The research climate in 1972 was such that almost every avenue for increasing the efficiency of the total national R&D enterprise was given consideration. At the end of a rapid growth period, when increased activity cannot come from substantial increases in funding, it becomes clear that one of the most promising areas for increasing R&D output is by more effective coupling of the three research sectors—university/industry/government. Furthermore, the field of materials is an ideal case study for lessons from the past.

COSMAT has included as one of the criteria which are characteristic of the evolving field of MSE the purposive nature or mission-orientation of the field. Certainly this feature distinguishes significant materials research from most traditional disciplinary scientific activities on the country’s campuses, and one must assess its importance in university materials work. If much coupling is not in evidence in this field, it may have an adverse effect on the general case.

As the issue of relevance and the general demand for greater accountability are raised, it behooves the academic community to examine the nature and effectiveness of its interfaces with society. In an applied field such as MSE, one might have expected that the interface would be particularly strong—at least relative to other areas. Especially where materials centers have been established, such an interface would appear even more likely since these interdisciplinary units on a campus are the obvious points of contact with the “problems” of society—those identified by government and industry. Yet, many would argue that it is not at all certain that university interaction with industry is either desirable or valuable as a general phenomenon across the campus. It is possible that such interaction could dominate academic processes and warp its purposes where it is carried too far and undue dependency established. Furthermore, since the university is, increasingly, one of the major performers of the nation’s basic research, over-emphasis on applied research might cut off the well-spring of future science. On balance in 1972, university coupling to industry seems far below optimum levels considering societal problems as a whole. It is of considerable interest here to examine the status in MSE; to compare the new materials centers with more traditional departments; and to compare block-funded with nonblock-funded centers.

As to interaction among universities themselves, we have seen since the 1950’s the emergence of a variety of consortial arrangements wherever “Big Science” has been involved. Nuclear facilities (Argonne, Brookhaven) and astronomical observatories are examples. Materials science is neither the “Big Science” of physics nor the little science of the $50,000 grant for, say, organic chemistry. It is in a very real sense a middle science of the $500,000 block grant.

Of the ways in which universities interact with industry, the most widely practiced is consulting for industry by the faculty. While this brings, in principle, ideas and concepts developed with university or public resources to the private sector, it does little to couple the total system. There are no data on this consulting activity. A survey by discipline and by university would be invaluable in this connection. However, it appears that the faculty of the materials departments do as much or somewhat more consulting than the average in engineering departments.

A second mode of interaction is the direct research contract to a university department or center. This is an obvious and quite generally available mode of interaction, since almost every university and almost every industry have the mechanisms to permit such coupling. Here again, there are no data on the national situation classified by disciplines, research topics, industries, etc.

A variant of this mode is the research grant from industry to university, or occasionally vice versa, where the government provides the funds so that one institution becomes the prime contractor and the other the subcontractor. This practice is widespread; the DoD and NASA have utilized it to a considerable extent.

Fellowships are excluded from this category since they involve only general support of university purposes, with no deliberate interaction of the research systems. Intermediate between fellowships and direct coupling is the family of arrangements which may go under the name “industrial affiliates,” where the university as a whole has established a special relationship to various companies. This involves much more than research and, in any case, the interaction relative to any one department or area remains diffuse.

The traditional coupling modes noted above are all utilized in the materials field. However, there is no obvious evidence of any sudden changes in the pattern in the last two decades, caused by the emergence of MSE. It would be of interest to conduct a national study to obtain the data on the extent, nature, and value of coupling via these traditional modes.

However, since 1960, several novel experiments have been tried in the nation. Many of them are in the materials field and deserve careful attention for what they can teach us when such experiments are clearly binary arrangements (i.e. between university and industry), and also when ternary arrangements (where the government also enters the relationship, usually by providing the financial support) are involved.

Binary Coupling in the Materials Field: Only four or five formally established programs have been identified, although one or two others may have escaped our attention where a materials center or department is coupled to a group of industries on a continuing basis. This excludes the vast number of individual time-limited contracts.

The descriptive literature on the various binary arrangements discloses a high degree of similarity among the programs. If survival is a test of fitness, these coupling arrangements indicate rather unambiguously the features required for success, and serve as models for similar attempts. Their features are:

Ternary Coupling Arrangements: Our cursory survey has identified only half a dozen examples of this model.

These arrangements are quite different from the binary category since they involve the actual research towards a defined objective, and support in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The ARPA approach was aimed very specifically at advancing selected areas of technology, and was also an attempt to accelerate the transfer along the science → engineering axis. According to R.L.Sproull ³⁷ : “The ‘coupling’ in this context is no longer the joining of two institutions together, although many people seem to still think of the coupling in this program as the joining of an educational institution to an industrial laboratory. The coupling is simply one of the appropriate techniques, perhaps the most important one, that is available to a laboratory that has a responsibility for developing a field of technology. Certainly invention is also needed; we are not so naive as to believe that all of engineering development arises from science. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, the coupling includes a great deal of joining of science developed elsewhere in the world and science developed right inside the industrial laboratory to the field of technology, as well as coupling of the science developed in the university or technical institute arm of the program.”

And this transfer, moreover, was also expected to happen within the university. Thus:

“As mentioned, in the original proposal the university components were to be science departments. With the broader view of the ‘coupling’ explained above, it became clear that the parts of the universities that could be most helpful would eventually be engineering departments. This is not to say that at the beginning an institution with a strong science department and a growing engineering department might not qualify. It is only to say that in the long run there should be a strong interaction between the engineering departments of the university and the industrial laboratory.”

Regrettably, no report has been prepared on the ARPA experiment. Of the three programs, the Washington University with the Monsanto Company is still funded and has resulted in the setting-up of an interdisciplinary focused-research laboratory and a corresponding degree program concentrating on composite materials. The University reports on its own program in the following terms:

“Prior to September 1965, activities in materials science and engineering at Washington University were limited to an informal program in Metallurgical Engineering. Part of the objective of the Monsanto/Washington University ONR/ARPA Association has been to provide a graduate-level education in the engineering aspects of structural materials to as broad a spectrum of undergraduates as possible and also to provide a framework for industrial participation in academic programs. The general philosophy has been to maintain as

flexible an arrangement as possible on course work and degree requirements and also to provide research opportunities that will develop an interest in engineering problems associated with technologically important structural materials.

“We feel this program represents a successful interdisciplinary approach to materials science. There has been a free interchange of students in our courses in polymer science, applied mechanics, and metallurgy as well as interaction between Monsanto personnel and the students. A number of students have conducted part or all of their research activities in the Monsanto Laboratories, several being involved there now.”

The principal results are:

“That the Monsanto/Washington University Association program sponsored by the ONR/ARPA contract has been the primary stimulant for a Materials Science and Engineering Program at the University.

“That industry-university cooperation in a specific research area has led to a meaningful experience for a graduate student with the direct consequences being a better appreciation of the relevance of his research to the technological community, an acceleration of his research program, and a more stimulating environment in which to work.

“That we have developed a faculty and a mode of operation which hopefully will permit us to broaden our scope and sustain a well-balanced program of graduate study in structural materials.”

Two major NSF models are still quite new: The Processing Research Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University states its objectives as follows:

“This institute will work closely with the basic industries of the country in order to establish a problem-oriented rather than discipline-oriented approach to engineering education. Three departments at CMU are involved in this activity—chemical, mechanical and materials engineering. The program will involve new subjects, new degree requirements and a greater emphasis on project work than in present programs. An effort will be made to involve students who have had at least one year of industrial experience in the program.

“The activities of PRI will have two major thrusts—one directed toward the generation of new knowledge and techniques for industry and one directed toward a new type of engineering education.”

The Ultrahard Materials Program started in June, 1971 in the Engineering Division of NSF involves Case Western Reserve, Carnegie-Mellon University, Denver, University of Florida, M.I.T., Oregon Graduate Center, and Penn State University, The research at these institutions forms an approach to the basic and applied science level of problems relevant to the cutting and grinding industries. Presentation of the problems by, and feedback of results to, a group of industries are achieved in a semiannual meeting where highly specific reporting and critique take place. This model constitutes a highly generalizable university version of a government contract to a prime contractor and its subcontractors for a major item. Where there is no prime contractor, some degree of leadership must be created by one or other of the major participants in turn.

Other Inter-Institutional Models: Unique among industry-university coupling arrangements is the Materials Advisory Panel of the Governor’s Science Advisory Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This Panel, in the tenth year of its existence, is a consortium of leaders of six major Universities (Carnegie-Mellon, Drexel, Lehigh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Penn State) and approximately ten major corporations. The Panel has been responsible for technology transfer in the materials field via federal and state programs utilizing conferences, workshops, TV, and movies, aimed principally at small and moderate-size companies. The programs have included one for industry research personnel internships at the universities’ materials centers. The Panel has developed, encouraged, and participated in reviewing the intrastate coupled contracts between industry and universities which have been funded by the Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Foundation (PSEF) for many years. This program averaging a few contracts in the materials field every year, with a value aggregating to perhaps $200,000/year, is probably the most extensive experiment in coupled materials research in the nation. A preliminary analysis by the PSEF administrators of successful models delineated the following features as most conducive to success:

A quite different type of “coupling” may be the absorption by industry of some university functions. The General Motors Institute is an example of this where the corporation provides an education integrated with employment in its normal production processes. More typical of the usual teaching arrangements are the myriad in-house courses given by most major corporations. As yet there are only isolated examples (among them, those noted above) of universities gearing up for courses in MSE to be given within a single industry. The total volume of such continuing education is large and increasing, but the role of the university so far appears to be minor. An excellent opportunity for a new form of coupling exists here.