Photo by Edoardo Bortoli on Unsplash.

Convergent Research

Convergent Research at BU: A Q&A with Task Force Co-Chair Darrell Kotton, MD

In her inaugural presidential address, Boston University President Melissa Gilliam, MD, cited convergence as “our North Star.”

“Convergence is in our past, our present and our future. Convergence is the key to who we are, and who we can be,” Gilliam said.

The Center for Regenerative Medicine (CReM) at BU and Boston Medical Center (BMC) has been deeply involved in convergent research since its inception, including a cross-campus project to regenerate lung tissue damaged by disease. CReM Founding Director Darrell Kotton, MD, is co-chair of the University task force that identified eight priority areas of convergent research, including three where the Medical Campus could make a direct contribution: health across the lifespan; infection, inflammatory and immune disorders; and artificial intelligence, data science and computing. Kotton shares his view on what convergent research is and how the University can promote and sustain it. His answers have been edited for brevity.

What is convergent research?

Convergent research is an approach where normally disparate fields or disciplines come together to address a problem or advance research education in a way that’s impactful to society. It is multidisciplinary, but it’s more; it’s not just bringing different tools to research, it’s bringing together very different approaches, perspectives, backgrounds in a way that’s greater than the sum of the parts.

Does convergent research already exist on the Medical Campus?

It does exist already today, and some of our most successful and exciting programs involve convergent research approaches that have naturally evolved and evolved very successfully. The challenge for our task force was how to come up with a strategic plan, initiatives and support that don’t just rely on happenstance but augment the chances this will happen.

Convergence is in our past, our present and our future. Convergence is the key to who we are, and who we can be.

Boston University President Melissa Gilliam, MD

Are there any major barriers to convergence on campus, and how will the University overcome them?

The task force identified several barriers. One is the structure of academia that is built on departments and schools, that was once so effective in organizing people and research but now can result in silos. Because (convergent) research is so cross-disciplinary, across schools and across departments, the model of (research) centers has emerged as one way to break those silos. There are also institutional barriers, and I think everyone is interested in more integration between BU and BMC on health-related convergent themes.

Does this approach unlock new funding opportunities or give researchers better access to existing funding?

In a time of scarce federal resources, it’s important to work more efficiently. Bringing people together in a way where you can be greater than the sum of the parts makes researchers work more efficiently with the funding they have. It also helps them compete for national grants. But researchers need to have preliminary data with some progress and some groundwork already laid out, otherwise they won’t get funded. University planning grants, small grants, seed grants, and clustered hiring initiatives can really build the foundation locally when money is scarce federally.

Can you talk about the CReM/GSK pulmonary fibrosis collaboration as an example of how this convergent research approach works?

Traditional research involves one team working with one tool in one department or school. For pulmonary fibrosis, that hasn’t worked to develop particularly effective drugs. The GSK collaboration was the result of many years of laying a foundation that was convergent, not only across the school but across institutions, bringing Boston Medical Center together with Boston University.

Building biobanks that were based on patient samples, advancing research that involved many disciplines from molecular biology to clinicians to physicists and bioinformaticians built a foundation that then resulted in a very large, sponsored research agreement with GSK to develop drugs for pulmonary fibrosis. I think it’s a good example of how laying the foundation in the broadest, not only cross-disciplinary but cross-institutional way, pays off in the long run. The return on investment can be excellent, and ultimately the return for our patients’ well-being, we hope will be better.

What about convergence with the Charles River Campus?

It exists to some degree, but it could definitely be augmented and supported more. I think that the convergence of biomedical engineering, with the center of that program located on the Charles River Campus, but working with BMC databases and AI resources from the Charles River Campus, interacting with the molecular biologists across the campuses is really a great example of how convergence has already succeeded at BU, and I think there’s a lot more of that to come.  

What changes do you see on the Medical Campus going forward?

My hope is that in following this approach on the Medical Campus both research and medical and research education will be elevated from its already excellent status to being even better, more effective, more efficient, more synergistic. We already have initiatives that have worked on a local level. The department of medicine has Affinity Research Collaboratives that really have propelled and funded multi-departmental, multi-campus initiatives that have been highly successful.

What I think we’ll see is more of that but aligned on a scale that involves educational initiatives and clustered hiring initiatives across these themes. The research centers will be elevated, the silos and barriers will be minimized, and I think you’ll see a lot more alignment of education, research, promotions and hiring.

The other aspects I think are important to emphasize are individual faculty discovery and basic science research. Those will always be important, and this initiative in no way detracts from them. In fact, without individual, traditional faculty members doing their own research in their own areas, this initiative can’t work. That always must be bedrock and must be maintained. The individual investigator’s presence on campus should always be a priority and partnered with these kinds of new strategic initiatives.

Does this approach help students to be positioned for the world out there, the world that exists now?

I think students are really hungry for this. Fifty years ago, students trained in one discipline, and they learned as best they could in their area. One gene, one hypothesis, a few techniques that could be mastered and handled by one lab. The world is different today, and the students know that. A graduate student wants to learn bioinformatics, wants to be familiar with and use AI techniques, wants to study all the genes simultaneously in all the cells, in a way that you need big data and computing resources to understand, in addition to learning bench techniques.

Likewise, the doctors of today are hungry to participate in a variety of techniques beyond their clinical discipline. They want to bring AI in, they want to contribute to large databases, and they also want some familiarity with bioinformatics and a variety of research techniques, whether that’s implementation sciences, traditional molecular biology, or bioinformatics.

The best students in the country are going to be looking for the schools that lead the way in strategically offering those experiences. It’s going to be an exciting time, and I think you’ll see students really clamoring to get admitted to BU’s programs to experience our convergence initiatives.