10. CV (optional)
Text:
Text, divided into chapters or sections
Reference Section:
1. References or Bibliography
2. Appendices (if any)
3. Addenda (if applicable)
Title Page, Approval Page, and Abstract
Title Page
1. Indicate full title.
2. The name that appears on your dissertation must be your name exactly as it is
recorded with the Graduate School Office. You must include your full middle name, not
just an initial, if that is the name under which you are registered.
3. Show the exact degree you are receiving, i.e., Doctor of Philosophy. Do not use
abbreviations.
4. The committee must be approved by the GOC. If it has been changed at anytime, you
must be sure the revised committee has been approved.
86
5. The semester and year listed should be the semester in which your degree will be
conferred.
Approval Page
Your committee members must sign the approval page, indicating final approval of your
manuscript. Approval pages are produced by the Graduate School and delivered to the
student’s defense. After the defense the approval pages will remain in the Graduate
School Office until the written document is completed.
Abstract
Your abstract should be prepared carefully, because it will be published exactly as you
submit it. Be sure symbols, as well as foreign words and phrases, are printed clearly and
accurately. Please do not include graphs, charts, tables, or illustrations in your abstract.
The abstract should conform to the same requirements regarding spacing and margins
as the main body of the work. The body of the text of the abstract should not exceed 2
pages in length.
Electronic Submission
Your dissertation will also be entered into a national database of dissertations. You will
submit this electronic copy via Lee Graff Medical and Scientific Library. You must also
give the graduate school an electronic copy of your dissertation.
Publishing Your Dissertation
Your doctoral dissertation is a published work that announces the results of your
research. The Graduate School holds to the tradition that you have an obligation to
make your research available to other scholars. This obligation is met when the
Graduate School submits your dissertation to the Lee Graff Medical and Scientific
Library to be bound and shelved for public use.
Acceptability of Dissertation
If all members of your committee approve the dissertation, they sign the title page. You
then file four copies of the dissertation in the Graduate School following the
requirements in these instructions. If any member of your committee doubts the
acceptability of the dissertation, the committee chair convenes the committee to
discuss it. If one or more members of the committee feel unable to pass you, you will
have to revise your work to meet the member(s) objection. If the objections are
seemingly arbitrary or impossible to meet, you have the right to create a new
87
dissertation committee, with approval of the GOC. If the committee reaches agreement
on its acceptability, the dissertation is signed and filed. If the committee continues to
disagree, the dissertation is sent to the Dean of the Graduate School with a brief
statement of each committee member's opinion. If all members of the committee reject
the dissertation, it is sent to the Dean with a statement to that effect by the committee
chair. In all cases of rejection or split vote, the GOC of the Graduate School makes the
final decision.
Approval of the Written Document
A single copy of the dissertation must be brought to the Graduate School for
proofreading before the final copies are made and bound. A diploma will not be issued
unless the completed dissertation is approved by the Graduate School Office.
88
Title Page Sample
Title: Centered, Capital Letters and Lower-Case, 16 Point
Dissertation by
Your Name as It Appears in School Records
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
Committee Members:
Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope
Duarte, California
Semester, Year
89
Table of Figures Sample:
Use Table Format to Separate Sections in the Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1
Figure 1: Structure of a cis-syn cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer and
4) photoproduct.
77 (6-
CHAPTER 2
Figure 1: Sequencing and methylation analysis of the lower strand of the
lacI gene from nt. +286 to +422.
14
Figure 2: Sequencing and methylation analysis of the upper strand of the
lacI gene from nt. +202 to +329 (left panel) and nt. +106 to +227
(right panel).
47
Figure 3: Sequencing and methylation analysis of the lower strand of the lacI
gene from nt. +69 to +206 (left panel) and the upper strand from nt. -12 to
+125 (right panel).
49
Figure 4: Summary of the methylation pattern along the lacI gene.
51
Table 1: Oligonucleotide primers.
53
CHAPTER 3
Figure 1: Mutational spectrum of the p53 gene in human skin lesions.
85
Figure 2: Methylation analysis of the lacI transgene in embryonic mouse
fibroblasts. (A) Analysis of the upper strand of the lacI gene from
nt. +61 to +138. (B) Analysis of the lower strand from nt. +235 to 337.
116
Figure 3: Emission spectrum of the solar UV simulator with atmospheric
attenuation filter.
145
Figure 4: Mutational spectra of UVC-induced and simulated sunlightinduced mutations. (A) nt. +1 to +600. (B) nt. +601 to +1100.
167
Figure 5: (A) Sequence distribution of UVC, UVB, and sunlight-induced
cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and (B) repair of sunlightinduced dimers.
189
90
Electronic Dissertation Submission
1. Create a PDF file of your dissertation.
2. Go to http://www.etdadmin.com/cityofhope to access the ProQuest/UMI electronic
dissertation system.
3. In the upper right hand corner of the page, choose Student: Submit.
4. The first time you use the system, choose Create an account to choose your own
username and password.
5. Once you are logged in you will see the list of submission steps - work through each of
the steps using the guide below.
6. Submit your dissertation to the system as the last step in the process. The Graduate
School will be notified and will check to make sure all requirements have been met.
Publishing Options
Type of Publishing
The Graduate School will pay for Traditional Publishing. If you would like to make your
work freely available to anyone on the internet, you may choose to upgrade to the Open
Access option and pay the difference.
Publishing Restrictions
If you plan to publish articles based on the content in your dissertation (or if your
dissertation contains commercial intellectual property) you may wish to delay the
release of your dissertation online until a later date. You may choose to delay release
for 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years.
Check the No third party search engine access button if you do not want Google and
other search engines to display your dissertation abstract when users search for
keywords that match your dissertation topic.
Check the Sales restriction box if you do not want the ETD system to sell copies of your
dissertation (and pay your royalties) to interested parties.
91
Dissertation Details
Advisor/Committee Chair
Enter both the name of your advisor and committee chair. If they are the same person,
you may enter one name.
Committee Members 2
Include the names of the rest of the individuals listed on your dissertation signature
page.
Description of Dissertation
Choose up to three of the best match subject categories. Add additional keywords that
will help searchers find your dissertation. Copy and paste your abstract into the form.
PDF
Upload a PDF version of your dissertation. The online system includes a PDF conversion
tool, but it is not an easy tool to use. Contact the City of Hope help desk if you need
assistance creating a PDF file.
Supplemental Files
If you have additional images, data sets, charts, graphs, code, or other content that
supplements your dissertation, you may upload the files and link them to your
dissertation.
Notes
If you have comments to send to the system administrator (Graduate School staff)
related to your submission, please include them here.
Register US Copyright
By default, every creative work produced is covered by US Copyright. However, if you
ever need to defend your copyright in court, official registration in the copyright office
will be necessary. If you wish to file for copyright, you may pay ProQuest/UMI $65 to
register on your behalf. You may also register directly with the copyright office online
for only $35. Go to http://www.copyright.gov/eco/ to file with the eCO.
Order Copies
ProQuest/UMI will sell you additional bound copies of your dissertation now or any time
in the future. However, check with the Graduate School if you would like to order copies
for yourself now. Their binding is better and less expensive than the ProQuest/UMI
options.
92
Alumni Positions
Graduates of City of Hope's Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences have
gone on to positions at Duke, University of Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, Scripps
Research Institute, UCLA, USC, UCSF, UCSD and UC Berkeley, among others. Alumni lead
research teams in the biotechnology industry at Wyeth, Genaissance, ISIS, Allergan and
more.
The following is a listing of our alumni and what they were last reported doing as of July
2015:
Jerlisa Arizala, Quality Control Scientist, Kite Pharma - a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company
Vania Ashminova, Principal Investigator, Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research
Krist Azizian, Staff Scientist, Research and Development, TriLink BioTechnologies
Thomas Bane, Senior Life Science Analyst, Program Manager at Lnx Research
Inc./Arkani Global Inc.
Victoria Bane, Assistant Project Manager, Beverly Hospital
Nicole Bennardo, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Francisco
Maggie Bobbin, Postdoctoral Fellow, Massachusetts General Hospital
Marisa Bowers, Science Education Partnership Award Collaborative (SEPAC) Program
Coordinator, City of Hope
Leticia Cano, President, Biomarker
Deepti Chadalavada, Associate Veterinarian, Banfield Pet Hospital, Stockton, CA
Qing Chai, Sr. Research Scientist, Lilly Biotechnology Center - San Diego; Lilly &
Company, Scripps Research Institute
Jackson Champer, Post-doctoral Scholar, Cornell University
Carmel Chan, Research Scientist, Stanford University School of Medicine
Hei Jason Chan, Postdoctoral Scientist, Quick Biology Inc.
Valerie Chavez, Biological Sciences Instructor, California State University, Fullerton
Cyndi Chen, Senior Research Scientist, Pall Medical, Covina, California
Zhaoxia Chen, Genome Scientist, MEDomics
Chun-Ting (Isaac) Cheng, Postdoctoral Fellow, Beckman Research Institute of City of
Hope
Gregory Cherryholmes, Clinical Affairs Specialist for Medical and Clinical Affairs Companion Diagnostics, Agilent Technologies
Cecilia Choy, attending the Law School at University of California, Irvine
Jessica Christenson, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical
Campuses
Caroline Richard Clark, Scientist II, Hologic Incorporation
Amy Cook, Associate Director of Development, Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center,
City of Hope
Renzo Corzano, Medical Student, New York Medical College
Jiehui Deng, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Medical School - Harvard University
93
Erin Denny, Licensing Associate in the Business Development Department, Amgen
Inc.
Kenneth Dery, Assistant Research Professor, Beckman Research Institute of City of
Hope
Supriya Deshpande, former Postdoctoral Fellow, Beckman Research Institute of City
of Hope
Ali Ehsani, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
James Finlay, Veterinarian, University of Southern California
Geoffrey Frank, Professor, California State University, Northridge
Richard Frank, Research and Development Research Scientist II, eBioscience
Nadiah Wan Mohd Ghazalli, Adjunct Biology Professor, California State University,
Los Angeles
Angel Gu, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Shuo Gu, Investigator, National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute
Mausumee Guha, Senior Director, Toxicology at Medivation, San Francisco,
California
Amanda Gunn, Tenure Track Biology Instructor, Grays Harbor College, Washington
Cai Guo, Postdoctoral Fellow, California Institute of Technology
Bret Heale, Clinical Modeling Engineer, Intermountain Healthcare, Utah
Michael Hedvat, Scientist, Xencor - Engineering Antibodies for Breakthrough
Therapeutics, California
Yanyan Hong, Clinical Laboratory Scientist, St. Joseph's Medical Center
Sean Howard, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Zurich, SWITZERLAND
Jie Huang, Senior Scientist, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Michelle Hunter, Biology Teacher, St. Genevieve's High School
Kurt Jenkins, Postdoctoral Fellow, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Donald Jhung, Scientist II, Thermo Fisher Scientific
Lan Jin, Senior Research Fellow, National Institutes of Health and National Cancer
Institute
Seung-Gi Jin, Sr. Research Scientist, Van Andel Research Institute
Wen Jin, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Diego
Heather Johnston, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University
Mahesh Jonnalagadda, Assistant University Veterinarian, University of Calgary,
Alberta CANADA
Swati Kadam, Market Development Manager, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Francisco
Julie Kanjanapangka, Instructor, Department of Life Sciences, Santa Monica College
Ikuko Kijima, Business Manager, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Daniel Kim, Assistant Professor, Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University
of California, Santa Cruz
Julia Kirshner, President and CEO, Ixchel Scientific, Purdue University
Ching-Ying Kuo, Medical Technologist, City of Hope National Medical Center
Samuel LaBarge, Postdoctoral Scientist, University of California, San Diego
Dong-Hyun Lee, Assistant Professor, Chonnam National University, Biological
Sciences Department, South Korea
94
Min-Seob Lee, President, GenomeCare Inc.
Michael Lewis, Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia - Missouri
Jianren Li, Clinical Genetics and Molecular Biology Scientist, Kaiser Permanente
Shan Li, Postdoctoral Fellow, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, School of
Medicine, University of California, San Diego
Tracey Li, Physician, Kaiser Permanente
Yan Li, Postdoctoral Fellow, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, School of
Medicine, University of California, San Diego
Yun Li, Global Import / Export Family Entrepreneur, Shanghai - CHINA
Wei Liang, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Diego
Lauren Liddell, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University
Limin Liu, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Virginia
Lucy (Xiangli) Liu, Part-time Professor, Cal Poly Pomona, Biological Science
Department
Pingfang Liu, Application and Product Development Scientist, New England Biolabs
Inc.
Ren Liu, Sr. Research Scientist, Vasgene Therapeutics Inc.
Elizabeth (O'Bryan) Lobo, Full-Time Tenure-Track Biology Instructor, Cuesta College
Rongze Lu, Scientist, Medimmune/AstraZeneca
Yuelong Ma, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Armen Mardiros, Associate Scientist, Kite Pharma - a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company
Selma Masri, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Irvine
Zhipeng Meng, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Diego
Damon Meyer, Assistant Professor in Molecular Genetics, California Northstate,
University College of Health Sciences
Meilen Chang Muñoz, Medical Student, University of California, Davis
Jodi Lehiwa Kazuyo Murakami, Cancer Immunotherapy Scientist, Kite Pharma Inc.
Jennifer Murray, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Michelle Navarro, Assistant Professor, Cerritos College
Stephanie Nay, Postdoctoral Fellow, Duke University
Sergey Nechaev, Associate Product Manager, Illumina, San Diego
Maria (Tina) Negritto, Director of Molecular Biology Department, Pomona College
Serina Ortiz, President, San Gabriel Valley Animal Advocates
Hao Pan, Field Application Specialist, Nexcelom Bioscience
Nicholas Pannunzio, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Southern California
Patrick Perrigue, Teacher, ACI Institute
Monika Polewski, Senior Study Director, Scientist, Project Management Consultant
Megan Prosser, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology and Chemistry, Azusa
Pacific University
Sumanth Putta, Associate Director, Department of Animal Resources, University of
Southern California
Jeremy Racine, Postdoctoral Training Program/Award Scholar at Jackson Laboratory
in Bar Harbor Maine
95
Robert H. Ring, Adjunct Professor, Drexel University, Department Of Pharmacology
and Physiology; and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry
Cai Roberts, Postdoctoral Fellow, Yale University School of Medicine
Saurabh Sahar, Scientist, Focus Diagnostics, Cypress Research and Development
Facility
Kumi Sakurai, Sr. Scientist, Department of Research and Development, Irvine
Scientific
Sridhar Samineni, Scientific Director/Veterinarian, Valley Biosystems, Sacramento
Sangeetha Satheesan, Clinical Veterinarian_Principal Scientist, Pfizer, La Jolla California
Edward Silverman, Director of Operations and Chief Life Science Manager at Lnx
Research, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at Chapman University, California
Lindsey Skrdlant, Process Development and Manufacturing Scientist, Stanford
University – School of Medicine
Laura Smith, Scientific Co-founder and Scientist, Homology Medicines in Lexington,
Massachusetts
Nicholas Snead, Research Scientist, Tekmira Pharmaceuticals, Vancouver, Canada
Jing Song, Investigator, Beigene Inc., China
Richard Stewart, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Quality Systems, Dxterity
Kandis Stubblefield, Licensing Associate in the Business Development Department,
Stanford University
Guihua Sun, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Daniel Tamae, Assistant Professor, California State University, Northridge
Diana Tran, Associate Consultant, PAREXEL Consulting, California
Khue Truong, Associate Scientist, Agensys, Inc., California
Yuqing Tu, Vice President, Citibank
Michael Valentine, Control Chemist, Department of Water and Power, California
Desiree Van Haute, Postdoctoral Fellow, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope
Karina Vega, Quality Control Supervisor, Specialty Enzymes & Biotechnology,
California
Louisa Villeneuve, Faculty, California State University, Fullerton
Reena Vishwanath Thomas, Clinical Assistant Professor; Adult Fellowship Program
Director; Neuro Oncology, Stanford University Hospital
Jun Wang, Postdoctoral Fellow, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute,
California
Lin Wang, attending medical school; will soon obtain an M.D. degree besides her
Ph.D. degree
Ruiqing Wang, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Berkeley
Tianyi Jenny Wang, Scientist, Sorrento Therapeutics/LA Cell, San Diego
Chunyue Weng, attending Graduate School for Computer Engineering, San Jose
State University
Cynthie Wong, Research and Development Scientist, Clarient/GE Healthcare
Chen Wu, Co-assistant Director at Transgenic Core Facility, Boston Area Diabetes
Endocrinology Research Center and Boston Nutrition
96
Juli (Hsiao Huei) Wu, Assistant Professor of Research at Keck School of Medicine of
University of Southern California
Jun Xie, Staff Scientist, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
Su Yang, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Scripps Research Institute
Tangsheng Yi, Scientist and Group Leader, Genentech
97
Appendix A: Request for Academic/Administrative Exception
Form
98
Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences
Students are responsible for becoming familiar with the information presented the student handbook and school
catalog. Students are personally responsible for following all policies and meeting deadlines and requirements. This
responsibility includes, but is not limited to, academic requirements and general rules listed student handbook and
school catalog.
REQUEST FOR ACADEMIC/ADMINSITRATIVE EXCEPTION
Name
___________________________________________
Student ID# _________________
Year Level _______________________________________
Semester/Year _____________________
I hereby petition to waive the following: (List specific academic policy/regulation or requirement as stated in the
Catalog, Student Handbook, or other documents. Indicate source)
Rationale or justification for your request (attached supporting documents if appropriate)
Student Signature ___________________________________
Date ____________________________
For Advisor/P.I. Recommendation (if applicable):
Approved
Denied
Name: __________________________________________
Faculty Recommendation (if applicable):
Approved
Denied
Signature: _______________________________
Date ____________________________
Name: __________________________________________
Dean’s Recommendation (if applicable):
Approved
Denied
Signature: _______________________________
Date ____________________________
Name: __________________________________________
Graduate Oversight Committee (if applicable):
Approved
Denied
Signature: _______________________________
Date ____________________________
Name: __________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________
Received by the Registrar
Name: ______________________________________________________
102
Signature: ________________________________________
Appendix B: Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological
Sciences at City of Hope
Title IX Complaint Procedures
I.
Introduction
Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope (the “School”) has
developed the following procedures to provide prompt and equitable resolution of
complaints alleging any action prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act
of 1972 (“Title IX”). Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally assisted education
programs. This law states in part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…
Use of these procedures does not affect other rights and remedies that may be available
to a complainant under federal and state statutes prohibiting discrimination. These
procedures are available to anyone who, at the time of an alleged violation, is enrolled
at or employed by the School.
II.
Definitions
Complainant: person filing the complaint of discrimination (including harassment) on
the basis of sex.
Respondent: person alleged to have discriminated (including harassment) on the basis of
sex.
Title IX Coordinator: means the employee designated to coordinate the School’s efforts
to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX and the Title IX
implementing regulations.
III.
Procedures
A. Any person enrolled at or employed by the School and claiming to have been
discriminated against by the School in its education programs or activities on the basis
of sex may use these procedures. All complaints of sex discrimination will be promptly
investigated by the Title IX Coordinator or his or her designee.
100
1. Complaints should be addressed to:
George Vukazich, Title IX Coordinator
City of Hope Graduate School of Biological Sciences
1500 E. Duarte Road
Duarte, CA 91010
[email protected]
626-423-5546 (Extension 68812)
2. Complaints against the Title IX Coordinator will be processed in accordance
with these procedures except that all responsibilities of the Title IX Coordinator
will be fulfilled by the Corporate Compliance Officer of City of Hope or his or her
designee. Under these circumstances, complaints should be addressed to:
Debra Fields, Corporate Compliance Officer
City of Hope
1500 E. Duarte Road
Duarte, CA 91010
[email protected] (Extension 64024)
B. Informal Resolution
1. Any person subject to this policy may seek advice or information on matters
relating to discrimination or harassment without having to lodge a formal
complaint. However, a person subject to this policy is not required to pursue
informal resolution before making a formal complaint.
2. The Title IX Coordinator or the Corporate Compliance Officer, if the matter
relates to the Title IX Coordinator, may be able to mediate the conflict by
discussing the allegation informally with relevant parties in an attempt to end
the alleged discrimination or harassment and resolve the issue. If there is a
resolution acceptable to both parties, the matter will not proceed further.
3. Records will be kept of materials generated by such informal mediation along
with an informal written agreement that will be reviewed and signed by both
parties and maintained by the Title IX Coordinator.
C. Formal Complaint Procedures
1. In order for a complaint to be formally investigated, the complaint must be filed in
writing. The Title IX Complaint Form can be found online at:
http://www.umbc.edu/humanrelations/forms/titleixcomplaintform.pdf. The complaint
101
must be filed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the complainant became
aware of the alleged violation. Complaints must contain the following information:
•
•
•
•
Name, address and telephone number of the complainant
A brief description of the alleged violation, including the location and date of the
incident(s) and the names of all participants and known observers of the
offensive conduct
The relief the complainant seeks
The complainant’s signature
2. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the complaint, the Title IX Coordinator will
determine whether the complaint merits formal review. A formal complaint may be
dismissed at this stage if the complaint is deemed groundless for such reasons as the
following: the complaint is not filed in a timely fashion; or the alleged behavior does not
constitute a violation of Title IX. The Title IX Coordinator will seek the advice of the
Office of General Counsel as needed.
3. If the Title IX Coordinator determines that the complaint merits formal review, the
Title IX Coordinator will advise the Dean about the complaint and will, in consultation
with the Office of General Counsel, initiate a formal investigation of the complaint. An
individual, a committee or an outside party may conduct the investigation. The purpose
of the investigation is to determine the facts relating to the complaint. The
investigation will include, at a minimum, the following steps:
•
•
•
interviews with each of the complainant and the respondent
interviews with others identified as witnesses
review of any relevant documents submitted to the investigator
If appropriate, the respondent may be placed on a leave of absence during the
investigation.
4. It is expected that the investigation of a complaint will be completed within sixty (60)
days of receipt of the complaint. This timeline, however, is subject to change depending
on various factors, including but not limited to, the complexity of the investigation.
5. Within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator shall
issue to the Title IX Coordinator, and, if appropriate, the Office of General Counsel, a
written report of the findings and conclusions of the investigation. The report will
provide a determination of the merits of the complaint related to Title IX and, if
applicable, options for substantive resolution of the complaint and recommendations
for corrective measures. The Title IX Coordinator shall review the written report and
submit it to the Dean within five (5) days of receipt of the report.
102
6. The Dean shall make a decision based on the record and shall notify the complainant
and the respondent in writing of the decision and the basis for the decision, including
any corrective action to be taken, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the investigator’s
report.
7. If a violation of Title IX occurred, sanctions will be imposed and actions will be taken
to prevent any further discrimination or harassment. Depending on the severity of the
case, possible sanctions include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
IV.
verbal counseling/training
a formal written warning placed in respondent’s file
transfer of advisees and/or removal from positions of administrative
responsibility
removal from a supervisory position
enforced leave of absence/suspension
termination of employment or permanent dismissal
Appeal
A. If the complainant is not satisfied with the Dean’s decision, the complainant may file
a written appeal to Corporate Compliance Officer. The written appeal must include a
detailed statement of the basis of the appeal. The Corporate Compliance Officer shall
notify the complainant of the final decision within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
appeal.
V.
General Considerations
A. Retaliation Prohibited. No person shall be subject to discharge, suspension,
discipline, harassment or any form of discrimination for having used or having assisted
others in using the grievance process. The Title IX Coordinator will, where warranted,
investigate a complaint of alleged retaliation in the same manner as is described herein.
B. Calculation of Time. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall be disregarded in
calculating time periods specified in these grievance procedures.
C. Respondent Not a Student or Employee. If the respondent is not enrolled at or
employed by the School, there may be additional procedures that apply. For example, if
a respondent were a member of the City of Hope National Medical Center Medical Staff,
the provisions of City of Hope’s Harassment Policy addressing harassment by a member
of the Medical Staff would be applied.
103
Appendix C: Absence Request Form
104
ABSENCE REQUEST FORM
Before leaving campus for day(s) off, the current graduate student must fill-out this Absence Request
Form and submit via email to the registrar, the student’s mentor, and the mentor’s business director. The
completed form will remain on file in the office of Graduate Education. As a reminder, international
students on Visa status should contact the City of Hope Immigration Services Administrator before
travelling abroad.
STUDENT INFORMATION
Last Name
First Name
Personal Email Address
Badge #
Cell Phone and/or Home Phone
Summary of Absence (e.g. day off, conference, etc…)
Requested Day(s) Off (provide dates):
Return Date:
Total Day(s) Off ________
STUDENT, PLEASE INITIAL HERE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ABOVE _____________________
ADVISOR’S APPROVAL (Approval from the advisor can also be sent by email to the registrar.)
Advisor’s Name
Advisor’s Signature
Department Name
Location
Office of the Registrar
Version March 3, 2016
109
Appendix D: Hardship Supplement Request Form
106
Application for Hardship Supplement
Name of Graduate student:
Date of Application:
Description of Circumstances:
Amount of money requested:
How long do you foresee requiring the supplement for?
Supporting documentation provided:
107
Appendix E: Graduate Student Academic Travel Awards
108
GRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC TRAVEL AWARD
The Graduate School encourages graduate students in their second year and beyond to attend
scientific conferences. To qualify, students must certify with the registrar that they are in good
academic standing. They must be presenting their research at the conference. If applicable,
students requesting an award to attend a meeting are expected to apply to the meeting organizers
for student assistance funds. As funding permits, the Graduate School will fund up to $1000 of
support to graduate students to offset the travel costs. Students must make their travel
arrangements with their advisor’s administrative assistant. Students will be reimbursed for travel
expenses after submitting their original receipts to the Graduate School administrative assistant.
Students must apply before attending the meeting. Applications must be submitted to the interim
Associate Dean for administration and Student Development. The application must include an
abstract (two pages or less) of the research the student will be presenting, proof that the student
has applied for meeting assistance, and a copy of the meeting announcement. Preference will be
given to students who have not previously received an award.
I certify that the student below is in good academic standing.
Graduate Student Travel Request
Student:
Advisor:
Application Date:
Destination:
Purpose of Trip:
Dates of Trip:
Registration Fee:
Estimated Travel Costs:
113
__________________________
Registrar
Appendix F: Pre-LEL Evaluation Form
110
Pre-LEL Evaluation
Sponsor Name:
Date:
Please rate the statements below on a 1 to 5 scale. Provide comments where appropriate.
1 = strongly disagree
5 = strongly agree
1. Scientific Background and Experimental Data Discussion
•
The sponsor provided sufficient background information needed to understand the
speaker’s research scope.
_____
•
I understand the gaps in knowledge that the LEL speaker is trying to address with their research.
_____
•
I understand the significance of the work in advancing the field.
_____
•
The sponsor gave a clear and concise explanation of the speaker’s experimental approach and data.
_____
•
The sponsor provided critical evaluation of the speaker’s methods and data interpretation.
_____
3. Overall Discussion Quality
•
The sponsor displays strong grasp of the material and well-prepared to answer questions.
_____
•
The discussion was engaging, interactive, and moved at a good pace.
_____
•
The discussion stimulated my interest in hearing the speaker’s talk.
_____
•
The discussion allowed me to critically evaluate the speaker’s work myself.
_____
•
The sponsor encouraged discussion among the student body.
_____
Additional comments: Please provide general feedback, compliments, constructive criticism, suggestions etc for the
sponsor. Comments here will not count for or against the speaker’s overall score.
115
Appendix G: Evaluation of Student Journal Club Seminar
Presentation Form
112
Evaluation of Student Journal Club Seminar Presentation
Student:
Faculty evaluator:
Date:
Name of journal club:
Overall rating
This presentation ranks as follows:
Poor
1
Average
2
3
Excellent
4
5
For the following categories, provide a rating on the 1 to 5 scale, and provide specific
comments where appropriate.
Academic
Choice of paper
Relevant literature review
Student understanding of paper/topic
Paper presentation
Statement of hypothesis
Explanation of methods
Explanation of experimental rationale and data
Critique of data/conclusions/significance
Proposal of future experiments
Style
Eye contact and mannerisms
Language usage
Interactions with audience
Effective use of visual aids
113
Appendix H: Laboratory Rotation Evaluation Form
114
Submit by Email
LAB ROTATION EVALUATION FORM
Student:
Professor:
Date:
Title of Project: _____________________________________________________
Please assess the student’s rotation performance in the following areas on a scale
of 1 to 10 (1 = unacceptable, 10 = exemplary). Your comments will be used for
many purposes: reports to funding agencies, decisions on student academic
standing, and letters of recommendation. Please write extensively.
1. General Attitude
Comments:
2. Technical Skill
Comments:
3. Personal Interactions
Comments:
119
Print Form
4. Intellectual Interest
Comments:
5. Understanding of Experimental Design
Comments:
6. Scientific Writing
Comments:
General Comments:
120
Appendix I: Qualifying Examination 1 Form
117
Qualifying Examination Part I – Research Proposal Evaluation Form
Student’s Full Name:
Committee Members (print)
Advisor
Date:
Signature
Present
Absent
Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
The committee recommends that the student:



Pass and advance toward candidacy
Conditional pass and advance toward candidacy after revision
Fail
If conditional pass attached, the student must immediately work on:




Revisions in proposal (attach requirements)
Additional coursework:
Writing training
Oral language training
Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses/gaps that the student showed during this exam, both
regarding fundamental knowledge (i.e. concepts in molecular and cellular biology, biochemistry, and
biostatistics), as well as experimental design and hypothesis development. Your candid feedback will
help the graduate school in assessing the efficacy of the first-year core curriculum.
I acknowledge that I have read this report.
Student’s Signature:
Date:
122
Qualifying Examination Part I - Research Proposal Evaluation Form
Date:
Research Proposal Title:
Committee: please check appropriate box and then justify this with comments based on the points to
consider under each general area of review.
Unacceptable
1. Significance of Topic,
Hypothesis, and Aims
■ Identified and explained
significance of biological
question
■ Clearly stated hypothesis and
specific aims
■ Presented testable hypothesis
and specific aims
■ Other
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Comments:
Unacceptable
2. Critical Evaluation
of Existing Knowledge
■ Presented critical literature of
preexisting research in area
■ Used preexisting research to
build strong case for hypothesis
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
3. Experimental
Design / Methods
■ Proposed appropriate and
feasible research
■ Discussed potential limits or
challenges of methods
■ Employed appropriate model
System
■ Other
Comments:
123
Unacceptable
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
4. Hypothetical Data
& Analysis
■ Discussed hypothetical data
■ Discussed limitations of data
and alternative interpretations
■ Proposed probable future
research and next steps
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
5. Writing Competence
■ Writing clear, concise,
original
■ Ideas were arranged logically
■ Met formatting guidelines
■ Writing was free or almost free
of grammar and spelling errors
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
6. Oral Presentation
■ Talk was well organized
■ Talk was clear
■ Articulated principles and
science underlying research
■ Talk effectively defended
points using data from a variety
of sources
■ Speaker understood and
responded to questions
■ Other
Comments:
General Comments
To receive a passing grade for the Qualifying Exam I - each graduate student must 1) hand-deliver to the
registrar this original filled-out, signed, and dated report by the Committee, and 2) email the registrar
([email protected] or [email protected]) the approved written report/research proposal.
124
Appendix J: Qualifying Examination 2 Form
121
QUALIFYING EXAM II – DISSERTATION PROPOSAL - EVALUATION FORM
Committee Members (print)
Advisor
Date:
Signature
Present Absent
Chair
Committee member
Committee member
Committee member
The committee recommends that the student:
____ Pass and advance toward candidacy
____ Conditional pass and advance toward candidacy after revision
____ Fail
If conditional pass, the student must immediately work on:
____ Revisions in proposal (attach requirements)
____ Additional coursework:
____ Writing training
____ Oral language training
I acknowledge that I have read this report.
Student’s Signature:
Date:
126
QUALIFYING EXAM II – DISSERTATION PROPOSAL - EVALUATION FORM
Date:
Proposal Title:
Reviewers: please check appropriate box and then justify this with comments based on the points to consider under each
general area of review.
Unacceptable
Needs
Proficient
Exemplary
Improvement
1. Significance of Topic,
Hypothesis, and Aims
■ Identified and explained
significance of biological
question
■ Clearly stated hypothesis and
specific aims
■ Presented testable hypothesis
and specific aims
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
2. Critical Evaluation
of Existing Knowledge
■ Presented critical literature of
preexisting research in area
■ Used preexisting research to
build strong case for
hypothesis
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
3. Experimental
Design / Methods
■ Proposed appropriate and
feasible research
■ Discussed potential limits or
challenges of methods
■ Employed appropriate model
System
■ Other
Comments:
127
Unacceptable
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
4. Preliminary Data
& Analysis
■ Discussed preliminary data
■ Discussed limitations of data
and alternative interpretations
■ Proposed probable future
research and next steps
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
5. Writing Competence
■ Writing clear, concise,
original
■ Ideas were arranged logically
■ Met formatting guidelines
■ Writing was free or almost
free of grammar and spelling
errors
■ Other
Comments:
Unacceptable
6. Oral Presentation
■ Talk was well organized
■ Talk was clear
■ Articulated principles and
science underlying research
■ Talk effectively defended
points using data from a
variety
of sources
■ Speaker understood and
responded to questions
■ Other
Comments:
General Comments (optional)
To receive a passing grade for the Qualifying Exam II, each graduate student must 1) hand-deliver to the
registrar the original filled-out, signed, and dated rubric by the Committee, and 2) email to the registrar
([email protected] or [email protected]) the approved written report.
128
Appendix K: Oral Defense and Dissertation Committee Report
Form
125
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Student’s Name:
Date:
Dissertation Topic:
Committee Members (please print full names) Signature
Present
Advisor
Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Recommend that the student:
Continue with thesis as planned—it is a suitable project with a reasonable timeframe
Make changes to thesis (see “Six-month plan” below)
Other:
Recommended timeframe for next meeting with committee:
Six-month plan:
Revisions in proposal (see attached requirements)
Additional coursework (see attached requirements)
Writing training
Oral language training
Change in mentor/advisor
Other:
I acknowledge that I have read this Dissertation Committee Report.
Student’s signature:
Date:
130
Absent
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Unacceptable
1. Critical Evaluation of Literature
 Presents literature critically,
systematically and concisely
 Uses literature to build convincing
case for hypothesis
 Clearly identifies the gaps and
conflicts which thesis is designed
to address
□
Comments:
Unacceptable
2. Hypothesis Generation
 Clearly states hypothesis
 Frames hypothesis in a way that is
experimentally testable
 Explains significance of research
question to field
□
Comments:
Unacceptable
3. Technique/Approach
 Proposes appropriate, feasible
methods and models
 Considers limits of approach and
methods and alternatives
 Proposes probable future research
and next steps
□
Comments:
Unacceptable
4. Data Analysis
 Results interpreted appropriately
 Discusses limitations and possible
alternative outcomes
□
Comments:
Unacceptable
5. Professional Skills







Has initiative and independence
Develops scientific identity
Oral skills clear
Written skills clear
Technical development strong
Effective use of mentoring
Exemplifies ethical and professional
standards
□
Comments:
131
Needs
Improvement
□
Proficient
Exemplary
□
□
Needs
Improvement
□
Proficient
Exemplary
□
□
Needs
Improvement
□
Proficient
Exemplary
□
□
Needs
Improvement
□
Proficient
Exemplary
□
□
Needs
Improvement
□
Proficient
Exemplary
□
□
General Comments:
132
Appendix L: Graduation Guidelines Check List
129
GRADUATION GUIDELINES CHECK LIST
Graduate Student’s Full Name:
#
1
_______________________________________________________________________________
CHECK
THINGS TO DO
TIMELINE

It is the prospective graduate’s responsibility to fulfill all of the academic
requirements as described in the Student Handbook, including passing courses
(core and elective), passing Qualifying Exam Parts I and II, and holding at least
two dissertation committee meetings before scheduling the oral defense.
The prospective graduate must request the
registrar’s confirmation for having fulfilled
the academic requirements before requesting
a meeting with his/her dissertation committee
to discuss oral and written dissertation plans.
The prospective graduate must have a draft
written dissertation ready for dissertation
committee review before scheduling the oral
defense.
By the second week of March if planning to
participate in the commencement ceremony
in same year
Start writing the dissertation as soon as possible.
2

3

4

5
6
7
8
9

Obtain the approval from the dissertation committee to graduate. The
prospective graduate may obtain the approval either at his/her last committee
meeting or after discussing with all committee members via email.
Email the registrar if planning to participate in the commencement ceremony.
By the second week of March if planning to
participate in the commencement ceremony
in same year
All dissertation committee members must review the written dissertation draft
before giving permission for the prospective graduate to schedule the oral
defense. While a tentative date/time for the oral defense can be proposed, only
after the draft is considered sufficiently complete may the student schedule the
oral defense.
By April 30 if planning to participate in the
commencement ceremony in same year
Mentor – please sign and date to acknowledge reading and understanding of
item #5.
____________________________
Mentor’s signature
Student – please submit to the registrar the signed/dated Graduation Guidelines
Checklist before advancing to item # 6.
Date: _____________________
*The registrar must announce the oral
defense at least 3 weeks before the
commencement.
*The prospective graduate must pick up from
the registrar his/her Oral Defense and
Dissertation Committee Report form and 4
Dissertation Approval Sheets at least 3 days
before the oral defense day.
At least 2 weeks before the commencement

Email the registrar date; time; location; the oral defense title; the entire
committee members, including the outside member with his/her degree(s), job
title, and institution name so that the registrar can make a flyer and send an
announcement; create 1) the Oral Defense and Dissertation Committee Report
and 2) the four Dissertation Approval sheets for dissertation binding purposes.

Conduct the oral dissertation defense; bring the completed and signed Oral
Defense and Dissertation Committee Report to the registrar immediately
following the oral defense. The prospective graduate can participate in the
commencement when the registrar receives the signed/dated Oral Defense and
Dissertation Committee Report with a check mark for Completed/Minor
Revision or Major Revision.

Complete final revisions of the written dissertation and obtain final approval
from the committee members. Hand-deliver to the registrar the 1) signed Oral
Defense and Dissertation Committee Report and 2) four completely signed
Dissertation Approval Sheets once the committee members finally approved
the written dissertation. The final approved written dissertation must conform
to all formatting guidelines (please refer to the Student Handbook.) and be
thoroughly edited before submitting online to the registrar for final approval via
ProQuest. Then, the registrar can certify the final academic requirement
conclusion and PhD degree confirmation.
*The final revised written dissertation should
be completed within three months of the oral
defense.
*The student and his/her dissertation
committee are responsible for ensuring that
the student’s written dissertation has been
thoroughly edited, including proper
formatting, appropriate scientific writing, and
English usage.
Submit to the Graduate School administrative assistant four hard copies (with
specific format and paper described in the Student Handbook) of the
dissertation for binding. One copy is for the graduate; one is for the mentor;
one is for the Graduate School; one is for the Library.
As soon as submitting online via ProQuest
the final approved written dissertation;
besides returning to the registrar the
Graduate School laptop, the prospective
graduate cannot pick up his/her diploma
unless he/she completes item # 9.

134
Appendix M: Transcript Request Form
131
Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences
1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010
Office of the Registrar, Beckman Center #1110
Fax: 626-471-3901
Email: [email protected]
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST FORM
Instructions: If you have any type of hold on your academic record, your transcript will not be issued. Please
note: Transcripts cannot be ordered without a signed authorization. Allow at least four (4) working days for
processing upon receipt of request.
Information Requested
Student Name (First, Middle, Last)
Student Badge #
Address
City
State
Zip
Year Entered
Signature Required In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974, your signature is required to authorize the
release of your transcript(s)
Date
Transcript Details
1
Mail Transcript to (complete address of institution,
organization, or company, including recipient name, and
phone #)
Number of Copies______
Special Instructions:
2
Mail Transcript to (complete address of institution,
organization, or company, including recipient name, and
phone #)
Number of Copies______
Special Instructions:
136
Appendix N: Abbreviations List
ACLAM – American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
AIC – Academic Integrity Committee
ARC – Animal Resources Center
CPI – Characters per inch
DAR – Department of Animal Resources
DCM – Department of Comparative Medicine
FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions Act
FSR – Fundamentals of Scientific Research
FTB - California Franchise Tax Board
GOC – Graduate Oversight Committee
GSO – Graduate Student Organization
IRS - Internal Revenue Service
LEL – Leading-Edge Lectures
NIH – National Institutes of Health
PDF – Portable Document File
QE1 – Qualifying Examination 1
QE2- Qualifying Examination 2
133

2015-2016 Student Handbook

Transcription

Similar documents

conference flyer

Initiative for the Future Water - Water Initiative for the Future (WatIF)

the cuban film series

Greetings from Blake Hall on the corner of the KU

Public Policy and Administration

Collection of Degree Certificate and Transcript 1

Ciri Keusahawanan Rasulullah - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

KayoorKayoko - Sampson Communication Consulting

- Pleasant View Christian School

Getting to Philcomm, Changing Your Clothes