Thank you for that kind introduction. It is real pleasure to be with you today for two reasons. First, I am an admirer of Rotary's strong commitment to improving the quality of people's lives. One can find this commitment expressed through many of your initiatives. Two of your efforts that have particularly impressed me are your childhood immunization program, and your recent focus on the challenge of Alzheimer's disease. For these and the many other worthy causes that you support, I applaud you.

The other reason that it is such a delight to be here today is that Florence has been such a wonderful base of support for the Medical University. As you may know, Dr. Conyers O'Bryan from Florence is a member of our Board of Trustees and a former chair of that governing body. Dr. O'Bryan's leadership has been instrumental in moving the Medical University forward over the past few years.

You may also be aware of the fact that we have a strong collaborative relationship with our sister institution here, Francis Marion University. Together, we offer a bachelor's degree in Nursing, helping to meet a critical need in the Pee Dee. In my opinion, this type of inter-institutional cooperation is a model of how the public universities of South Carolina should work cooperatively. The State of South Carolina, and Florence in particular, is very fortunate to have Dr. Fred Carter as the president of Francis Marion University. I enjoyed my working relationship with Fred when he was at the Budget and Control Board and I look forward to a close partnership with him in our new roles.

Let me turn now to the main purpose of my talk. With all of 26 days in office behind me, it seems a little premature for me to map out any grand vision of the future of the Medical University. The truth of the matter is that I received my new business cards only two days ago. There ought to be a rule that a University President cannot articulate a vision until he or she has had official business cards for at least a week!

Indeed, there are a limited number of profound statements that one can make less than a month into office. So, at the risk of making some obvious statements, let me begin by telling you that it is an absolute privilege to be asked to represent the Medical University. As I travel around the state of South Carolina, it is wonderful to meet so many good folks who have been helped in one way or another by the Medical University. Many have family or friends who went to school there, others have family members who received medical care there. Whatever the circumstance, the feeling toward the institution generally is one of high regard and appreciation.

Those who are less familiar with the institution typically are pleasantly surprised as they learn more about us. Most do not know for example, that two of our educational programs were ranked in the top twenty nationally by U. S. News and World Report. Most also do not know that we are the only university in South Carolina to exceed $100 million a year in outside research funding. Many are also unaware of the fact that our medical staff includes the vast majority of South Carolina physicians listed in national lists of the best doctors in America. In some respects, the Medical University may remain one of the best-kept secrets in the Palmetto State. My job, in part, is to make sure that we are not such a secret in the future.

In the midst of these many positive discussions with constituents, one particular interaction stands out in my mind. I mention this specific conversation in part because of its content, but equally important, because of the individual involved. The constituent in question is a retired surgeon, an alumnus of the Medical University, a member of one of our principal constituency boards and a donor as well. One could not imagine a profile of a more knowledgeable or supportive friend of the university.

It was a surprise to me, therefore, when this individual asked me, in so many words, the following question: "Is it reasonable for the Medical University to aspire to compete with the best academic health centers in the country?" While this question left me somewhat dazed, I will be the first to admit that it is not entirely irrational. After all, South Carolina is a small state of relatively limited financial means. Higher education has not been supported in this state to the extent it has been funded in other states. There may well be too many public institutions of higher education in South Carolina. Interactions between these institutions often are motivated more by petty jealousy than by cooperative synergy. In short, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that aspirations of greatness are ill founded.

Why then, is there reason to think otherwise? First and foremost, because I believe that the people of South Carolina deserve better. We have to put an end to the culture of what I have come to refer to as the ïOK is good enough syndrome.' Progress in any worthy endeavor is likely to come only if we set our goals higher. If we teach better, discover more, and care more effectively, the lives of South Carolinians will be enhanced. The quality of our performance is not an abstract concept to be measured in reputational surveys.

What I will say next is likely to get me in a little hot water, but I will say it, nevertheless. The 37 indicators established for assessing and funding higher education in this state also inadequately address our performance. First of all, they only relate to the educational component of our mission, virtually excluding the research and clinical service sectors. Moreover, the measures in place are more oriented toward process than to outcome.

The real measure of our performance is in the impact that we have on the lives of South Carolinians. That benefit is measured in the improved life of a child with sickle cell disease who does not have to fear painful crises or strokes because of clinical research conducted at the Medical University. That benefit is seen in the eyes of an artist whose failing vision was restored with a treatment pioneered at the Medical University. That benefit is felt in the life of a medical student — the first member of her family to go to college, much less to medical school, and who plans to return to practice in her medically underserved home community. Each of these stories, multiplied a thousand-fold by other patients and students, is the real measure of our performance.

If the brightest South Carolinians are attracted to out-of-state schools for the best education in the health sciences, then at some level, the Medical University has failed. When these gifted students leave our state to study, the chance of them returning to work here is reduced. We cannot afford a "brain drain" in which our most precious natural resource, our children, is lost to other states.

If you think that this is a specious argument, let me mention two names to you: Joseph Goldstein and Robert Furchgott. I suspect that most of you have never heard of either of these individuals. Indeed, they are not household names. So let me tell you a little about them.

Joseph Goldstein was born on April 18, 1940 in Sumter. He went to Virginia to go to college at Washington and Lee and then went to medical school at the University of Texas, where he remained on the faculty. In 1985, he and a colleague received the Nobel Prize in physiology for their pioneering work on blood lipids, which are key contributors to the risk of heart attacks.

Robert Furchgott, the second individual that I mentioned, was born in Charleston on June 4, 1916. He graduated from the University of North Carolina and went on to earn a PhD in biochemistry from Northwestern University in Illinois. He spent most of his research career in New York City. In 1998, Dr. Furchgott received the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work on the biological effects of nitric oxide, including damage to the blood vessels. Both of these individuals, Goldstein and Furchgott, were extraordinary scientists and probably would have excelled wherever they went to school. Moreover, the societal benefits of their work were not dependent upon the state in which it was performed. Nevertheless, the fact that both of these gifted individuals chose to attend school and conduct their research elsewhere is a message that South Carolinians should not ignore.

We have the talent in this state to be national leaders. South Carolinians are proud of their heritage, and rightly so. Perhaps it is time to start some new traditions, however. I cannot think of a more appropriate place to begin than to declare that our intellectual capital is a prized commodity. We must create a culture and an environment in which our brightest young people are valued, challenged, and rewarded. We must invest in their development by providing them with access to affordable higher education of the highest possible quality. We must provide them with the latest technology for learning and teach them in state-of-the-art facilities. Anything less is simply not enough.

In closing, let me assure you that I will do everything possible to keep the Joseph Goldsteins and Robert Furchgotts of the next generation in South Carolina. Our goal will be to encourage our native sons and daughters to pursue their life's dreams in our classrooms, laboratories, and clinics. I will challenge our faculty and staff to build through their labors an institution that is the rival of any in the country. We will do all of this because it is good for South Carolina and because it is the right thing to do.

Thank you very much.

Listing of Speeches