DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 215 612 HE 014 964

TITLE Industry/University Cooperative Programs. Proceedingsof a Workshop Held in Conjunction with the AnnualMeeting of the Council of Graduate Schools in theUnited States (20th, Las Vegas, Nevada, December 2,1980).

INSTITUTION Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., Washington,D.C.; National Science Foundation, Washington,D.C.

PUB DATE [81]NOTE 127p.AVAILABLE FROM Council of Graduate Schools in the United States, One

Dupont Circle, Suite 430, Washington, LC 20036($8.00).

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Animal Husbandry; Biological Sciences; *College

Programs; Computer Science; *Cooperative Education;Engineering; Financial Support; Higher Education;Industry; Masters Programs; Physical Sciences;Program Descriptions; Program Development; *ResearchProjects; *School Business Relationship; *TechnologyTransfer

IDENTIFIERS Case Western Reserve University OH; InternationalBusiness Machines; Iowa State University;Massachusetts Institute of Technology; New MexicoState University; Pennsylvania State University;Philadelphia Association for Clinical Trials;Rock ell International Corporation; University ofDelaware

ABSTRACTProceedings of a 1980 workshop on industry /university

cooperative programs are presented. Program presentations and authorsinclude: "On Industry/Academia Relations" (T. Baron); "The MITLiaison Program" (J. D. Bruce); "An Industrial Perspective ofAcademic Programs" (R. Fuller); "University/Industry Interactionsthrough 'Centers'" (R. L. McCullough); "Industry/Academia Interactionin Polymer Science and Engineering at IBM" (J. Economy);"Observations on Industry/University Interactions in Animal HealthResearch" (D. C. Farrington); "Industry/Academic Interaction inPolymer Science and Engineering at Case Western Reserve University"(J. Lando); "Industry/Academia Interaction in Materials Science andEngineering at Rockwell International" (P. Cannon);"University/Industry Coupling: Philosophical Underpinnings andEmpirical Leanings" (R. Roy); "Master's Degree Program in ComputerScience Under Contract to a Large Electronics Firm" (W. E. Matchett);and "Philadelphia Association for Clinical Trials: Review andProspects" (J. Schrogie). In addition, introductory remarks arepresented by James C. Seferis, Michael Pelczar, Fred Betz, and PaulV. Tebo. The introductory remarks focus on the incentives andproblems that may be anticipated in initiating and participating inindustry/university cooperative programs. The majority of speakersand participants emphasized that in order to foster cooperativeactivity in research and education, it is necessary toinstitutionalize short-term and long-term communications betweenuniversity and industrial personnel. (SW)

.0ix\ Industry / University7,-; Cooperative Programs

"PERMISSION '0 REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC/ijns document has been reproduced as

received from the person or orcantratkmortgmatmg it

Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinions stated in tins document do not necessarily represent official NIE

posotton or poll ,y

11M111111Program Dr James I) I3artooSteering Committee Dean of the Graduate S( hootMembers Pernisvi% dilld State l'inversit

I)r Fred Dinq tot11'(: ProgramNational S( FoundationDr err% NenOPRNI ProgramNational S( ,en( e FoundationI)r hael J Pel( /du. PresidentThe Coun( 11 of Graduate S( hoofs in the

L ilted States1)r lames C Seteris Dire( forIndustrial Affiliate ProgramDepartment of Clieniu al Engineer mg1 ersit% of Washington

1)r Paul \' Teti°Engineering lot finolog% Laborator%E I DuPont de Nemour, Co

Di Daniel J ZaftaranoV( 0 President for Reseal( h and

Graduate DeanIowa State I Tnp crate

Workshop Coordinator Dr James C. Seferi S. Dire( forIndustrial Affiliate ProgramDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUm% ersity of Washington

Spore SW'S The Coum I of Graduate S( hoofs inthe 11110(1 States

National S( 10111(.1:mm(1(01(in

Proceedings Editor Thomas R Dire( forPubli( ations and Information

Serer( sCollege of Engineel mgUm% ersitt of \Vashington

Proceedings Transcriber Mrs S Yoh, Program ,\ssistantIndustrial Affiliate PlogiainDepartment of Chetnu al EngineeringUm% ersitv of lVashington

3

Industry / UniversityCooperative Programs

Proceedings of a workshop held inconjunction with the 20th annualmeeting of the Council of GraduateSchools in the United States

December 2, 1980

cgSponsored by The Council of Graduate Schools in the United Statesand the National Science Foundation

Workshop Chairman Prof James C Sefens Industrial AffiliateProgram Department of Chemical Engineering University ofWashington

III

4

Contents

PROGRAM

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Dr Pek iar. CGSDr Betz. It I:Program. NSFDr Seteris. .1( ademiaDr Tebo. Indi,tr

357

9

PROGRAM PRESENTATIONS

On Industry Academia RelationsDt T Baron President, Shell Del elopment Comport

N11T Liaison Program 21pi 11) Brut e. Director. Industrial LialSollNhi,s(u husetts Institute of Technolog.1

An Industrial Perspective of Academic Programs 29Vu t' President. «idenni Relations

Johnson Johnson Com Inlay

7niversit Industry Interactions through "Centers- 39Dr R 1..h Cullough. Assoc lute Dale tor, Composites CenIez

versnt of Debit% are

Observations on Industry th:Iversitv Interactions inAnimal Ii9alth Research 47Dr 110 Farrington. Manager.;thimal I health Reseal( hPfize?Companv

Industry's Support of University Research 5 iDr N L Jcu obsonAminal ScienceIowa State I mversitv

Industry Academia Interaction in Polymer Scient eand Engineering at IBM 57Dr J Econom Nlimoger. Polvmm liesean hIB\I Besmirch Laboratory

Industry Academia Interaction in Polymer Scienceand Engineering at Case Western Reserve Universit 63Dr I Lando. Chairman. Department of Mm mimic( aim Sc len«.Case tVetiter a Reserve versa v

Industry Academia Interaction in Materials Scienceand Engineering at Rockwell International 71Dr P Cannon. e PresidentResearch Center. Bo( kit ell International

Cm% ersity Industry Coupling: Philosophicalthmerpinnings and Empiric al Learnings 81th Il Rai . Dire( tor, Nlateitals Reseal( h Imhof atm %Penns 1 P. (1;11(1 State 1'1111(1; it%

Master's Degree Program in Computer Sr win elindbr Contract to a Large Electronics Firm 97`)1 II'. II Niro( hett /Nina. Graduate Sr poolNett .11(%1( o State ('nn eisitt

Philadelphia Association for Clinic al TrialsRevicm and Prospects 1051)i / Schroitre.1:\ii( ctrl e Dire, totPhiladelphia .1sso( lotion for Chou al 'nulls

DISCUSSION 1 1 1

Program

(Morning Session)

O nod In Introdo( turf remarks on(x;s Di Pelt rolNSF -It 'C Program. Dr Yeti1( adenna. nr Sett', ,P

111(Ill'AI X 1), lobo

I) in GENERAL PRESENTATIONS ON EXISTINGPRO(; RAMSOly 11,,Ion Led(101 lb lhictt ENSI I

t) 33 ()N IMP 'S'I'lY A(:. \ 1)1.. \II \ 11.1, \ TIONSDi 1 Bui on Pre.identShell 13ex elopinent Coninanx

0 55 Dis( 11551011

10 05 1111:, mil' ipdsoN pi,:ot ;RA \IPr I I) Ifiti«,. lbw( to'\HT 1,,,i15o11 Prot r tin

10 25 1)1-,111551011

10.3(1 COFFEE BREAK

10 40 , 1 N iNnysTRIAL puitsPELTRI, oi. Ac.\1)13.11(;moGRANisHi 13 Fuller Vi« e l'ren10111Jolin5on & Johnson Con(3) tix

11 00 DP,' lissIon

11 03 l'IIE I'Nl\'ERSIT\' OF 01:1., \\1'.181':COMPOSITES CENTEI1)1 11 I. NI( Conough. ,\55o( ite Dire( torC017ip0511e5 (.entel. rim el51/ of I)elaxx are

I I 21 1)151 ussion

11 30 Dire( led dim tiy,ion

12 00 LUNCH

(Afternoon Session)

SPECIFIC :1REAS FOR INTERACTION

1.11'1' SCIENCES1 00 1, In 1)151115510n leader 1)1 Zattmmio 10\1,1 State

I 'nix or sitx

,,,,

1.05 Dr I) Earring :on. NlanagerAnimal fleaith Reward h. Pliver Co

1 25

1 45

Dr N I, JacobsonAnimal s"( len( e. Iowa state I in e, ersit%

Directed discussion

2'00POINNIER ENGINEERING .1NI) SCIENCEDisc ussion leader. DI . Tetto. du Pont Co

2'05

2 25

2 45

Dr ) &ono Int . ManagerPolymer Research. IBMDr I Lando. ChairmanDepartment of Mai romolmular Si len«.Case 'Western Reserve I'mversit%Dim ted discussion

3 00 COFFEE BREAK

3 I",MATERIALSDi SLIISS ion I nadt.1- DI ROI t ' .0. Penns\ 1 \ tint a StateUniversity

3 20

3440

4 00

Dr. P Cannon. Vice President for Resean hRock % ell International

Dr. B Boy. Dire( forNlatenals Research Laborator . Penns% It a nid StateUniversityDirected discussion

4 15

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTEDPRESENTATIONS

Discussion leader. Di Sefens. Universth ofWashington

4 20

4 40

MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAN1 INCON1PUTER SCIENCE1)r IV I I Mutchett. Dean. Graduate Si hootNew Mexico State I Tim ersitDirected disc usion

5 30 End 01 v orkshopN

viii

Preface=Now

A urkshop e\druiing industry (ink ersityprograms wds he'd] 1)et embei 4, 1980, dt the 20th .1ninidlMeeting of the Count 11 Of Gratitude St hoofs in Ilie [TintedStates Sponsored jointh the National St Wilt t` Ft)1111(1d-ntm dud the Count if, the n kshop [nought togethei pal t[ints in d drietv of silt 11 eogrdins nom both industridl ,inda( dtleinit institutions Presentations des( I ibilig emstng dudde\ eloping programs repiesentdti% e of intet non dt

let els of the institutional still( tune here soh( 0(41 inolder to 1)()\ Ill(' d broad spot trust of e\ perient es dill per-spot tit es from n 111(11 the benefits dt ( ruing to the pal tnei s oftint 11 progams t mild lit (dm [dated the re«lit( redsed interest tieing e\pie,sed It both Industr and dl,d-(101111d in effet ling king pdrtneships, the n orkshop pm-% ided d tinielt town] to do d till It'll( e (t'll' GI cid Ildtt' St 110011)ed11.1) %% ht SC ntentbers tiltillIdit'l bet lffilt' tit alt ell III tIll'St'

tl% &WS It is imporLint to let ognize. lion et el. thdt Indus-tr unit t'i' it% t ooperdti e prop dins hat e ds their Irwin godlthe (911liiiit villein of st ientist-to-st 'enlist inteidt non Thus.sponsorship of the \\ orkshop by the the \S1: Indus-tr\ ersitv Cooperdtive Program. %yin( 11 is designed toenhant e tint li one-on-one ouplings Of tom ersit \ and indus-trial resedn hers, rids significant in shdrpening the n ork-shop's lot us on ( ooperati% progrdins that encourdge inter-dl (ion tit this IOVVI.

.1.110 orkshop n as put together program steeringommittee n hose members selet ted diquopriate piesentd-

nous, pro 'tied hat kground indteridl, dud diret,ted discus-sion during the norkshop \Vith their assistant e, d one-dayprogram that lot used on industr ,i( ddemia liaison dcti itiesin general terms, ds ell ds otn sele( led di Cd5 Of SCIVIICV thdthate t'lliMed good industridl support mid pdrtit,lpdtion. n'dsdefined Presentations unit disc ussion periods. vhichformed do integral pdrt of the n orkshop, nene both tapeddud trams ribed ing in this ol time are edited pdpc-ssubmitted 1)\ the spedkers fused on the nails( mils thatpm\ 1(1(41 to them Follon mg these papers die selected gen-eal questions thdt nen, put to the speakeis dining the v of L-

9 IX

shop that capture for the reader the essence of scrims of theexchanges that took place during the workshop. I feel thattogether. these papers and selected speaker audience e \-changes trill provide the reader v ith an exr rAlent collectionof case studies of -state of the art" for industr% academia col-laborative programs. In putting together the workshop andthis volume. I have counted heavily upon the assistance andsupport provided by the members of the steering committee.the Industrial Affiliate Program of the Chemir al EngineeringDepartment at the t tniversitv of Washington. as well as otherpersonnel and services of the Dm versity. I ain also verygrateful to Dr. Michael J. Pelczar. President of the Council ofGraduate Sr hoofs. and Dr. Frcd Ilet 4, Director of the If IC pro-gram of the National Science Foundation. for their contin-ued interest in and support of the workshop.

James C. Seferisworkshop Chairman

x

MX T

-Novi if» (II 111Jg acolli uNninir I Il I sou, %Iv)1,

-o punnj oti Imp splawaftiui 'usPq 0,1011) nlllr4111i fill -s!p put, Niqpiirjs.idpiin pavisPticinio osp,

Si 1111100 ")O .'(1 Jlp fa liop ms %%sup pup uoilsonh mil 111 11,10111

-(ir) spionuol so n1.41 )I1JIS olglii'dllin

,iisopli! fill %% sopt.x!rn, uosmi liutip.erloull 01 1!;.1,),xpin 1'

Jo lualuipuuu»lium)s ;up ouasqn up.) aim unwit.r)sap HIP.er?

JAI' otp lli .oln.qi pacp.nsap cuP.11-toic1 oil) to

u %%oils 1.1pol on, i)!s.la %tun alp u, weft-4).10 ipunlinmsui UP

Stl!,xpti soth'itiP uatis jo uoiru %la vi uoliPluosold

Jill II! possonl uopipl(1 up) somAmi, r fns aloulonl (11 \ IPS

-S0-)011 0(1 )(111 P111 111'011)111 11P ,i(1 111r1i101(1 11'1110)111 11'011(11 P

111111°1111V r1.11C111)I1l PUP )1C.11111111 1100 \ \I 1q cu(lt)

-1, )pinoluu» 111.'01-1-Zuni puP -Igor; ;riuminunpisui !mon

0A\ 11(11)1'1111)0 IMP trUPOSOI III %II %I1 0,%!1PlatIon-1 lois();

()I lopin II! Imp p0 7tsPip1u10 sluPdp!in,t1 pup siorods dip

Jo A11Jop,o1 otp o!,\ siluntl xps.la mil pup 1pluoultlio ippisuptil oloij titnisspo %% atp inj .1()) dip

to los nom] 1-41! %Pti oiLL stup.eeonl tilos pup Iiiiprpou 111 poll,(11-mur Jr %Nu 11,111 solopiold pup so xi)

-uo ni1 dip fn owns solo' mu1 paulilsop olo floc %in

pup Illio .1p7 Si( - symu,u mptului .sitiP(ii )!1.1u(1 (Intisilim Jrj

.m/ ti).'oj pui crop! pup suitynu» onhplo Jr) jo owns 101pOol

pup ouillox s!tp u! porn.' Nop Imp stuP.rennl slump Jill O) liOilllJ))P s loppol otp I mill) nI poldwoup J \pi! i 'US limo!)

soinillo.% oApplo(In(r) tip jo sc.) 1111'; 0111 10.1 1111110S

-so Ow iptii suo!intplium so(l!IP oil) tool.' po1i.loolo Imp 501111

-POI 110111111(» 0111(1S (1) 11110(1 01 1%01 11010 51111 111 110)(11110))1'

011'11 1 11(1)1111111SPA pl 1114;10 111111 0111 IP 11111,1101 111P1i1(11(1 P

11 MS 11111(1(110 1011 cc;,»Rul dip tilimutp 11JJr 'et!' %Pit stiwni -0.1(1 0.%9N0tIon.) mill onpal 10 (111 ii111)j0S 111 1 \P.'1)

11P 01.1(1 11 )1111% 111(111 SO 1110110(1X0 IMP 11(11)11111(11111 .10 11111'01%

P 0111.101(1 S1IEP(11 )1111101 0111 i(1 1111(1.1 )11(1 S1'0111 IMP S11011

419 )S01) 111P1i1(11(1 011 1, S11(11)P10(10 S 111Slil 111111 1(1 S. 11S1111111

1.1P .10111'd 1t'.11-'10011 UP 000110(1 0I 5.:111101(1 1.p111 Pon, )11111()(11111

IMP 11011111 P SO5S011111P 'S1111011.01(1 J X111,10(100'1 111S 10 \1011

"111111 1111 11111S11 /01 110114110A\ S1111 'SigP1109F.Ji.:nt,1

uogonpomi

live research in spec ific areas of science. (2) knowledgetransfer mechanisms and exchange:- and (3) philanthropy.

Dr. Filler's presentation demonstrated the existence of allthese ingredients in describing activities at Johnson & John-son and further gave weight to Dr. Baron's comments that theinterest of an industry in collaborating with unit "rsities is inbasic educ ation and research, ingredients that are alreadyimbedded in any university's charter. Dr. McCullough's de-scription of the Center 1,1r Composite Materials at the Ini-versity of Delaware. a program focusing on a specific, area ofscience. demonstrates that a program at the college level canbe successfully incorporated as an integral part of a faculty'sregular academic duties. lie views industrial input throughthe program into faculty activities as a valuable componentin identifying basic research problems and educationdgoals.

Industry 'university cooperative programs in specificareas along traditional disciplim: lines are uescribed in thepresentations that follow. These encompass the life sciences(Dr Farrington. Pfizer Co. and Dr. Jac .thstm. Iowa State Uni-versity): polymer engineering and science (Dr. Economy.IBM. and Dr. Lando. Case Western Reserve): and materials(Dr. Cannon. Rockwell International. and Dr. Roc. Pennsyl-vania State University). In addition. contrimitions by Dr.Matt heti (New Mexico State) on setting up a Master's degreeprogram in computer science and a unique concept of col-laboration in the medical field by Dr. Schrogie (PhiladelphiaAssociation of Clinical Trials) provide insight into the de-tails of initiating programs in specific areas. In particular.what emerged froin the presentation of Dr. Farrington. whoaddressed the control of animal disease. is that a close col-laboration between industrial. universit.t . and governmentalentities must be maintained. Similarly. Dr. Jacobson. whoput into perspective the activities in the life sciences arena atIowa State. describes long and fruitful collaborations withindustry in this area. In the polymer elmineurmg and sciencearea the ( ollaboration bettveen indu .try and academia hastraditionally been strong as a result of many scientists com-

XIV 12

ing into academia after having worked in industry for quitesome time. BOth Drs. Economy and Lando clearly empha-sized the importance of scientist-to-scientist interaction inaddressing some key problems injhe future development ofthis field.

Because of its interdisciplinary nature and economic im-portance, industry 'university collaborations in the field ofmaterials have a long and successful history, and its partici-pants can count, in their ranks, people like Drs. Roy andCannon. Unquestionably, the co' tribution by Dr. Roy in thisvolume gives the reader an intqllectual perspective of uni-versity/industry couplings as well as a framework for sys-tematic discussion. Dr. Cannon's contribution, on -the otherhand, provides an equally challenging analysis of the indi-victual nature that must be maintained in all indus-try/university relationships.

In summary. I believe that the reader will find a wealth ofinformation on industry/university collaborative programspresented in this volume. If a main theme can be drawn fromthese contributions, it is that industry is assuming an in-creasing share of the burden in supporting higher education,generally to the benefit of both. Although several presenta.tions do make the case that these relations are better devel-oped without government participation, the examples arenumerous in which assistance by government provides thenecessary catalyst for initiation of and continuity in these re-lations. In particular, for young faculty just starting their Ca-

° reers, both an institutionalized and established program ofindustry/university liaison can facilitate their initiation intocollaborative research.

In addition, such programs provide accepted modes of op_-4/14°oration within universities as well as needed visibility in theindustrial sector. One should remember that an orderly andwell established mechanism of support exists from govern-ment, with the peer review system fairly well accepted in theacademic ranks of all disciplines. On the other hand, in theabsence of well-established channels of communication offaculty with industry, a new faculty member can be asked a

13 ,` )(V

,

classic question if he seeks funding from an induirialsource: "We do not know your work, your.capabilities, andyou have no track record. Now, what was it you were pro-posing to do research in"? Clearly, long standing perceptionsof industry/academia relations will have to be altered. Myhope is that this workshop and resulting proceedings willhave taken a small but significant step in providing incen-tives and encouragement for more industry/university coop-erative activities.

James C. SeferisWorkshop Chairman

;1

14

XVI

I

Introductory Remarks

15

Dr. Michael Pe IcierPresident, The Council of Graduate Schools io the United States

It is .a special privilege for the Council of GraduateSchools, in conjunction with the National Science Founda-tion, to take part in arranging for this workshop. Indus-

! .

try/hniversity cooperation is a very timely issue, and I hopethat it isn't just a passing fa icy or a tad. I don't believe that itis. I think that industry/university partnerships or relation-ships have existed for many years in many different forms.Some have been very successful; others have not been. But Ithink that we are in an era in which a. new look at what isbeing done and how it is being done, at what kinds of ar-rangements have been successful and what kinds have failed(and why they have failed) is needed. We hope that the ex-change that we have planned for today will result in a defini-tion of the manners or modes of interaction that are success-ful. We can develop some documentation even beyond thisworkshop that eventually can be distributed toperSOns in in-dustry and in academia who are in positions not only to par-ticipate but also to benefit from such arrangements.

This workshop was put together pretty quickly, but I thinkall of the parts are in pretty fine tune now, and we anticipatea successful day. Jim Seferis from the University of Washing-ton; Jim Bartoo from Pennsylvaina State University; PaulTebo from E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Dan Zaffarano,the chairman of the Council of Graduate Schools' Board;JerryDaen and Fred Betz from the National Science Founda-tion deserve the credit for the planning that has gone intoputting this workshop together. Let me conclude my wel-coming-remarks by reading a short quote fiom a very famous

-----TtientistDr. Carl Haskins, formerly director of the CarnegieInstitute who, in a report entitled "Public and Private Sci-ence," had the following to say about the tripartite arrange-ment of government, industry, and colleges: "The tripartitearrangement is almost uniquely developed in America andcan be of unique strength and effectiveness. It has been theenvy of the ,Drld, and, clearly, one of our great challenges inthe years ahead will be to make it work better to achieve

3

greater permeability, more effective feedback, and better co-ordination among its components, and to preserve the integ-rity and the effectiveness of th'3 whole. Understanding thetasks of each, recognizing their capacities, and, above all,preserving an appropriate balance among them and promot-ing their optimal synergism in the interest of the nationthese are the basic tasks for today and tomorrow."

I would underscore that this is our task today. Again, wel-come to the workshop, and I look forward to a very success-ful exchange of ideas and information.

. 17

Dr. Fred BetzDirector, IUC Program .

National Science Foundation

I'd like to review briefly the recent history of the federalgovernment's concern about industrial-university relation-ships. During the last decade there has been concern at thenational level about the United States' ability to continue toinnovate and to compete internationally and about the ap-propriate role the federal government should play in foster-ing industrial innovation. This is both a complex and a deli-cate issue because while the federal government is not aproducer of goods and services, or knowledge, it has a signif,icant stake in the success of those who do. Accordingly, it isimportant to encourage cooperative attitudes among thethree sectors of society industry, academia, and govern-ment.

In 1975 the National Science Foundation began trying todefine an appropriate role for itself with respedt to basic re-search in industry. After several meetings and committeesthe Director of the Foundation created a program called theIndustry-University Cooperative Research Program. Its pur-pose was to encourage closer industry-university relation-ships by sponsoring cooperative research projects betweenindustrial scientists and university scientists. In this way,the Foundation could provide support for formal coopera-tive projects which, in terms of a broad spectrum of supportof such projects, was not otherwise available. At the start ofthis program it was decided that the primary criteria forfunding a project would be the quality of its research, andthat we would preferto the extent practicableto leave theadministration of the programs to the participants. This hasworked, I think, fairly successfully.

Some of the lessons that stand out in our experience arerather obvious, in retrospect. But things are usually clearerin hindsight. First, it is the high technology industrial sec-tors that use science directly and in so doing supply thebasis for future technology, that participate in the program.Secondly, it's in these scientific areas that technological

5

questions pose important questions for science. Conse-quently, there is a very close coupling between technologyand science for the high-technology sectors of industry andthe areas of science which directly couple to technology.These terms science and technology delineate more clearlythe nature of the university/industrial relationship. Industryis technology intensive; universities are science intensive. Inthe areas of economic activity where science and technologydirectly interact, cooperation is natural and important.

Much of the science policy discussion at the federal levelhas centered on the terms Lasic, applied, and developmentalresearch. I think that we will be seeing in this next decade ashift to the terms science and technology, because, in myview, this clarifies the situation when the national concern isabout the relationship of science to industrial innovation.

The reason the Foundation is sponsoring this workshop isthat it will be it lortant to the nation over this next decadefor industry and cademia to define even closer relation-ships with each other in ways that are natural and do notdivert the historic mission of the universities in educationand the generation of knowledge, and that presume that in-dustry should always be working toward a long-term profitmotive, increasing productivity and innovation. Today Ihope we can clarify an important part of the cooperativeproblem: what can university administrations do to encour-age and facilitate relationships between industrial scientistsand university scientists for (1) the increase of knowledge,(2) the furtherance of education, and (3) the use of kno-4,1-edge in industrial innovation.

1D

6

Dr. James C. Seferls,,,Director, Industrial Affiliate ProgramDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Washington

I should like to add a few words to these introductory re-marks concerning what academia is seeking in its interactionwith industry. Although the first thing that comes to a per-son's mind is funding, I think that the primary incentive inestablishing a cooperative arrangement with industry is tohav3 an input for updating and evaluating in a meaningfulfashion our basic educational and research objectives. Fi-nancial considerations, of course, will have to be put in per-spective, but in my mind these will have to come as a resultof the interaction and should not be the primary motive forsetting up collaborative programs with industry. The pro-grams and activities we want to talk about today fall into acategory of institutionalized arrangements that universitiesmake in providing a particular focused service to industryand in soliciting input from it. Such activities are often for-mally organized under the titles "industrial liaison" or "affi-liate programs" and are created and administered at the uni-versity-wide, college, or departmental level. We have_speakers today who will describe details of such programs.We trust that we will hear from our academic speakers as tohow these programs impact the university's objectives aswell as affect the individual faculty and students involved insuch programs.

My experience and that of my students has been gratifyingin having industrial input to our work. We also find thatclose collaboration with industry provides an added dimen-sion of importance and usefulness in the work we do. In gen-eral, however, because of traditional differences existing be-tween industry and university, cooperative programs mustclearly provide answers to certain fundamental issues thatarise as a result of such couplings. For example, to certainpeople from academia, the cliche of industrially funded re-search not being "academic" research but rather an activitybased on financial considerations alone is a perception that

. 207-

can impose significant barriers to industry university colla-borative efforts.

In putting together the announcement for this workshop,the steering committee identified some of the issues thatneed to be addressed specifically' in any program that pro-motes university/industry interaction. These were

a. faculty consulting and proprietary informationh. impact on research quality and on young faculty devel-

opment and promotionsc. industrial interests: charity %;s. serviced. disciplines most likely to develop such programse. optimum structure and organizati of the programsf. impact on graduate enrollmentg. program continuity and survivalAlthough this list by no means is intended to be exhaus-

tive or all-encompassing. I hope that the issues it compriseswill be addressed by the workshop participants. Thus, ratherthan elaborating further on each of th:, above issues, I will letthe speakers provide answers to these through the descrip-tions of their programs.

2.t

8

Q.

Dr. Paul V. TeboEngineering Technology LaboratoryE I du Pont de Nemours & Co

The topic of industry/university programs is of particularinterest to me, mainly because of da Pont's wide-rangine, in-teractions with the university community: We have been. forinstance. a member of affiliate programs such as those at theuniversities of Washington and Tennessee: have had profes-sors in residence in our organization from six weeks to morethan three months: and have engaged students as summeremployees (one West German student spends time with useach year). We are also in the process of submitting a jointproposal with Princeton to the NSI7 for studies in the area oftheology.

Rather than limit these remarks to personal opinions onthe benefits of our industry/university programs. however. Ishould like to present the resalts of a modest survey amongcompanies that participate in the Unic;ersity of Delaware'sCenter for Composite Materials. Eight of the member compa-nies responded (companies such as du Pont, Ford. Celanese,General Electric). Professor Byron Pipes, Director of the Cen-ter, was most helpful in implementing the survey. Let mestress that this small sampling of opinion is not statisticallysignificant. The responses are offered only to stimulate ourthinking and to set the stage for the discussions to follow.

The survey asked two questions: (1) Why does industryparticipate in joint university/industry research programs?and (2) What guidelines do participants use in selecting aparticular university or program? Answers were grouped, ac-cording to frequency of response. into top, middle, and bot-tom categories.

Question number one involved ranking several alternativereasons for paticipation on the basis of their importance tothe responding company. The top answer was clearly the im-portance of having qualified people trained in technical dis-ciplines related to the present and future business areas ofthe industrial sponsor.

Three reasons fell into the middle category: enhanced in-

22 9

teraction with ti Aversity faculty, value of the research beingconducted, and interaction with students as a recruiting aid.It is interesting that three companies chose value of the re-search as their number one reason for participation (and oneranked it seventh). Also, the recruiting aspect is often sin-gled out as a prime motivation for industry participation. Yetthe survcy would indicate that, although important. recruit-ing is not the major consideration.

Falling into the bottom category weie interaction withother companies in areas of mutual technological interestand enhanced company goodwill.

These low rankings were somewhat surprising. GoothN illis important to most companies. and interaction with othercompanies has always emerged as a prime benefit of the jointconsortium. Universityindustry programs afford opportuni-ties for companies to discuss technical developments of mu-tual interest in an atmosphere divorced from business con-siderations.

A few general comments on question one shrild be made:According to Professor Pipes. many companies joined for

one reason but later found other reasons to be more impor-tant.

Company size showed no correlation with the responses.The survey was answered by technical management hay-

irg responsibility for R&D budgets and specific research ob-jectives, rather than by corporate "educational aid" adminis-trators whose interests are in the areas of unrestricted andyoung faculty grants.

Although the importance of training qualified people dif-fers from that of recruiting. the two are related.

Recruiting and company goodwiil are the prime reasonsbehind corporate aid (unrestricted grants).

The response to question two indicates that there are noformal guidelines for selecting a particular university or pro-gram. However, the most frequently mentioned guidelinewas the quality of the faculty. followed by the availability offacilities, the quality of proposed research. and the qualityand breadth of co-sponsors.

1023

Other guidelines mentioned on one or two responses werethe quality of students, the efficacy of the program as a re-cruiting aid. cost, new ideas, and rapid growth of technicalcompetence in areas new to the company.

Some of the answers to question two also were surprising.Cost to the industrial sponsor does not seem to be a signifi-cant criterion at this time. The most expensive program thatwe are aware of (MIT's polymer processing program) isequivalent only to the cost of supporting one person for oneyear in industry. Conversely. I had expected that the "newideas" criterion would have been higher on the list. Thistopic might be worthy of further discussion today.

Let me re-emphasize that this brief survey cannot promptany definitive conclusions. Many industry representativeshere undoubtedly have still other opinions on how and whya company becomes involved in a joint programsIvith one ormore universities. Fulthermore, we have not touched upontwo other important questions:

What key characteristics separate a successful programfrom an unsuccessfu; one? For instance, how important arethe aggressiveness and capabilities of the program director?

What technical area characteristics are ;lost amenable tojoint industry'university treatmentfundamental versus applied, broad or narrow, long-range versus near -term?

I am most interested in hearing about other persons' ex-periences with joint industry/university endeavors. Suchprograms will surely escalate, and, with this growth. the re-search capabilities of both partners will be strengthened inthe process.

2411

G

Program Presentationsallimemirmilmmmiims

25

On Industry / Academia RelationsDr I Baron, PresidentShell Development Company

Good morning. I'm .not really sure why I'm here. I'm notvery qualified to speak on the subject. Nor do I feel that weare addressing a burning issue. I disagree with a previousspeaker who said that things as great as the fate of nationalinnovation is at stake. It may well be true that the UnitedStates has fallen behiad others in Certain areas in innovating.I don't think that has anything to do whatever with the peo-ple in this country who innovate. I don't think that univer-sity people are less brilliant today than they were in the past.I don't believe that people in industry invent less than theyused to. I think that if there's an innovation problem it's a.ociological and political problem having to do with the re-lationship between government and industry and especiallythe anti-industry attitude of our previous administrations. Ihope that this will change now. I don't think, therefore, thatimproved cooperation or improved interacticn between in-dustry and universities will affect such important nationalproblems, nor do I think that the universities need to begreatly improved by contact with industry.

I am an employer of the product of universities, and I mustsay that I am always amazed at the excellence of that prod-uct. We employ engineers, chemists, geologists, physicists,mathemat; ians, you name it, and all these people comingfrom major research universities in the United States have apreparation that in my opinion leaves nothing to be desired.No. I hope that whate(rer'we do in the future not deter-iorate things as they are. I can't_think of any improvement____that's desirable from this point of view, nor can I think of anyimprovement that is desirable from the paint of view of im-proving basic knowledge that thYs country or the woTld willmake use of and, therefore, my company will make use of. Ifyou think of-what might well be the future industries twentyto a hundred years from now, the two big things that come tomind are chips and the things that come from that, robctsand so on, and then the new biology. Heaven knows what

2G 15

.vill come of that, but I would think that that is going to beone of the foundations of many great indust les in the nett'decades. It cannot be denied that American,universities have

? pioneered in these fields, and I don't see any.threat or anylessening of the energy with which things are pursued.

So that speaking now purely as a customer of what univer-sities have to offer, I must say, ladies and gentlemen, that Icouldn't be more satisfied. That's why I am little puzzledabout why I'm here. It should be for them to state what theproblem ii. if there is one. I have, however, some goodfriends at universities, and I suspect that there are some seri-ous problems having to do, first of all, with funding. Nowthis is a very complicated and difficult problem. It is unfor-tunately clear that in our society students cannot provide allthe monies required to support education and research inour universities; industry doesn't seem to be capable or will-ing to, and the federal government is making up the differ-erce. I don't think that anything we do today w21 changethese facts. I would like to say, however, that from my pointof view I would welcome any step that would increase thefunds coming from industry, and I think that any activity de-voted to a better understanding of how these funds can bemade availableor should be made available--so as to leastshackle the people at the University is a welcome activity.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I'm mainly worried aboutany method of disbursing funds that will, in a sense, corruptthe intent of university work, which is both education andunfettered pioneering research to be judged by peers not aprioribefore it is done ;but a posterioriafter it has beendone. Bear in mind this definition and this objective. One ofthe difficulties that arises today is when people at universi-ties ask professors to seek outside funds, a lot of the profes-sor's time is spent looking for funding for proposals. Some ofthe proposals come through. But they may not come throughin time for participation in the research by the students theywere intended for. These students may already have gradu-ated, so a certain amount of shifting and juggling of funds

2716

has to be done, all of it providing a slightly corrupting influ-ence. I don't mean corruption in the legal sense, but corrup-tion in the sense that it per' erts the basic idea of universityparticipation in such an activity. We at Shell have tried s

something for just the first time this year that I hope will besuccessful, but only time will tell. We have started to foundsome distinguished chairs in which a professor is awardedby the university, not by Shell, a chair for a fiveyear period.During that period his salary is paid, and enough money isprovided each month to pay his graduate students so that hedoes not have to seek funds elsewhere or so that he certainlycan minimize the funds that he seeks elsewhere.

Will this prove to be useful? Well, we hope it will; onlytime will tell. In any case, I think that one of the major pur-poses of industry/university interaction should be to providefunds to the universities with a minimum of perversion ofthe essential purpose. Now, besides just providing funds, in-dustry can, of course, interact in other ways with universi-ties, and here again my plea is that this interaction preservethe integrity with which this process should and must go on.So I don't think that what counts is so much what is done,but the purpose and the integrity with which it is done. Agiven thing can be successful or unsuccessful depending onwhat is in the hearts and minds of the people who are en-gaged in this interaction. I would think that it should be ex-tremely important when a university or industry starts sucha cooperative effort to keep this in mind.

Let me tell you a little story of what happened in our owncompany that will illustrate why I'm a little worried or why Iwant to approach this question with great trepidation andthe greatest degree of care. We have a department at ShellDevelopment Company whose job is to provide new chemis-try that will be the foundation of the next significant re-search events in Shell, the other departments being the onesmanaging the current projects. But some of my directors anddepartment heads said "But is it all right if we use thesepeople as consultants?" and I said, "Well, yes, of course it's

28 17

all right. I mean these people are here. and we're not going tokeep you from talking to them." So it was agreed that it wasokay to go to them.

Several years went by after we founded this departmentbefore it came to my attention and to the attention of my topsenior managers that although the department was function-ing well and producing things of major importance, it some-how wasn't performing quite as well as we had hoped. Fur-thermore, people in the department felt that the originalpuipose for their group really was not being achieved. Whathad happened was that consulting relationships had startedimmediately, and people would go to these scientists andask them if they knew a way to do this or to do that, and thefellow would say, "Well, yes, I think I do but I'm not sure.Let me make a few experiments." And pretty soon, well overhalf of the department was engaged in work that was com-pletely unintended. The focus of their work shifted fromlong-range to short-range;.and being very clever chemists,the more successful they were, the more they were in de-mand. We completely perverted the process, mind you, in asituation that was totally under our control. A univer-sity/industry interaction will never be under anybody's con-trol.

This is what I am afraid of, and so my plea to you is thatthe sanctity of the process be guarded as much as possible,that a university/industry coupling should not be under-taken for the purpose of transferring funds or for the purposeof seeking funds. On the other hand I do believe that thereare legitimate situations in which universities need coopera-tion with industrial research, and, I think, really, this shouldbe the criterion: Does the university need it ?And this will bein the area in which the professors involved have great per-sonal interest that is rather close but general to an area inwhich a number of industries are involved. One, for in-stanee, in which Shell is involved and which is very usefulto us, is the University of Delaware Catalytic Research Cen-ter. Here's a case in which I believe that the motivation of thepeople of the University of Delaware is that they want to do

18 29

,..

f

\(

chemistry that happens to e on that frontier from whichgreat companies or small c mpanies might easily drawideas. They need us because they need to see how we reactand to know what we think is important and unimportantThey want their students to become interested in industrybecause they know that this kind of research, this type ofknowledge, will ultimately be used in industry. So they arereally thinking of this as fulfilling interests of their own.Now if that is assured, then, of course, the sanctity of theprocedures is assured, and I know of no problems whatso-ever. Every now and then I ask the fellows if they're learninganything from this process, and the answer's always "yes,"so we keep supporting it. Presumably the university likes itas well because they also continue with it. I would say thenthit the first important thing is the motive. The second mostimportant thing is the scale. I think that universities shouldnot undertake things on a very large scale. 1 have had univer-sities approach me that wanted to develop a coal gasificationprocess and ask if I would be interested in supporting it. Iwould say no. Why? Because I think at least a billion dollarswill be required to develop one of them. They don't nave themanpower. If the whole university did nothing but work onit, they wouldn't have the manpower. So the scale has to bereafonably modest within the scope and capability of a uni-versity.

Well, I could go on, but I would just like to emphasize insumming up my comments that I think that things are okay.There is nothing t, rang with American universities. I thinkthat anything that industry can do to increase the amount offunding going to the universities isgreat, and that we shoulddo it.,But we should do it in such a way that it does not per-veit the essential purposes of a university. If the universitywants to do things for which they need an atmosphere inwhich they can understand industry better, then one way isthrough the kind of cooperative effort we've been discussing.I thank you for inviting me.

r) 0O 19

The MIT Liaison ProgramDr. J. D. Bruce. DirectorMIT Industrial Liaison ProgramMassachusetts Institute of Technology

I am very happy to be here with you at the CGS/NSF Work-shop on Indust-v/University Cooperative Progratils and tohave this opportunity to describe MIT's Industrial LiaisonProgram. My -remarks will be divided into two sections.First, I want to describe our program and how it works, andsecond, I want to suggest several reasons why it has been'sosuccessful and thereby to indicate prerequisites for the es-tablishment of similar programs.

MIT's Industrial Liaison Program was founded in 1948. Itsobjective is to provide efficient and timely access to the re-search and staff resources of the Institute for the benefit of itsmembers. The program helps fulfill a founding responsibil-ity of MIT to industry. As stated in its charter, issued by theCommonwealth of Massachusetts in 1861, MIT's purposesinclude ". . . the advancement, development, and practicalapplication of science in connection with arts, agriculture.manufactures, and commerce. . . ." Currently, over 270companies belong to the program, including some 40 in Eu-rope and 25 in Japan.

MIT is a large, diffuse organization. The Institute includes23 academic department3, organized into 5 schools, and over40 nterdepartmental/interdiscipanary centers arkd laborato-rie . The Institute's research budget will exceed $300 mil-lioncin the current fiscal year. Its research programs and staffthus represent a tremendous potential resource for industryand commerce. However, it is difficult, or perhaps even im-possible, for a company to gain efficient access to the widespectrum of the Institute's resources without having somespecial link to MIT. The Industrial Liaison Program providesone such link, creating an effective interface between MITand member firms through a variety of services.

Key to these services in providing a productive relation-ship between MIT and a member company is the liaison offi-

'cer. The officer acts as the ..ember company's personal rep-

31 21

I

resentative at MIT. In this role, the officer is charged withactively focusing the company's relationship with MIT to as-sure, maximum exposure to those Institute activities that canbe of value to the member company.

Currently, there are fourteen full-time liaison officers asso-ciated with MIT's program. Each has an advanced degree,and usually at least one of the officer's degrees will be fromMIT. or he or she will have had research experience at MIT.Liaison officers have a variety of technical backgrounds, in-cluding mechanical and electrical engineering, nutrition andfood science, materials sci-mce, chemistry. chemical engi-neering, physics, civil engineering, aeronautics and astro-nautics, psychology, and management. Additionally, eachhas had several years' experience in industrial or universitypositions. These officers are experts in their respective tech-nical fields and on MIT, and they develop comprehensiveunderstandings of the interests and needs of the organiza-tions they serve. For example, each officer regularly travelsto the principal locations of the firms he serves, learningabout company interests, meeting company personnel, anddescribing the ways a member company can make use of theprogram. D. ring each year every officer spends about 20 per-cent of his time away from MIT, traveling to member com-pany locations throughout the USA, Canada, Europe and theFar East.

The industrial liaison officer also is responsible for per-sonally supervising and encouraging the use of the many ser-vices offered by the Liaison Program. In these and all activi-ties. he is supported by his fellow officers (in fact. eachmember company has a "back-up" officer in addition to theofficer with principal responsibility for the member com-pany) and, of course, by the MIT faculty and professional re-search staff.

Discussions with Professors and Research StaffThe most valuable resource at MIT is its faculty and staff.

Many are respected worldwide as distinguished expertswith extensive experience in industrial problem solving

3222

arising from their research activities, private consulting,and, in many cases, past industrial employment. The LiaisonProgram provides two important ways in which member or-ganizations interact directly with this resource,

First, there are visits by company staffs to MIT. Whether amember company's interest is in pharmaceuticals. mi-crowave devices, polymers, microprocessors, financial plan-ning, solar energy, energy policy, food preservation and mar-keting, or whatever else, it is likely that MIT has science,engineering, or management faculty doing research in thatcompany's area of interest and who would welcome the op-portunity to review the field or discuss their research withthe staff of that company. These visits offer excellent oppor-tunities to review problems and new ideas and for MITresearchers to exchange views with their professional coun-terparts in industry. In addition, the liaison officer is oftencalled upon to recommend faculty experts for in-depth con-sultation on specific problems a company might have. Insuch instances, financial arrangements are made privatelybetween the company and the faculty consultant. During thepast year, over 2,500 visits occurred between member-com-pany staffs and MIT faculty.

Second, MIT faculty and staff travel widely and often areable to extend their journeys a day or two to permit them tovisit one or more member companies. Such visits may in-clude seminars or informal discussions and provide an effec-tive way of "bringing MIT to the member." Each year over250 visits are arranged at no additional expense to the mem-bers. These visits are to locations throughout the USA, Eu-rope, and Japan. t.,

Directory of Current ResearchTo keep our member organizations informed as to the re-

search work under way at MIT, the Industrial Liaison Pro-grain publishes the Directory of Current Research. This di-rectory, updated annually, is .the most comprehensivesummary of MIT research programs available. Abstracts ofover 2,500 research projects are listed in the 1980 directory.

33 23

The directory serves as a handy reference that may be usedto search out those research projects in which one is espe-cially interested. A bibliography on each project, as well asmanuscripts and preprints of papers submitted for publica-tion, abstracts and documents, laboratory prowess reports,working papers, internal technical memos, etc.. is availablefrom our office.

In addition, each month the Liaison Program mails theMonthly List of Publications to key individuals and librar-iesapproximately 9,000 mailing pointsin each membercompany. Listed in this publication are the titles of 80-100documentswith abstractsthat we believe will be of inter-est to member-company staffs. Any of the reports listed canbe ordered from the Industrial Liaison Office by returning aresponse card. The monthly list also announces MIT patentawards and applications. as well as other programs likely tobe of interest to our members.

SymposiaMajor research efforts at MIT, of special interest to mem-

bers. are reported at one- and two-day symposia held at regu:lar intervals throughout the year. Some 12-15 such meetingsare held each year. The titles of recent meetings have in-eluded

Advances in Modern Control TheoryComputer GraphicsManagement of Research, Development and Technology-

Based InnovationSolar Energy UtilizationPossibilities and ProbabilitiesBiotechnology: Status and ProspectsFuture Demand for EnergyMaterials ResearchOffice of the sutureHow Microprocessors Are Changing Product DesignToxicology ResearchPolymers ResearchIC Engine Operation FundamentalsA detailed program outlining the sy.nposium presenta-

24 3"

tions is mailed to member companies about six weeks in ad-vance of the meeting so that there is time to combine the tripto Cambridge with other business. Some of these symposiaare held in cities around the country so that distant compa-nies find it more convenient to attend. For instance, we haverecently taken a symposium Olt "Intelligent, Optical Video-discs and Their Applications" to Los , ngeles, and anotheron "Management of R&D and Innovation" to San Francisco.Typically, 100-150 people attend each meeting. Symposiaoffer good opportunities to review the latest developmentswith other experts in the field in the university's informaltmosphere.

SeminarsReports on more specialized research efforts at MIT are

present6d at a series of informal half-day programs. Exam-ples of some recent seminars include. Review of European Aerospace Activities

Nondestructive Evaluation of Fiber CompositesNutrition and the Brain,These seminars generally involve one or two speakers and

an audience of about wirty. Being on a smaller scale thansymposia, seminars have a flexibility that allows a sharperfocus on the specific topic. The meetingcan be held near po-tentially interested member companies. and topics and loca-tion can be selected to maximize the benefits tp companiesin the geographical area where the seminar is being held. Inaddition to seminars in the U. S., the Liaison Program regu-larly schedules programs in Europe and in Japan, where 19were offered last year.

Special Foreign ProgramsExpanding membership abroad has prompted the devel-

opment of programs especially designed for member compa-nies in Europe and in Japan. For exal,:ile, we maintain anoffice in Tokyo to enable us to provide more timely service toour Japanese members; intensive short courses have beenheld in Europe for several years, ai,d courses stress topicswhere MIT has special expertise in areas of particular inter-

3525

est to European industry. A similar series of programs forJapan is being planned.

Summary.

In summary, the ILP at MIT offersSystematic and efficient access to the results of research

supported by a budget of nearly $300 million without invest-ing in the research, creating a most valuable supplementalresearch resource. ,

Opportunities for individual discussion with knowledge-able, leading experts who have already digested the relevantbackground materials, who can make a focused response toinquiries, and who can focus a discussion of the relevance oftheir research activities to specific company interests andproblems.

Creation of close professional ties with MIT experts, pro-viding a resource that can prove extremely valuable. Suchties can be most important when special consulting needsexist or when a company is recruiting highly trained staff.

Ability to efficiently monitor the progress of technologiesand development that may be of current or long-range inter-est to the member company, and which may significantly in-fluence its current business or suggest important. new busi-ness opportunities.

Now, permit me to turn to the second issue I promised toaddress: Why is MIT's Liaison Program so successful? I be-lieve there are three basic, equally essential reasons. First,MIT regards its program as a servicenot a fund-raisingprogram; second, there exists at MIT an ample, broadly rang-ing base of research to support a liaison program; and third,the MIT faculty is eager to dpelop and maintain contactswith industry. Let me elaborate on each of these pointsbriefly:

Alihough it reports to MIT's Vice President for ResourceDevelopment and does raise over $4,000,0.0 per year, thecentral thrust of the Liaison Program is to provide its mem-bers with access to MIT's research results, not to raise funds.

26 36

Our aim is to work with our companies so that they obtainsignificant business benefits from their ILP membership.

With some $300 million in research under way annuallyranging from basic, fundamental studies to, for example,process developmentin fields ranging from architecture to(almost) zoology, that is from A to Z. it is extremely likelythat first-rate work is being done in a number of ficIds of cen-tral interest to many companies. They find MIT's work to bestimulative. to be suggestive of new products and processes,and to provide a check on work under way at or of interest tothe company. We find that our members do not limit theircontacts to any one department, laboratory. or researchgroup, but rather seek contacts widely across the campus.And, while their contacts are primarily with our faculty andresearch staff,. there is an increasing number with adminis-trative and service staff dealing with topics as wide-rangingas our energy conservation program, our nonunion grievanceprocedures, and the importance of documenting a com-pany's history.

MIT faculty have a long history of interaction with indus-try. Some of this interaction has led to the founding of highlysuccessful companies. Essentially, all of our faculty are ac-tive consultantsInstitute policy encourages them to spendup to one day per week for their personal, professional activ-ities. Faculty participate in the Liaison Program because itprovides them with far broader contacts with industry thanthey would otherwise have. They find this contact beneficialin planning, in carrying out their research, and in keepingtheir teaching activities current.

I might note at this point that during the 1980 fiscal year,just over 700 of our 950 faculty were active participants inthe Liaison Program's activities. When you take into accountthose faculty working in fields that are not of principal inter-est to industry, this is indeed a very high figure.

To recognize our faculty's participation in serving themembers, we share 10 percent of our gross revenues withthem. This involves. an elaborate point system to track eachfaculty member's interaction with ILP member companies.

37 27

These funds do not represent additional income to partici-pating faculty, but rather are available for the faculty mem-ber's "professional development." In recent years these !non-

....,,ies have supported graduate students in areas that wereunfunded, have purchased laboratory equipment, have paidprofessional society membership fees, have subsidizedtravel to professional meetings that would otherwise ithave been possible, etc.

Now, in closing, a word of caution to you who are consid-ering establishing such programs. The countryside is litteredwith programs that have failed. My experience is that if youstart a program primarily to raise money, it will inevitablyfail. If you do not have a strong research base, it will fail.And, if you do not have faculty committed to the conceptand willing to spend time, it will fail. However, if you havethe prerequisites, I know of no better way to develop strong,lasting institutional relationships with industry.

33

28

An Industrial Perspective of Academic ProgramsDr R puller. Vice PresidentAcademic RelationsJohnson & Johnson Company

When Dr. Seferis invited me to speak at the symposium. Ihad only recently assumed my current role with our com-pany. I was excited at the prospect of my new assignment asVice President of Academic Relations because of my interestin industry/university collaboration during almost twentyyears of industrial research involvement before assuminggeneral management assignments. I was both surprised andencouraged by the current emphasis on the subject of indus-try/university relationships. ,I think there is now a wide-spread recognition within industry that we have a big stakein the health of our universities and, particularly, in protect-ing and encouraging their basic research activities.

Although with the best of intentions, federal governmentsupport of research is tending more and more to impose con-straints on time and to demand specific, quick, and usableresults. The effect on research, I believe, is more cautious de-sign of experiments, a drift toward safe and sound projects,and less inclination among researchers to gamble on riskyideas. AsSenator Moynihan of New York wrote in an articleentitled, "The State vs. Academe," in a recent issue of Har-per's magazine: "The federal dollar is tempting, and in the.absence of other means to mount an important project, thecompromises become easier and easier to make." He con-cluded that the conquest of the private sector by the publicsector, of which Joseph Shumpeter wrote a generation ago,continues apace: "If the private institutions of America [inthis case he was referring specifically to the universities! areto be preserved, we are going to have to defend them."

Fortunately, the roster of orporations and universities en-gaged in some type of cooperative effort is all ady impres-sive. Most of you are aware, I am sure, of the; recently an-nounced MIT-Exxon program. the Harvard-Monsantoagreement, the Bristol-Meyers grants for cancer research,and the recently announced twenty grants from IBM to de-

39 29

I

partment chairmen at science universities to spend at theirown discretion. These are just a few of the programs. manyothers of which are of a more modest nature.

After all that has been written lately, in both lay and scien-tific publications, it's almost impossible to discuss anythingnew or unique in university/industry relations that hasn't al-ready been reported somewhere. Accordingly. I thought itbest to simply stick to the announced purpose of the work-shop. which is to describe and analyze experiences of in-dustry/uniVersity liaison activities. I will therefore describebriefly some of our company's attitudes, actions, and expec-tations with respect to our relations with the university com-munity.

Interaction with and support of academic institutions isnot something that has suddenly come about for our com-pany. nor for many other companies. What we are currentlyseeing is an increased emphasis on the need for more andbatter university/industry cooperation after a long period ofreIative indifference to one another. Johnson & Johnson andmany other corporations have a long history of support invarious ways for our academic institutions. This support in-cludes capital grants for instructional facilities, endowedchairs, scholarships and fellowships, matching grants forunrestricted gifts to universities by company personnel. andsupport of special projects. For us, such support is part ofour family of companies striving to meet its social responsi-bilities according to the principles set forth in our Credo.which was first introduced almost forty years ago.

The Credo is a timeless document; it's pretty idealistic inits goals, but is pragmatically effective when its principlesare put into practice. Its author. General Robert Wood John-son, evidenced remarkable vision when you consider that itwas in the mid-1940s that he foresaw the critical need of ourcorporation to embrace its responsibilities in the many anti-munities where we live and work. The Credo articulates thecompany's responsibility to "participate in promotion ofcivic improvement, health, education, and good govern-ment" and. significantly, I believe, mentions this separately

30

40

from its articulation of the company's obligation to supportgood works and charity. I point that out because I do not con-sider that support of education is a charity. It's not a charity,it's a responsibility. Good teaching, particularly of science,demands good basic research that seeks new knowledge andunderstanding. This is a fundamental reason for industry tosupport basic research activities. We depend on the univer-sities to educate the personnel we need to staff not only ourR&D facilities, but also many other pat is of our business.Thus, support of university basic research activities canproperly be viewed as enlightened self-interest.

..

What are ;ome of the incentives for industry to participatein industry university cooperative activities? If long-term in-vestments in basic science_ate not continued and, in fact,perhaps accelerated, industry wilTfincHtself _without the in-formation required as a basis for the development of newtechnologies and products 15 or 20 years from now. It''sworthwhile reflecting on the recent explosion of activitiesseeking practical applications for the new hybridoma and re-combinant DNA techniques. The basis for these develop-ments goes back a long way. Hybridomas are a late, long-deferred product of the discovery of the phenomenon of cellfusion, which became possible itself only after many years ofperfecting cell culture methods, including cultivating mye-loma c^11 lines. For genetic engineering, there is more thanthirty years' background of research in virology and molecu-lar genetics, most of it done in the absence of any idea thatrecombinant DNA would resuit from it. We need to continueto deposit new data in our bank of stored information, or, assometimes happens in personal life, we will find our futurerequests for withdrawal stamped NSF. For those of you whomay never have undergone-such an unfortunate experience,perhaps I should explain that NSF stands fop "not sufficientfunds." Perhaps I should say NSI for "no`such information,"so there will be no confusion with the sponsor of this confer-ence. f

Industry can and does benefit from interaction with uni-versity researchers because of the intellectual stimulation

31

1

this provides. It is an essential way for scientists to keep upwith current progress and is a source of ideas and inspira-tion. which do not necessarily have to be product-oriented.It thLis contributes to the competence of the industrial scien-tist so that he has the capacity to respond effectively to theopportunities provided by new scientific advances. .

Obviously, there are other ways in which indus-try/university liaisons benefit industry: the use of professorsas consultants. contract work carried out on specific projectsfor industry, cooperative research programs and access touniversity technology and patents through industrial liaisonprograms such as we've heard describe-!, and through licens-ing and royalty arrangements. Industry sometimes providesthe venture capital for entrepreneurs to develop opportuni-ties coming from university research activities. Our variouscompanies are involved in all such types of arrangements. Avaluable interchange is accomplished through lectures and

'seminars, both those given by academicians to industry andthose given by industrialists to the university community.We have a program of invited speakers from universities andstage symposia on specific subjects. Some of our scientistshold adjunct professorships and lecture at universities. Thisis not developed to the extent that I believe it could be. Suchinterchange goes a long way toward improved understand-ing and removes many of the imaginary barriers to commu-nication between Lis. ..,

Another excellent interchange has been accomplished bysome universities and companies that have provided sab-batidal leaves for professors to work in industry and for in-dustrial researchers to work at universities. We've had very

_ little experience with this type of interchange, but we haveplans to develop it further. During the past year we negoti-ated an interesting arrangement in which the director of re-search at one of our companies was given a tenured facultyappointment as a senior scientist (equivalent to the professo-rial rank) at a university. This calls for him to devote 50 pei-cent of his working time and effort to a joint research pro-gram. He shares the direction of the laboratory set up for this

32 42

1

purpose with a full-time professor at the university. He willcontinue to devote the other 50 percent of his time to the di-rection of our company's research program. While it took al-most a year from the first conception of this idea to the finalagreement, there was great enthusiasm from both parties be-cause each felt the need for knowledge and strength_ theother could provide. Naturally, there were problems to beworked out with regard to publication, patent rights, androyalty arrangements; but when both parties have agreed onthe value of the relationship, these things have a way ofbeing resolved withou' compromising the essential normsand values of either party. Unfortunately, this program hasnot been in existence long enough for me to give you a mean-ingful report on its progress, but we are extremely optimisticabout the value of this innovative approach.

Also, during the past year. our company has carefully re-viewed its total contribution program. In an article in Na-tion's Business, Mary Tuthill observed, and I quote, "Insteadof spreading contributions far and wide perhaps to whom-ever comes through the door, hat in hand some forward-looking corporations are using narrowly domed programs totry to improve the world they function in. This kind ofthoughtful planning could make corporate philanthropymore potent." This is exactly the course we have decided tofollow in establishing our "focused giving" program. While amajor share of our contributions will continue to go to wor-thy charitable and community causes, a significant portionOf the monies available will now be directed to the supportof basic research in universities. Because of our position asthe broadest-based company in the health-care field, it fol-lows that the research efforts we will support will be in thatarea.

The program is not short-term oriented or specific-projectoriented. and the support will be ensured for a minimum ofthree and, more likely, five' years. There is no contractualcommitment. and the company will not have exclusiverights to any information or patents that may result from theresearch. The essence of the company's interest is to bring its

43 33

G

. people closer to those at the university, a goal which we feelwill bring benefits to both parties.

In an article in Science in 1972, Rustum Roy, who will ad-dress us this afternoon, spoke of industrial fellowShips astypically tax-deductible corporate gifts to the university, ex-tremely valuable as general support for a department or labo-ratory in themselves, but involving no research interactionwhatsoever. He even suggested that such a corporate "gift"was dangerous for research interaction because it tended tosupport an idea in many an industrial research manager'smind that university departments are looking for handoutsrather than delivering value for money. He concluded thatfellowships from corporate headquarters are gifts to the uni-trersity, and if they are to be a means of interaction, theyshould be transferred to the research vice president whocould use them as a means of nucleating research interac-tion. We believe that the key to effective interactionbetweenuniversities and industry is scientist-to-scientist contact andinteraction on research programs of common interest as ex-pressed by Prager and Omenn in their Science article in Jan-uary of this year. My situation is interesting because I repre-sent the corporate headquarters, and I do not want to intothe trap described by Dr. Roy. Because of the highly de-centralized nature of our corporation, with each of manycompanies supporting their own R&D activities, my chal-lenge is to select basic reE2arch activities that are related toour interests in the health-care field and which parallel orcomplement activities within one or more of our indepen3dent companies. I am working with the various company re-search directors to accomplish this. This does not mean,however, that there is any intent to direct the research or thatit be structured to obtain specific results. The objective of theprogram might best be viewed, as I stated earlier, as one aris-ing from enlightened self interest and the recognition of theimportance of fundamental research discovery as the foun-dation upon which the future applied research and develop-ment activity within our corporation will depend.

Anethei important aspect of the program is its flexibility.

34 4 4

We are not wed to any particular type of support, so we canrespond to a wide variety of ideas and opportunities. I thinkit is significant that the chairman of the board, who con-'ceived this idea, created my current position as vice presi-dent of academic relations so that adequate time and atten-tion could be devoted by someone with both a research andbusiness background to establish a meaningful program. Ex-pected return to the company from this program is at thevery least the satisfaction of having discharged our social re-sponsibility in a productive way, because through careful se-lection we will have supported a worthwhile research ac-tivity. There is little doubt that it will enhance ourreputation as the leading company in health care, but just aswe heard earlier in the survey, which was reported by thefirst speaker this morning, this is not the prime reason thatwe have establithPd the program. It will allow professorsand students to better understand us and industry in general,and this will increase, we hope, the possibility of talentedresearchers being attracted to an industrial research career.There's a very real possibility that down the road the basicresearch that we have sponsored may trigger some commer-cial opportunity that may result in a different type of interac-tion with the universities, such as a grant for a specific proj-ect or projects. The closer the ties between our researchscientists and those in the university, the more likely is therelationship to bear fruit. Anything over and above the ac-complishment of the objectives of sponsoring some worth-while research and establishing a better communication be-tween our research communities and our managements, Iview as an extra bonus that would be very welcome, but notessential, for the program to be considered successful.

Unfortunately, this program also is a very new one, and Icannot give you an appraisal; however, it has been favorablyreceived by the research community within Johnson & John-son and in my discussions with the various universities. Iam impressed with the universities' sincere desire, not justto get funding to supplement or replace government support,but their real desire to establish more meaningful links withindustry.

45 35

//

I'd like to conclude my remarks with a few observationsand suggestions from my experience to date. Dr. David ofExxon said in an interview regarding its new program withMIT, "Every arrangement has to be custom tailored to suitthe specific company and the specificuniversity." This sug-gests that any program should be as flexible as possible sothat it can be structured to be beneficial to both parties.While the alliance between the corporation and the univer-sity has obvious benefits to both sides, it also represents thejoiniro of two cultures with each bringing into the partner-ship differing values, objectives, and expectations. Any ar-rangement must not compromise the principles or basicfunctions of either partner. The university's independence,without which it cannot serve society responsibly, must bemaintained: Fortunately, ,unlike government, private corpo-rations do not have the capacity to follow their money withcoercive regulations that would restrict a university's inde-pendence. Our experience to date suggests that when thepartners have the proper motivation and the desire to collab-orate, any problems presented by the essential requirementsof both parties can be overcome. , ,

There is room for much more industry involvement withthe universities, as Tom Baron said this morning, and specif-ically in basic research support. Latest figures indicate onlythree percent of all university basic research is supported byindustry. A positive note is that in the past three years corpo-rate giving rose an average of sixteen percent annually fas-ter than giving by any other sector of society. I believe thereis an opportunity to direct more of this into programs such asour company and others have initiated. I'm sure all of youruniversities have industry representatives on your boardswho can help in getting some of the increased industrial giv-ing directed to this very important areas

A note of caution, however, and here I strongly second theremarks of Tom Baron: We must be careful not to replace thetendency towards more directed, safe research implicit insome government funding by short-term, results-oriented re-search for industry sponsors. I believe that there is a place

36 4 6

for such work in the university, but it should not become soextensive as to adversely affect the basic research activitiesthat the rest of society looks to and depends on the universi-ties to carry out. I'd like to make one other. somewhat unre-lated, but important. point. It appears that the legislation as-signing patents resulting from government-sponsored worklo the university will be approved. This should aid in gettingpatented developments commercialized by industry becauseof-the possibility of exclusive licensing arrangements. I-hopethat the universities will not dissipate this advantage by in-sisting, as they often do, in excessive up-front paymentsrather than relying on fair royalties once the technology hasbeen converted to a marketing reality. There usually is a verylarge investment needed for development and some uncer-tainty regarding its ultimate successful completion. If theup-front cost is too high. this combination of factors can die-courage an industrial management, and the idea may not bedeveloped. I encourage you rather to seek any rewards pri-marily through royalty arrangements, which reward bothpartners for their contributions.

I think two quotations will provide a fitting close to myremarks. The first is from Chemical and Engineering News ofNovember 3rd, this year, commenting on the report of theNational Committee on Research on industry and universi-ties: "The commission cautioned against rushing headlonginto it. UniVersities should not make ,the same unthinkingmistakes they made with government, the report warns. In-dustry and universities need each other; the relationship canbe productive and innovative, but only as long as both par-ties maintain their independence and special intellectualcreativity." Th . second is on a more personal note and dealswith my current assignment. It was said by Aristotle 2300years ago: "To give away money is an easy matter and in anyman's power, but to decide to whom to give it and how muchand when and for what purpose and how, is neither in everyman's power nor an easy matter."

47 37

University / Industry Interactions through "Centers"Dr R L McCullough, Associate DirectorComposites CenterUniversity of Delaware

Thank you for inviting me to this conference. I supposemy major function will be to describe how a relatively smalluniversity with limited resources has managed to participatein coupled industrial-academic programs. I will restrict mycomments to our College of Engineering, IN hich has essen-tially three research institutions: the smallest being a re-cently formed Division of Durability; The Confer for Cata-lytic Science and Technology, which was discussed earliertoday; and the Center for Composite Materials. Also, the In-stitute for Energy Conversion is allied,with the College of En-gineering and is the largest of these groups. Each of these or-ganizations has a unique character. I will concentrate on theCenter for Composite Materials.

The principal programs are polymer processing and rheol-ogy, micromechanical analysis, anisotropic stress analysis,microstructural characterization, mechanical characteriza-tion, and computer-aided design methods. The current focusis on the polymer processing/rheology area and the micro-m,echanical analysis of fiber-reinforced materials. We havedeveloped characterization techniques as well as new com-puter-aided design methods as part of an ongoing researchprogram. The major objectives of this program are to developand maintain research facilities and to enhance the coopera-tion both within the faculty as well as with industry. Also,we are using this program to help us focus our research andteaching activities by identifying new and ,emerging areasthat we should be incorporating into our special courses aswell as identifying new areas of research that faculty shouldbe investigating.

The growth of the Center has been exponential. We startedour activities in composite materials in 1973 with small, in-dividual grants on the order of $30.000. We formed the cen-ter in 1974 and attracted more funding. In '75, '76, and '77more funds came from the Navy and DOD-type agencies. In

4839

'78 the industrial program we:, initiated with an increase ofthe budget of up to $400,000. Support is now in the neigh-borhood of $700,000-800,000 yearly.

Figure orie suggests the variety of faculty involved. Dr.Byron Pipes is director of the center; he is associated withMechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department. I amthe associate director and am associated with the ChemicalEngineering Department. We have faculty involved from Me-chanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Civil Engi-neering.

FiGURE 1

Personnel Associated with the Center

FACULTY

R. Bum Pins Director,-Professor of Mechanical & AerospaceEngineering, Ph.D. University of TexasSPECIALTY: Mechanical property characterization and finite-elementmethods.JACK R. VINSON Professor, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering.

_ph.D. University of Pc ansylvaniasnciAvrt: Analysis of plates and shells.IlorL. McCittiouca Assoc1ate Director, Professor of ChemicalEngineering, Ph.D. University of New MexicoSPECIALTY: Anisotropic mechanics of short fiber composites.

Conn D. DEMON Professor. Chemical Engineering, Ph.D.University of Utahsnanav: Processing of polymers.AixrB<Mgromt Professor, Chemical Engineering, Sc..D.Massachusetts institute of Technologysitourv:Itheology and fluid mechanics.JE1101,0 1W &limn Professor. Chemical Engineering, MaterialsScience and Metallurgy Faculty, Ph.D.Carnegie Institute of Technologysnanix:bizucture and proper4eb ui polymers.TOOMASW. SKOCKENBROOGH Professor, Civil Engineering, SMMassachusetts Institute of TechnologySPECIALTY: Fiber-reinforced concrete.

ROBERTL. NICHOLLS' Professor. Civil Engineering, Ph.D.Iowa State UniversitySPECIALTY: Composite materials in construction.

40 49

IEFEERY W. EDINGTON Professor. Mechanical & Aerospace, MaterialsScience and Metallurgy Faculty. D.Sc.University of Birmingham. U.K.SPF.CIALTY: Electron microscppy.

HERBERT B. KINGSBURY Kisociate Professor. Meaianical &erespace Engineering, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania

si. IAL'n* Solid mechanics, vibrations, visco-elasticity.MORT M. DENN Professor. Chemical Engineering. Ph.15.t Iniversi of MinnesotaspF:uncrY. rid mechanics and theology.MINORU TATA Assistant Professor, Mechanical & AerospaceEngineering. Ph.D. Northwestern UniversitysrEGIAL'n' Micromechanics.

TsY WEI CHOU Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.Ph.D. Stanford UniversitySPECIALTY Fracture Micromechanics.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

RALE Tsailitsamaz B.S. Electronic Physic :SalleDALE W. WILSON B.ME. University of Dela. cjusou I. QUIGLEY. IV M.MAE. University of Delaware

ROBERT A. BLAKE M.EE. University of Delaware

WILLIAM A. Dick B.ME. University of Delaware

MARK A. DEMON B.S. Graphic Design. University of Delaware

The major thrust area is the application of compositematerials to industrial products, with most of the effortaimed at the automotive industries. A list of our current in-dustrial sponsors is shown in figure two. Each company con-tributes $30.000 a year (with increases expected in the yearsto come to account for inflation) in support of the program.The range-of companies include both users and suppliers. Inresponse to one of the questions that was raised earlier todayabout good. small companies really participating. I wish topoint out the participation of the Rogers Company.

OIIP of the key points in developing any such program is torecognize the need for strong facilities with modern (expen-sive' equipment. Our major facilities are summarized in fig-ure three. We developed funds for these within the univer-sity and did not rely on our sponsors to supply the moderncharacterization tools or process equipment vital to any on-

41

FIGURE 2

Current industrial Sponsors

\ Celanese Research Company

. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.)

rd Motor Company

G eral Electric CompanyGeneral Motors Corporation

Graftek/Division of Exxon Enterprises, Inc.Hercules IncorporatedICI Americas. Inc.

International HarvesterOwens-Corning Fiberglas

PPG Industries. Inc.Rogers Corporation

Xerox Corporation

FIGURE 3

Facilities

PROCESSING: Injection. Transfer and Compression Molding FacilitiesCHARACTERIZATION: Fatigue, Creep, Anisotropic Properties,Viscosity. Dynamic Mechanical ImpactNONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION: Ultrasonic, Mini-computer,Thermographic. Acoustic EmissionCOMPUTERAIDED DESIGN: Computer Graphics. DedicatedMini-computerENVIRONMENTAL sENsrrntrrY: Accelerated Environment FacilitiesGENERAL: Machining Facilities

going research program. One of the major facilities we had todevelop to allow us to carry out mechanical testing was anextensive characterization laboratory. That laboratory iscompleted and is available for research and teaching activi-ties. In addition, in the area we are dealing with, processingstudies are vital. These materials are very sensitive to pro-cessing. variations in processing can change material charac-

42 5

teristics and give considerable variability in behavior. Pro-cessing studies must be coupied with performance studies;the two cannot be separated. We are developing extensiveprocessing capabilities both for injection molding and forcompression molding techniques. In figure four I have in-cluded current research for federally supported programs.The point to contrast between th'se two programs is that theindustrial program is somewhat less directed and less ori-ented in specifics than is the federally supported program.

FIGURE 4

cuFriint Romero

1980 "FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Compression Fatigue of Notched CompOsite Laminates

Flaw Criticality and Nondestructive Evaluation of ConipositeMaterials

. _

Metal Laminate Research' program

Damage Repair Teelmologyiticomposite MaterialsBehavior of CinupOilieBoltedjoilits

Effect of External. Plasticizers ort C.,irbon Fiber Composites

Glasi/Pftenolic-Shoit Fiberbithpcialhis

FailuitiModelln:Shoit Fibei-ffharmoplastici-,PiOperties of Hybrid CompOqites-iiicturst Basedon_Transforinitfon of Strain

4 ,

Naval Air Systems Cominand- ,

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdminititrationAir Farce Officeed Scientific Research-Naval Res' each Laboratory

Department of Energy

National Science Foundation

Army Research Office

All the industrial research programs are reviewed by thetechniques suggested by Dr. Baron, and I will discuss that

52 43

process in a moment. A major contribution from our pro-gram, and a surprise I think for most faculty, has been thecomposites design encyclopedia, which we issue in ringbinders each year to our sponsors and for which i..e issuesupplements each year. The encyclopedia currently com-prises five volumes, one volume each on mechanical behav-ior, analytical design methods, processing technology, fail-ure analysis, and design studies. A sixth volume oncomputer models is proposed. Characterization data must beavailable for the design of components made from this mate-rial. Analytical design methods is a rich area for theoreticalresearch and mechanical analysis; mathematical tools arebeing developed to handle these complex systems. Failureanalysis and material science are important. Processing sci-ence is vital. We also provide certain case studies.

This document is partially written by outside consultants.We felt that we needed to give something tangible to oursponsors. We did not want to divert all our faculty's time tocompilation of the encyclopedia, so part of our funding wentto hire outside experts and consultants to help us write thedesign encyclopedia. We have found that this has been prob-ably one of the most useful undertakings of the Center. Itprovides a clear focus, helps to identify gaps in researchwhere new, basic research programs can be directed, andhelps to define future research goals. Secondly, it has pro-vided the faculty with new insights. Many of the faculty arenow participating in writing the design guide. I have electedto become an author, as well as have several other faculty,because it satisfies something we have been wanting to dofor some time and have not had a ready mechanism to do it:namely, to organize data, to organize ideas, and to organizeknowledge. I believe that this has been a very useful exercisefor the faculty. It also serves to help in teaching students, inthat they can refer to articles in the design encyclopedia tosupplement their normal textbook material.

Instruction is a vital part of the program, as has been sug-gested by several of the previous speakers. The efforts in in-struction have included course offerings and workshops,

4453

I

and industry intern program.. Jur sponsors early on indi-cated they felt this was importantnot so much as a recruit-ing toolbut to provide industry with e;:pertise in thisemerging technology. We have developed new courses andmodified old courses to accommodate this area. Each Janu-ary we hold a workshop for our sponsors, and our graduatestudents attend it as part of the program. We have a univer-sity's intern program whereby sponsors can send a person tospend a year working in or laboratories on their own re-search projects and interacting with the faculty. We alsohave a mechanism by which faculty, and students as well,can spend time in industrial laboratories.

We also have instituted an advisory board in the Center forComposite Materials. Each company has two representativeswho serve on this board. The board meets once or twice ayear to review progress and to review proposals for research.Our faculty (those who might be interested in havineagraduate student supported or in having summer support forthemselves) write brief proposals defining their intent. Theproposal is submitted to an advisory board that ranks theproposals, not so much in terms of the scientific content oreven the faculty member's reputation,. but in terms of thevalue of that piece of work. The director, associate director,and other selected people review these rankings. There is atendency, of course, to try to maintain our research effortconsistent with our sponsors' needs. However, we have on'occasion funded low-ranking projects because we felt, eventhough the companies were of uniformly enthusiasticabout these projects, that they were vital to a given area. Thiswork has been well received by our sponsors, and I think ourdecisions have been correct. The advisory board does not di-rect the research; it advises us and hips us to rank areas.Another important function it serves is to help to keep usfrom repeating work that is already available within industrybut has not yet been published.

Membership in the Center is not rest -icted. Anyone whohas a techr:,:al contribution to make can join. The wordtechnical is important and tends to limit membership to

5 445

I

companies that can contribute to the interactions with theresearchnot just the funding. Again, the key point here isthat we desire strong interactions with our advisory boardand with members of industry.

Finally. I would like to comment on the Center's produc-tivity. Since 1974 the Center has turned out over 60 researchpublications and reports. We have now graduated 100 stu-dents in mechanical and chemical engineering who haveparticipated in enrichment pregrams. written senior re-search theses, or taken special elective courses in the area ofcomposite materials. We have turned out 20 ,Plaster of Sci-ent.e and 7 Dot;tor of Philosophy degrees with special train-ing in the area of composite materials. I might add that Ph.D.students are rapidly absorbed by industries moving into thisarea. We have expended close to two million dollars andhave developed a little under a million dollars' worth offacilities.

46

5 (.1

Observations on Industry / University Interactionsin Animal Health ResearchDr D 0 Farrington ManagerAnimal Health ResearchPfizer Company

Successful development of tools for the control olanimaldisease or for improved performance involves a close inter-action of industrial. university. governmental. and animalindustry entities. Each partner in the process has its ownperspective. but the ultimate objective of aiding the animalproducer to effectively and economically produce livestockis the same.

According to figures released by the Animal Health Insti-tute (AHI). the national trade association for the majorUnited States manufacturers of animal health pioducts, netIT S sales of animal health products exceeded $1.7 billion in1979. This includes sales of pharmaceuticals. biologicals.and feed additives. AHI member firms (approximately 50)invested more than $125 million to finance research and de-velopment in the animal health field in 1979 (approximately7 percent of sales). This represented a 17 percent increaseover 1978 R&D expenditures. About $25 million (20 percent)of the 1979 research dollars were spent on "defensive'. re-search in response to government requests for additional re-search on already approved products. Seven percent of theR&D dollars (about $8 million) were spent in foreign coun-tries for products destined for U.S. markets. Forty-one AHIcompanies have approximately 1,700 scientists working di-rectly in animal health research. As can be seen from the pre-ceding information: a substantial research effort (with verylimited budgets in relationship to the sums spent on humanhealth) is being made. and opportunities for development ofimproved or new cooperative research interactions are pres-ent.

Industrial animal health research tends to be intenselyproject oriented. with large resource allocations being ex-pended in the specific areas being investigated. Research ob-jectives within these broader project areas change-often as

5 647

compounds move from discovery to developmental stages orare rejected, as they may be for a variety of reasons. The chal-lenge for a university program interested in industry interac-tion in the area of animal health is to quickly identify thespecific ongoing project areas in industry in which univer-sity investigators also have expertise. An example would bedisease models that can be applied to drugs that companieshave in the New Animal Drug Application (NADA) approvalstage. Also. industry discovery research project teams gener-ally collaborate with university investigators w ho have mod-els or field expertise not usually available in industry.

Animal Health Industry ConsiderationsAn excellent working relationship exists between indus-

trial and university animal health researchers. Many of theseindividuals have similar backgrounds and are products ofthe same professional and graduate school systems. Thisclose relationship has evolved over a long period of time andhas required a great deal of effort and understanding fromboth parties.

There is some industry concern, however, about the gen-eral lack of knowledge of industrial research realities, mo-tives. and objectives among university researchers and ad-ministrators. As previously mentioned, much industrialresea01 is directed towards compliance with governmentreguliitory procedures and is initiated with stringent proto-(ols. This "defense-oriented" research limits resources fornow discovery-oriented investigations, stN mies innovationond creativity, and is generally considered to be boring bymost investigators. Proposed government actions in the areaof Sensitivity of Methods (SONI, the system FDA is propos-ing for determining just what a "zero" residue is when con-sidering a cancer-causing substance) and cyclic review(FDA's proposal for a process under which existing preduc iswould be reviewed to find out if data on file meet currentstandards for human safety research) may further retard newdiscoveries in animal research. The,implementat ion of GoodLaboratort Practices Regulations in animal health researchalso has added a crushing amount of paperwork to carry out

48

5 7

simple use animal experiments. The GLPs will impact theuniversity directly when collabirative work is undertaken.Additionally, the approval of tho -nighty researched benefi-cial medicinals is often delayed years for no substantive rea-sons, resulting in a costly drug lag. In addressing these in-dustrial animal health research realities, universityinvestigators and administrators can play an important rolein developing a strong third-party position in mediating theover regulation environment currently prevailing in animalhealth research. Industry motives inevitably seem self-serv-ing when objections are raised. The interests of industrialand university scientists would seem to be mutual whencombating forces that threaten new animal drug research,shrink the number of drugs available to the veterinarian, andraise the costs of livestock production.

Industrial funds in roost university, animal health re-search projects tend only to complement the researcher'sprogram. An awareness of the complex problem of industrialinfluence on university programs must be constantly main-tained in order to avoid the perception that the university isjust an extension of industry testing programs. Finally, froman industrial perspective, important realities are that fundsare not unlimited and that its research effort must eventuallyresult in useful, marketable products.

Some Methods for Facilitating Industry/UniversityResearch Relationships

University, college. or departmental research review pro-grams for representatives from industry have been success-ful in generating the development of cooperative researchprojects. Industry funding of projects with multiple objec-tives beneficial to several parties (e.g.. university, animal in-dustry, industry) is often desirable due to the scarcity offunds-from other sources for animal health research. Strongconnections can be built and maintained in these areas ofmutual interest, resulting i I better continuity of universityprograms.

The establishment of a contact individual for identifying

58 49

and facilitating research activities between university inves-tigators and industrial research programs (e.g., college levelresearch dean, industrial university liason director) is an es-sential requirement for developing the mutual trust and in-terest required to maintain a good. long-term relation,- hip.Meetings should be organized at the university among :Ugh-level' industrial research executives and college deans anddeparttnent heads for discussions of areas of possible coop-erative research. Presently, considerable individual scientistinteraction is taking place. but a commitment to the conceptand implementation of industry/university cooperative re-search projects must be made by the responsible administra-tors Also, the initiation of an active program of visits by uni-versity researchers to industrial research organizations, withemphasis on the commonality of interests, can be beneficial.University investigators often are surprised by the depth andextent of industrial research efforts and by the company in-terdisciplinary cooperative activities in progress.

Industry/University Cooperative Research ModelExisting industry university interactions in the animal

health research field can serve as a model for develdpingOther successful partnersh.,s. This is particularly evidencedin the situations where university discoveries are commer-cialized by industry (e.g.. a new vaccine). Basic discoveryand predevelor vent research at the university can receiveindustrial support via "memorandum of understanding"documents. This memorandum would include rights of firstrefusal to patentable discoveries and ensure a smooth tech-nology transfer to industry for possible commercial develop-ment and testing. Developmental research leading to federallicensing would prepare the discovery to meet the test of themarketplace as a useful and desirable product. Royalties canaccrue to the university' based on the product's commercialsuccess and can be used for support of further worthy non-funded research projects.

5059

Industry's Support of University ResearchDr N L JacobsonAnimal ScienceIowa State University

Industrial funding of university research in the U.S. de-clined sharply from the 1950s to the 1960s. This was due inpart to the relative ease with which federal grants could beobtained in the 1960s. A 1978 report prepared for the Na-tional Science Foundation stated that industrial support ofbasic research in universities (industry support as percent-,age of the total) declined from 10.9 percent in 1953 to 2.1percent in 1966. Thereafter, a slight increase to 3.0 percentin 1977 occurred.

A recent issue of Chemical & Engineering News contains aspecial report presenting similar trends for industry's shareof academic R&D support and predicting an increase fromabout 2.7 percent in 1968-72 to 3.5 percent in 1978-81 (Fig-ure 1).

The 1978-79 Annual Report of the Council for FinancialAid to Education shows that total voluntary support in-creased substantially during the past two decades. When cal-culated as a percentage of the total expenditures by collegesand universities, the trend is similar to the trends in researchfunding presented abovea decline from 13.5 percent to 6.0percent over the 20-year period from 1957-58 to 1977-78.

Recently, the need for stronger linkages between industryand its scientists and the universities and their scientists hasbeen' much discussed. There have been many studies andnumerous reports emanating from various sources. Federalfunding agencies have been encouraging ties between uni-versities and industry. Since 1978 NSF has been makinggrants for university'industry projects and expects to spend$15-16, million this year for cooperative ventures. The De-partments of Commerce and Transportation have programsstill on the drawing boards to stimulate university industrycooperation.

There are those who believe a growing state of disenchant-ment between industry and universities exists. Indus-

GO 51

HGURE 1

Industry's Share 01 Academic R&D SupportHas Declined From 1950's

PERCENT OF TOTAL UNIVERSITY R&D FUNDING FROM INDUSTRY8

6

4

2

01953.57 '58-62

i

'63-67 '68-72 '73-77 '78-81'

Federal Government's Share of Academic R&D Support Has Fallen MoreRecently

PERCENT OF TOTAL UNIVERSITY R&D FUNDING FROM FEDERALGOVERNMENT

80

70

60

50

VP

1953-57 '58-62 '63-67 '68-72 '73-77 '78.81'

'ENO miteUoter Data ex( lode R&D performed ,it federal R&D centers admongered by 11111VerS1-11I'S

Source: Adapted from Kiefer Chem u of & EngineeringNoss, December 8. 980 Onto-mil Soon e National Scum( c Foundation

52

6' 4,

try/university relations in science and technology have beencharacterized as curious mixtures of respect and condescen-sion. and some approaches to industry by university person-nel have overtures of "with your money and our brains...."If such attitudes exist, it is most unfortunate. I believe that,for many reasons, we should be encouraging closer relationsbetween industry and universities. Although mutual feel-ings of reservation and perhaps even distrust probably exist,there likewise are areas where relationships are excellent. Indozens of contacts with industry and other segments of theprivate sector during my tenure as a research scientist in nu-tritional physiology at Iowa State University, I can recall nota single bad experience. Iowa State researchers in agronomy,animal science, veterinary medicine, and many other biolog-ical areas have experienCed a rapport with the private sectorthat is similar to mine. Often the funding is continuous formany years.

One case was recently brought to my attention by Profes-,or Walter Fehr of the Agronomy Department at Iowa State.For the last 37 years the hail insurance industry has pro-vided funds annually to support research directed towardthe development of procedures to estimate accurately the ef-fects of various degrees of hail damage of soybeans on subse-quent yields. There are many examples of funding of a spe-cific research project for five or ten years or more. Anotherpart of Fehr's program deserves mention: Since 1972, theIowa Soybean Promotion Board has provided funds annu-ally in support of the soybean breeding program at IowaState. This support makes possible the maintenance of plotsin Puerto Rico where four crops of soybeans can be grownper year. thus increasing the, rate of improvement whichFehr is abie to attain. The funds of the Soybean PromotionBoard are derived front' soybean producers (farmers).

Another example pf :ong-tetir funding from the privatesector is that provided annually, :ince 1973, by the IowaBeef Industry Council in support r,t research in the Depart-inint of Animal Science on the effect of type and amount ofdietary fat and protein on blood and tissue cholesterol and

6" 53

on lipoproteins. Here, too,. as with the Soybean PromotionBoard, the funds Of-Alm-Council are of producer (farmer) ori-gin.

Industrial grants constitute about 6.0 percent of the re-search budget at Iowa State University. During the past fiveyears, total research expenditures (exclusive of the AmesLaboratory, U.S. Department of Energy) have increased from$22 million in 1974-75 to $37.8 million in 1979-80. Over thesame period, funds made available for research from gifts.contracts, and grants from businesses, corporations, founda-tions, and associations increased from $1.15 million to $2.3million (Figure 2). The proportion of total research fundsfrom the latter increased from 5.2 percent in 1.974-75 to 5.9percent in 1979-80 with slightly higher percentages in theintervening years.

FiGURE..2 -

Gifts, Contracts & Grants From Businesses, Corporations, Foundationsand Asiociations to form State University

30

ALLPURPOSES -.

10

54

68 70 72 74 76 78

FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30

6 3

There 'ire, however, substantial differences among col-leges and areas within the University. Funds from businessand industry to the College of Engineering in FY 1979-80were approximately 9.0 percent of the total research budget.In the College of Veterinary Medicine the proportion fromindustry in 1978-79 was 6.0 percent. In the Agriculture andHome Economics Experiment Station the "trust and special"component, which largely involves funding of research bythe private sector (such as industry and commodity groups),was about 13 percent of the total in both 1974;75 and 1979280: this represents an impressive increase over the 6.0 per-cent in 1964-65. The proportions of funds of industry originchanneled through the Agriculture and Home EconomicsExperiment Station for the Departments of Agronomy andAnimal Science currently are about 16.0 percent and 7.0 per-cent, respectively. Some research units within these depart-ments have higher proportions from industry (20 percent orinorto I do not think such a high level of support from theprivate sect.,. compromises,the research program if-

1. Support is accepted only for ongoing or planned re-search programs (to fund research which we want to dowhen funds are available), and

2. The relationship is detailed in a Memorandum of Un-derst tiding or similar agreement which outlines patent andpublication rights.

Such industry/university cooperation provides for a

healthy interchange of information between the two commu-nities. Moreover. it strengthens ongoing programs in univer-sities and sometimes releases other funds ("hard" money) formore basic studies. Often the industry support assists youngstaff members. and established personnel as well, in acceler-ating and upgrading their programs by providing funds forresearch assistantship,. technical assistance, supplies andequipment. In many cases industry funds provide for greatercontinuity of support, perhaps not more than state appropri-ations. but more than can be expected from many federalsources. Usually, too, data evolve that are most useful to in-dustry. In no sense should this industry support be viewed

55

as "charity." Rather, it is an investment in the advancementof science for the betterment of the general public.

Although there are differences of opinion or how best topromote better linkages between industry and university sci-entists, there is strong feeling in many quarters that such im-proved liaison is a desirable goal for the future. In some areasthe course already has been set, sometimes 20 or 30 yearsago; in others. there is still a search for direction and a meansof catalysis. ,

Industry / Academia Interaction inPolymer Science and Engineering at IBMDr J Economy ManagerPolymer Research;BM Research Laboratory

First. le me thank Jim Seferis for inviting me to participatein this symposium. Actually, I have to apologize, since Myexperience in the area of industry/university interfaces isreally limited to the last three or four years. However. in thatshort span of time we have put forth some rather vigorousuniversity programs of a relatively exploratory nature. It'sthese types of programs I want to discuss with you. and I'dalso like to get- some feedback in the form of your views as tohow we're addressing the industryamiversity interface.

I'd like to start. though. by :-irking up on the theme thatPaul Tebo introduced. namely, the theme that polymers is amature field as opposed to the view I hold that polymers is,in fact, a very exciting, vibrant discipline.

There are a number of concerns facing the field of polymerscience Thus. in the past decade only one new polymer wasintroduced to the marketplace. You might contrast this to the1950s. when a number of new polymers were developed.The question that emerges is whether this is a result of thematurity of the field of polymer science and engineering, aview to which many people subscribe, or whether is there rreal opportunity to develop new polymers. There is certainlya real need for new polymers, particularly in the electronicsindustry, where the need exists for more sophisticated mate-rials that do not exist today. Unfortunately, in the past de-cade the polymer industry has tended to look to researchprograms with shorter term payoffs. and for good reason.Thus. governmental controls, OPEC, the uncertainty of theeconomy. and the larger increasing capital investments re-quired for bringing aboard a new productall of these haveacted to dissuade management from the pursuit of new mate-rials. and they have tended to adopt a more defensive pos-ture. One concern that I would raise is that after a decade ofthese policies. many companies that once were skilled in in-

57

6G

novation and in bringing new products to the marketplaceno longer possess these skills. In fact, a new kind of researchmanagement structure geared to more conservative goals isset in place, and it would be hard to dislodge that kind of agroup. even if we ever were to come back to the point wherewe wanted to develop new kinds of polymers. Another prob-lem with presently available materials is that they are notreally adequately characterized. Another concern that I

would like to raise is that there's a lot of variation in thematerials that we purchase, and many of the major phAltaers really no longer have the skills to adequately, characterizethe materials.

Finally, with respect to the programs in the universities,its probably not apparent to the uninitiated, but most of thepolymer activities are really concentrated in only three orfour departments. They're good departments, but the fact ofthe matter is that chemistry departments throughout the uni-versity system typically ignore or avoid getting involvedwith polymer materials even though perhaps half of thegraduates from chemistry epartments become polymer sci-entists. I would also poin out that there is very little workbeing conducted on the s thesis of new polymers in thepolymer departments. ThiS is a traditional posture assumedhy academia because historically industry always main-tained a very strong synthetic effort. But today, now that thisis no longer the case, it's important that the universitiesbegin to examine that position a little bit more carefully. Ialso am concerned with the quality of the students. The factof the matter is that most polymer departments are part of agraduate school and have no direct ties to undergraduate de-partments. Hence, they aren't able to attract the best stu-dents.

Now let's look at the positive ,..idewhy polymers r' pre-sent a very importaat and exciting field with great potentialfor growth. It should be noted that many new polymer prop-erties have been identified only w ithin the past decade. Forexample. take the issue of stiffness. Only in the past decadehave we learned how to prepare polymers that have the stiff-

58 67

ness of steel. With respect to temperature of use. we've onlyrecently been able to demonstrate that polymers can be usedat cryogenic temperatures. With respect to electricals, cer-tain polymers now are being shown to be.conductive whilecopolymers of polyvinylidene fluoride Lave been shown tohave very high dielectric constants. Both properties may beof considerable importance to the electronics industry. Withrespect to surface characteristics, recently we've observedthat certain classes of polymers are not only very good lubri-cants. but also can be designed to display very good adhesivecharacteristics. Not to belabor the point, its clear that the po-tential to develop and combine these various features in pol-ymers is as exciting as ever, and the opportunities are asgreat as ever. Probably the fact that these are not commodity.materials but rather are specialty polymers may inhibit someorganizations from considering these materials more seri-ously. Continuing, one can further tailor the properties ofpolymers by the control of molecular weight. crystallinity,tacticity, and selection of comonomers. These are techniquesthat one can use to further control polymer properties. Onthe other hand they represent structural features that out'must have very sophisticated skills and techniques to con-trol. Keeping all these variables under control is pare f thertason that most of the polymers available today are reallynot quite acceptable for highly exacting applications.

Turning now to some of the, programs that we are carryingout with universities, we actually have a number of pro-grams that are funded from our department. First of all weprovide fellowships that are designed to help those schoolsthat are just beginning to establish polymer programs. Wehave different types of programs with the three major poly-mer depattments: namely, industrial sponsors. an unre-stricted grant. and an instrumentation grant that was de-signed for a -new. young faculty. Perhaps the most interestinguniversity interface is the one wev designate "directed re-search." Its designed to support a professor 'n an area that'srelevant to our interests and to carry out basic research inthat area in a, collaborative vein tt ith one of our otvn profes-

68 59

sionals. For example, the scientist in a university may beworking on the synthesis of a new material, and his counter-part in our laboratory would be concerned with the charac-terization of the material. Currently, we have several suchprograms planned for 1981, and others are being negotiated.From our present point of view, this appears to be a verypromising technique to develop an academicindustrial in-terface.

It's noteworthy that we also maintain a sabbatical programfor university people. For example, in 1980 five professorswere on sabbatical in our department for anywhere from onemonth to one year. More recently we've also started an inter-nal sabbatical program where people from divisions of thecompany will come and spend a year or longer working withus. This is a very important program, since this interactionprovides us with an insight into the more applied needs ofthe company as well as long-range technical directions. Con-tinuing, we now have a fairly active postdoctoral program,which includes both domestic and foreign postdoctorates.These programs basically are designed to encourage our sci-entists to carry on-basic research in relevant areas to producepublishable work. Some Of the other,programs that we haveunder way include summer students, summer faculty (NSFprogram) and supplemental students. I might return to thefirst point; namely, the sabbaticals for the professors. Havinga professor spend a few months to a year in our laboratorycan provide a real impetus to subsequent "directed rest it.11"efforts.

Finally, I would like to touch on some of the issues that Ithink are critical to this kind of a meeting. With respect topatents, there is a serious problem in terms of the realityverms the expectations. My experiences are that very fewpatents are really important, and patent issues tend to cloudnegotiations between industry and universities. Hence, wetry to define our research programs with university people sothat they really won't lead to inventions, but rather will pro-vide a broad base of scientific knowledge in that particulararea. A second point of concern is in maintaining the propri-

t

etary nature of the work. As noted earlier, a number of non-IBM scientists are in our laboratories and are exposed to allof the polymer work. Perhaps the fortunate thing for us is thefact that the strategic value of this information is not obvioussince it is really applicable to the design of chips and the de-sign of packages. I think in the coming years polymer scien-tists will become more sophisticated in these areas and thenthis may become a problem. With respect to the issue oi pub-lishing, at worst, there only should be a one-ymr delay; andat best, typically, we publish almost immediately the kindsof work that emerge from the activities of the pOstdocs or theprofessors. The one-year delay, of course, is a delay that's en-countered in applying for a patent and then submitting forthe foreign equivalents. The foreign equivalents are usuallypublished within a matter of days.

m,

i 0

L.

Industry / Academia Intdractionin Polymer Science and Engineeringat Case Western Reserve UniversityDr J Lando ChairmanDepartment of Macromolecular ScienceCase Western Reserve University

Today I'm going to talk about the joint industry academiaprograms that tlw Department of Nlacromolecular Science at

ase Western Reserve University has been in% olved in overthe past seventeen years and also to point out the directionsin whit h we intend to go in the future. Before I can really dothis, it is net essary to describe the Department of Macromo-lecular Science briefly. and as I do I will point out places inwhich we have had academic industrial interaction. Then Iwill summiize the interactions that we have and point outthose we wish to develop in the future.

Table I des( ribes the personnel in the Department. The fig-ures in parentheses give the expected picture for the imme-diate future: the figures without parentheses are the numbersat present This we have 13 full-time faculty members.These are factOty members who have their appointments inthe Department of lacromolecular Science: nine are associ-ated faculty with primary appointments ip other depart-

TABLE I

...-

Department of Macromolecular Science TathnIcal Personnel

FaLulty

Research Associates

Graduate Students

Undergraduate Majors

13

15

68

42

+9 (17 + 10)

(25)

(75)

(60)

63

ments It should be noted that we are a true academic depart-ment with postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduateprograms. The unusual undergraduate program leads to anengineering degree with a polymer science major. The previ-ous speaker is correct in stating that a major problem for pol-ymer graduate programs is getting good graduate students. Ifother universities develop undergraduate programs as well,this will aid in solving this problem. We have 68 graduatestudents listed here and expect to have 75 this fall. We haveabout 20 research associates at the present time, and we ac-tually have 16 faculty members, 3 of whom will be joining usin the summer of 1981. Thus. we have a relatively largegraduate department with a relatively small undergraduateprogram.

Table II concerns our undergraduate ( egree program,w 'licit is strongly interfaced with industry. I should mentionsomething about Item 3 in Table II because it relates to ourinteraction with industry Wk encourage our undergraduate

64 ,

TABLE II

Undergraduate Program

UNIQUENESS

I Accredited degree program in polymer science'

2 New Society of Plastics Engineers chapter organized byundergraduates

3 Unusual research experience for undergraduates

4 Balance between science and engineering

NEW PROJECTS

Newpher Laboratory for Polymer Processing

(9

tr.

students to join the res rch group of faculty members assoon as they elect this program. usually at the end of theirfreshman year. Because of our large graduate program andsmall undergraduate program, we are able to treat our under-graduates almost like graduate students. We encouragethem. if they wish, to get involved in research programs. Wemake an issue out of getting an industrial job for each majorduring the summer between their junior and senior years.One of the problems in setting up a program of this kind isthat at outset the faculty. with only one metnber a trainedengineer. was heavily biased towards the sciences. Thus, wewere very conscious that we had to have a balance betweenscience and engineering, and we used our industrial con-tacts to ensure that the design of the Program was an appro-priate one. We do have an adjunct professor from industrywho helps us- teach polymer engineering and processing.Two of our new faculty appointments are engineering ori-ented. The Newpher laboratory for polymer processing,stressing polymer composite processing. is now being built.It is an educational advantage for our undergraduates to havesuch a laboratory, and it also provides research opportuni-ties C. Richard Newpher is a graduate, of Case Institute ofTechnology and is a leader in the composite processing in-dustry. He and his people are helping us to design and toequip this facility. Another point I would like to stress is thatthe undergraduate program itself derived from suggestionsfrom our industrial sponsors program that I'll discuss later.

The graduate program is described in Table III. A distinctaid to the development of our graduate program has been ourIndustrial Sponsors Program, which has provided seedmoney for new projects and facilities, such as those listed inTable III.

The research thrust areas of the department are listed inTable IV. Let me say that the central research theme of ourDepartment has always been characterization. Other areashave grown from that base. Structure-property relations andcomposite materials are major thrust areas of our MaterialsResearch Laboratory, and these areas have generated some

65

industrial support to the MRL. although not on the samescale that Dr. Roy was talking about. Our industry-supportedcomposite materials research supplements the work that isbeing done at the University of Delaware. because we havebeen interested primarily in the characterization of the fiber-niatrix interface. The last three items in Table III also havegrown out of the central strength of our Department. We areinterested in the design and synthesis of polymers for spe-.cific. end-use applications and are consequently inter-spersed in things such as electrical properties. unusual me-chanical properties. or potential use in prosthetic devices.

TABLE Ili

UNIQUENESS

1 One of a fewmajor graduate programs In macromolecules

.2 Success,ofour gradtiates in industryand academia since birth ofdepartment .

3 Major Instrumental Facilities for characterization of,macromolecules

NEW PROJECISNewpher Laboratory for Polymer Processing

Central Computer for computer operation of all major instruments

The three major industrial interactions are listed in TableV. First. I would like to discuss our cooperative program inundergraduate education. It is a voluntary Case Institute pro-gram that is in its formative stages. For those students whodo not elect this program, we intend to maintain our policyof obtaining for them summer positions in industry betweentheir junior and senior years. It should be noted that some ofour graduate students. just after obtaining their Master's de-grees. but before embarking on their Ph.D. programs. spend asummer in industry.

Table VI contains the major industry/academic interac-

66

TABLE IV...

Research Thrust Areas °

1 Structure-property relations

2 Composite materials

2 Synthesis and characterization of unique new materials

4 Biological macromolecules and biomaterials

5 Novel processing and characterization techniques

TABLE. V 0

Industrial Programs

I Cooperative program for undergraduate education

2 Industrial sponsors

3 Major research projects with industry

bons in the Department's Industrial Sponsors program. An LI tuber of these items are similar to points mentioned in themuch broader Institute-wide MIT Industrial Affiliates pro-gram.

Our Industrial Sponsors Symposia, the first item. are held

tw HA' % edrIt . Our graduate students and reseirch associatesgie talks on their research at thAe two -day meetings. Thus,

rour sponsors see our people technically and socially a yearo,-- t%%o before they gradnate. In addition, the students learnfrom the pressure of hat ing to give research talks in a formal

setting.Short courses for industrial sponsors have been givcn on a

number of subjects. including composite materials, vibra-tional spectroscopt . and mechanical properties If we don't

7567

have the expertise in given area, we bring in people fromthe outside The third item in "Cable VI relates to formal in-formation exchange. In the past. several copies ,of everypaper that we published were sent to each of the sponsors.As the Department grey, this became prohibitively expen-sive. Now we do the next-best thing. When papers are goingto be submitted to a journal, we put aside the abstract, makeup a booklet. and send these booklets to our Industrial Spon-sors every few months. Thus, these companies have priorknowledge of everything that we publish.

TABLE VI

Industrial Sponsors ProgramThe Interactions

1 Industrial sponsors symposia

2 Short courses for industrial sponsors,

3 In =alien exchange

4 Industrial sabbaticals

5 Input into programs and directions of the department

6 Discretionary funding to department

7 Additional interactions

The industrial sabbatical program has been limited innumbers but highly successful. Industrial scientists havespent six months to a year working on any project theychoose with any professor, have sat in on any course theywanted to. and then have gone back to their companies. 1Vehave had about five or six examples over the past fifteenyears. The typical industrial person that does this is some-one who has been in management for ten years and wants toupdate his research skills. These, people have been relativelyhappy with their experiences. There also has been a success-

687r"

ful example of a faculty member spending four to fivemonths in an industrial laboratory. We feel this programshould be expanded.

The Industrial Sponsors have had considerable input intothe programs of the Department. We don't take all of theiradvice. but such advice is carefully considered. A formalmeeting is held between the industrial committee of the De-partment and representatives of the sponsoring companiestwice a year for the purposes of explaining goals and of solic-iting advice. This takes place the first evening of each Indus-trial Sponsors Symposium. Two suggestions that we havesuccessfully pursued have i,een the idea that we get into thecomposite area and the suggestion that we develop an under-graduate degree program. What I am trying to emphasize isthat the discretionary money that comes to us as part of thisprogram is not the only benefit we receive from these compa-nies. The input that we get is also very valuable. '

Discretionary funding from the program is primarily usedfor matching funds for equipment, seed money for new fac-ulty members. and for seeding new projects.

Additional interactions are encouraged and usually aredeveloped on a one-to-one basis with a sponsoringcompany.These include courses conducted by members of the facultyat the company and jointly supported summer research pro-grams at Case for both high school students and undergradu-ates.

Finally. in addition to the above program, we are planningto expand our direct research involvement with industry.We now have a grant from the National Science Foundationfor the planning of an industrial/academic research institute.Our major problem here is to design an institute that doesnot interfere with or damage our Industrial Sponsors pro-gram. We also are encouraging the expansion of individualresearch projects with industry that are related to the mutualinterests of the parties.

I hope I've given you an idea about the industrial interac-tions that we have at the Department of Macromolecular Sci-ence at Case and what we plan for the future. Thank you verymuch.

7769

Industry / Academia Interactionin Materials Science and Engineeringat Rockwell InternationalDr P Cannon Vice PresidentResearch CenterRockwett International

Rockwell International Corporation is a seven billion dolelar, diversified manufacturing company. We build aircraft;we build space vehicles, nuclear reactors, electronics for de-fense, electronics for commercial purposes; we're theworld's largest independent supplier of bits and pieces forheavy-duty trucks, and we build industrial machinery.We're a highly decentralized set of rather independent divi-sions.

We have a broad range of interactions in all our businesseswith universities, including all the things you've heardaboutwe have people on leave at universities, people onleave from universities with us, liaison programs, ex-changes, and adjunct professbrships, to 'mention a few. Butthis afternoon I want to deal with one particular topic, oneparticular set of relationships that we've developed very ex-tensively, and that is the direct contracting of research be-tween industries and universities. We can deal with it twoways; we are actually a contractor to some universities, butthe principal topic, of course, is our subcontracting of workto universities in the area of so-called directed research.

Two things need to be talked about: the how and the whyof our industry/university interactions. The how I'll describeby example; the why Rockwell gets involved as .tensivelywith universities as it does needs some background.Rockwell has tens of thousands of subcontractors, and thecorporate research laboratory is no exception. Corporatefunding for the research laboratory constitutes about one-third of the total revenue that has to be taken in to ensure theprograms; two-thirds comes from elsewhere, from privateand govern', cnt sponsorship. When we take contracts, wefind it very appropriate to be partnered with universities.

The how of these interactions can be summarized in a

71

78

story. It is not unlike the situation that obtains when you goout with your child or your nephew or grandchild to buythem a toy for a present. You can't buy a complete toy thesedays: you have to buy a toy in a kit form, and they're all ex-tremely complicated. When you take it back to the store andcomplain, all you will get is. "That is a toy to educate a childfor today's world. Any way you have put it together is,w ng." Now, there is no single solution, no single answer toI ow you put together a relationship between a _universityat an industry. Any way you do it xvill probably be wrongfor sebtnebody else, kind it is very important to recognize eachrelationship as a separate experience.

There's a temptation to seek out new and expensive pro-grams, a temptation perhaps reinforced by activist socialphilosophies at the national administration level, ratherthan to work at adjusting existing policies that may have be-come ineffective or maybe even counterproductive. Some-one at this workshop may address that issue, but I need tospend my time on what's really successful under the forcesof the marketplace. I consider that I work for an employeroperating in a market-driven economy (under public regula-tion), with substantial public procurement of our offering ofgoods and services. This latter procurement is responsive tothe collective. expressed needs of many people, but it doestend to be slower than a transaction in a free market betweenindividuals. I mention this because it means we can't turnour contract efforts on and,off quicklyand neither shoulduniversities.

What then are the market functions of our respective insti-tutions, if we're going to deal with how they should interact?The primary societal function performed by universities, Ibelieve, is education: and nothing should be allowed to in-terfere with that. In some schools this includes, and in fact isdominated by. the training of technical professionals, tech-nical vocationals, and managers. There is a strong sense ofparticular mission. Nonetheless, those schools are "universi-ties." and such "training for work" is education and shouldnot be subordinated to other activities.

72

7a

The whole process of education has, however, become ex-tremely expensive, partly because of the breadth of coveragethat's required, Science has grown from a single area of natu-ral philosophy in 1850 to 5 branches recognized in 1900, to26 in 1942. and I understand the National Science-Founda-tion has now recognized over 500 separate branches of sci-ence and engineering. I submit that there is no one institu-tion in the educatidnal world that can afford to maintainexcellence in all these areas, and we need to recognize theconsequent importance of speciclization and choice in theeducational market function.

This is not, however, a plea for exclusive and early spe-cialization, Please understand that in business we still needto see undergraduate students trained in classical skills,training that provides them with discipline of the mind to-gether with the social, literary, and language skills appropri-ate for the 21st century. I think its quite a shock to realizetLat we're training young Americans today who can't speakSpanish. can't speak German or French, let alone Russian orChinese: for those of us who live on the West Coast and lookacross the Pacific basin at the coming 21st century, that's es-pecially hard to take. We also must sustain breadth of educa-tion for living as well, so the graduate school is probablywhere we should concentrate on teaching and maintainingthe expensive topical specialties it; which industry and pub-lic. research money can be expected to pass on a contractbasis.

I want to emphasize that I do believe we're talking aboutsymptoms of a very simple and common problem. It's notthe only problem that we face, but here we should deal insimple propositions. What we're really talking about is thefront-end funding. to the tune of about $500.000,000 a year,of American technical, graduate-level education. At thisworkshop we're all struggling with the search for that front-end money. it is not necessarily all discretionary. Where is itto be found? $500.000,000 is a great deal of money, however,appropriately divided by. say. 500 (for example, the Fortune500) it becomes a distinctly manageable problem. In

S 073

Rockwell. we share the maximum amount of our contract . --search that we can with appropriate, competent people andinstitutions in the world of the universities. We place sub-stantial funds into these subcontracts, and some of themoney flows to graduate education, and with it flows the vi-tality of industrial endeavor.

Money, however, is onl one factor for universities and in-dustry to resolve. Togethc'r we also must meet the peak in-dustrial demand for scientists and engineers. Many of usdon't believe it's appropriate to build a human plant in eachcompany. everywhere maintained at the level of peak de-wand any more than you :n the univeysities believe youshould build your physical plant to the level at which thepeak annual demand could be accommodated. An appropri-ate vehicle for training, and a way to smooth the demandpeaks and valleys may be a direct, continuous coupling ofuniversities and industrial research laboratories. Industrialresearch laboratories :n the context of this talk will be thoselabs that are "captive" to a business (let's not forget thosebusinesses themselves may be endangered today by diver-sions of funds to regulatory compliance issues. and may notbe able to do everything they'd like to).

The current congressionally legislated solution for cou-pling individual labs and universities (e.g., generic centersof technology proposed under the Stevenson-Wydler bill)may also be a diversion of useful resources from the searchfor educational funding. Many of us-, of course, don't feel theneed for prior federal endorsement of specific indus-try'university linkages. We've had a number of such linkagesof our own, which we started by ourselves with significantmoney committed on Tir own initiative. Of course, we at-tempt to draw public Rinds to those programs whenever wethink it appropriate and %.% hen funds become accessible. Andwe've been able to persuade the National Science Founda-tion and others that such was the right thing to do.

Two of the "direct coupled" programs that we started con- ,tributed not oily to technical needs, but also to the societalneeds normally ni5t,by universities. We became deeply con-

74

cerned about a shortage of trained people and, particularly,with the losses from the working population associated withthe under-representation of minoritii:Is in science and engi-neering, especially at advanced- degree levels. Let's remindourso!ves that Black people constitute 11 percer f of theAmerican population, but the percentage of Ph.D.-holdersrepresented by Black people ;s barely ' /2 of 1 percent. In 1976the Rockwell Science Center. first wits corpr rate funds, thenwith NASA and subsequent DOE supp rt. started a three-year program with Howard University and North CarolinaA&T to establish a strong technological research base atthose two schools in the field -of solid-state electronics. Wetransferred some highly proprietary gallium arsenide solrcell technology, and we provided the resources and ex-pertise to build the related labs. Thr.s, we established a base

:that has made those schoirls self-sufficient today in obtainingresearch contracts in this important field. We now continuein what we regard as a more normal contractor-subcontractorrelationship with the _two schools. The catalytic phase is be-hind us. .

In another similar program. Rockwell assisted in the estab-lishment of New Mexico State University's nondestructiveevaluation training program. Today's advances in manufac-turing techniques, the expanding requirement for reliability,and especially in complex assemblies like nuclear plants,autoniobil °' and aircraft, place a great demand on the earlyeconomic qetection of flaws or defects. Some of you proba-bly spotted the story about the liquefied petroleum gas tank-ers that were laid rip, not because the steel in the tanks frac-tured, not because the hulls fractured, but because theplastic insulation that was foamed in place had voids in it,and there was no way to get it out short of stripping thoseships all the way down to the keel. The absence of an on-linetechnique for he detection of flaws in foamed plc tic has ledto a direct loss of about $300.000.000 in laid-up shipping,and a consequent reduction in the capacity of the industry toship liquefied natural gas from Algeria to Texas and Massa -

Lhust tts We need more people to develop and apply non-

8? 75

destructive evaluation techniques, and our nationally recog-nized program with NMSU has provided access to educationand career oi.portunities for a number of people in southernNew Mexico. This and the gallium arsenide program are justtwo of the university/industry programs that we've started.without prior government approval, on the basis of our ownperception of our own needs.

We also, haVe a number of joint programs that are pointedat very specific technical goals. A recent one is an NSF-funded joint program to define the thermodynamic parame-ters of fracture in ceramics. joint with the University of Flor-ida; and to those of you who aFe a little hit concerned aboutthe s_mantics of basic versus applied research and industryversus university involvment. I submit to you that is a basicprogram of substantial industrial importance.

Out next speaker. Rust= Roy, and 1 are two members of atriple pa)tnership between Penn' State, Rockwell Science,Center. and Rockwell Energy Systems Group ogihe ceramiccontainment of defense radioactive nuclear was The threeorganizations are mutually hnlind by contract Innt by grant)to perform certain tasks and deliver certain items, data, andspecimens of contained material. Naturally, the deliverablesare an industrial responsibility, while the studies of long-..

term stability are being led by Rusty and his team at PennState.

I emphasize the wcrd contract deliberately because it isthe key to the relationships that exist in the use of directedresearch funds in a university setting. Sometimes a con-tracta binding arrangementis a foreign idea to collegefolks, Who might prefer to be completely free to get on withsome new and exciting idea. (We sometimes feel that way inindustry. We were brought up the same way people in uni-versities were brought up, to feel that that which is new is

<ialways exciting; but we do have to finish the contracteditems first, or our clients get mad. They won't come backwith the next lot of money.)"

Now for some of the why's of our industry/university in-teractions And, clearly, one of the most impbrtant of the

76 83

why's involves the supply of high-level human resources.Two neglected critical human resource capabilities we

think are needed are, first, to ,ensure that people who aregoing into nontechnical workthe general public of theUnited Stateshave some kind of grounding in science andtechnology, and second, that those who are going to bermeprofessional scientists and technologists have some idea ofbusiness, business law, constitutional law, business manage-ment, and accounting. That way we'll wind up both compe-tent scientist-administrators and, very importantly, scien-tist-legislators. They're the one who will ultimately steerthe public decision on where United States technology goes.They're not only the general public, they're ttle future man-agers- of business, and they're aWo, -very importantly, theproperly inform4'd future legis'-stors.

On the broader need for people, a little food for thought isin order It's recently been stated that (given the demograph-ics of the United States and the birthrates of ten years ago)even if the present number of jobs in the United States doesnot signifir2ntly change between now and the end of thedecade, because a larger number of folks are going to retire inthis period. we will have full emdloyment, true full employ-ment, by 1990. The number es: people available to work in1990 will equal the number of jobs that are available today.It's quite a thought, but there are some very serious questionsabout mix of skills and responsibility for training peoplewho have no: yet entered the job market. If we don't managethe mix problem, we'll have a very serious shortage of peo-ple for certain classes of work. That's why we believe the re-cent NSF-Department of Education study is wrong and hasoverestimated the availability of trained people in the yearsahead.

At Rockwell, for example, we could easily be short 5..000engineers in this decade. That number arises from the factthat many of our aerospace engineers will be at retirementage within ten years. Rockwell employs about 14,1300 engi-neers and scientists. Incidently, we do about a billion and ahalf dollars worth of research, development, testing, and en-

84 77

gineering each year; about $150 million of this is companyinitiated. It costs about $100,000 a year to maintain a personin a professional Rockwell setting. By proportion, if we arelooking for 5,000 engineering and technology peoplethesource for which we do not yet know--we also expect thatwe'll need 500 research-grade people. And we believe we'renot the only company in that position.

There were comments this morning that demand for, say,70 research-grade people wipes out the entire supply in onedisiplinary field in the United States. Summed up over theaero, electronics. machinery and computer industries, thisadds tip to a national`shortage, which we have extrapolatedto a worst case shortage, of about 100,000 fully trained peo-ple. We don't believe there's any way in which the existinguniversity establishment will be able to respond to that inthe context of present programs.

Demographics apart, whether those people are in universi-ties or not, that's where we in industry have to look for them.We'll be looking to hire, to train, to rentbut not to hire yourfaculty away: we'll not do that. Indeed, the idea of "renting"people would mean that you could retain your research fac-ulty in order to continue to train the production engineersand the technical vocational people that we need as well asto renew themselves. It may well become the norm to see in-

-dustrial- employment of graduate -students on universitycampuses within ten years. possibly within five yearS. Thatmay be a solution to a problem that we've all been sidestep-ping. We have to acknowledge that it is very expensive to goto graduate school. It is a large direct expense as well as anenormous opportunity cost. Let us face it, some of the kidssay. "Hey, if I'm going to do that, I can get the same intellec-tual experience without the degree if I go into industry." Butwe can do both for the student if INe can find a way of givingacademic ( redit for work done in an industrial setting bypeople\ who are enrolled as graduate students and paid byindusttly.

Another e by of industry/university relationships is quiteclear. Our ,r; interactions with universities are predi-

(./

73

sated on the contribution that a school can make to our re-search mission. One of those contributions is fundamentalresearch. In the materials cyclefrom extraction, process-ing, and fabricairOtiT6 operating life and ultimately to re-,cycling of expensive, scarce, energy-intensive material in avariety of structureswe see the necessary, work as a contin-uum, a continuum from basic, or`roughly what is called ba-sic, applied, or generic work, all the way through to manu-facturing.

Sometimes we have to start all the wry back at the funda-mental structure of materials. We in Rockwell have beenvery happy in the last four years to have had a good deal ofsuccess witfi a modification of aluminum that we call "Su-peraluminum."."' This superplastic aluminum can be"blown up" like plastic in a mold to make complicated parts,with a very good reduction of weight and a very large savingin the number of parts that have to be put together to make afinal structure. We think we see a way to do the same thingnot only with titanium, in which the phenomenon is wellrecognized, but also with nickle-based alloys and possiblywith ferrous-based alloys. We could be on the verge ofchanging the metal fabrication tradt,, and that will.be quitea change considering the fixed investment that exists. Theold adage of what is your basic research is my applied re-

search, because- you're in a university and-I'm- in an- industry;is particularly true in the material,. ' y Lie. And that, I think,is why we've talked so much about it this afternoon.

In closing, I'd like to re-emphasize that I think it's thehow's of the industry/university relationships that have to becarefully considered: they're all individual. Our obligationin industry is to our stakeholders. That may be a word thatsome of you haven't heard toe often; it includes stockhold-ers, etnplojees who have an interest in continuity. custom-ers who have an interest in quality )roducts and services,'ind all those who might be af ettted by the products and ser-vices that industry puts out. industry's goals are to deliverefficiently, profitably, and responsibly those products andservices for its stakeholders. If university people can help us

86 79

do that, then we want the closest kind of relationship wi'you.

8780

University / Industry Coupling:Philosophical Underpinnings andEmpirical LearningsDr R Roy DirectorMaterials Research LaboratoryPennsylvania State University

The current interest in university/industry coupling islong overdue. Regrettably, the interest has some of the char-acter of a fad in the press, some of the tenor of a media hypeon the part of agencies looking for justifications for budgets,and a little bit of the taste of desperation on the part of uni-versities looking for any new source of research funding. Ifthese are the obvious wrong reasons for encouraging muchmore intensive universityindustry coupling, what are theproper reasons? These are of two kinds. I will address thequestions of educational philosophy first.

In any situation where interest is suddenly fanned, it iswise to ask: Has anybody studied the literature or track rec-ord? The record this case is abysmal. From recent writingon this topic it might appear to the novice that the concept ofuniversity/industry coupling was discovered de novo inabout 1978. The same two or three rather recent examples{-such -as- theMIT-Exxon, Harvard-Monsanto-M-IT-PolymetProcessing, North Carolina-Furniture) a; `reated in detail asthough they were the only specimens in cudtivity of industryand universities interacting; meanwhile, nationwide, indus-try-wide examples with histories of decades are ignored. Ican in this short article neither critique exhaustively tha re-cent literature, nor perform the exhaustiVe studies ,to docu-ment systematically the long track record. In its place I willoffer an updated conceptual frameworks that will attempt tosystematize he interactions which actt011y do occur be-tween these two major performers of research. I will, in addi-tion, provide anecdotal references illustrative of variousgen-eric types of coupling in order to provide those interestedwith a fuller picture of the total enterprise.

88°

81

A Philosophy for University-Industry (In the 1920s and 1930s university science Consisted of

dedicated teachers' who possessed the "amateur's" dedica-tion to research. A significant part of the research was verymuch a common venture by industry and lockil universitiesto build a new industrial base. The government as supporteror buyer of research didn't exist. Agricultural research, al-ways closely coupled to its industry, was a significant excep-tion. It is said that in 1930 the U.S. Navy refused to hire asecond chemist because it had one! But this benign govern-mental neglect all ended with the war.

The next social contract, written about 1950. between sci-ence and its patron. society, is in its turn now crumbling.After the war the government's reward to the fledgling sci-ence establishment for producing "the bomb" was muchmore than money it was trust, and hope almost elevated tosoteriological dimensions. By 1980 a number of false expec-tations and values built up by the public. government agen-cies. etc., aided and abetted by the research community inacademia and in some government-financed industries, hadbeen exposed. I list only the four major errors:

1. More money for basic researc' ,always undefined) leadsto technological and economic health. The decline in theU.S. economy has come to a nation of Nobe lists. The Japa-nese, specializing in applied science, seem to have donerather-well

2. We can have centers of scientific excellence in everycountry by putting more money into the system. Clearly, ex-cellence is limited by people and to "critical-mass" assem-blies of them.

3. "Basic research" (done mainly at universities) is higheron the pecking order of science than applied research:hence, we should put our best people into that. This is themost egregious error of them all.

4. Reallocation of basic research budgets among scientificdisciplines is to be carried out under the PGR (pervertedGolden Rule)', which states that "Them that has the goldmakes the Rules." This obviously militates against new

82

83

fields of science. the very ones that are tied to the innova-tion ; being made in industry. The neglect of r ier sci-ence and engineering by chemistry departments is a glaringexample of the studied indifference of academia to societalrealities. Big science (particle physics, astronomy. for exam-ple) budgets remain sacrosanct. while new fields or newseeds such us the overlap of the major research systems ofuniversities and industries receive token amounts to deflectcriticism.

During the 30 years since Vannevar Bush's manifesto,"Science. the Endless Frontier,"2 science as savior haschanged to the spectre of science as destroyer of the environ-ment and possibly of the race. Science is seen, accurately, asproblem-creator. and at best as an "ambivalent" human ac-tivity best described by C.F. von Weizsacker.3 In the eightiesit is certain that decision-making about science w:II nt, lon-ger remain the province of the scientists alone. Even the fun-damental epistemological paradigm of the isolation of thesystem for study is in question. Some assert that to do good'science, to ask the most important questions, it is necessarynow to ask about its relevance to the larger system of knowl-edge and its use. The total system of science is now known tobe strongly internally interactive. The interactions are in twodimensions. The first interaction is along the continuum ofthe disciplines arbitrarily divided an I labeled physics,chemistry. biology, etc. The second dim rision is more rele-vant here. Orthogonal to the first is the continuum from fun-damental (or the most abstract) science to applied science. toengineering, to development.

The philosophical bases for university/industry interac-tion in research are five-fold:

1 It will catalyze the crossing of the artificial boundatiesseparating the so-called disciplines and will avoid the de-strut tive narrowing forced on students by the departmentalstructures of universities. (For a detailed development ofthis theme. see reference 4.)

2. The vast majority of university research groups are sim-ply incapable of making really fundamental or basic re-

083

search contributions any longer. They are subcritical in sizeand in quality, most of them by an order of magnitude. Theexceptions amount to no more than two dozen in any field.

3. While university research must be funded both to pro-duce well-educated and well-trained graduate scientists andto keep faculty intellectually alive, the research can be vastlymore effectively used at the level of applied science con-nected to industry, and the education will be better for thebroadening.

4. The selection of problems to be studied, which is nowdetermined by the individual and an anonymous, hopelesslybureaucratic selection by so-called peers, must becomemuch more closely attuned to the needs of society via boththe -change in orientation of the faculty member and the re-search goals themselves.

5 ,University research not only will be more useful, it willbe better because it can become more interactive (with "lo-cal" industry) in both dimensions, and because each institu-tion can draw on the other's limited intellectual and physi-cal resources.

Some Neglected History ofUniversity/Industry Coupling

We have already noted the extensive contact between in-dustry and universities that occurred (albeit at a minisculedollar levee between,say, t hemistry_andimialturgy depart,-ments and their respective industries in the 1930s. Consult-ing was an important part o4 ,his, and ,it helped shape theintellectual o-ientation of the faculty. The land-grant tradi-tion initiated by the Morrill Act brought considerable con-tact between the two groups, in "agriculture and the me-chanic arts."

However, the part of the record most neglected by writerswho themselves were not involved in these matters (e.g., ref-erence 5) is the record of two institutions: the DOD and theIndustry Associations. The Department of Defense. since thelate fifties. had developed a system of program managementthat attempted to assemble the best possible teams of indus-try and university research groups to work on DOD's broad

84 9

C.

problems. These clusters often were managed by a primecontractor with strong DOD input. They all achieved a genu-ine scientific interaction in both dimensions of Figure 1. Thedollar scale of such programs, which continua to this day ata high level in DARPA, dwarfs all the new programs of otheragencies. These efforts were typically multidisciplinaryrather than interdisciplinary (see my detailed definition inreference 4) with integration of results done in group meet-ings of the team and by the manager.

A second set of major actors in coupling was the innumer-able industry associations such as the American PetroleumInstitute, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Lead-Zinc Institute, etc. Here, industry funds went to support"telestic" (i.e., purposive, end-oriented) basic research atuniversities. The amounts involved in individual grants

FIGURE 1

Disciplines. Phys., Chem., etc

1920.1950

Sc ience inIndustry

1950-1980 1980-?

Science inUniversity

.711114YilAeS:

Regions ofUniversityIndustryCoupling

. sketch illustrating the changing patterns of research emphasis in U.S. sci-ence in industrt (shaded NW --, SE) and univeisity (shaded SW . NE). Inthe pre-war phase the isolated pockets of basic research in unit ersities wereovershadowed by substantial overlapping research with industr!, in Se-im ted areas le g . chemistry but not in physics) During 1950-1980 overlap-ping applied science was neglected at universities in favor of discipline-limited basic science The emerging trend. in a zero-sum research budgetchange. may well be mod- emphasis on applied science. with less Ms-ciplilie rigidity. and with a .: zone of overlap midi industry's own re-emphasized capacity for longer term research.

92 85

were very substantial (for those days), and some API proj-ects, for example, lasted for 10-15 years. In many ways thiswas an ideal model of universities doing basic telestic re-search that was judged by the potential users in industry tobe of sufficient value to them that they paid for it. The abso-lute magnitude of actual support of research at universitiesby industry is also not well documented. We have not a sin-gle survey of the secular variance of the actual dollar indus-try support, discipline by discipline. received by a spectrumof universities for the period 1950-1980. I suspect that themagnitude will be as large as some of the present newer initi-atives.

A Framewcrk for Systematic Discussionof U/I Coupling

In my paper of 19711 I provided the first attempt at sepa-rating out the very different kinds of interaction in researchthat occur between universities and industries. The reader isreferred to this paper for details. Failure to make elementarydistinctions between very different activities confuses theliterature in this field. In Table I, I show an updated andmore differentiated version of the categorization, in the formof a matrix. One axis contains the different objectives of theinteraction (and the source of funds). the other the differentmechanisms used within the university to achieve the objec-

-tives.The table is essentially self-explanatory: examples entered

in the various boxes help to explain each. The vertical axis isparticularly significant, in that it identifies the institutionalstructure needed in a university. The single grant (A) to asingle faculty member, of course, requires no change. The"Industrial Associate" type of program discussed at length atthis meeting (13) is not. in my considered opinion. a viablemode for any but a handful of the biggest research universi-ties. On the other hand, the creation of (C), stable, sr,cietal-need-oriented, interdisciplinary laboratories (for air pollu-tion. transportation, water resources, etc.) is a sine qua nonfor universities serious ate -ut coupling to industries. Theselaboratories automatically provide an ongoing structure that

CO

+-4

.,INDUSTRY '-

GOVERNMENT .

State Federal..'iraranirso

. novinnammor"Aka

,.

,, 4t, .--;_.1.ProjectsTING`na-cacas

_ALLUNING____NATIONAL_____CONTINUING

searnjectsCOUPLING OF

onusorrro ON

BASIS

_6)w-fin ,,,:.; -: barvo:' at ,,lanitilitt_

-

DILIVLY BY -:Dinuirt.

"NM --.

LONGO!. TWO

.LINIVERSWITI.DUPIIIsTNN

'S ingle Great or - Itallew-,,Contract -`.ships,, .,,- ..

Altilvarsity -7sAdvisori, ., ,.

t: Hoards, '

..

Vary large Munbar..:Small percent

p oruniversitiesz issaecv

'-total ,

-,.:-

:Quitecommon'API,AISL '

etc,

PSEF,NY,Conn.,etc.

DoDDoENSFIV

Caster of'. ..

grits/contracts' .

with uniieriity ':, ; -

Large

.

- . DoDNASA(NSF,-Engg)

ustri-A.SSOCiates-oraffillated,prOgriun

1=1I plinary ;,-,Exparimiant Station =

-. eir Center with U/I_:a cineabjective :: .

,. . number of - ,-., imiTersity=wide Interdisciplinary.labors or Rag. Station' on Materials,'

'Envirimilimitlfransportationiet-Only-a7.",fiiialiceiving ankh industrial support .......----Buth

NSF-Centerprogram,

ARPA,DoD-JSEPNSF-MRL's,

-elmsources-.....tiii5i

# 4,004C '1111141111.....

USDA,

Commerce,

Tech. Centers

USGS.

new Gen.

G-2 ..

ttv

not only can serve the public sector, but also can serve as theproper multidisciplinary, quick response mechanism to cou-ple to industry. The traditional "Experinient Station" at landgrant universities was a good model. The Georgia Tech revi-val of this tradition is an outstanding example.

In Table II, I list some of the incentives that are prt nt forboth sides in such industry/university collaboration. Alsolisted are the preconditions for success in this area. Thesearo based on our local experience (described below) withsome thirty years of continuous coupling in the field of mate-rials research at Penn State. My observations are that not alluniversities are conditioned by attitude and tradition tosuch coupling. Overstimulation by the government of U/ITAEV_E

incentives

FOR UNIVERSITIES

Some of best science isInteractive (with Society's needs)

d interdisciplinary

.Best priparatiOn for graduatestudents (w.r.t. attitudes,Problern orientation)

widens range of access tosophisticated equipment

FOR INDUSTRY

U.S. innovation positiondemands NEW ways to use finitepool of creative persons

Utilizes newest ideas anddevelopments based on $413public-funded research -

Access to nationallyoutstanding personnel And(actin' as in some areas

PRE-CONDITIONS (Only for the siii.wr Set )

Faculty and facilities in areamust be:(a) Fl_zate for modest

companies(b) Outstanding for largest

1.00.intellectial (nets) desire byfaculty must Picivide motivation

Untl'ersttrstrOctIOA toollcoOlicluotoct maybereward

88 95

S-Decision maker whobelieves in it

Bench scientist who wants it

Easy and frequent (constant)communication (telephone. -visits, personnel on site atuniversity)

coupling will result iri a host of unqualified beginners, oftentrying to achieve coupling under pressure, and in a high per-.centage of casualties. Even given a favorable institutional cli-mate, successful coupling oitif can be based on the especialstrengths of the faculty and facilities in specific areas. Fur-thermore, even desire and excellence on the part of the fac-ulty can sustain a good program for only a decade or two.Unless the university institutionalizes by structure changesand rewards a base for such coupling, even the most success-ful experiments will disappear. For a long-term charige inuniversity patterns, all the following, conditions must bemet: an area of especial strength (equipment, ideas, experi-ence) with a group of faculty, a favorable attitudinal climateorfcampus, and institutional commitment.

In Table III, I present the alternative funding mechanismsthat have been proposed or tried so far to enhance U/Ipiing. It will be noticed immediately that the role of gove,-,'ment as catalyst is a new concept, but the widespread st.p-port for the idea in recent months augurs well for the future.The present funding systems have two very different stylesof achieving coupling. The first is the classical DOD model offinding the very best people and putting them to work jointlyon a task (i.e., it is the manager's responsibility to find thebest people).

The-otherapproach (used by NSF) is to inyiteindividuak,pairs, and groups to "propose" under a variety of rebricsto have such proposals reviewed, etc. This tediou's, time-consuming system is particularly ill-suited for effective cou-pling. The parameters required for successful coupling aremuch too subtle to ue described and et/aim-led by competi-tive peers. Very often the industry may not want even toshow the direction of its thinking by its choke of basic prob-lems, etc.

On the other hand, the ideas newly emerging from theCommerce Department studies,h and Vanik 13i11,7 etc., essen-tially have the governmer, stimulating the coupling by re-warding performance. It should be noted that the public ac-countability is much superior' re, since it is post facto. The

96 89

grant is not made to the company, nor to the specific project,hence it is not a gift to the company. The matching grant is tothe institution to help it do more of the same in any way itchooses.

Simple administrative edicts, such as requiring agenciesto have a minimum of their research in joint contracts andproviding "Independent Research and Development" fundsto universities under the new A-21 guidelines to be used insuch 1III programs, would immediately launch a nation-wide coupling program by t e institutions that so wished.

'TABLE 111-'''

0-AsoicY nMili4f

*chiki4j311' 'c;t#04piPiRy)80,

!tiiiiskiertititheiiiOOtiiititto tr& innovition::14.1 mid Yeatsitt ostaings, ProPINlals

FrOe.viOtteithilvfax'dli."1045.9PPOld

The advantages and disadvantages of the two systems aresuminarized in Table IV. I believe that the science commu-nity is much too passive in a democracy: it needs to expressits preferences among the options listed above, to congress-men and agency heads.

A Case-Study: Materials Research at Penn StateUsing the categorization developed in Table I, Table V

summarizes historically only a sample of different kinds ofcoupling that have occurred over the last three decades in

TABLE IV

Feedback to the Feds!on Basic Pattern of I/U mounding

._

aigice -;s7: PERF6RMANCEBASEti

everirdollairwhich industrygiyee ttitiveisity*nretith

TIn?,41!1104>

;kikr,filtitS;'i

Saves priicOut industrylime:'Nee:1304w kihycObtkiirmr:Ateitts, $100.8.0002t.:?Matsui

s2*1111-

Provide lk for il) natcldlig to

inilIvIdustinc$,,O" -11

Post tlifetiOcletIndic

,

*tired suielreiltraisdloftetWarUSiountiiiilie'pia/10,01'1i!) kriosiilfdgepf Indutittraudito Investineit its the:.

rioriniKIPIfc'04itn:'4Usteliest,iridustrtei:Wfit *participate in cutting edgeOmit-

:: Piottrii;40. leaves complicated;

93 91

. - .

, I

,

,

ota

113r",e)itt:

3 SI

4.1,1k

if Itfr,

e x

4

the departmental and interdisciplinary structure at PennState.

Manpower-producing and -improving activities have al-ways been well supported by industry in the form of fellow-ships, etc. Project support by industry has been continuous,but it has its ups and downs in total volume. Typically, theseare one-to-three-year projects, but they have a much quickerstart-up and much less investment Of marketing energy thanthe "peer-review" system of government. The amounts in-volved are substantially less than are available from govern-ment, but the restrictions are many fewer. The striking exam-, ple of the continuous support of a research project in adepartment for 25 years by the Bethlehem Steel Corporationshould be noted. Both absolutely fundamental data (on 3 + 4component phase equilibria) and invaluable technology inslag management came out of this work. Another relativelyrare type of coupling is the G-1 or G-2 type, where the stategovernment, through its Pennsylvania Science and Engi-neering Foundation, vigorously advocated and, supported

coupled research. Some outstanding successful exam-ples (e.g., with Erie Technological Products on the high vol-tage capacitor) emerged from this kind of coupling.

Recently, coupled research paid for by the government hasassumed a major position in the laboratory's budget,amounting to over 25 percent of the total.

But obviously, getting research funds is only,a small partof the story. The real difference is the land-gradt tradition of

,thek very ,best to,r "Agriculture and the Me-chanic Arts." The Materials Research Laboratory, for exam-ple. started an Industrial Coupling Program from the dateof its creation in 1962. It operated the Materials AdvisoryPanela consortium of 10 industrial and 6 university re-search leaders, for 16 veers. In 1972 the laboratory held whatwas possibly the first i(national meeting on the topic "Univer-sitylndustry Research Cooperation, The Record and ThePromise." It has been a vigorous advocate for and practi-tioner of coupling for 20 years.

Our coupling also extends to innovation in training within

100 93

industry and, at universities through the Educational Mod-ules for Materials Science and Engineering project; whichprovides new materials as vehicles for training.

The labo, r atory 'is perceived by industry as an institutiondedicated,'not only to conducting basic, published research,but to directing its efforts in tandem towards solving societal

/problems. Patents have never been any problem within ourcoupliqg efforts, and the development of university innova-tions bY corporate structures has been possible with no diffi-culty nd with equitable division of any benefits.

ConfusionsI/ have attempted to provide a fuller overview of the na-

tio,nal efforts in U/I coupling, past and presont. A philosoph-ic41 basis for encouraging II/I has been developed on the

Osis of the absolute need for reversing the reductionism ofmuch modern science. A categorization of the wide varietyof objectives and response mechanisms enables one to com-pare, meaningfully, different U/I programs. A look at alterna-tive mechanisms for government intervention in the U/I pro-cess shows the enormous advantage of the matching grant,post facto, performance-based approach.

Finally, I have described briefly, as a case study, some. ofthe activities in coupling at Penn State in the materials sci-

'me and engineering field.

References

1. R. Soy, University-Industry- Interaction...Patterns, Science178, 955 (1972).2. Vannevar Bush, ScienceThe Endless Frontier, U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1945I.3. C. F. von Weizsacker, The Relevance of Science, the Gif-ford Lectures, Collins, London (1964).4. R. Roy, Interdisciplinary Science on CampusThe Elu-sive Dream, in Interdisciplinary and Higher Education, J. J.Kockelmans, editor, pp. 161-196. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press (1979).

94

101

,

5. Denis Prager and Gilbert S. Omenn, Research Innovation,and University-Industry Linkages, Science 207, 379 (1980).6. Report of Advisory Committee on Industry Innovation,Report to the President of the U.S. J. Baruch (Chm.), Dept. ofCommerce, NTIS No. P 80-13175-8 (Sept. 1979).7. Congressman Charles A. Vanik (D-Ohio), U.S.H.R. No.HR6632, "Research Revitalization Act of 1980."

102

-,;

k

Master's Degree Program in Computer ScienceUnder Contract to a Large Electronics FirmDr. W. H. Matchett. DeanGraduate SchoolNew Mexico State University

IntroductionAt New Mexico State University we have made several at-

tempts to provide graduate instruction in a manner that willmeet the needs of nontraditional student groups. For exam-ple, we are in our fourth year of delivery of a field-basedMaster's degree program for in-service teachers. The pro-gracrLis conducted almoit entirely on location. The only on-campus requirement for enrolled students is their final ex-amination, which is administered by a committee of residentgraduate faculty. This program is partially funded by thestate of New Mexico. We present a classical program, undercontract to the Air Force, in electrical engineering to stu-dents at a nearby Air Force base. Essentially, the same pro-gram is delivered to employees of an electronics firm in Ju-arez, Mexico. This program is presented. in part, in theSpanish language. We operate an electric utility manage-ment program that is funded in large part by contributionsobtained from a consortium of privately owned utility com-panies in the western United States. This program is con-ducted on the main campus in Las Cruces and draws stu-dents from the traditional group as well as from the non-traditional or mid-career group. In all these efforts, we havemaintained a very traditional stance and have attempted todeliver programs in an entirely conventional manner withthe same quality and rigor as in our on-campus. traditionaldegree programs.

The Program ,

The program described in some detail here is one in thearea of computer science, which we offer under contract to avery large electronics firm. This program enrolls approxi-mately 35 employees of the company selected from among a/cry large number of engineers from all over the United

103 97

i

......:_.

0

States. Selected employees apply to the Graduate School andare screened in the routine manner. Those who are acceptedare regularly admitted as graduate students in the program.They spend a 5-week period of residence on the campus ofthe University during each of 5 consecutive summers. Theyare housed in residence halls and are accommodated in al-most the same way that traditional undergraduate andgraduate students are housed during the regular school year.During this 5-week period two, 3-credit courses are pre-sented. Students attending the program for 5 successivesummers may thus expect to earn the 30 credits required forcompletion of the program and receipt of the Master of Sci-ence Degree in Computer Science.

The course offerings which comprise the program are asfollows:

Summer 1980

CS 479 Special Topics Immigration Course 3 cr.(laboratory)

An immigration course providing tho needed foundation forthe NMSU E.rogram. Included will be an intense,introduc-tion to topics from computer system architecture (CS 205,-366), programming principles (CS 321), and discrete mathe-matics (Math 330). Prerequisite. working knowledge of onemachine or assembly language, and one higher-level lan-guage.

CS 467 Simulation Concepts and Languages 1 3 cr.GPSS, SIMSCRIPT, and other languages as they relate to dis-crete simulation in decision making. Their application to in-ventory, scheduling, queuing, job shop, and gaming. Prereq-uisite:, elementary calculus and statistics and workingknowledge of one higher-level language.

Summer 1981

CS 471 Programming Language Structure 1 3 cr.(labpratory)

Syntactic and semantic features of prominent programming

96

104

languages, and their effects on language applications. Pre-requisite: CS 479.

CS 472 Data Structures (laboratory) 3 cr.Study and analysis of algorithms for sorting, searching, andstorage Tanagement; influence of data-structure selection onclarity and efkiency of algorithms. Prerequisite: CS 479.

- -Summer 1982

CS 463 Architectu\el Concepts 1 3 cr.Relationships between the micro and macro levels of com-puter architectures, and between architectural and computa-tional structures. Prere4iiisite: CS 479.

CS 579-1 Special Topics in DBMS and MIS 3 cr.Study of selected topics from the areas of data-base manage-ment systems (CS 4\82) and management information sys-tems (CS 485). Prerequiste: CS 472.

Summer 1983

CS 579-2 Software Development: Design and 3 cr.Management (laboratory)Study and use of modern and effective techniques for the de-sign and implementation of reliable software, and for themanagementof software development Prerequisite: CS 471

CS 578 Management Information Systems 2 3 cr.Use of computers for integrated total management informa-tion systems. Emphasis on current experimental systems.Prerequisite: CS 579-1 (summer 1983)

Summer 1984

CS 599 Master's Thesis 6 cr.

We have completed the first summer of operation of theprogram and are looking forward to the second summer ses-sion, which will be convened during the summer of 1981.

10599

A

Some In';eresting Challenges Presented by the ProgramProblems that surfaced during the project development

period included a question concerning the admission poli-cies and procedures in place in our Graduate School. Com-pany representatives did not fully appreciate the bases andrationales of our requirements for admission and were of theopinion that they should play a more significant role in de-termining the admission status of their employees. We en-gaged in very detailed conversations with representatives ofthe company and, at length, achieved some resoliition of thisproblem. In our enthusiasm to see th program through to asuccessful beginning, we relaxed our admissions standardssomewhat, and, as a result, some of the students who wereadmitted to the program would probably not have been ad-mitted to the traditional program. This led to probjems thatarose later on during the session itself. We initially justifiedthese exceptions to our usual standards on the basis of theprior professional experiences of the applicants. It turnedout that these prior experiences, while valuable to the devel-opment of their careers and their relationships to the com-pany, were not entirely relevant as determinants of successin our Master's program. Ind,,ed, it seemed to the instruc-tional staff of the program that the prior training and back-grounds of some of these students were obsolete or obso-lescent.

During the first session it became clear that care must betaken 1:,,,ustructors to be cognizant of the possibility that theclass ay\have an internal structure of its own. It may havefirst- id second -level managers who in their company as-signor nts might have positions quite senior to those of otherstudents in the class. Such persons might suffer embarrass-ment ns the result of academic deficiencies that might appearin them work in the classroom. Instructors in.such programsmust bp alerted to this possibility and must take steps toavoid djfficulties arising from this situation.

Reg4larly enrolled graduate students in the Department ofComputer Science who were not associated with the con-tract program expressed a certain amount of dissatisfaction

WO 06

with what they regarded as "pampering" of students in thecontract program by members of the faculty. For example,the contract included provision for certain amenities forthestudents like coffee breaks, cocktail hours, bus trips, andother kinds of social interactions with each other and withthe faculty. Students in the regular program were not neces-sarily aware of the provisions of the contract or of the policyof the company. It must he mentioned, in all fairness, thattheir perceptions had some basis in fact.

Students in the contract program seemed to be confusedabout who was in charge of the course and of the program.Students were uncertain about the roles of the academic de-partment head, the course instructors, the company trainingcoordination person, the graduate dean's office, the office ofthe academic dean, and other administrative or service of-fices on the campus. This pointed up the necessity of ex-plaining very carefully to the contract students the organiza-tion of the university and the roles and functions of theseveral academic, administrative and support offices avail-able.

Faculty and student interaction occurred, but not at thelevel or to the extent that had been anticipated by the fac-ulty. Faculty involved in this program had assumed thatthere would be many opportunities for intense interactionon a one-to-one or small-group basis. That this in fact did notoccur was perhaps a reflection of the heterogeneous natureof the student group. Some of these students were as good asthe very best. graduate students we have in the university:others probably should not have been admitted to the pro-gram. The contract students registered several complaintsabout the quality of the dormitory accommodations and thefood service that was provided. It very quickly became clearthat these students were comparing our dormitory and foodservice accommodations for undergraduates with accommo-dations that are available at the company's educational andtraining facilities. At the comt-any's facility, accommoda-tions would compare very favorably with those available in afirst-class hotel. It also became clear in listening to such

107 101

,

complaints that the contract students had been condition -idby in-house training programs to expect that any kind of ed-ucational experience should be more like a vacation or relax-ation period than a continuation of one's work or profes-sional assignment.

Plans for Continuation t),

We plan to start the admissions process early and to pro-vide much better definition of the criteria for the screening ofapplicants for admiSsion; We intend to provide both com-pany education coordinator,: and potential students with aclear statement of the rationale for our criteria and standardsconcerning admission of students.

We plan to provide "warm-up" sessions on location at thecompanOraining center, with the intent that these sessionswould provide a catch-up period for newcomers to the pro-gram and a refresher course for returning students. One ofthe instructors in the first summer program will travel to thetraining center of the company in late May or early June toconduct the "warm-ups." The length of the session willprobably not exceed two weeks.

We encountered some problems with the five-week ses-sion and are giving very serious consideration tc the adop-tion of a Session of six weeks' duration. The nature and theamount of\ material presented, coupled with the marginalability of some of the students in the program, suggest pro-ce4ciing at aomewhat more deliberate pace.

lAre shall intensify our efforts to inform students about thepipsent state of computer science as a discipline. We shallfurther intensify our efforts to explain our objectives in pre-senting the program. Some students raised the question ofrelevance concerning the theoretical bases for some of theconcepts presented, and we plan to introduce these topic ina thorough, and, we hope, more satisfactory way. We plan touse the curricular recommendations of the Association forComputing Machinery and the Institute for Electrical andElectronic Engineers. .

We plan to inform students more precisely of what to ex-pect in terms of the quality of dormitory accommodations

102 1

and the food service that is available. In this way we hope toavoid any surprises.

In view of the heterogeneous nature of the students in theclass and, particularly, their varied backgrounds in com-puter science, we are giving serious consideration to the useof computer based learning modules in the next classes. Wehope that these modules will enable instructors to proceedthrough their courses without undesirable delays or digres-sions.

Benefits Derived from the ProgramWe anticipate professional exchanges between our faculty

and the professional staff of the company. These exchangesmay take the form of teaching of computer science on ourcampus or at the company training center. We also antici-pate opportunities for collaborative,research. Although noneof these has yet materialized, we see no reason why theyshould not develop in the near future. We see this programas offering a model for attacking the problem of extremeshortages of technically trained individuals, and we believethat this program will provitT ; a paradigm that may find ap-plicability in other industries that are anticipating or experi-encing such shortages. We believe that this program has en-abled us at New Mexico State University to utilize ourfacilities and resources more effectively. People and facili-ties poorly utilized during,the summer period are more fullyutilized through this program.

Part of the revenues obtained from the program have pro-vided discretionary funds, which have become available tothe Department of Computer Science and to the Office of theGraduate School. These funds have supported developmen-tal efforts such as recruiting of graduate students, support offaculty and student travel, and general department needs.Discretionary funds are, of course, extremely important intimes such as these, characterized by budgetary constraintson the one hand and the inflationary spiral on the otherhand.

Perhaps most importantly, this program has provided anopportunity for our faculty to learn first hand of the actual

10103

appli.catioris of computer science in industry. The studentsare learning what the field of computer science encompassesand what they might expect from research and developmentin the field in the immediate and near-term future. We lookforward with anticipation to the continuation of this pro-gram and to the successful conclusion of its first phase in thesummer of 1984.

104

1 1 0

D

Philadelphia Assobiation for Clinical Trials:Review and ProspectsDr, J. Schrogie, Executive DirectorPhiladelphia Association for Clinical Trials

Background and History .

The concept for the organization now known as the Phila-delphia Association for Clinical Trials (PACT) originated in1978 during discussions of the Philadelphia InternationalCity program, which was being fostered by the Greater Phila-delphia Partnership, the leading private sector businessgroup in the area. As a part of this overall effort to enhancethe economic growth and development of Philadelphia,members of the partnership recognized that the well-devel-oped and respected medical research resources of the Phila-delphia area could provide an attractive opportunity kir theplacement and performance of clinical trials of new drugsand devices.

..

To examine the matter further, determine its feasibility,and plan its development, a steering committee was estab-lishc ' under the chairmanship of Dr. Lewis W. Bluemle, Jr.,president of Thomas Jefferson University. Other members ofthe committee included senior executives of the area's aca-demic teaching institutions and representatives of the localpharmaceutical industry. The committee was encouraged bythe results of preliminary surveys of the academic institu-tions and surrounding pharmaceutical companies whichdocumented both an interest in and need for such an organi-zation. The organization was formally incorporated as theGreater Philadelphia Organization for Clinical Trials(GPOCT), a not-for-profit corporation, on January 3, 1980.

Meanwhile, each of the area's six academic medical teach-ing institutions formally endorsed participation in PACT byresolution of its board of trustees. After furtherconsiderationof administrative and financial requirements, a chairman ofthe board of directors (Karl H. Beyer, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.), andexecutive director (John J. Schrogie, M.D.) were cPierted inApril 1980. Subsequently, the office was lorr red withii) the

11 I4. 105

...1

University City Science Center, a centrally placed facility inPhiladelphia.

In June 1980, the first board of directors meeting tookplace, at, which time the name of the organization waschanged to the Philadelphia Association fer Clinical Trials(PACT), each of the nine original member institutions nomi-

resentative to the hoard of directors, and the ap-pointment of the officers were confirmed. Thus, in a spaceof less than wo years, PACT moved from idea to reality.

Role of Pa tGENERAL °ALS

A majo objective of PACT is to facilitate the relationshipbetween the sponsor interested in evaluating the safety andefficacy f a project and the academic clinical research labo-ratory.ca able of performing the study; the sponsor's interestmay exte d also into monitoring the effects of the product inbroad u e after approval for marketing has been granted.Simile y, PACT desires interaction with various govern-ment, agencies such as 'he Food and Drug Administration,Nat' nal Institutes of Health, or Veterans Administration,w ich conduct large-scale research programs to evaluate

esently marketed products or to study the course of vari-ous diseases as they may be affected by therapeutic interven-tions.

PACT IS UNIQUE

As a nonprofit organization developed and endorsed bythe six area academic medical institutions, PACT representsa unique collaborative effort by the health-care delivery andresearch 'community of the greater Delaware Valley'. Thissupport places PACT in a central role to coordinate and ex-ploit several related features of this region:

1. The core of six medical teaching institutions;2..A group of 40 community, hospitals which participate

actively in teaching and research programs of the parent in-stitutions;

3. A populatiori base of 5.6 million people;4. A concentration of major pharmaceutical companies lo-

106 112

s Na

..11.

cated in the immediate area and throughout the northeastquadrant of the country and;

5;Close proximity to the major governmental participantsin the development-and evaluation of health-care productslocated in the Washington, D.C., area.

Pact Will Provide Services

ESTABLISHMENT OF INVESTIGATOR INVENTORYAs an initial step to establish the coordinating process,

PACT has distributed a questionnaire to survey the clinicalresearch resources in the area. It was sent with the direct as-sistance of the executive offices of the medical schools toclinical staff members of their -institutions and affiliatedteaching hospitals. Based on the 'nearly 400 responses, an in-ventory of clinical investigators interested in participating inPACT-sponsored activities has been established and will beMaintained by PACT. Thus, specific facilities and scientificresources can be conveniently identified and matched withthe requirements of potential sponsors. Any apparent gap orchange in information will be updated as required.

SUPPORT TO CLINICAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

In addition to collaborating with already established andrecognized research programs, PACT is committed to ex-panding the base of investigators available to participate inclinical trials. Although it is clear that the number of poten-tial patient participants, medical skills, and technical re-sources available within the area is extensive, mobilizationof these factors into the organization of a clinical trial can bedifficult. Such studies usually require a multidisciplinaryparticipation Of specialized skills, laboratories, equipment,data management services and selected patient populationsthat would not be found outside of the largest teaching uni-versity institutions.

PACT is in a position to coordinate resources betweknstitutions so as to take advantage of the established skills ofeach. This function can be performed in a number of ways:

1. Assisting in protocol design and project coordination,

1 1 n107

2. Supervising the delivery and inventory of investiga-tional study materials,

3. Providing trained monitoring and surveillance of studyprogress; and

4. Arranging for data analysis and reporting.In short, through the skills and participation of its staff,

PACT can fill any gaps preventing a productive interactionbetween sponsor, investigator and patient.

FOCUS FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

By virtue of its central position with reference to area med-ical institutions, PACT will have knowledge of and access tothe best qualified scientists available. Thus, it could serve asa clearinghouse for technical consultation requests, couldorganize training programs and seminars, and could con-sider the development of a prestigious scientific publicationthat would be oriented to the research advances being ac-complished in this region. It also could act to develop inno-vative programs to stimulate.interest in difficult or neglectedareas of drug research such as matters of informed consent orpediatric clinical pharmacology.

Present Activities of PACTAREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

As PACT has developed, its major activities may be classi-fied as

1. Clinical trialsdesigns, monitors and analyzes the con-trolled clinical trials necessary to establish the safety and ef-ficacy of new therapeutic modalities.

2. Postmarketing surveillance (PMS) and epierepnologyplans for identifying cohorts for study as well as placinglarge populations under long-term observation are under de-velopment.

3. Preparation of research proposalscan work with in-vestigators to develop and write applications to supportingagencies.

Important support to PACT's programs is given throughthe active collaboration of the Data and Information SystemsCenter (DISC) of the University City Science Center (UCSC).

108 114

This convenient and highly experienced unit is well quali-fied to handle the large volumes of data generated by multi-clinic trials. It provides a full spectrum of data coordinatingservices ranging from assistance in forins design, trainingand monitoring of data collection staff and procedures todata reduction and statistical analysis.

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Since its inception, PACT has participated in developing awide variety of projects which reflect the breadth of. its mis-sion. A representative sampling of topicsIttcludes:

Assistance to investigators needinrs&ttical analysis ofproject results

Placement and monitoring of an antibiotic efficacy trialOrganizing regional participation on i large-scale

trialSubmission of a contract application to federal goverh-

ment for clinical anl, ,pidentiological study of ophthalmicdisease

Development of a system design and coordination play fora national PMS study of an antibiotic /

Collaboration with pharmaceutical marketing researchgroups to enhance the scope of presently existing survey sys-tems

Feasibility study of regional drug surveillance systemSubmission of a contract application to federal govern-

ment for study of bioavailability of drug products /-Submission of a contract application to federal govern-

ment for feasibility of in-hospital drug surveillance

115

109

The text that follows is a distillation of the discussions in-spired by the presentations made at the workshop. A greatMany questions were asked of the workshop's invited par-ticipants, some of which elicited answers or comments ca-pable of contributing to the reader's understanding of. theissues or programs discussed during the workshop. A greatmany other questions, questions often focused so sharply asto Provide additional information of val'ie only to the ques-tioner, have been excised from the discussion section thatfolloiv/s. ed.

Comment by Dr, Bruce. Let me just say a r..3w words in gen-eral about university/industry cooperation and interaction. Ithink it's useful to draw some sort of a map, if you will, ofthese sorts of interactioas, and I'd like to make use of a studyby New York University's Center for Science and Technol-ogy Policy that has tried to categorize the sorts of interac-tions that universities and industry have. They've come upwith two basic categories, and I think a third is needed. First,there are collaborative research mechanisms. Among theseare the research consortia that we've talked about briefly thismorning. They are the university research projects that arefunded by industry; they are government-funded, indus-try/university consortia. The second category comprisesknowledge transfer mechanisms. In this category I would in-clude the liaison programs, continuing education, coopera-tive programs, consulting, personnel exchange, etc. Finally, Ithink that there is a third kind of interaction, id that is thewhole area of philanthropy. Industry is a great source ofunrestricted giving to our nation's universities and colleges,and so I'd talk about those three as a sort pf map withinwhich we operate. I'm sure that we would all agree that thelines separating them are not sharp; they're /very fuzzy, butwe need some sort of structure on which, to hang our re-marks, because we're going to be jumping from one to theother throughout the day, I expect.

Question addressed to Dr. Baron. It seems to me-that thereis a limited number of companies la/ge enough to be altruis-

,

113

S

,..

ticto, in other words, provide support money without anyfocus on short-rate returns. Many of the smaller companiescan't afford to provide money without some insurancesome direct results. You consequently have what I guessamantits, to an elite group of companies. Can you see anyway of defining which companies are capable of joining tI.Aselite class?

Dr. Baron. First, I don't think that even we large compa-nies are doing enough. I think industry should do more thanwhat it's doing now. But all of us, big and small, can dosomething. Small' industries eau participate by banding to-gether. for instance. A little money from each of many smallindustries will go a long way. I for one would not like to seesuch associations do anything Imre, though, than givemoney. I would not like to see such an association set up tojudge which professor gets funded for which particular proj-ect. That, I think, would be a perversion of the intent. But if asmall company cannot give enough money even to supportone graduate student, surely it could band together withother companies ill a small association (and I would hopethat it would be a small one, not something that becomes abureaucraCy) to fund one graduate student somewhere. Idon't think there's a lower limit to this. There's also no limitto the danger of a burgeoning bureaucracy, so I would sug-gest that this association be kept small and have no otherpurpose than to donate.

Question addressed to Dr. Baron. Despite your commentearlier that relations between industry and academia arejust fine, I believe that there is at least one problem ofpeten-tial seriousness, and that is our seeming inability to commu-nicate with eachfuther on some matters. Let me illustratewhat I mean with the example of the field of chemical engi-neering as we know it today. The field is experiercing a pe-culiar problem; it cannot rejuvenate itself. I was talking notlong ago to one of your recruiters from Shell Development.He is looking for seven Ph.D.s. Du Pont, at the same time, islooking for an additional seven. That takes care of almostone-fifth of this year's supply of eligible Ph.D. chemical en-

114 118

gineers in this cow, `-y. So there seems to be a breakdown incommunication. Somehow the system is not working. ij in-dUstry successfully competes with academia in hiring thesenew Ph.D.s, their it limits the ability of the profession to re-juvenate itself. Within the context of the amorphous rela-tionship that you suggest industry and academia effect, howcan problems like this one be worked out?

Dr. Baron. You're referring to the problem that there aren'tenough Ph.D.-level graduate students in chemical engineer-ing and, as a consequence, you gentlemen are finding it diffi-cult to find faculties. I suspect that a reason for this is thevery high salaries currently paid on a Bachelor's level. Peo-ple of this academic generation (which I believe is sort of areaction to the sixties', generation) want to go to work andearn their money and are somehow not willing to invest intheir intellect. This is a sociological problem that I don'tknow how to solve. We can't go to the universities. We can-not tell graduate students that it is best to get a Ph.D. Manyan executive vice president of Shell Oil Company does nothave a Ph.D. Many do, but many others do not. Nor can yousay that it is necessary to get an education in order to makemoney or that a Ph.D. is worth so many dollars. So it's not amoney question, it's a sociological question. I have no doubtthat du Pont, Shell, Exxon, and other companies who needPh.D. chemical engineers will find themselves very short;

'they'll get desperate and raise the starting salaries. I'm surethis will happen. It will happen without delay. AndT thequestion is what do you do in the meantime? You, suffer,that's what you do. I think that what we are talking about isthe lack of a sufficient intellectual climate in this area, whichat_ the_mcunent._baffles_me. I-don't know why-these-peedon't go on. I know why I did go on. It had nothing to dowith hoping to make more money. It was that I was restlessand would have felt very unhappy if I didn't know what thefrontier of my profession was. That's why I went on. There'sno other reason. Apparently, there is now a shortage of thesepeople. The problem is even worse than it appears becausemany of these graduate students are not American citizens,

119 115

and these students will leave this country when they havefi.:ished their degrees. So my guess is that the total availablesupply is something like half what the statistics say. so we'reproducing only something like 20 percent of what we need.

Questions addressed td Dr. Bruce. I have two questions.First. I don't take Dr. Baron's comments lightly. and I wouldbe very much interested in your reaction to his thoughts.Second. I'm interested in the kinds of authority thd liaisonofficers in the program at MIT have.

Dr. Bruce. I. too. am very concerned about the fox-chickensyndrome. We make a point of telling our faculty openly thatwe are in no way forcing them to interact with any of ourindustrial affiliate members. There are members of our fag-ulty who will have nothing to do with the program. and Jesay that's fine. That's their decision. There are others.though. who will use the program as a 'way of exploitingtheir own research interests by gaining support from indus-try in fields of choice to them. so I think it can work bothways. Now our officers' access in the companies depends toa large extent on the individual company. We try to make acontact very high in every company that we interact with.typically a research vice president or even president ofthe company itself. in many cases. That tends to give usmuch better ways of connecting that company's interestswith the work under way at MIT. There are some companiesthat we interact with that hold things extreme!y close to thevest. and we interact with them that way because that's theway they choose to make use of the program. Blit we alsoencourage the broader interaction that lets ow officers reallyget to know what's going on in the company and what the

Interests arc,.Question addressed to Dr. Bruce. How much discretion do

the MIT liaison officers have in their discussions with indus-try participants in your program?

Dr. Bruce. I've never been successful in shutting an MITfaculty member up yet when hethad something he wanted tosay. We have a very active -,-..aient program atMIT. so we tryto capture the patentable ideas and devices that come from

116 120

0

c

research. Most of our faculty members are extremely awareof the issues of disclosure and in their conversations willabide by those constraints. They make sure we file the appli-cation. etc.. before they have conversations that might leadto an improper disclosure. But it's dealt with on an individ-ual faculty member basis, which has both advantages anddisadvantages. We try to minimize the bureaucracy.

Question addressed to Dr. Bruce. Do you have a fee sched-ule. and if so. do all the member companies get the someservices?

1 .

Dr. Bruce. All member companies get the same services.Fees have historically been a problem in the sense that priorto my assuming the directorship of the program some twoyears ago. there was less of a business atmosphere in the pro-gram than there is now. Consequently. our fees range all overthe lawn, so to speak. At the present time we quote $30.000 ayear for the industrial liaison program. There are some com-panies who pay, more: there are some companies who payless. Of our 270 member companies, about 60 companies be-long to a part of the program that's reserved for smaller com-panies whose average sales are between $100.000,000 'and$10.000,000. These people :say on the basis of a graduate feescale that begins at $7,500 and goes up to $30,000. I have toadmit, however, that inflation is taking its toll on us, and wewill shortly be increasing our fee simply because we can'tafford to do it for what we are charging. ,

Question addressed to Dr. Fuller. Some of us have respon-sibilities at our universities to provide seed money for newyoung faculty's° that they can get started on research proj-ects -Of course. Di . Baron's remark this-morning appealed-Urme very much. That is, he believes that we could seek fromindustry the seed money that would be for research undi-rected externally, and that would help these people developthe kinds of research prograiiis and peer recognition thatcould enable them to successfully compete for funding else-wherefrau'. say, the federal government. How would yourindustry feel about, how do you personally feel about, pro-

121 117

a

viding seed money for young faculty when really no tangiblereward is anticipated by the company?

Dr. Fuller. Well, the program that Iam responsible for nowis not looking far tangible rewards as I've said, and person-ally I feel that that's one of the best places that we can spendour money. My conversations with some of the universitieshave indicated the same thing. Some department heads andprofessors have told me that neither they nor their col-leagues need this kind of support. They're established. Theycan get funding when they need it. These saiste people oftenpoint to new faculty who they think a lot of and suggest thatthat's where they would like the money to be put. I thinkthat's where we're going to try to find places to put it. We'vegot to balance that, of course, in order to accomplish thegoals of this program. I've got to balance that with somethingthat', going 'on in one of our labs so that we can get people totalk with each other. That is what I'm having, I think, moretrouble finding; I'm having no trouble finding worthy thingsto support. There are many, many places where the moneycould productively be put to work, but trying to match thatwith people in our organization so that we can really set upthis cooperative thing is what challenges. But I agree withyou that one of the finest places to put the money is withyoung people (the departments can tell you who these youngpeople are). Incidentally, the money we give is targeted atthe discretionof the university more than it is by us pickingout the person 'o whom the funding goes.

Question addressed to Dr. McCullough. Your focus on thebasic aspects of the issues in a sense steers you away fromquestions of applicability. This places you philosophicallyin sharp contrast to the MIT program, where professors arereally very knowledgeable about disclosure. Would you careto comment on your philosophy versus the MIT philosophy?

Dr. McCullough. Well, I feel very comfortable with ourphilosophy; I believe our sponsors feel very comfortablewith it, that they feel we are filling a gap, are working in anarea that they need work in, and, that we're doing it verywell. There are occasions in which patentability can come

118 122

up. In our particular area, this would be more in iew charac-terization methods, tools, or developments. Recently, one ofmy students filed for a patent on a new technique he has de-veloped for measuring fiber orientation, but that's a little bitdifferent than attempting to get a patent on a new materialssystem. We'll find that very little of these will be patentable.We're not doing work in polyther synthesis, for example, sowe would really not have that kind of problem to wolf},about. Patents in the area of processing are enormously diffi-.cult to pin down; Where we serve only in a consulting way,and the faculty does that independently from their role inthe center. It's not handled at the center at all. So I think thevery nature of our program has moved us away from the pat-ent problem area, and I hope to keep it that way. That is ourintent.

Question addressed to Dr. McCullough. I would like toknow whether Delaware has any feedback mechanism to thefaculty as MIT does.

Dr. McCullough. The faculty receive graduate student sup-port and summer support--summer salaries; that's how thefaculty receives money awards. Now, again, the support ac-tually does go into their pockets as normal summer supportwould. At their-request, the center provides equipment andsupplies to the faculty in addition to their support. Most ofthe faculty are given budgets, which they frequently over-run. In terms of feedback on their performance, yes, there's avery strong one. Each year the advisory board reviews eachreport, each presentation and piece of work, and sends itsreport back. In this way the faculty member gets feedback onhow well the industiy is responding to the work he's struc-tured. This feedback mechanism is extremely important forstudents. These presentations we give each year, as well asthe report the students write, give our students a chance toperform in front of colleagues at a professional level muchsooner than if they were in a normal program. It certainlyhelps the students mature, and I consider enhancing studentcommunication skills a vital part of the educational pro-gram. The first talk typically is lousy; the third one is very

. 123 119

smooth, and polished. When our students come out of tl$sprogram. after having given a series of presentations ndwriting,a series of reports, I think they have received ad-ditional enrichment from the program that they mi t nothave received in a normal graduate school experience thatrequired only a single thesis rather than a number of reportsand presentations. .

Question addressed to Dr. Bruce. Do you operate com-puter services instrumentation facilities? If you do; do youhave a prorated fee schedule?

Dr. Bruce. The answer is no We have tried very hard tostay out of the provision of laboratory facilities for our com-panies, and while some parts of the institute do provide suchservices, it's done independently from the liaison programs.

Question addressed to Dr. Bruce. Are representatives ofyour member organizations consulted on curricular matters,or are they afforded the chance to discuss these matters withmembers of your faculty?

Dr. Bruce. Yes, but informally. There are no organized dis-cussions, but many of the people from these companies, afterthey have gotten to know faculty, will have those informalconversations that are so valuable in the direction of curricu-lar work in one area or another. Let me add one additionalcomment.. MIT has had a long history of visiting committeesfor each of its academic departments, and many of the peo-ple who are involved on the visiting committees are also in-volved in the liaison programs. They consequently have avery deep understanding of what's going on and use the ave-nues provided in visiting committees to inject remarks aswell.

Question addressed to Dr. Farrington. It has been my lim-ited observation, perhaps unfair, that one of the weaknessesof, schools of veterinary medicine is that there's a lack ofbasic research. Most of the research they do seems aimed atproducing immediate rewards. What is it that industry cando and what attitudes can industry develop that will precip-itate a change in this posture toward basic research?

Dr. Farrington. It is a fundamental problem. Veterinarians

120.

124

r

a.

;.

traditionally are in the practice of veterinary medicine andare field oriented. However; now that the numbers of veteri-nary schools are increasing (there were 17 a short time agoand now we have 25), t think that you're going to find agreater inclination among young graduating veterinarians totake a hard look at researclifirst.

Question addressed to Dr. Economy. What restrictions, ifany, do you place on the number of people that study a pe-riod of time in your lab, whether from universities or else-where, and what are the other restrictions, if any, placed onwhat they will be exposed to and what kind of reports theycan see?

Dr. Economy. There are several restrictions. For example,annually we'll have two or three meetings to which the non-regular employees will not be invited. These are meetingswhere the progress of the laborary is summarized, andwhere a lot of personnel issues are discussed. There are alsoconfidential reports that they will not see, typically thekinds of reports that discuss strategic issues. It's almost asthough you had two hatsone when you're dealing with the'more basic issues, and the talk tnere revolves around pub-lishing the work, another when you're dealing with internalissues. Periods of interacticn vary. We'll have some postdocsstay for a couple of years; professors typically come on sab-baticals from a month to a year.

Question addressed to Dr. Economy. What kinds of finan-cial arrangements do you have for professors who visit onsabbatical?

Dr. Economy. All kinds. Some we support fully; somecome with half of their salaries paid for; others come fullyfunded. We're flexible because we have to be. I'd like to com-ment on that just a little bit. Almost everyone who joins usseems to be different, and it's almost a full-time job, some-times, handling the contracts and arrangements. A lot of thespecifics are dictated by how they prefer to be paid. Does heprefer to continue on his own payroll and have the company,say, provide a grant to the university, or does he prefer to be

;125 1211

placed on our payroll as a consultant? There are a number ofdifferent plans and arrangements that can be made.

Question addressed to Dr. Lando. Your pro2rrini is one ofthe more intense models in terms of unified, objective goals,contrasting with the MIT model that might be more applica-ble across the entire university. How do you feel the interac-tion between industry and the department affects your ob-jectives_ and goals; and how do you lead industry, and howdoes industry lead you?

Dr, Lando. Well, I think that it very much enhances ourability to conduct basic research. It also helps us financially.but as I said earlier, this is not the whole story. We are veryinterested in the input, but we're also very interested in in-teraction and in educating our students. For a variety of rea-sons the fundamental developments in polymer cheMistryhadn't been progressing at the rate that people had hopedfor. Some of the fundamental questions in polymer chemis-try were not being answered. I got the impression ofgovern-ment interference; for example, some of the regulatiOnsmight have inhibited industrial development.

Question addressed to Dr. Lando. Do you feel that funda-mental research is being strengthened and enhanced by in-dustrial relationships, or is your intention as a departmentdirected more toward immediate problems?

Dr. Lando. It's only helped because it provides mecha-nisms for growth. We can bring in new faculty and scientiststo interact with us as well as attract good graduate students. Idon't think that one can really show any major restrictive in-fluence of the industrial sponsor program on research, onlypositive.

Question addressed to Dr. Lando. Do you give graduatecredit, academic credit, for the graduate students who areout on cooperative assignments?

Dr. Lando. Only under some circumstances. In general,however, we have arranged for the student to go to a com-pany to learn. Some projects students get involved in withinthe companies can be very technologically sophisticated. Ingeneral, however, companies look to the university for a

122

.126

.:.

complementary relationship, for reinforcement and the de-sire for the university to do basic research. I don't think thisalways holds true for other industries that do not have a so-phisticated attitude toward research. We're very fortunate inour area to have highly sophisticated research going on inindustry to back us up. A requirement, I believe, for aca-demic/industrial interaction is a certain sophistication onthe part of the leaders.

127

0"

123