Crazy Thinking as a Tool for Rethinking
By Clifton Poodry, Ph.D., NIGMS

Has it really been 10 years since I traded a professorship at the University of California, Santa Cruz, for a position at NIH? What was I thinking?

Well, for one thing, I felt that there was an important challenge to meet. The early 1990s had brought changes to the long-standing minority programs that were the core of the newly created MORE Division. Advisory groups had suggested changes in the student research component of the programs. The policies and procedures for the review of MBRS research proposals were evolving.

The specter of change brought some anxiety to the community of minority-serving institutions. Indeed, changes were made. But they came about following much community consultation, both formal and informal. A distillate of many ideas and recommendations became a set of guiding principles that served as the basis for modifications to existing programs and for the development of new programs in the years that followed.

Improvement was--and still is--a core value. The programs would be developmental, with improvement as an essential component. Institutions would be given as much flexibility as possible to design programs to meet their stated needs. Programs would have clear goals and measurable objectives. We would be making awards for programs to improve rather than providing rewards for past accomplishments. We would know whether progress was being made because evaluation would be a part of every program.

Now, 10 years later, it is a good time to re-examine our objectives, our reasoning, and our practices--all of which are guided by our values, our principles, and, of course, our mission. All principles and policies have consequences. Take, for example, the notion of making awards versus rewards. We recognize that one who has a long history of training competitive students is very likely to continue to do so. Might it be a low-risk, efficient way of making a decision to rely more on track record than on promises of future outcomes? Perhaps. There are consequences either way. I don't want to go into the pros and cons of our current practices, but I do want to let you know that self-reflection is not just a once-a-decade ritual. We are constantly looking for the best ways to accomplish our mission and we expect you to be a part of the process.

Let me share a method that I use to generate ideas. It is derived from Linus Pauling's advice to have a lot of ideas and throw the bad ones away. I try to come up with 20 different ways to approach a problem. I realize from the outset that most of the ideas will fall by the wayside. But discussions of ideas often foster new realizations that, in turn, foster new ideas. Add to the mix of ideas some diversity. Imagine that I have some new recipes brewing in my head, but my knowledge lacks the spice or other secret ingredients that diverse experiences might provide. What if we were to pool our ideas and stir the pot of creative thinking?

What if each of you, whether you are a program director, a student, or just someone who picked up this column, would write down 10 different approaches to accomplish our mission of increasing (significantly) the number of underrepresented minorities going into biomedical research careers? Yes, I do mean 10 different approaches (20 for the hard core). Don't try to identify the perfect program. Rather, let's engage in some crazy thinking. I'll start by offering two examples.

Example 1. What if we used all of the money of the MORE programs directly for student aid? This approach would apply the available dollars to students while minimizing other expenses. We could support 7,500 students with $20,000 each. Or maybe we could support fewer students but offer more money with performance incentives.

Example 2. What if we directed all of our resources to the improvement of institutions, and, rather than providing support to students (who are transients) or even to research projects (which come and go), we supported institutional development that would have lasting effects?

See what I mean by crazy thinking? These suggestions may represent the extreme, but we must withhold judgment and resist the temptation to analyze the ideas until we have gathered them all. We must resist the notion that there is one great approach that should be offered. It is the aggregate of ideas, including the crazy ones, that is valuable.

So extend yourself to come up with 10 ideas, crazy or not. If we could gather your 10 different approaches and the 10 approaches of all other interested parties, we would have a wealth of raw material for a rethinking of our programs.

By studying and analyzing the list of ideas, even crazy ideas, values will emerge. Guiding principles consistent with the values will become evident. The activity stretches the realm of the possible and supports a reconsideration of our working strategies. We might end up reaffirming the current programs and current methods; if we do,we will approach our mission with renewed vigor. But if we find that change is called for, we will be happy to be at the tiller taking firm control of our new direction.

Your input is important. Send in your ideas and join us in the analysis and synthesis of ideas that will give guidance to the MORE Division for the next 10 years. Ten different suggestions from all of our readers. Is that crazy or what?

As always, I would appreciate your feedback and comments.