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 37
3
America’s Research Universities
America’s research universities, through education and basic research,
have emerged as a major asset—some would say the most potent asset—
for the United States as the nation seeks economic growth and national
goals. This did not happen by accident; it is the result of prescient and deliberate
federal and state policies that have powerfully shaped these institutions.
CREATING THE AMERICAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
Before World War II, the federal government and research universities
played only a small role in scientific research and its dissemination, with
a couple of notable exceptions in agricultural research and extension and
early efforts in public health. Scientific research and technological change
were carried out by individual researchers and inventors and by indus-
try, which either capitalized on the innovations of others or developed
their own industrial laboratories to incorporate science and engineering
directly into product development.
The structure and power of the nation’s science and engineering
enterprise changed dramatically during World War II. Critical to the
war effort, a federal-university partnership created by President Franklin
Roosevelt and led by Vannevar Bush led to significant uses of scientific
and technological breakthroughs in the war—including radar, the prox-
imity fuse, penicillin, DDT, the computer, jet propulsion, and the atomic
37
OCR for page 38
38 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
bomb—and in industry.1 As Vannevar Bush wrote in the 1945 report
Science: The Endless Frontier:
We all know how much the new drug, penicillin, has meant to our griev-
ously wounded men on the grim battlefronts of this war—the countless
lives it has saved—the incalculable suffering which its use has prevented.
Science and the great practical genius of this nation made this achieve-
ment possible.
Some of us know the vital role which radar has played in bringing the
United Nations to victory over Nazi Germany and in driving the Japa-
nese steadily back from their island bastions. Again it was painstaking
scientific research over many years that made radar possible.
What we often forget are the millions of pay envelopes on a peacetime
Saturday night which are filled because new products and new indus-
tries have provided jobs for countless Americans. Science made that
possible, too.2
With the value of the partnership clearly demonstrated during wartime,
this set up a model for the postwar future.
The model was harnessed to both civilian and military goals in the
post–World War II era. Bush proposed, in Science: The Endless Frontier, a
new partnership to achieve economic growth, national security, and the
public health. Through this partnership, basic research would be increas-
ingly funded by the federal government and largely concentrated in the
nation’s research universities.
This partnership gradually emerged over the next 15 years, encom-
passing a range of federal agencies and an increasing number of pub-
lic and private research universities. The federal government science
establishment expanded through the creation of the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the expansion of the National Institutes of Health,
the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and the “Space Race,” the research and development programs of the
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce (National Institute for
Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration). At the same time, university research expanded. For
example, from 1958 to 1968, academic research and development (R&D)
1 Hugh Davis Graham and Nancy Diamond, The Rise of American Research Universities:
Elites and Challengers in the Postwar Era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1997, p. 28.
2 Vannevar Bush, Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1945. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/vbush1945.jsp
(accessed September 16, 2011).
OCR for page 39
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 39
grew by 417 percent; academic research expenditures, by 587 percent;
federally funded academic R&D, by 618 percent; and federally funded
basic research, by 702 percent. At the same time, the G.I. Bill led to the
vast expansion of the university enterprise in a way that reinforced the
growth of research. Consequently, as Clark Kerr asserts, “At the end of
World War II, perhaps six American universities could be called research
universities, in the sense that research was the dominant faculty activ-
ity. . . . By the early 1960s, there were about 20 research universities and
they received half of all federal research and development funds going
to higher education. In the year 2000, there were at least 100, and many
more were aspiring to this status.”3
AN ECOSYSTEM OF DIVERSE INSTITUTIONS
This federal-university partnership has led to the creation of a large,
diverse ecosystem of public and private research universities in which
each institution plays critical local, regional, and national roles. An ex-
pansive view of the ecosystem would identify perhaps as many as 200
or more institutions that either award research doctorates or have more
than $35 million in annual R&D expenditures. One observer has argued
that about half of these, or 125 institutions, generate most of the new
knowledge from research. This more limited set of institutions include
about 60 institutions that are large, comprehensive research universities
and rank among the top 100 universities globally. There are another 60
or so that educate undergraduate and graduate students and conduct
research, but have a more limited set of fields in which they seek to excel
in either doctoral education or research.4 The ecosystem also includes
our national laboratories that provide a unique capacity for large-scale,
sustained research projects that would be inappropriate for universities,
such as the deep space missions of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or the
Advanced Light Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Yet it
is important to note that most of these large laboratory projects involved
both university faculty and graduate students as key players.
For our purposes, research universities are those that share certain
values and characteristics and participate in an “ecosystem” of research
universities in which institutions interact—through cooperation and com-
petition (see Box 3-1). Many of these values and characteristics distinguish
3 Clark Kerr, The Gold and the Blue: A Personal Memoir of the University of California,
1949-1967, Volume Two: Political Turmoil, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002,
p. 92. Cited in Irwin Feller, Presentation to AAAS Science and Technology Policy Forum,
April 2011.
4 Jonathan Cole, The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable
National Role, Why it Must be Protected, New York: Public Affairs, 2009.
OCR for page 40
40 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
BOX 3-1
Values and Characteristics of American Research Universities
The values that these institutions share include:
1. Intellectual freedom: The research university is a place of free inquiry
that and a place of original ideas, a value that distinguishes U.S. research universi-
ties from many around the world.
2. Initiative and creativity: The U.S. Research University is a place that
provides support for student initiative and creativity. This distinguishes us from
research universities in Asia (e.g., Singapore and China) where student creativity
is not supported.
3. Excellence: There is a competitive drive for talent in students and faculty
and quality in research.
4. Openness: The openness of the US academy in the last century to
foreign-born students and faculty, both political refugees from Europe and Asia
and more purely scientifically curious.
The characteristics they share include:
5. Large and comprehensive: With some notable exceptions, they tend to
be large institutions with multiple divisions comprising the “multiversity” described
by Clark Kerr.
6. Undergraduate experience: The U.S. Research University includes an
undergraduate residential experience that distinguishes these institutions from
counterparts in Europe (e.g., France, Germany, and the Netherlands). This experi-
ence provides an opportunity to learn outside the classroom as well as within. The
undergraduate experience is also enriched by the opportunity to participate in the
research activities of faculty.
7. Graduate education: These institutions emphasize high caliber advanced
training for graduate students, with a relatively high ratio of graduate students to
undergraduates and the integration of graduate education and research.
8. Faculty: These institutions have faculty intensely who are engaged in
research and scholarship and compete for external research funding. Research
performance plays a critical role in the decision for tenure.
9. Research: Characterized by high levels of research, generally linked to
scholarship, economic productivity, and world leadership.
10. Leadership: Enlightened and bold leadership.
Sources: Cole, The Great American University. Graham and Diamond, The Rise of American
Research Universities.
American research universities from their counterparts around the world
and the ecosystem they participate in may also be distinguished from
its counterparts. The traditional European model of higher education
emphasizes centralized planning, state control, state funding, little com-
OCR for page 41
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 41
petition, and a focus on research and advanced training. In the Ameri-
can ecosystem, by contrast, there is significant diversity among research
universities in size, geography, and missions. The ecosystem is charac-
terized by decentralization, pluralism (public and private institutions),
diverse funding sources (endowment, federal, state, tuition), high levels
of competition, and a hybrid model that includes undergraduate educa-
tion, graduate study, and research “in the same place, done by the same
people, frequently at the same time.”5 These distinctions have made our
ecosystem extremely productive. Indeed, the success of the U.S. system
has prompted others to move toward our system, for example, the ongo-
ing debates about the higher education sector in the United Kingdom.
The U.S. ecosystem and its productivity, argues Jonathan Cole, is im-
portantly defined by “unprecedented, vast” federal funding for science
and technology research. Hugh Graham and Nancy Diamond note that
higher education grew substantially in the post–World War II era because
of growing economic prosperity, the baby boom, and revolution in federal
science policy. The last of these more specifically drove the expansion of
the nation’s research universities. And, as a consequence, “American uni-
versities, not widely respected in the international community of schol-
ars and scientists prior to World War II, subsequently won preeminence
among the world’s leading institutions.”6
The U.S. ecosystem and its productivity, argue Graham and Diamond,
also are importantly defined by a large, competitive, national market for
faculty in which state funding has also played a critical role. This market
emerged among a small set of prominent institutions between 1900 and
1925. In this system, faculty careers were defined by upward mobility
through lateral movement that made the curriculum vitae all important,
a primary attachment to profession rather than institution, and research
productivity. In this environment, public research universities could only
provide salaries competitive with those of private research universities
through economies of scale and state appropriations.7
QUALITY AND IMPACT
Measuring the direct contribution of universities, through this fed-
eral-state-university partnership, on the economy and society is a com-
plex task,8 yet a series of indicators reveal a pattern of quality and impact.
5 Graham and Diamond, Rise of American Research Universities, p. 1.
6 Cole, Great American University; Graham and Diamond, Rise of American Research
Universities, pp. 1 and 11.
7 Graham and Diamond, Rise of American Research Universities, pp. 20-22.
8 National Research Council, Measuring the Impact of Federal Investments in Research:
Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.
OCR for page 42
42 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
FIGURE 3-1 Foreign students in tertiary education by country of enrollment,
2001 and 2008. Figure 3.1.eps
Source: IIE Atlas of Student Mobility.
bitmap
First, in indicators of relative success and quality as measured against
their peers globally, American research universities and the work they do
are ranked individually and collectively as the best in the world: 9
• Nobel Prizes: Before World War I, Nobel Prizes were largely
awarded to Europeans at European institutions such as the University
of Berlin, University of Göttingen, L’Ecole Polytechnique, Cambridge
University, and Oxford University. Indeed, until Adolph Hitler came to
power, German universities were considered the best in the world. After-
wards, there was a great intellectual migration out of Germany, mainly to
the United States. Consequently, as Cole relates, “Today, there is not one
German university in the world’s top 50.” Meanwhile, since the 1930s,
roughly 60 percent of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to scholars at
American institutions.10
• International students: American higher education represents
one of the few sectors of the U.S. economy with a favorable balance of
trade. We attract talented young people from around the world who
seek opportunities at American universities as students, scholars, and
9 Graham and Diamond, Rise of American Research Universities p. 10; Cole, Great Ameri-
can University, pp. 4-5.
10 Cole, Great American University, p. 4.
OCR for page 43
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 43
scientists. As shown in Figure 3-1, the United States has the largest mar-
ket share of foreign students in tertiary education. That share has been
shrinking in recent years, but may be on the rise again with increases in
Chinese undergraduates at American institutions. As seen in Figure 3-2,
a very high percentage of these intellectual migrants stay here and work
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations.
• Global rankings: There are numerous global rankings of research
universities and substantial debates about the indicators useful in com-
piling them. While we do not endorse any particular ranking or meth-
odology, we do note that in almost every case they indicate the general
dominance of U.S. institutions. For example, as shown in Box 3-2, the
most recent Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) produced
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
Percent
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
FIGURE 3-2 Foreign-born share of STEM workers, by educational attainment,
1994-2010.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administra-
tion, “Education Supports Racial and Ethnic Equality in STEM,” ESA Issue Brief,
Figure 3.2.eps
#05-11, September 2011. http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/
documents/educationsupportsracialandethnicequalityinstem_0.pdf (accessed
bitmap
September 16, 2011).
OCR for page 44
44 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
BOX 3-2
Top 50 Research Universities,
Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2010
1. Harvard University 32. niversity of California,
U
2. niversity of California, Berkeley Santa Barbara
U
3. Stanford University 33. niversity of Colorado at
U
4. Massachusetts Institute of Boulder
Technology (MIT) 34. Rockefeller University
5. University of Cambridge 35. uke University
D
6. California Institute of Technology 36. niversity of British
U
7. Princeton University Columbia
8. Columbia University 37. niversity of Maryland,
U
9. University of Chicago College Park
10. University of Oxford 38. he University of Texas at
T
11. Yale University Austin
12. Cornell University 39. ierre and Marie Curie
P
13. University of California, Los Angeles University - Paris 6
14. niversity of California, San Diego
U 40. niversity of Copenhagen
U
15. University of Pennsylvania 41. niversity of North Carolina
U
16. University of Washington at Chapel Hill
17. University of Wisconsin - Madison 42. arolinska Institute
K
18. The Johns Hopkins University 43. ennsylvania State
P
19. University of California, San Francisco University - University Park
20. The University of Tokyo 44. he University of
T
21. University College London Manchester
22. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 45.
University of Paris Sud
23. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Paris 11)
Zurich 46. niversity of California,
U
24. Kyoto University Davis
25. University of Illinois at Urbana- 47. niversity of California,
U
Champaign Irvine
26. The Imperial College of Science, 48. niversity of Southern
U
Technology and Medicine California
27. University of Toronto 49. he University of Texas
T
28. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Southwestern Medical
29. Northwestern University Center at Dallas
30. Washington University in St. Louis 50. trecht University
U
31. New York University
Source: Academic Rankings of World Universities, 2010. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. http://
www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp (accessed February 9, 2011).
OCR for page 45
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 45
TABLE 3-1 Indicators and Weights for ARWU
Criteria Indicator Code Weight
Alumni of an institution winning Nobel
Quality of Education Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10%
Staff of an institution winning Nobel
Prizes and Fields Medals Award 20%
Highly cited researchers in 21 broad
Quality of Faculty subject categories HiCi 20%
Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20%
Papers indexed in Science Citation
Index-expanded and Social Science
Research Output Citation Index PUB 20%
Per capita academic performance of an
Per Capita Performance institution PCP 10%
Total 100%
* For institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of
Economics, N&S is not considered, and the weight of N&S is relocated to other indicators.
Source: http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp (accessed February 9, 2011).
at Shanghai Jiao University (2010), placed 8 U.S. institutions in the top 10,
17 in the top 20, 35 in the top 50, and 54 in the top 100.11
• Productivity: Jonathan Cole argues that “we are the greatest be-
cause we are able to produce a very high proportion of the most impor-
tant fundamental knowledge and practical research discoveries in the
world.”12 This can be glimpsed, for example, in the indicators used in the
ARWU, as shown in Table 3-1, that emphasize publications and citations
and, in particular, the number of highly cited faculty in an institution. It
can also be seen in, as shown in Box 3-3, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development’s Science, Technology, and Industry
Scoreboard 2011, which demonstrates that, “as measured by normalised
citations to academic publications across all disciplines, 40 of the world
top 50 universities are located in the United States, with some U.S. uni-
versities excelling in a wide range of disciplines.”13
Our preeminence can be seen not just in these indicators, but in the
11 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Academic Rankings of World Universities–2010. Avail-
able at: http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp (accessed February 9, 2011).
12 Cole, Great American University, p. 5.
13 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Science, Technol-
ogy, and Industry Scoreboard 2011: Highlights, p. 8. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/63/32/48712591.pdf (accessed April 20, 2012).
OCR for page 46
46 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
BOX 3-3
OECD Analysis of Geographical Distribution of Highest
Impact Institutions, Overall and By Field, 2009
“While research efforts are increasing across the globe, top research remains
highly concentrated. A new indicator of research impact—measured by normalized
citations to academic publications across all disciplines—shows that 40 of the
world top 50 universities are located in the United States, with some US universi-
ties excelling in a wide range of disciplines. Stanford University features among
the top 50 for all 16 subject areas, and 17 other US universities feature in the top
50 in at least 10 scientific fields.
“A more diverse picture emerges on a subject-by-subject basis. The United
States accounts for less than 25 of the top 50 universities in social sciences, a
field in which the United Kingdom plays a key role. The universities producing the
top-rated publications in the areas of earth sciences, environmental science and
pharmaceutics are more evenly spread across economies. Universities in Asia
are starting to emerge as leading research institutions: China has six in the top
50 in pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics. The Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology is among the top universities in computer science,
engineering and chemistry.”
Excerpted from: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Science,
Technology, and Industry Scoreboard 2011. Highlights, p.8. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/63/32/48712591.pdf (accessed April 20, 2012).
actions of others. Leaders in nations around the world are reshaping their
universities to compete with ours by emulating them and our system. For
example, in the Bologna Process, the Council of Europe in conjunction
with the European Commission is reforming European higher education,
including doctoral education, across 47 countries. The goal of the process
is to improve Europe as a knowledge society. The strategies of the process
include greater harmonization of degrees across nations; a greater con-
vergence with the U.S. model to promote quality, easier interaction with
OCR for page 47
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 47
University hotspots—geographical distribution of highest im-
pact institutions, 2009
Location of top-50 universities by main subject areas
Source: OECD and SCImago Research Group (CSIC) (forthcoming), Report on Sci-
entific Production, based onBox 3-1 figure.eps
Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, June 2011.
the United States, and attractiveness to non-European students; and an
increase in the overall competitiveness of European higher education. 14
Second, reports of specific institutions have demonstrated their sig-
nificant economic impact locally, regionally, and nationally, as talented
graduates of these institutions have created and populated many new
businesses that go on to employ millions of Americans. For example,
Jonathan Cole notes:
Stanford University reports, for example, that faculty members, stu-
dents, and alumni have founded more than 2,400 companies—and a
14 See http://www.ehea.info/ (accessed September 16, 2011).
OCR for page 48
48 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
subset, including Cisco Systems, Google, and Hewlett-Packard, gener-
ated $255-billion of total revenue among the “Silicon Valley 150” in 2008.
and
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has reported that 4,000
MIT-related companies employ 1.1 million people and have annual
world sales of $232-billion—a little less than the gross domestic product
of South Africa and of Thailand, which would make MIT companies
among the 40 largest economies in the world.15
Meanwhile, to provide the example of a public institution that has been
significantly supported by the federal government and its state, the Uni-
versity of Alabama (UAB) Birmingham reports:
• $4.6 billion in total economic impact is generated by UAB in the
state of Alabama.
• $1 invested by the state in UAB generates $16.23 in the total state
economy.
• 61,205 jobs are supported in the state of Alabama.
• $302.2 million is generated in state and local tax revenue.
The UAB report asserts further that “the economic and employment im-
pact of UAB’s expansion in 2020 (mid-range scenario) is projected to grow
to $6.6 billion, generate 72,449 jobs and create $431.4 million state and
local tax revenue.”16 These impacts are generated by just three diverse
institutions. Expand this to 120 or more institutions and the impact grows
enormously.
Third, examples of specific products and companies demonstrate the
economic and social impact and penetration of the results of university
education and research. For example, Jonathan Cole summarized many
of the examples in his book as follows:
The laser, magnetic-resonance imaging, FM radio, the algorithm for
Google searches, global-positioning systems, DNA fingerprinting, fetal
monitoring, bar codes, transistors, improved weather forecasting, main-
frame computers, scientific cattle breeding, advanced methods of survey-
ing public opinion, even Viagra had their origins in America’s research
universities. Those are only a few of the tens of thousands of advances,
originating on those campuses that have transformed the world.
15 Jonathan Cole, Can American research universities remain the best in the world? The
Chronicle of Higher Education, January 3, 2010.
16 Tripp Umbach, The Economic Impact of UAB: Current and Projected Economic, Em-
ployment, and Government Revenue Impacts. Final Executive Report, November 9, 2010.
OCR for page 49
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 49
BOX 3-4
National Science Foundation, Selected Examples of
“Sensational” Products That Have Resulted from
or Drawn on NSF-Funded Basic Research
• Bar code scanners
• Computer-assisted design
• nti-freeze proteins used in ice cream, cosmetics, fish farming, and tissue
A
transplants
• Genetic plant research that has led to the development of new crops
• Improved biofuels
• he application of modified Buckeyballs in medicine and in building
T
materials
• Low-cost, low-energy use methods for obtaining clean drinking water
• Improved understanding of business cycles and economic policies
• Forensic DNA analysis
• The development of revolutionary weather-sensing networks
• MRI technology
• eaction injection molding that has led to lighter and more fuel-efficient
R
automobiles
• olid-state physics and ceramics/glass engineering essential to the opti-
s
cal fibers
• The PageRank method that led to Google
• NSFNET, the telecommunications that developed into the Internet
Source: National Science Foundation, NSF Sensational 60. http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/
sensational60.pdf. (accessed February 3, 2011).
“Such discoveries, he writes, “have provided industry with the mate-
rial needed for the growth of new, high-technology businesses—and uni-
versities have trained most of the highly skilled work force that populates
our major industrial laboratories.”17
To add to Cole’s list, the National Science Foundation and the Sci-
ence Coalition have also catalogued how federal funding for research,
and in particular, for research performed in universities, has led to im-
portant products, companies, and jobs. Box 3-4 provides a partial list of
NSF’s Sensational 60 products that resulted from or drew on research the
foundation funded.18 The Science Coalition report, meanwhile, provides
details on the origin, size, and revenue of 100 successful companies, just
a small sample of the many that have grown out of federally funded uni-
17 Cole,
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
18 NationalScience Foundation, NSF Sensational 60. Available at : http://www.nsf.gov/
about/history/sensational60.pdf (accessed February 3, 2011).
OCR for page 50
50 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
versity research. Some of these companies are well known, like Google
and SAS. Google, of course, grew out of research on a better search engine
at Stanford University funded by the National Science Foundation. Oth-
ers, like Sharklet Technologies of Alachua, Florida, or A123 Systems of
Watertown, Massachusetts, are not yet household names but contribute
importantly to their local economies. A123, which grew out of materials
research at MIT funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, now employs
1,740 people and had annual revenue in 2008 of $54 million. What con-
veys the power of university research, perhaps even more than the data
on the 100 companies that can be reviewed in the coalition report, are
the quotes in Box 3-5 from company founders that demonstrate, through
their own words, how important it can be for jobs, economic growth, and
the outcomes for the health, security, or quality of life for Americans that
their products bring.
Research in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences also
contribute to critical national goals. As a recent report from the National
Science and Technology Council contends, “The quest for deeper under-
standing of humans is key to managing society’s most critical challenges.”
It continues by noting:
These challenges include:
• Developing more effective education programs
• Developing better health care programs
• Understanding violence, suicide, abuse, neglect, addiction, and
mental illness
• Mitigating fanaticism, extremism, and terrorism
• Protecting confidentiality and privacy
• Fostering societal resilience in the face of both natural and hu-
man-made disasters
• Fostering a culture of creativity and innovation and maintaining
America’s competitiveness in an era of rapid globalization
• Addressing the long-term sustainability of civilization within
Earth’s ecosystems.
These challenges all share a human element, which makes them resistant
to untested interventions or technological solutions, and makes evidence-
based policy making difficult. After a half-century of progress, however,
the SBE sciences can offer more rigorous, evidence-based strategies to
address this human element.19
19 National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral, and
Economic Sciences, Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research in the Federal Context,
January 2009. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/prospectus_v10_3_17_09.pdf (accessed
March 8, 2009).
OCR for page 51
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 51
BOX 3-5
Selected Statements of Individuals Who
Founded or Lead Companies That Grew Out of
Federally Funded University Research
The core technology of TomoTherapy was developed by National Cancer
Institute funding. Each year, the technology is responsible for the treatment of tens
of thousands of difficult to treat patients. In addition, it generates many times its
original funding level in salaries and taxes returned to both the U.S. and Wisconsin
governments.
—Rock Mackie, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Co-Founder
and Chairman of the Board, TomoTherapy Incorporated.
Basic research provides the critical ‘seed corn’ for our nation’s technological
innovations. Certainly, that was true in the case of A123 which grew out of DOE-
funded basic research into new battery concepts at MIT and us today developing
batteries and battery systems to enable the electrification of transportation and
improved efficiency in the ‘smart’ electric grid.
—Yel-Ming Chiang, Professor, MIT, and Co-Founder A123 Systems.
Our lab at Arizona State University received substantial support from both
the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation to develop
scanning probe microscopy for biological applications right from the first discovery
of the technique (1985-6). This background led directly to the intellectual property
that Molecular Imaging licensed from ASU when it was founded in 1993. Today,
Agilent AFM in Chandler is a significant employer of scientists and engineers,
manufacturing and further developing the instruments pioneered by Molecular
Imaging.
—Dr. Stuart Lindsay, Director Arizona State University’s The Biodesign
Institute, Single Molecule Biophysics; and Founder Molecular Imaging.
SAS was originally created to analyze crop data through a grant from the
Department of Agriculture. Forty years later, SAS is used in every industry around
the world. There are plenty of success stories still to be told. Federally supported
university research is vitally important to keeping America at the forefront of
technology innovation.
—Dr. Jim Goodnight, Chief Executive Officer, SAS.
Source: The Science Coalition, Sparking Economic Growth: How federally funded university
research creates innovation, new companies, and jobs, April 2010. See www.sciencecoalition.
org (accessed September 16, 2010).
OCR for page 52
52 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
BOX 3-6
Multidisciplinary Social Science Research
Program for National Energy Policy
A recent report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Tech-
nology (PCAST) addressed ways to accelerate the pace of change in energy
technologies through and integrated Federal energy policy. Among its recom-
mendations, PCAST included action that social science researchers could take
to improve the adoption of energy technology:
A Multidisciplinary Social Science Research Program
DOE’s energy mission is to support basic and “use-inspired” research, but in
fact it devotes little time or investment to understanding how energy technologies
ultimately succeed in the marketplace. DOE needs to “close the innovation cycle”
through support of a significant new multidisciplinary program into the processes
of energy innovation. Understanding how the department’s technologies proceed
as they pass from invention to innovation to adoption to diffusion and how the in-
novation system as a whole is functioning is critical to understanding the overall
success of DOE’s mission, as well as the performance of government in energy
innovation and technology deployment.
RECOMMENDATION 4-4: DOE, along with NSF, should initiate a multidisci-
plinary social science research program to examine the U.S. energy tech-
nology innovation ecosystem, including its actors, functions, processes,
and outcomes. This research should be fully integrated into DOE’s energy
research and applied programs.
This research program should fund experts from the physical sciences,
engineering, economics, sociology, public policy, political science, international
relations, business, and other disciplines. Examples of questions that might be
rigorously studied are:
University research in the SBE sciences, therefore, also play a strong
role in national efforts to meet our goals both generally and in specific
areas. Box 3-6, for example, describes how SBE research contributes to
federal energy policy and the acceleration of energy innovation.
OCR for page 53
AMERICA’S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 53
• ow and why are advanced energy technologies accepted or rejected by
H
consumers?
• What are the barriers to adoption?
• Will the public accept a specific technology and why?
• What market conditions are needed for a technology to compete?
• hat is the role of public policy to efficiently and effectively push and pull
W
advanced technologies into the marketplace?
• How are technologies transferred and diffused internationally?
Other types of multidisciplinary research that are needed include strategic
energy analyses and full life cycle assessments of new energy technologies. The
potential benefits of such a research program are significant. Estimates are as
high $1.2 trillion in energy savings through 2020 from wide scale implementation
of energy efficiency technologies in the U.S. With or without new technologies,
more behavioral research is also needed concerning the patterns, incentives, and
decisions that determine individuals’ energy usage. Well-designed social science
experiments can yield important insights about how people react to various poli-
cies and technologies. Continuity is important. In many cases, large-scale datasets
exist or can be easily collected concerning such questions, but are not easy to
study because of proprietary or regulatory obstructions. DOE should work with
OMB, energy providers, and researchers to facilitate the compilation of energy
usage data under both routine and experimental conditions. Other disciplines,
such as history and international case studies, can also deliver important lessons.
—Excerpted from President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Tech-
nology, Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy
Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy, November 2010.
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-
energy-tech-report.pdf (accessed March 8, 2012).
OCR for page 54
