Proceedings of a Workshop
| IN BRIEF | |
|
MARCH 2018 |
Revitalizing the University-Industry-Government Partnership: Creating New Opportunities for the 21st Century
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
Strengthening the long-standing university-industry-government partnership is necessary to safeguard continued American leadership in research and innovation to support America’s prosperity, security, and national goals. On November 15, 2017, more than 300 educators, researchers, business and government leaders, and others gathered for a day-long series of discussions on revitalizing this historical partnership. Organized by the Board on Higher Education and Workforce (BHEW), the convocation was sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the National Academy of Sciences W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund. It offered an opportunity for participants to reflect on the progress made towards achieving key recommendations in the 2012 report, Research Universities and The Future of America. Specifically, the goals of the convocation were threefold:
- To spark a national conversation on the extent to which the federal government should re-commit to significant investments in higher education and research;
- To discuss strategies to promote stronger ties between industry and universities in the research space;
- To encourage universities to do a better job of adapting to 21st century economic, social, and health challenges by strengthening their commitment to basic research and to educational excellence and equity, and by becoming even more efficient and effective with their use of federal research dollars.
OPENING REMARKS
The convocation began with opening remarks from Neal Lane, former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and senior fellow at the Rice University’s Baker Institute. He welcomed the attendees as those who are deeply invested in the future of higher education and research in the U.S. and who are passionate about the need to strengthen collaboration between the nation’s universities and their industry and government partners. Lane then introduced James Duderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan and chair of the planning committee for the convocation. Duderstadt presented a brief background on the origins of the convocation and history of the university-industry-government partnership.
While America was still engaged in the Civil War, Congress, through the Morrill Land-Grant Act, forged this partnership with the federal government, state governments, higher education, and industry, for the first time. Nearly 80 years later, emerging from World War II, Duderstadt explained, “Congress acted to strengthen the partnership by investing very heavily in basic research and graduate education, and in so doing, they built the world’s greatest research universities that produced well-educated graduates and scientific and technological innovations that were key to our robust economy.” Despite the advances over the last several decades, many challenges remain. According to Duderstadt, federal policies no longer place priority on university research and education, states are no longer capable of or willing to support their public research universities, and American businesses and industries are participating less in the partnership. This has led to “an alarming loss of confidence and trust in our institutions accompanied by a serious lack of understanding of their importance to our nation.”
There have been numerous attempts to address these issues, starting with the National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007). More recently, Congress again turned to the National Academies to produce Research Universities and The Future of America (2012), which recommended actions that Congress, state governments, research universities, and industry could take to maintain excellence in research and doctoral education. “During past eras of challenge,” Duderstadt said, “our national leaders have acted decisively to create innovative partnerships to enable the nation’s universities to enhance American security, prosperity, and public health.” In closing, he noted, “It is a time of rapid and profound economic, social, and political transformation, all driven by growth, knowledge, and educated people. We meet once again in a new conversation about how we can strengthen the partnership that was so important to building this nation.”
National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt followed, encouraging participants to commit to restoring the vitality of the university-industry-government partnership so that the nation can respond more effectively to the challenges of the 21st century. She posed three questions for participants to address throughout the course of the day—and in follow-up conversations:
- Are our universities educating the workforce with the knowledge, skills, and creative problem-solving capabilities they need to meet the global demands of business and industry in the fields of technology, medicine, finance, sustainability, and public service?
- Should the federal or state governments consider new models for financing fundamental and applied research so that we can expand the research enterprise, encouraging risk-taking and new ideas while still being efficient with taxpayer dollars?
- How can business and industry better support new curricula, labs, internships, and apprenticeships in ways that more effectively prepare graduates for work and life? How do we enhance the kinds of collaborative partnerships between universities and industries that have been responsible for the creation of tens of millions of jobs and many product and service innovations over the last century?
McNutt concluded her remarks by inviting participants to share their ideas on any steps the National Academies might take to support this effort in the months ahead.
Chad Holliday, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell Inc. and chair of the committee that produced the 2012 report, spoke through a pre-recorded video. He focused on ways to sustain the strengths of our university system. Referring to the ten recommendations in Research Universities and The Future of America, he emphasized the importance of stable federal research funding, the elimination of unnecessary regulatory burden on researchers, and the value of diversity being reflected in the university system. Holliday urged attendees to focus on differences they can make to really revitalize universities, suggesting they “find ways to focus on the ‘wins’ that have taken place and how we can communicate them better so that others can learn from them.”
Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) began by providing a brief framing of the history of the university-industry-government compact that has underpinned the partnership between these respective sectors. He spoke about the democratizing effects of legislation, such as the Morrill Land-Grant Act and the G.I. Bill, and the remarkable foresight of such individuals like Vannevar Bush, who headed the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II and who authored “Science, the Endless Frontier,” the 1945 report that led to the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Indeed, these circumstances led to the belief that a large federal investment in the research enterprise was justified and was vital to advancing national goals in the areas of health, defense and the economy. “Research was truly an investment in the nation. It was the path to progress that science research, education, and production were all intertwined,” Holt said. Not only would it be “well-funded,” but also those funds would be “distributed by the scientific community who would be the judge of scientific merit.” In this way, high standards would be established, benefitting the country at large. However, the one truly centralized research agency, envisioned by Bush never emerged. Instead, government organizations set themselves apart from one another and industry went its own way, concentrating research at its own centers. Therefore, this tightly constructed compact was never to be, but there was a compact that concentrated a lot of research at the universities.
Holt went on to say that the eventual fracturing of the university-industry-government compact over the past few decades has been fueled by research, development, and production that were technologically complex, and this resulted in a subsequent loss of public understanding of the research enterprise. “If we want to draw one lesson from the history of this compact, it would be that the public feels disconnected, even alienated, from the research enterprise.” Policymakers, who are a distillation of the public, share this sense of unfamiliarity and irrelevance, according to Holt. An alarming consequence of this disengagement is that many incorrectly believe that if federal funding for research was eliminated, private funding and philanthropy could sustain current scientific efforts. Holt pointed out that
the university-industry-government partnership discussion has been an insular one, and not a broad public discussion: “all we need to do is look around the room to see who is represented—this is not the public at large.” He advocated for striking a balance among the areas of research and coordination among the different actors.
Holt also spoke about diversity, equity, and opportunity in scientific research. He noted that the research community has historically framed the argument on maximizing the nation’s human capital and “not wasting the talent of large numbers of the population.” However, it is more fundamental than that: “If we don’t get really serious about diversifying the scientific research enterprise, we will soon discover that we cannot sustain that enterprise and we cannot pretend to be serving society if practitioners in the enterprise do not resemble the society.”
In conclusion, he urged scientists to learn from history to repair, revitalize, and reconstitute the university-industry-government compact and address the important question of how to maintain progress toward democratization, which has been key to the nation’s economic and social success so far.
PANEL ONE: KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP
Panelists for the first discussion panel of the day were Celia Merzbacher, director of strategic and institutional planning at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Jeannette Wing, director of the Data Science Institute at Columbia University and former corporate vice president of Microsoft Research; and Michael McPherson, chair of the Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The panelists had a vibrant discussion about the important nexus of government, industry, and research universities and the value of partnerships as seen by various stakeholders.
What are the Characteristics of an Effective Partnership?
Merzbacher discussed the characteristics of a successful partnership, describing it as an ecosystem. Speaking in the context of her work as vice president of strategic partnerships with the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), she noted that “what made [the partnership] work and keep working was that both of the parties, the industry-side and the university-side, got value out of the partnership, not just money but value.” In addition, she accentuated the importance of engaging passionate people in building a successful partnership.
Having a rare perspective of one with experience in government, academia, and industry, Wing pointed out that “government funding is uncertain and this instability and uncertainty is affecting the research enterprise on campus.” Research dollars are presumably declining and there is more competition for shrinking dollars that affects the nature and conduct of science and engineering. “We cannot expect industry to fill the gap of funding basic, long-term research,” she said. In addition, Wing expressed concern about competition from abroad: “It’s not just looking inside at the U.S.—it’s also looking outside where our competitors are not going to sit still, but perhaps leap ahead.” She stressed that being proactive about competition from abroad and having commitment from the top U.S. industries are imperatives. “It is about investing in the country’s future through investing in basic research in science and engineering.” Wing concluded her comments with a call to balance the cycle of the partnership and carefully manage the regulations and policies that affect it.
McPherson talked about the future of undergraduate education writ large and proposed a reframing so that “it’s not simply about getting ready for the first job … it is acquiring basic liberal arts capacities like critical thinking and problem solving … things that will carry you through a career.” He also referred to students as “citizens in preparation” and reiterated the urgency for increased public understanding of science, science’s role, and science’s content that this nation and the world need.
What are the challenges? What might government, universities, and/or industry do differently to enhance the partnership?
According to Merzbacher, challenges are opportunities. She described today’s research enterprise as “more ‘multi’: multi-disciplinary, multi-individual, multi-institutional, multi-national, multi-sectoral.” She also said that an effective partnership depends on an understanding from all involved parties that there are different drivers and timelines for the different sectors.
Wing commented, “There is a true talent war that the companies are having, let alone … the luring away of faculty and students from academia. We are not replenishing the future generations of researchers.” The next generation of academic researchers requires active engagement of future and current students, as well as faculty. Wing reiterated the value of communicating with and educating the public: “Another challenge is that we, in the university community, need to explain our research results to the public and to policymakers in language that they can understand.”
Institutions can develop powerful narratives that link their laboratories with government funding and use that as a tool to explain the ways in which these partnerships transform society.
In response to an audience question about what could be done differently to support the partnership, Merzbacher suggested that the government play a stronger role via tax reform to incentivize activity that supports long-term research and brings industry and universities together. Wing spoke at length about the challenges in fostering public understanding of science: “Scientists and engineers have a responsibility to explain what it is that we do to demystify what research is.” McPherson continued that the quality of teaching and learning must be taken much more seriously. “We need to find ways to measure performance and reward it,” he said, with a priority on improving the quality of education and establishing a new reward system for teaching the substance of scientific knowledge and the process by which scientific knowledge is acquired.
Referring to the conversation about improving the level of public understanding of science, Merzbacher said there is an opportunity to get more value out of NSF’s requirement for broader impacts. McPherson asserted that communicating well is a developed skill noting that “communicating at extraordinarily effective levels to broad audiences requires real professionalism.” Wing suggested that perhaps a requirement for tenure, in addition to crediting research portfolios, teaching portfolios, and service to professional communities, should include communication to the public about the broader impacts of one’s research.
Another question from the audience challenged the panelists to expand upon how best to initiate and sustain partnerships. Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington and moderator of this panel, commented that academia should be more flexible and free to explore more collaborative opportunities with industry. One example from the University of Washington that she described was the development of a professor of practice appointment which allows for professionals with significant, high-level industry experience to be immersed in the university environment with the intent of bringing value to both the university and industry as a result of this integration.
One of the audience members reaffirmed the need for and value of public engagement. She encouraged university-based researchers to leverage the assets already in place at universities, by reaching out to campus engagement and outreach professionals who are very skilled at connecting students, faculty, and industry. These professionals can help researchers translate needs, measure and assess the impacts of their research, find partners, and create shared visions and values. This discussion concluded with a thoughtful conversation surrounding tenure review, specifically, the need to consider research impact and develop more appropriate performance metrics. Wing wrapped up the conversation, stating that “We can slowly change the culture. It has to come from the top and it has to be a collective change through the academic systems because we all work together.”
KEYNOTE: THE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN THE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM: BUILDING PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, delivered the keynote address. He quoted author Jim Collins, who encouraged us to “think about the genius of the and vs the tyranny of the or,” reminding the attendees that, too often, people stand for one thing and against another—but in fact, this is an artificial dichotomy. “People tend to think we are for basic research or we are for applied research—as opposed to the genius of understanding that we need both, of course.” In the context of the valuation of science, technology, engineering, and medicine, people are sometimes criticized for not understanding or appreciating the humanities and arts. The focus, rather, needs to be on both in order to address the grand challenges facing the world today.
Hrabowski urged the audience to focus on talking about, and fighting for, what they value in our society. “If we in the research enterprise are to have a dramatic shift in the level of support given to science, engineering, and math, and to our universities, we are going to have to re-think the culture and look in the mirror and ask, what is it that we aren’t doing that we should be doing to make a difference?” He encouraged institutions to be proactive and intentional about priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the value of science and research to many audiences. “The fact is, those members of Congress, and our elected officials in our states, are all graduates of our institutions. And the question is: what difference did we make in their lives?” When convocations such as this one are held, he stated, the scientists and university administrators in attendance must not only understand science and research themselves, but also know how to talk about them in ways that are not off-putting and that pull people in toward a deeper understanding and appreciation of science.
Hrabowski appealed to the audience to think about having a broader vision of ways of building stronger trust between the scientific community and society at large. “I would challenge us, as we talk about the society and its lack of emphasis on science and lack of appreciation, I would say we have not brought the level of rigor of thinking to the challenge.” He underscored the importance of having people see themselves represented in the scientific endeavor and improving public understanding of science and engineering through effective communication. One of the “grand
challenges” is to train teachers and faculty to be more effective communicators so that they can relay the value of science—not only to legislators and other political leaders, but also to the society at large. Being provocative will lead to changing culture and attitudes. He concluded the keynote stating, “We need champions that will knock down doors and challenge institutions to find people different from themselves.”
VIEWPOINTS FROM THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Two members of Congress addressed the convocation attendees, each of whom is deeply involved in science and education policy. Rep. Daniel Lipinski, (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology, discussed the decline in federal commitment to the funding of scientific research over his 13 years as a member of the committee. He cited climate research and social science research as two primary targets for funding cuts—but also noted that overall research spending has been declining in real dollars. “Many of us are trying to make the argument all the time that [the reduction in federal support for research] is a looming disaster for our country. We are putting our country at risk because of shortsighted thinking on this issue.”
In response to a question from BHEW Director Thomas Rudin about next steps, Lipinski commented that universities should enhance efforts to develop partnerships with industry. He offered programs such as the NSF Innovation Corps and the Small Business Innovation Research program as exemplars. Lipinski further stressed the importance of communicating with members of Congress and urged the audience to share ideas with him and other members of Congress to explain the return on investment in scientific research. Focusing on important issues such as how research impacts economic activity (i.e., jobs), technology transfer, fruitful collaborations, and entrepreneurship is essential, because technological innovation and economic prosperity are issues that resonate with members of Congress and those they serve—the public. “This is very important to me personally. This is something I do out of passion; I’m always trying to explain to my constituents why this is important.”
Rep. Virginia Foxx, (R-NC), Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, spoke on the extent to which postsecondary education is preparing the workforce of the 21st century. “Right now there are 6.1 million unfilled jobs in this country; these jobs are unfilled because too many Americans are unskilled, and we should have seen this coming,” she said. Too many students are completing college with significant debt and no job prospects. Foxx noted that as a society, the United States needs to rethink its education system by refining the existing machinery and ending the pursuit of obsolete goals, to ensure that colleges and universities are preparing people for the changing world of work. “One of the points that I’m very passionate about is that not everyone needs a baccalaureate degree.” There is a desire for lifelong learners in this country, she said, but universities should enable students to track their career interests over time and prepare themselves for the workplace. “We are working very hard on the committee to reform the Higher Education Act” to improve access and address changing workforce needs. “People pursue education beyond high school to equip themselves for a better life and they’re the reason we’re here. I would encourage you to go home, talk with local industries, talk with local workforce development groups, and set your minds to creating models for communities of every size across the country to follow.” In closing, Foxx stated that “Congress … is dedicated to learning, to science, and to making the world a better place to live.”
PANEL TWO: KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In the second panel of the day, Mary Woolley, president of Research! America; Lynn Scarlett, co-chief External Affairs Officer of the Nature Conservancy; and Laurie Leshin, president of Worchester Polytechnic Institute continued to explore the notion of the revitalization of the university-industry-government partnership. The moderator of this panel, William (Brit) Kirwan, president emeritus of the University System of Maryland, reflected on the NRC report Research Universities and the Future of America (2012), commenting “there seems to be the interest and opportunity, given these constrained resources, to create greater synergy [among universities, government, and the private sector].”
Woolley began the conversation by calling attention to an absence at the convocation: “Where is the public, the taxpayer, the citizen, the societal representation and voice?” Woolley further emphasized the importance of having an equal partnership with the people who are supposed to be served by the partnership. She quoted President Lincoln: “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” Public perception of science will continue to suffer as long as the research enterprise is out of touch with the community. She suggested that required courses be instituted in graduate science education that focus on the public and political contexts of science, including instruction on civics, communication, ethics, regulatory environments, and the history of science.
Scarlett continued the discussion noting, “Science unfolds with many different kinds of focus and therefore many different kinds of partnerships. What those partnerships look like and what is successful will vary across them,” said Scarlett. She further mentioned that the level of engagement with the citizenry will vary greatly as well. In her
experience, partnerships with clarity of purpose tend to have greater traction and are consequently more likely to get continued and robust investment. However, she noted that “partnerships require dialogue over time to readjust and reexamine the purpose. It is a matter of mutual learning and knowledge sharing.” Importantly, citizen engagement was identified as a crucial component of this mutual learning process because the decision making that might be illuminated by the science will affect citizens. “[Citizens] need to help define the questions asked. They need to be part of taking that science and thinking about solutions,” she added.
Leshin focused her comments on the role of the university in the partnership and how universities need to determine how they can participate more effectively and more powerfully in this conversation. In response to the question about what makes a partnership successful, she replied, “We often start from the perspective of the students to make their experience as relevant and as positive as possible.” She described the students as “the public who join with us and come to us in search of a great experience, a great education, and a great preparation for their life ahead.” She also pointed out that Worchester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) is a project-based institution where students must complete multiple projects in order to graduate, specifically working with government and industry to solve problems that are relevant to society. Leshin has observed that a beneficial consequence of this framework is that it often opens the door to industry partnerships and collaborations. Successful partnerships are about a “win-win” on both sides: “[The partnerships] are not only multifaceted, but are multilevel. When alignment is present, you are much more likely to have substantive conversations and really beneficial partnerships.”
Scarlett reflected on her experiences with partnerships that have been mostly in an applied and problem-solving context. “Upfront engagement by scientists with the affected stakeholder community that would be implicated in any changed management regime was critical.” She described this “joint fact-finding” process as one that allows for people to focus on the science, what it illuminates, and on the solution sets. Joint fact-finding, collaborative science decision making, upfront engagement, and mutual learning were all identified as critical characteristics of successful partnerships.
Leshin echoed Scarlett’s comments and described the global projects model at WPI that teaches the scientists (both faculty and students) to engage with people. She also mentioned that putting global challenges in a human context changes the way the faculty think about their research. This process generates an extremely marketable talent pipeline, populated by individuals who have experience working with diverse teams in difficult circumstances, characteristics that are highly sought after by industry. “Often the best way to start these relationships with industry is around students and thinking about student work.”
The conversation then transitioned to one centered on partnerships that were not as successful. Some obstacles discussed included disagreements about how to frame the problem, failure of a research group to gel, and the inability of leadership to move the group forward. Scarlett also mentioned the challenges of embarking on problem-centered research that is often dependent on transdisciplinary work. The risk is of quick separation of the disciplines back into their respective wheelhouses, when often the “real insights and pioneering work” take place in the intersections. As an example of a fruitful collaboration, Scarlett highlighted one initiative designed to bring together two highly diverse communities (the health research and natural resource communities), where participants examined language barriers and research protocols to facilitate building a successful research partnership. She explained that failure to work together to find a common language can result in “constantly talking at cross purposes.”
In response to a question posed by an audience member about partnerships in education and fostering lifelong learning, the panelists spoke about the national conversation on the future of work. Leshin reframed this, saying, “It has to be much more learning and doing, learning and doing, learning and doing.” Certificate programs and alternative credentialing may serve this new need as the demand for constantly “upscaling and rescaling” as people move through their careers becomes greater.
Lastly, the panelists spoke about updating incentive structures to promote transdisciplinary scholarship. This included changing promotion criteria and performance measures for those who have more diverse backgrounds. Scarlett stated that “We are increasingly attracting Ph.D. scientists who very deliberately want to work in the context of problem solving, interdisciplinary content, and exposure to adjacencies.”
CLOSING PANEL: COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
A final panel comprised of Cauce, Leshin, Woolley, Lane, and Richard Miller, chair of BHEW and president of Olin College of Engineering, fielded audience questions and shared concluding thoughts and insights. Considerable time was spent discussing the urgent need to train scientists and university faculty to be more effective communicators of the importance of science and discovery research. However, it was acknowledged that “being better communicators” is only part of the challenge. According to Leshin, “You’ve got to meet people where they are. They don’t want to be talked to—they want to be engaged.” Miller added that there are fundamental elements of higher education that
should be conducted more effectively, including tracking the preparation of students in a similar way as the production of ideas. Employers care much more about the students that universities produce than the ideas that faculty produce in their research papers. Further, employers want to be asked about the future of work—and what it will take to prepare students to contribute to the workforce of the future.
Woolley stated that these conversations are missing important voices at the table—beyond just university leaders, industry leaders, and government officials, including listening to the expectations and demands of students themselves. Students want to learn and understand the political structure and seek opportunities to have influence in that arena, but they don’t perceive that university faculty and administrators recognize and honor those interests. Leshin added that applauding this student voice is especially important early in their university careers. Cauce used the analogy of medical students who now are directly involved with patients in their first year of medical school as a strong model for early engagement of students in the real world of science and research.
The panel also addressed the issue of involving more women in careers in science, engineering, and medicine. Cauce and Leshin both stated that “humanizing” science and engineering is necessary. Engineering can be sold “as a way to make the world better.” Leshin cited the Grand Challenges Scholars program of the National Academy of Engineering as an effective means of broadening the participation of women. “That is a way you get many more students exposed to the ideas of engineering and what engineering can do and using it to help people solve problems that benefit people,” she said. Miller said that in order to change the culture so that engineering is perceived differently, particularly by women, a new definition of engineering is needed: an engineer is a person who envisions what has never been and does whatever it takes to make it happen. “It starts with a vision,” he said.
The day’s final remarks were given by Lane, who expressed gratitude to those who continue to be forward thinking and making progress in these extraordinary times. He encouraged the convocation attendees to take every opportunity to let the “champions of science and technology” in Congress and at federal agencies know that their work is appreciated. Lane suggested that “a voice together—a unified message” can have substantial value; however, there is a need for defining a common message for the larger public. He closed by saying, “Coming together we can be much stronger than we have been separately.”
DISCLAIMER: This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief has been prepared by Barbara Natalizio and Thomas Rudin as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The committee’s role was limited to planning the meeting. The statements made are those of the author or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed in draft form by Tobin (Toby) Smith, Association for American Universities and Eric Marshall, Kavli Foundation. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
PLANNING COMMITTEE: James J. Duderstadt (Chair), University of Michigan; Ana Mari Cauce, University of Washington; Peter Henderson, University of Maryland Baltimore County; William (Brit) Kirwan, University System of Maryland; Neal Lane, Baker Institute and Rice University; Richard Miller, Olin College of Engineering and Chair of the National Academies Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Patrick Murray, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Cheryl A. Oldham, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Chad Womack, United Negro College Fund (UNCF).
STAFF: Thomas Rudin, Director, BHEW; Maria Dahlberg, Program Officer; Barbara Natalizio, Program Officer; Austen Applegate, Senior Program Assistant; Yasmeen Hussain (until July, 2017) Associate Program Officer; Adriana Courembis, Financial Associate.
SPONSORS: This convocation was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the National Academy of Sciences W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund.
For additional information regarding the workshop, visit http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/bhew/researchuniversities/pga_180577.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Revitalizing the University-Industry-Government Partnership: Creating New Opportunities for the 21st Century: Proceedings of a Workshop—In Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/25080.
Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Policy and Global Affairs
Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
