The Division of Graduate Medical Sciences at the Boston University School of Medicine houses numerous dynamic graduate programs. Doctoral students began their studies with laboratory rotations and classroom training in a variety of fundamental disciplines. Importantly, with 15 unique pathways of admission to these doctoral programs, there were also 15 unique curricula. Departments and programs offered courses independently, and students participated in curricula that were overlapping combinations of these courses. This system created curricula that were not coordinated and that had redundant course content as well as content gaps. A partnership of key stakeholders began a curriculum reform process to completely restructure doctoral education at the Boston University School of Medicine. The key pedagogical goals, objectives, and elements designed into the new curriculum through this reform process created a curriculum designed to foster the interdisciplinary thinking that students are ultimately asked to utilize in their research endeavors. We implemented comprehensive student and peer evaluation of the new Foundations in Biomedical Sciences integrated curriculum to assess the new curriculum. Furthermore, we detail how this process served as a gateway toward creating a more fully integrated graduate experience, under the umbrella of the Program in Biomedical Sciences. V C 2015 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(2):126-132, 2015.Keywords: graduate education; curriculum reform; biomedical science; interdisciplinary; doctoral education Introduction Doctoral education has been based on an apprentice model in the biological sciences for many decades; however, even given this practical emphasis on the applied science, it has still been noted that, "We should focus less on the production of PhDs and more on the production of scientists. They are not necessarily the same thing" [1]. Certainly, the apprentice model does run the risk of producing graduates with highly specialized knowledge about their area of expertise with little appreciation of the context of their work [2]. Moreover, there has been a national call toward moving our scientific educational programs in an interdisciplinary direction, and much of the initial focus of these efforts has been at the undergraduate level [3,4]. However, a shifting funding landscape toward interdisciplinary and translational science [5] has helped to catalyze discussions on teaching science as an integrated process of inquiry that is less concerned with discipline-specific facts [6,7].As this educational movement has filtered into the arena of graduate education, a number of proposals have been put forth from encouraging curriculum fellows to develop integrated graduate courses [8,9] to developing graduate-level laboratory courses [10]. What these interventions have in common is a focus on developing interdisciplinary educational opportunities that apply to the research paradigm in which graduate students will be embedded [11][12][13]. In...