RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA


Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to
Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security

Committee on Research Universities

Board on Higher Education and Workforce

Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES


THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Research Universities Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for ap- propriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. 2010-3-04 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Grant No. 10-96822-000-HCD with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Grant No. OIA-1048372 with the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organiza- tions or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-25639-1 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-25639-9 Library of Congress Control Number:  2012939571 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en- gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engi- neering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro- viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Chad Holliday, Chair, Chairman of the Board, Bank of America, and Chairman and CEO, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) (retired) [NAE] Peter Agre, University Professor and Director, Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University [NAS/IOM] Enriqueta Bond, President, Burroughs Wellcome Fund (retired) [IOM] C. W. Paul Chu, T. L. L. Temple Chair of Science and Professor of Physics, University of Houston, and Former President, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology [NAS] Francisco Cigarroa, Chancellor, The University of Texas System [IOM] James Duderstadt, President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and Engineering, University of Michigan [NAE] Ronald Ehrenberg, Irving M. Ives Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations and Economics, and Director, Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, Cornell University William Frist, Distinguished University Professor, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, and United States Senator (retired) William Green, Chairman and CEO, Accenture John Hennessy, President and Bing Presidential Professor, Stanford University [NAS/NAE] Walter Massey, President, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and President Emeritus, Morehouse College Burton McMurtry, Former Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist and Former Chair, Stanford University Board of Trustees Ernest Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, Director of the Energy Initiative, and Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the MIT Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Heather Munroe-Blum, Principal (President) and Vice Chancellor, and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Cherry Murray, Dean, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, John A. and Elizabeth S. Armstrong Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and Professor of Physics, Harvard University [NAS/NAE] v

OCR for page R1
Hunter Rawlings, President Emeritus and Professor of Classical History, Cornell University* John Reed, Chairman of the MIT Corporation and Chairman and CEO, Citigroup (retired) Teresa Sullivan, President, University of Virginia Sidney Taurel, Chairman and CEO, Eli Lilly & Company (retired) Lee T. Todd, Jr., President, University of Kentucky Laura D’Andrea Tyson, S. K. and Angela Chan Chair in Global Management, Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley Padmasree Warrior, Chief Technology Officer, Cisco Systems Staff Peter H. Henderson, Study Director James Voytuk, Senior Program Officer Tom Arrison, Senior Program Officer Mark Regets, Senior Program Officer (until January 31, 2011) Michelle Crosby-Nagy, Research Associate (until January 14, 2011) Laura DeFeo, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow Paola Giusti-Rodriguez, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow Amy Hein, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow Michelle Tangredi, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow Sabrina Hall, Program Associate *Hunter Rawlings resigned in May 2011 upon his appointment as President, Association of American Universities. vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE William E. Kirwan, Chair, Chancellor, University System of Maryland F. King Alexander, President, California State University, Long Beach Susan K. Avery, President and Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Jean-Lou Chameau, President, California Institute of Technology [NAE] Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Professor of Biomathematics and Director, Mathematical and Theoretical Biology Institute, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Arizona State University Rita Colwell, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland College Park and The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health [NAS] Peter Ewell, Vice President, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems Sylvia Hurtado, Professor and Director, Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles William Kelley, Professor of Medicine, Biochemistry, and Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine [IOM] Earl Lewis, Provost, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Professor of History, Emory University Paula Stephan, Professor of Economics, Andrew Young School for Policy Studies, Georgia State University Staff Peter Henderson, Director Gail Greenfield, Senior Program Officer Sabrina Hall, Program Associate vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Foreword REQUEST FROM CONGRESS In 2005 a bipartisan group in Congress asked the National Academies to identify the key steps that the U.S. Congress should take to ensure a science and technology enterprise that would enable the United States to compete in the global economy of the 21st century. In response, the Na- tional Academies appointed a committee, under the leadership of Norman Augustine, that produced Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.1 That report provided a powerful framework for discussing America’s competitiveness as well as recommendations that formed the basis of the America COMPETES Act.2 Four years later, in 2009, Senators Lamar Alexander and Barbara Mi- kulski and Representatives Bart Gordon and Ralph Hall requested that the National Academies provide a follow-up report that examines more deeply the health and competitiveness of the nation’s research universi- ties. They noted that America’s research universities “have been the criti- cal assets that have laid the groundwork—through research and doctoral education—for the development of many of the competitive advantages that make possible the high American standard of living.” But they also 1  National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medi- cine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007. 2  America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, Public Law No. 110-69. ix

OCR for page R1
x FOREWORD noted that, while our research universities are admired throughout the world and their contributions cannot be overstated, they are nonetheless “under stress, even as other countries are measurably improving the qual- ity of their research institutions.” Consequently, they requested that the Academies “assess the organizational, intellectual, and financial capacity of public and private American research universities relative to research universities internationally.”3 CHARGE TO THE STUDY COMMITTEE The Governing Board of the National Research Council accepted the request from Congress. The NRC then empanelled a study committee composed of individuals who are leaders in academia, industry, govern- ment, and national laboratories. In selecting the committee, the NRC sought not only balance across sectors, but also diversity among academic institutions, balance across fields, and wide geographic distribution, in- cluding individuals with significant international experience. The com- mittee was charged with the following task: An ad hoc committee will author a consensus report with findings and recommendations that answer the question: What are the top ten actions that Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States com- pete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environ- ment, and security in the global community of the 21st century. The study committee will, in carrying out its work, focus on: • Research and doctoral programs carried out by research universi- ties and associated medical centers; • Basic and applied research in research universities, along with col- laborative research programs with other components of the research en- terprise (e.g., national and federal laboratories, federally funded research and development centers, and corporate research laboratories); • Doctoral education and, to the extent necessary, the pathways to graduate education and research careers; and • Fields of study and research that are critical to helping the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security, with a focus on science, engineering, and medicine. 3  See Appendix A for Letter of Request.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD xi In carrying out this charge, the study committee will, in addition to other tasks it identifies: • Describe and assess the historical development, current status, trends, and societal impact of research universities and the “ecosystem” of this set of institutions in the United States, placing these institutions in the context of the nation’s research, innovation, and industrial enter- prises and the nation’s system of higher education; • Assess the organizational, financial, and intellectual capacity of public and private research universities in the United States, including reference to research universities internationally to the extent possible with existing data; and • Envision the mission and organization of these diverse institutions 10–20 years into the future and the steps needed to get there. THE REPORT The study committee has taken stock of the health of our nation’s research universities today and envisioned the role we would like them to play in our nation’s life 10 to 20 years from now. They have found that without reservation, our research universities are, today, the best in the world, yet they face critical threats and challenges that may seriously erode their quality. In response to its charge, the committee produced this report—their vision for strengthening these institutions so that they may remain dynamic assets over the coming decades—as the launch of a decade-long effort involving many constituencies. In order for the pro- gram they outline to ensure we have strong research universities 20 years from now that remain critical national assets, the actions necessary to implement their recommendations and achieve our goals will necessarily evolve as their details are thought through, new challenges and oppor- tunities arise, and as we surely emerge from the economic circumstances present at the time of their writing. Experience with earlier reports, such as Rising Above the Gathering Storm, suggests that the role of this report should be to lay out and justify the findings concerning the challenges and needs, provide general recommendations that may be adapted to changing circumstances, and then develop implementation plans for each constituency that will evolve and adapt in a changing world (e.g., the economy). America’s research universities have been “breaking through” to cre- ate a better life for Americans for more than a century. While Bell Labs and their counterparts have given way to Silicon Valley and their coun- terparts, American research universities continue to provide the heartbeat that keeps major innovation alive. The plan for action in this report, when followed for the remainder of this decade, will set the course for contin-

OCR for page R1
xii FOREWORD ued American leadership and good jobs for Americans. As this report is finalized, citizens from all over the world question America’s capability to lead the world to a new century of growth. As Americans, we must accept this challenge, and these 10 recommendations hold a critical key to that success.  Charles M. Vest, President Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chair National Academy of Engineering Committee on Research Universities

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Com- mittee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu- tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this re- port: Patrick Aebischer, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; Nancy Andrews, Duke University; Robert Atkinson, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; William Banholzer, Dow Chemical Company; Steven Beckwith, University of California; Robert Berdahl, Association of American Universities; Richard Celeste, Colorado College; Jonathan Cole, Columbia University; Rita Colwell, University of Maryland; Anthony DeCrappeo, Council on Government Relations; David Goldston, Natural Resources Defense Council; Stephen Emerson, Haverford College; Leroy Fletcher, Texas A&M University; Paul Gray, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Peter McPherson, Association of Public and Land-grant Uni- versities; William Press, University of Texas; Alison Richard, Yale Univer- sity; Michael Rothschild, Princeton University; Debra Stewart, Council of Graduate Schools; Ronald Sugar, Northrop Grumman Corporation; Richard Wheeler, University of Illinois; Jack Martin Wilson, University of Massachusetts; and Nancy Fugate Woods, University of Washington. xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc- tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the con- clusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Maxine Savitz, Honeywell Inc. (retired) and Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Academies, they were respon- sible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The study committee thanks the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for the financial support they provided for this study and the many experts who met with the com- mittee to provide their insights on the policy, organizational, financial, and intellectual issues central to the committee’s charge. Special thanks to Ariella Barrett, Research Librarian for her assistance verifying the ci- tations. We also thank the staff of the National Research Council who helped organize our committee meetings and draft the report.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 Findings, 2 Principles, 5 Recommendations, 6 Conclusion, 20 1 PROLOGUE 23 2 NATIONAL GOALS AND ASSETS 25 National Goals, 25 Assets for Innovation, 27 3 AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 37 Creating the American Research University, 37 An Ecosystem of Diverse Institutions, 39 Quality and Impact, 41 4 THREATS AND WEAKNESSES 55 Challenges and Opportunities for Our Research Universities, 55 Public Research Universities: A Special Case, 58 Global Threats, 60 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi CONTENTS 5 ACTION 69 Repositioning Our Research Universities in a Changed World, 69 Principles, 70 Recommendations, 71 6 CONCLUSION 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 APPENDIXES A Letter of Request from Congress 191 B Committee Biographies 195 C Work of the Committee 211 D Meeting Agendas 215 E Focus Group Sessions: Questions and Participants 221

OCR for page R1
Boxes, Figures, and Tables Note: In three-digit box, figure, and table numbers, the middle num- ber indicates the Recommendation that the box, table, or figure corre- sponds to. BOXES 2-1 Grand Challenges of Engineering, 28 2-2 The Context for Innovation and Competitiveness Policy, 30 3-1 Values and Characteristics of America’s Research Universities, 40 3-2 Top 50 Research Universities, Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2010, 44 3-3 OECD Analysis of Geographical Distribution of Highest Impact Institutions, Overall and By Field, 2009, 46 3-4 National Science Foundation, Selected Examples of “Sensational” Products That Have Resulted from or Drawn on NSF-Funded Basic Research, 49 3-5 Selected Statements of Individuals Who Founded or Lead Companies That Grew Out of Federally Funded University Research, 51 3-6 Multidisciplinary Social Science Research Program for National Energy Policy, 52 4-1 Strategies of Countries to Strengthen Research Universities, 62 xvii

OCR for page R1
xviii BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 5-3.1 Further Initiatives Announced by the White House Today to Move Ideas from Lab to Market, September 2011, 98 5-5.1 Supporting Early-Career Faculty, Recommendations from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 116 5-5.2 NIH New Investigators Program: Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00), 118 5-7.1 AAU-APLU-COGR Recommendations for Regulatory Reform, 132 5-7.2 Estimating the Cost of Effort Reporting, 136 5-8.1 Mechanisms of Support in Doctoral Education: Definitions, 151 5-9.1 Gathering Storm Recommendation: “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds”, 161 5-9.2 Broad Recommendations Across STEM Educational Pathways Outlined in Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation, 168 5-10.1 Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Recommendations on Immigration, 176 FIGURES 3-1 Foreign students in tertiary education by country of enrollment, 2001 and 2008, 42 3-2 Foreign-born share of STEM workers, by educational attainment, 1994-2010, 43 4-1 Ratio of first university NS&E degrees to 24-year-old population, by selected country/economy, 1975 and 2000 or most recent year, 64 4-2 Natural Science and Engineering doctorate awards, selected countries, 1993-2006 (thousands), 64 4-3 S&E article output, by major S&E publishing region or country/ economy, 1995-2007, 65 4-4 Location of estimated worldwide R&D expenditures, 1996 and 2007, 65 4-5 Normalized growth in S&T globalization, data indexed as a ratio to 1996 = 100, 66 5-1.1 Gross expenditures on R&D as share of gross domestic product, for selected countries: 1981-2007, 76 5-1.2 Gross domestic expenditures on R&D by United States, EU-27, OECD, and selected other countries: 1981-2007, 77 5-1.3 Federally funded, university-performed research and development as a percentage of GDP, 1990-2008, 79

OCR for page R1
BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES xix 5-1.4 University-performed research and development and federally- funded, university-performed research and development, 1990- 2008 (in millions of constant 2000 dollars), 80 5-1.5 Trends in and characteristics of national, industrial, and federal R&D, 1954-present, 81 5-2.1 Public FTE enrollment and state educational appropriations per FTE student, U.S., fiscal 1985-2010 (constant dollars), 86 5-2.2 Real state and local appropriations per student (FTE) in public research universities, by very high research and high research institutions, fiscal 1987-2007 (2007 constant dollars), 87 5-2.3 Total expenditures per FTE student at private and public nonprofit institutions, by institution category and type of expenses, 1999, 2004, 2008, and 2009 (2009 constant dollars), 88 5-2.4 Ratio of salaries of full, associate, and assistant professors at private institutions to those at public institutions, 1976, 1986, 1999, and 2007, 89 5-2.5 Ratio of students to full-time faculty, for public and private research universities, 1989, 1997, and 2006, 89 5-3.1 Industry-funded basic research by perfomer, 1953-2008 (millions of constant 2000 dollars), 94 5-3.2 U.S. basic research by performing sector, 1980-2008 (millions of constant 2000 dollars), 95 5-4.1 Cornell University, administrative streamlining program, projected savings by initiative, overall and by fiscal year, 2011- 2015, 104 5-5.1 Age distribution of faculty in doctoral programs, by control (public, private), 2006, 114 5-5.2 Average age of first-time R01-equivalent principal investigators, National Institutes of Health, by degree, 1980-2007, 115 5-6.1 Federal and university funding for university-performed basic research, 1990-2008 (millions of 2000 constant dollars), 127 5-8.1 Average cumulative 10-year completion rates for cohorts entering doctoral study from 1992-1993 through 1994-1995, by broad field and year, 146 5-8.2 Average time-to-degree and age-at-degree for science and engineering Ph.D. recipients: 1978-2003, 147 5-8.3 NIH graduate support by mechanism, 1980 to 2008, 152 5-8.4 Work sector of Ph.D.’s, by field, 2006, 153 5-8.5 Total number of professional science master’s programs in U.S. universities, 1997-2011, 154 5-9.1 Representation of women in faculty positions at Research I institutions by rank and field in 2003, 165 5-9.2 U.S. population by race/ethnicity, 1990-2050 (2010-2050 projected), 166

OCR for page R1
xx BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 5-9.3 Enrollment and degrees, by educational level, race/ethnicity, and citizenship, 2007, 167 5-9.4 Percentage of 2004 freshmen at 4-year institutions who aspire STEM majors who then completed STEM degrees in 4 and 5 years, by race/ethnicity, 169 5-10.1 Doctorate awards to temporary visa holder by major field of study, 2009, 173 5-10.2 Year-to-year percentage change in international student participation in U.S. graduate education, 2003 to 2004 through 2009 to 2010, 174 5-10.3 Science and engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. institutions to non-U.S. citizens on temporary visas, 175 TABLES 2-1 U.S. Ranking Relative to Other Countries on Innovation and Competitiveness, 2011, 34 3-1 Indicators and Weights for Academic Ranking of World Universities, 45 4-1 Average One-, Three-, Five-, and Ten-Year Net Returns on University Endowments, By Endowment Size, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, 57 4-2a Chinese University Programs in QS World University Rankings, by Field, 67 4-2b Chinese University Programs in Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities, by Field, 2010, 67 5-1.1 U.S. R&D, 2008 Expenditures, 78 5-4.1 Strategies Deployed by Public and Private Doctoral Institutions to Address the Financial Consequences of the Economic Downturn (percentage that reported employing the strategy, Winter 2011), 103 5-6.1 Science and Engineering Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges: FY 2004-2009 (Millions of current dollars), 126 5-7.1 AAU-APLU-COGR Suggestions for Easing Compliance Burden on Research Universities, 140 5-8.1 Percentage of Full-Time Science, Engineering, and Health Graduate Students by Source of Support, Federal Agencies in 1988, 1998, and 2008, 150 5-8.2 Percent of Doctoral Programs that Track the Career Outcomes of Their Graduates, by Field, 2006, 155

OCR for page R1
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governours must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. —President James Madison, 1822 Entrance to the James Madison Building of the Library of Congress

OCR for page R1