Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 243 343
TITLE
INSTITUTION
REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 016 885
University-Industry Research Relationships. SelectedStudies.National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.National Science Board.NSB-82-2[82]298p.; For related document, see ED 230 115.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402.Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- ReferenceMaterials - Bibliographies (131)
MF01/PC12 21us Postage.Chemistry; Computers; *Cooperative Programs;Engineering; Financial Support; *Higher Education;1Industry; Institutional Characteristics;Institutional ()operation; Intellectual Property;Research and Del.elopment Centers; *Research Projects;*School Business Relationship; *Sciences; StateColleges; *Technology TransferCalifornia; Research Universities
ABSTRACTThe results of a study of- university /industry
research interactions are presented, along with four reports oncollaboration, and an annotated bibliography. The study, "Current U.SUniversity/Industry Research Connections" (Lois S. Peters, Herbert I.Fusfeld, and others), involved on-site interviews with 66 companiesand 61 public and private universities that were top-ranking researchand development institutions. The focus was fields of study in thephysical and life sciences, plus some social science, business, andmedical education programs. Types of interactions formed four majorgroupings: general research support, cooperative research support,support for knowledge transfer, and technology transfer. Appendicesinclude a geographical listing of each of 475 research interactions,including the names of the institutions, the discipline, themechanism of interaction, and the duration. Report titles and authorsare as follows: '"State College Science and Engineering Faculty:Collaborative Links with Private Business and Industry in Californiaand Other States" (Frank and Edith Darknell); "University-IndustryConnections and Chemical Research: An Historical Perspective" (ArnoldThackray); "University-Industry Cooperation in Microelectronics andComputers" (Erich Bloch, James D. Meindl, and William Cromie); and"Report on a National Science Foundation Workshop on IntellectualProperty Rights in Industry-University Cooperative Research"(National Science Foundation). (SW)
***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.***********************************************************************
Xt.-37/4,W,:4-71:-.)` 'T,Z.7:5'";r1,-!4.,-...-,- -., ;iis, .
,
,i- , l',... :s , r- . - ?.. ,,-....,-,,.t.T'e -.111,,"4.,--LA=:;s, i, ,41 , ''' k ' 'L,kf.,,,'...,..v., ,,,,...tr
le-4;:t.,.,441 '..(1'''; i!..'174; ,i,,,,,. :-.;.1:0..." 4't" P ' e,...S "..,..1."......,..1k51,-'_. 1 i. '' '''
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYCENTER (ERIC)
This ment has been reproduced as , ,cowed from the person or organization ,i
originating it0 Minor changes have been made to improve , ..i
reproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu , TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESment do not necessarily represent official NIE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."position or policy ( ,'
sM1
Frte.
43,,4
41,40. V*
114"
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD+
Dr. Jay V. Beck, Professor Emeritus, Brigham YoungUniversity
*Dr. Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Vice President for Re-search and Development, Tyco Laboratories, Inc.Exeter, NH
Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, Vice President and Chief Sci-entist, International Business Machines Corp.,Armonk, N.Y.
'Dr. Lloyd M. Cooke, President, National Action Councilfor Minorities in Engineering, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Dr. Eugene H. Cota-Robles, Professor of Biology, Uni-versity of California at Santa Cruz
"Mr. Herbert D. Doan, Chairman, Doan Resources Cor-poration, Midland, MI
Dr. Peter T. Flawn, President, University of Texas atAustin
Dr. Ernestine Friecil, Dean of Arts and Sciences andTrinity College and Professor of Anthropology,Duke University
Dr. Mary L. Good, Vice President and Director of Re-search, UOP, Inc., Des Plaines, IL
'Dr. John R. hogness, President, Association of Aca-demic health Centers, Washington, D.C.
"Dr. William F. Hueg, Jr., Professor of Agronomy andDeputy Vice President and Dean, Institute of Agri-culture, Forestry, and home Economics, Universityof Minnesota
Dr. Michael Kasha, Distinguished Professor of PhyisicalChemistry, The Florida State University
"Dr. Marian E. Koshland, Professor of Bacteriology andImmunology, University of California at Berkeley
Dr. Peter D. Lax, Professor of Mathematics, CourantInstitute of Mathematical Sciences, New York Uni-versity
Dr. Walter E. Massey, Director, Argonne National Lab-oratory, Chicago, IL
Dr. homer A. Neal, Provost, State University of NewYork at Stony Brook
Dr. Mary Jane Osborn, Professor and Head, Depart-ment of Microbiology, University of ConnecticutSchool of Medicine
"Dr. Joseph M. Pettit, President, Georgia Institute ofTechnology._
Dr. David V. Ragone. President, Case Western ReserveUniversity
Dr. Donald B. Rice, President, The Rand Corporation,Santa Monica, CA
Dr. Stuart A. Rice, Dean of the Division of Physical Sci-ences, University of Chicago
'Dr. Alexander Rich, Sedgwick Professor of Biophysics,Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Edwin E. Salpeter, J. G. White Professor of PhysicalSciences, Cornell University
Dr. Charles P. Slichter, Professor of Physics, Universityof Illinois
Dr. John B. Slaughter, member Ex-Officio, Director,National Science Foundation
Margaret L. Windus, Executive Officer, National Sci-ence Board
'Consultant as of May 10, 1982.
*Membership at time of .preparation of the 14th Annual Report.
l'or It the Soperintemlent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing 011iee, AN'ttshingtott, DX. 201(12
University--IndustryResearchRelationships
SELECTED STUDIES
SCILBOAni
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONNS t WA-a
The studies reported in this volume were supported under thefollowing NSF procurements: 80-SP-1142, 80-SP-0469, 81-SP-.1029, 81-SP-0842, 81-SP-0958, 81-SP-1029, NSB 80-24731. Theviews expressed in these studies are those of the authors, andnot necessarily those of the National Science Foundation or theNational Science Board.
ii
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE. Lewis M. Branscomb, Chairman, National Science Board vii
CURRENT U.S. UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY RESEARCH CONNECTIONS. By Lois Peters and Herbert Fusfeld,with the assistance of Laurence Berlowitz, Harold Kaufman and Eli Pearce 1
STATE COLLEGE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FACULTY: COLLABORATIVE LINKS WITH PRIVATEBUSINESS AND INDUSTRY. By Frank and Edith Darknell 163
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS AND CHEMICAL RESEARCH: ANHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.By Arnold Thackray 193
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY-STATE GOVERNMENT CONSORTIA IN MICROELECTRONICS RESEARCH.By William Cromie. With an Introductory Perspective by Eric Bloch and James Meindl 1 235
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WORKSHOP ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE RESEARCH. By Office of the General Counsel,National Science Foundation 255
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS.By Carlos Kruytbosch, National Science.Foundation 269
iii
The Committee on 14th NSB Report thanks those present and past members of theNational Science Board who assisted in reviewing various aspects of the preparation of theReport and the volume of background papers. The Committee also expresses its appreciation
-to Dr. Carlos Kruytbosch who, as Executive Secretary, effectively coordinated its work. Theauthors of the commissioned background studies deserve special thanks, as does Mr. JackKratchman for his editorial assistance.
In addition, a large number of individuals provided information, suggestions, reviews fmanuscripts, and other assistance during the course of preparation-of the publications. Wethank these individuals for their contibutions, and list them below with our apologies for a ypossible omissiOns.
Special thanks are due to the staff of the NSF Printing Officewhose professional skills and positive attitude contributedgreatly to the NSB's industry-university publications.
iv
Acknowledgements
Mr. George Baughman, Ohio State's UniversityDr. Martha Berliner, NSFDr. Frederick Betz, NSFMr. James Bradley, American Society for Engineering
EducationDr. David Breneman, Brookings institutionDr. Alfred E. Brown, ConsultantMs. Patricia Burbank, NSFDr. Jewel Plummer Cobb, California State University at
FullertonDr. Robert Colton, NSFDr. Susan Cozzens, NSFMrs. Laurel Donovan, NSFMr. George Dummer, M.I.T.Dr. Pamela Ebert-Flattau, NSFDr. Lamont Eltinge, Eaton CorporationDr. J. Merton England, NSFDr. N. Foster, American Chemical SocietyMs. Penny Foster, NSFDr. Leon Gortler, American Chemical SocietyDr. Barry Gruenberg, U.S. General Accounting OfficeDr. Ronald Gutmann, NSFMrs. Joyce Hamaty, NSFDr. Anna J. Harrison, Mount Holyoke CollegeDr. David Heebink, University of MichiganMr. Don Hess, University of RochesterMr. Thomas Hogan, NSFMr. Damon Holmes, U.S. Internal Revenue ServiceDr. Roy Hudson, The Upjohn CompanyDr. Thaddeus Ichniowski, Dow Che,nical CompanyDr. Elmima Johnson, NSFDr. John Kaatz, NSF
Dr. Judson King, University of California at BerkeleyMr. Ronald Konkel, National Bureau of StandardsDr. W. Henry Lambright, Syracuse UniversityMr. August Manza, University of California at BerkeleyDr. Willard Marcy, The Research CorporationMr. Norman Metzger, National Academy of SciencesDr. Michael Michaelis, Partners in EnterpriseDr. David Mowery, Harvard UniversityMr. Stanley G. Nicholas, Clemson UniversityDr. Richard Nicholson, NSFDr. Gail Pesyna, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Dr. Kieth Provan, Vanderbilt UniversityDr. Robert Pry, Gould IndustriesMs. My Linh Pua, The Foundation CenterDr. Nathan Reingold, Smithsonian InstitutionDr. Nathan Rosenberg, Stanford UniversityDr. Vivien Shelansky, ConsultantMr. Carl W. Shepherd, U.S. Department of CommerceDr. Robert Smerko, American Chemical SocietyDr. Bruce W. Smith, Brookings InstitutionDr. Hayden Smith, Council for Financial Aid to EducationMs. Sukari Smith, NSFMr. R. Frank Spencer, J.P. Stevens CompanyDr. Robert L. Sproull, University of RochesterDr. Thomas E. Stelson, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDr. Robert L. Stern, ConsultantIII-. Albert H. Teich, American Association for the Ad-
vancement of ScienceMs. Judith Teich, ConsultantMs. Diane Weisz, NSFDr. Richard West, NSFDr. Richard Werthamer, Exxon CorporationDr. James Zwolenik, NSF
PREFACE
In early 1980 the National Science Board chose as the topic of its 1982 Annual Reportto the President and the Congress, "University-Industry Research Relationships." This was apropitious selection as 1980 and 1981 turned out to be boom years for relationshipsbetween campuses and corporations. It is perhaps even more significant that these enhancedactivities have persisted despite economic difficulties in 1981 and 1982.
A scan of the literature on the subject in early 1980 revealed that there was no com-prehensive information available on the extent and nature of research relationships betweenuniversities and companies. Discussions among NSB members revealed great variation intypes and character of relationships by science and engineering discipline, by type of industryand by character and history of individual corporation or campus.
Given this state of affairs it was decided that the Board would undertake to c;,ntributeto the factual information base about university-industry exchange through commissioningseveral studies and assessing the available statistical data.
The National Science Board's interpretation of the materials gathered in these studieshas been published as, University-Industry Research Relationships: Myths, Realities andPotentials, the Fourteenth Annual Report of the National Science Board to the President andthe Congress.
In this volume, we make available the commissioned studies and reports themselvesin the belief that the detailed materials will be of use to both practitioners and policy makers.
The National Science Board is responsible for the selection of the study topics and theauthors. While affirming the high quality of the studies and the reporting methods employed,the specific findings and conclusions of these papers remain the responsibility of the authorsand are not necessarily endorsed by the NSB. All of the studies were subjected to critiquesby outside reviewers, and modified in the light of their comments.
Lewis M. BranscombChairmanNational Science Board
9vii
CURRENT U.S. UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRYRESEARCH CONNECTIONS
Lois S. PetersResearch Associate
Center for Science and Technology PolicyNew York University
Herbert I. FusfeldDirector
Center for Science and Technology PolicyNew York University
with
Laurence Berlowitz Harold G. Kaufman Eli M. PearceProvost Associate Professor Head, Chemistry DepartmentClark University Management Division Polytechnic Institute
Polytechnic Institute of New Yorkof New York
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2
This study could not have been accomplished without the willing participationof university and company representatives. The authors gratefully acknowledge theconsiderable amount of time spent by those who helped us arrange our site visitsand the many professors, administrators and industrial researchers who spenttheir valuable time patiently answering our inquiries.
We appreciate the technical and administrative support throughout the studyof our NSF project officer, Dr. Carlos Kruytbosch.
The execution of the study was greatly aided by the help of several researchassistants. In this regard we are particularly grateful to Barry Wasserman and MaryDamask.
Finally we thank Barbara Muench of the Center who coordinated the site visitsand the production of the report and our secretaries Maria Ortiz and Lita Ulshaferfor their fortitude.
11
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 7
A. Objectives of the Study 7
B. Scope of the Study 7
II. UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY RESEARCH INTERACTIONS IN CONTEXT 8
A. Concerns ALout the Health ofour Overall Technical Enterprise System 8
B. The Need fora Strategic Approach to Research 8
C. University/Industry Research Interactions: A Perspective 9
III. METHODOLOGY 10
A. Approach 10
B. Site Visits 11
C. Technical Fields Studied 11
D. Interview Procedures 11
E. Response 12
IV. THE STATUS OF UNIVERSITY AND INDIJSTRY R&D 13
A. Current R&D Efforts Within the University and Industry Sectors 13
B. Current Circumstances Favoring University/Industry Research Interactions 14
V. OVERVIEW AND TRENDS IN CURRENT INTERACTIONS 15
A. The Vehicles of Support and Interaction 15
13. Types of Interaction: The Broad View 151. General Research Support 152. Cooperative Research Support 173. Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms 184. Technology TransferCommercializations of University Research 18
C. Technical Fields and Differences in Industrial Support 20
D. Current Trends of University/Industry Research Interactions 21
E. University/Industry Research Interactions: A New Era 22
12
4
VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS AND THEIREFFECT ON PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY COOPERATION 24
A. Institutional Objectives: Implications for Research Cooperation 24,B. Institutional 'tructures 26
1. Industry Structure for University Research Interaction 26.2. University Structure for Industrial Research Interaction 27
C. The Role of Administrative Structures and Units in FosteringUniversity/Industry Relationships 31
THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY RESEARCH INTERACTIONS 34A. Motivations for Interactions 34
1. Industrial Motivations 342. University Motivations 36
B. Barriers and Constraints to University/Industry Research Interactions 37
C. The Origins of University/Industry Research Interactions 391. The Origins ofa Cooperative Research Venture 402. The Origins of an Industrially Funded Institute or Center 40
.D. Administration of University/Industry Interactions 41
E. Characteristics of University/Industry Research Programs 411. Successful Programs 412. Unsuccessful Programs 42
__F Outcomes of University/Industry Coupling 43
G. Model Interactions 43
VIII. DIFFERENCES IN TYPES AND INTENSITY OF COOPERATIONWITHIN AND AMONG SECTORS 47
A. Variation Among Industries. 471. Characteristics of Industrial Support 472. Firm Size and University/Industry Coupling: Differences Between Small
and Large Companies Regarding Funding of University Research Programs 483. Differences Among Industrial Sectors in Collaboration with Universities
and the Modes of Interaction Favored by Different Sectors 49a. Aerospace Industry 50b. Energy Supply Industry 51c. The Building Materials and Construction Industry 53d. The Chemical Industry 54e. The Instrumentation Industry 57f. The Microelectronics Industry 58
g. The Mining and Minerals Industry 61h. The Pharmaceutical Industry 62
B. Variation Among Universities 63
IX. A TYPOLOGY OF RESEARCH INTERACTIONS 67
*GENERAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
A. Institutional Gifts in Support of Research 671. Monetary Gifts 672. Equipment Donation 683. Industrial Contributions for Research Facilities 69
13
13. Endowment Funds and Annuity and Trust Funds 701. Construction of Research Facilities 702. Industrially Endowed Chairs in a Technical Unit of a University 70
*COOPERATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT
A. Institutional Agreements 701. Industry Funded Contract Research: Specific to a Research Program or Project 712. Industry Funded Equipment Transfers and Loans and/or Construction of
Research Facilities 723. Industry Funded Research: Grants to a Professor 734. Industry Funded Research: Graduate Fellowship Support 755. Government Funded University/Industry Cooperative Research:
Grants and Contracts 75
13. Group or Consortial Arrangements Fostering CooperativeUniversity/Industry Research 79
1. Special Purpose Industrial Affiliates Programs (Focusedindustrial liaison programs) 79
2. Research Consortia 81
C. Institutional Facilities 821. Cooperative Research Centers 832. University-based Institutes Serving Industrial Needs 843. Jointly Owned or Operated Facilities and Equipment 84
D. Informal Cooperative Interaction: Co-authoring Papers, Equipment Sharing,Information Sharing, etc. 85
*KNOWLEDC)E TRANSFER MECHANISMS
A. Personal Interactions 851 Personnel Exchange 852. Mechanisms for Stimulating Personal Interactions: Equipment Lending,
Advisory Boards, Seminars, Speakers' Programs, Publication Exchange 873. Adjunct Professorships '884. Consulting 89
B. Institutional Programs 921. Institutional Consulting 922. General Industrial Associates Programs 92
C. University/Industry Research Cooperation and Education 931. Universities Serve as the Source of New Science and Engineering
Graduates for Industry: Fellowships, Internships, University/Industry Cooperative Training Programs 93
2. Doctoral Graduates of Science and Engineering Curricula Initiate University/Industry Research Cooperation: Alumni Initiation of Research Interaction 94
3. Continuing Education is Utilized to Initiate and Reinforce 'Research Collaboration 944. Industry Provides Funds for Graduate Fellowships 95
D. Collective Industrial Actions in Support of University Research Programs 951. Trade Associations 962. Affiliates of Trade Associations 97
3. Independent Research and R&D Organizations AfPliated with a University 97
4. Industrial Research Consortia 98
*TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS
A. Product Development and Modification Programs 981. Extension Services 982. Innovation Centers 99
14
B. University and/or Industry Associated Institutions and Activities Servingas Interface and/or Foundation for University/Industry Research Interactions 991. Technology Brokering and Licensing Activities 100
a. Patent rights 100
b. Patent administration 104
c. Division of royalty income 104
d. Patent income management 104
e. Levels of total income received from patents 105
1. Attitudes towards pre-publication review and patent ownership 105
2. University Connected Research Institutes 106
3. Industrial Parks 107
4. Spin-offCompanies and University/Industry Research 107
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND EFFORTS TOCOORDINATE UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH
A.
B.
C.
D.
108
Opportunities for Growth 108
Regional Variations and Activities in Cooperative University/Industry Ventures
The Role of University Research in New Business Development
Emery', Concerns1. h. -uemic Freedom2. Conflict of Commitment3. Openness of the University4. Commingling of Funds5. Objectivityand Credibility6. Choice of Research Topics7. Exploratory Research and Seed Money8. Gaps in Communication9. Equity
109
110
112112113113113114114115115116
E. The Significance of Current University/Industry Coupling 116
XI. THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY RESEARCH COOPERATION
A. Changes in Government Funding
B. Commercialization of University Research
C. Instrumentation and Research Facilities
D. Changing Requirements for Technical Personnel
E. Control of the Export of Technology
F. Collective Industrial Activities
G. Non-University Training
H. Internal Structure of Universities
I. Conduct of Large R&D Programs
J. Sources ofTechnical Change
119
119
120
120
121
12?
122
123
124
125
125
REFERENCES 127
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
6
Lists of the ninety-five institutions surveyed (universities and companies) .. 130
Protocols serving as guidelines during site visits 133
Listing of each of the 475 university/industry research interactionsdocumented in the field study 137
15
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Objectives of the Study
The intent of this study is to present a broad viewof the extent and variety of current university/industryresearch interactions; to charaklerize the principal formsof these interactions, and the factors involved in theirinitiation and evolution; to develop a basis for under-standing the relationship of each type of interacticnthe objectives of university and industry; and by suchsystematic analysis offer a perspective on the currentstate of university/industry research interactions.
B. Scope of the Study
This study was commissioned by the National Sci-ence Board to provide background information for theBoard's 1982 report on University /Industry. ResearchRelationships. The intent was to focus on researchprograms. We reviewed training and education pro-grams only insofar as they were related to research.
Within the constraints of time and funding, weassembled a rich data base of research interactions,and reviewed as many distinctive types of researchinteractions as possible.
The emphasis throughout this study was to developcase studies of interactions through detailed on-siteinterviews of university, industry and government re-search partners. Supplemental information was gatheredthrough material provided to us during our site visitsand through literature surveyed during the course ofgathering facts and perceptions about a large numberof categories of interaction. We were able to assemblesome numerical data that lend themselves to quanti-tative analysis. These detailed qualitative and quanti-tative data provided us with insight into many issues,barriers and opportunities for university/industry re-search interactions,
This study avoided duplication of information inthe following areas:
*historical university/industry linkages in the devel-opmenof chemistry and chemical engineeringin the U.S.
Industry relationships of science and engineer-ing faculty in non-doctoral state colleges and uni-versities.
*Analysis of the existing data base on the flout ofresources from industry to universities.
167
CHAPTER II
UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY RESEARCHINTERACTIONS IN CONTEXT
A. Concerns About the health of Our OverallTechnical Enterprise System
A number of national concerns arose just prior tothe establishment of this study relating to the healthof our overall technical enterprise that give the subjectof effective utilization of our technical resources a cer-tain level of urgency.
Among these national concerns are the following:
(1) There has been a growing belief that basicresearch conducted by universities is being weakenedby a decline in Federal support (Smith and Kariesky,1977) obsolescence of research equipment (Berlowitzet al., 1981) and shortages of new faculty in specificareas such as computer science, electrical and chemi-cal engineering (David, 1981).
(2) There has been a genuine concern with theinnovative capability of U.S. industry, leading to amajor Presidential study of the subject (Mogee, 1979),and which included among its premises:
a. The belief that U.S. industry was devotinga decreasing share of its R&D resources tolong-range research (Mansfield, 1980), and
b. The fear that the international competitivestatus of the U.S. would decline by placingtoo great an emphasis on short-term prod-uct development. (Five Year outlook onScience and Technology - 1981, NationalScience Foundation).
c. There has been increasing emphasis onthe financial difficulties of universities, thedecline in academic openings for Ph.D.researchers outside the fields of criticalshortages and their potential consequen-tial effects on the innovative process (Vetter,1977).
8
There are many questions that can be raised withregard to the data behind these concerns, and, with theirinterpretation. The issue of importance to this study isthat university/industry research interactions bearupon all of these concerns, and thus is a subject forexamination in its own right. The general line of thoughtis that, if we understand more about the nature ofthese interactions, and how their functioning could beof benefit to both university and industry, then someof these national concerns might be addressed by en-couraging particular mechanisms.
For example, closer relations might iad to ex-panded research by universities in areas of basicscience and engineering that could be built upon byindustry for future growth. Greater rapport betweenindustrial researchers and faculty could strengthensupport for graduate students and, presumably, in-crease industry funding for university research. Coop-erative programs might provide leverage for furthergrants, and thus expand the level of basic researchgenerally. Programs encouraging equipment dona-tions might reduce critical instrument shortages.
B. The Need for a Strategic Approachto Research
Current perceptions of modern science suggestthat there are other important reasons for reviewinguniversity/industry research interactions.
In the Twentieth Century, scientific and technolo-gical activity has been increasingly recognized as aproductive force: Technical research has led to theformation of new indukrial sectorsmicroelectronics,computer and information processing, biotechnology.Science-based industrieselectronics, chemicals, syn-thetic fibers, scientific instrumentshave grown at aconsiderably faster pace than traditional industriesmining, shipbuilding,'iron and steel, and textiles (John-son, 1973).
A recent study by Edwin Mansfield (1980) evensuggests that the composition (basic vs. applied re-search), as well as the magnitude of in industry's or
17
-firm's R&D expenditures, affects its rate of productivityincrease. Because of this increased awareness of theinterrelationships among science, technical change,and economic growth, we have come to expect scien-tific research to produce concrete benefits.
Another aspect of modern science is that it con-tinually increases in size, cost, and complexity. Notonly have the internal dynamics of scientific disciplinesbecome increasingly complex, but it is evident thattheir subject matter does not evolve through linear orunidirectional stages into innovative inventions or intoproviding the basis for technical change (Mogee, 1979).
The growth of science and technology is reflectedin the expansion of the research university, nationallaboratories and industrial research laboratory. Eachof these sectors covers a wide range of activities frombasic research through development and engineering.While each has evolved independently, there are over-lapping interests in technical activities, and researchinteractions have an ongoing history (Thackray, 1982Rabkin, Y.M. and Lafittelloussat, 1979). The concernfor effective Utilization of research activities has raisedthe question: to what extent would more consciousattention to these interactions result in greater benefits?
The expansion of science at all levels has beenaccompanied by the expansion and significance of exter-nally funded research at universities. But in recent years,our sensitivity to finite resources and limited fundshas also grown. Increasingly, a criterion for externallyfunded research has been social relevance (OECD,1981),
These three factors, science as a productive force,its complexity and cost, and our increased awarenessof limited resources have been used in the past as wellas the present as justifications for orienting researchto the demands of society and for increased efforts torationalize our present mix of research institutionsand facilities. This interest in effective coordination ofresearch efforts leads to pressures to consider avenuesof optimizing the use of our technical resources. It iswithin this context that we approach the subject ofuniversity/industry research interactions. Many of theissues brought up specifically with respect to university/
industry research interactions, in fact, bear directly onthese more general topics.
C. Uriversity/Industry Research Interactions:A Perspective
Thus there-are many pressures to review and under-stand university/industry research interactions. Inter-estingly, the attention to this subject has grown almostsimultaneously over the past several years throughoutmost of the OECD countries. In industry, a joint Work-ing Group was established between the European Indus-trial Research Management Association (EIRMA),.andthe Industrial Research Institute (IRO. The OECD itselfhas started a study covering its member Countries withinits Directorate on Science, Technology and Industry, tobe completed by the end of 1982. A review`is currentlyin progress within the European Communities on theexploitation of public sector R&D, which includes con-cern with the response of university research to indus-trial needs. The Scientific Affairs Division of NATO hastaken initiatives to encourage exchanges of technicalpersonnel between university and industry acrossnational boundaries of NATO member countries. .
It is our opinion that there is an underlying assump-tion in all industrialized countries that each must derivethe maximum output from its total technical resources.This assumption is not always articulated, but it flowsfrom some of the ideas presented above. Despite thevery considerable progress resulting from the inde-pendent growth of each sector and the evolution ofmany forms of research interaction between universityand industry, there seems to be a widespread beliefthat university/industry interactions in particular arean under-utilized mechanism for optimizing our tech-nical resources and that greater attention to theseinteractions can result in greater benefits.
We believe that the potential benefits of this atten-tion rest upon our ability to determine what is goingon today and to understand the impact, so that eachsector can create suitable mechanisms for achievingits own objectives, and so that public policy can serveto expedite the process. This perspective underlies thisstudy.
18
9
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Approach
In order to select a significant sample of jointresearch interactions within the time flame of our study(approximately 9 months to gather data), we chose toconcentrate our efforts on collecting information frommajor research universities and research based firms.This choice reflected four observations:
(1) University based research is conducted in arelatively small number of "research" and doctorate-granting universities. Although there are 200 such insti-tutions, the top R&D ranked 100 universities typicallyaccount for about 85% of the total federal R&D funds,with the top 20 accounting for 40% and. the top 10about 25% (Science Indicators, 1979).
(2) Basic research within industry is carried outby a small number of very large firms (two firms accountfor over 25% of the man years and almost 20% of thefunds allocated within industry in support of basicresearch according to an NSF study (Mason and Steger,1978).
(3) Seven major industriesnonelectrical machi-nery, electrical equipment and communications, chem-icals, petroleum products, aircraft and missiles, motorvehicle and motor vehicle equipment and instrumentsaccount for over 80% of total company-funded .R&D(Research Management, 1981).
(4) The ten largest corporate R&D spenders ac-count for about one-third of total industrial R&D (Busi-ness Week, 1978-1981).
Despite these concentrated efforts in a relativelysmall number of major universities and very largefirms, the authors recognized the potential for innova-tive interactions at other universities and among uni-versities and smaller firms. Information was requestedabout such additional interactions at each universitysite visit. Representatives of several small firms wereinterviewed. Several universities not ranked in the top100 R&D spenders were visited. Furthermore, in order
10
to place our sample in perspective, visits were made toa small number of companies and universities knownto have less extensive university/industry researchconnections than the majority of our sample.
Because accurate quantitative data adequatelyrepresenting the broad spectrum of interacCons wasunavailable or difficult to obtain, the authors emphasizedgathering systematic information on specific individualexperiences. After several attempts to collect broadbased quantitative information, we recognized the fol-lowing:-
(1) The National Science Foundation already col-lects information on industrial monetary support ofuniversity research;
(2) It is difficult to evaluate time and effort con-tributions to cooperative programs in discrete mone-tary units;
(3) Industrial monetary support of university re-search has been approximately 3% of total 'universityexpenditures for a decade. Because it has been .a smallpart of total expenditures, it has not warranted detailedaccounting.
(4) The distribution of external funds is pursuedin a complex pattern throughout a major corporation,therefore industry does not usually keep central recordsaddressing this function (see Ch pter VI, B. 1.).
The study emphasized on-site visits and personalinterviews that would provide case studies for the cate-gories of interest. Much background material was avail-able in the literature, and questionnaires were used todevelop information specific to the institution or pro-
ram of interest. Nevertheless, the personal interviewsrmed the core of the study.
Our interviews were directed toward understand-in how different mechanisms operate, what motiva-tioris formed the base for a given type of interaction,and how well objectives of all parties were served. Theywere \ not primarily concerned with total numbers ofpeople involved or total funding on a national scale.We ther\ efore devoted attention to diverse types of inter-
actions and focused initially on fourteen mechanismsof interaction identified in a preliminary study conductedby the Center for Science and Technology Policy at NewYork University (Brodsky, et at., 1979).
B. Site Visits
Institutions were selected for visits after a searchof the relevant science policy literature, discussionswith government officials from the National ScienceFoundation, Office of Naval Research, and NationalInstitutes of Health, selected contacts with industryand academic personnel knowledgeable about univer-sity/industry relationships and trends,, and. a formalmeeting of the project's Advisory Committee with theresearch team. The members of the Advisory Com-mittee were: Rustum Roy, Pennsylvania State Univer-sity; Joseph Libsch, Lehigh University; Edward David,Exxon Research & Engineering Corp.; Kenneth Bron-dyke, Alcoa.
A complex set of criteria evolved in the selectionof institutions for site visits. The first concern was todesign visits to include the maximum number of dis-tinctive types of interactions within time and fundingconstraints. We thus selected a minimum set of majorinstitutions that would provide information on the four-teen mechanisms of interactions identified in our pre-liminary study (Brodsky et at., 1979). This set of insti-tutions was then expanded to include several companiesreported to be very active in support of academic re-search and a selection of companies representative ofa broad spectrum of industrial sectors. In Constructingthe final study sample, we also considered a selectionof institutions that would provide a broad range ofR&D ranked universities and a broad range of levels ofindustrial support of academic research. We then ad-justed our final sample so that it would proVide us withinformation on major economic regions of the U.S.
Site visits were arranged with the help of the Amer-ican Association of Universities and members of theIndustrial Research Institute. Research administratorsat each institution were asked to help the researchteam set up interviews with directors or participantsin university/industry programs. The research Learnidentified these programs by surveying they literature,and by soliciting suggestions from the project's AdvisoryCommittee, and top level governmental anctindustrialadministrators. Administrators at the institutions visitedwere also asked to identify programs at other institu-tions that might be regarded as a unique, significant,or a potentially important emerging university/indus-try research interaction.
Members of the research team interviewed over ahundred top level administrators and about 400 sci-entists. Visits lasted for a half-day (42), one day ;45), ortwothree days (8). A few interviews (10) were by tele-phone conference. In a few instances, the 'researchteam visited with university scientists who had no.past
research support or interactions with industry, and afew discussions were held with humanities professors.
Companies and universities were visited in allregions of the United States. Lists of companies anduniversities surveyed are appended.(Appendix I). Inter-views were conducted at a total of 95 institutions. Theuniversities visited included 22 public and 17 privateinstitutions. The university sample concentrated onthe top 50 R&D ranking institutions based on NSF1978 figures of total research expenditures, of the majorU.S. research universities. The team also visited sixuniversities each in the 50-to-100 and 100-to-200 rank-ing levels (Table 1). For each of the R&D groupings,1-25, ,25-50, 50-100, and 100-200, the team coveredfour levels of industrial support representing, respec-tively, 3%, 3-4.5%, 5-.0%, and ,10% of the total univer-sity R&D funding that came from industry (Table '1)The universities visited accounted for about $1.5 bil-lion of university research and development, or from25% to 30% of all university R&D. activities.
The 66 companies visited covered all of the Busi-ness Week Industrial Groupings. They were'responsi-ble for about $12 billion of private sector research anddevelopment in 1980. All but 9 of the companies vis-ited were members of the Fortune 500, and had R&Dbudgets (1979) of over $100 million. Although V.v.:realize that our company sample does not permit in-depth treatment of the particular relationships thatcan exist between smaller companies and nearby uni-versities, we did encounter particular anecdotal datain a number of cases relating to university and com-munity involvement with new technically-based ventures(see Chapter VIII, p. 48 and Chapter X, p. 110).
In summary; the universities we visited were respon-sible for one-half of the total university research expendi-tures in the United States, and the companies we visitedwere responsible for about one-quarter of the privatesector R&D expenditures in the United States. (NSF,Academic Science, R&D Funds, FY 1979 and .Com-pany 10-K Annual Reports.)
C. Technical Fields Studied
The study focused on fields of study in the phys-,cal and life sciences and included the academic disci-plines of engineering, agriculture, physics, chemistry,and biological sciences.
Two programs in the social sciences and one bus-iness school program were reviewed. Within the lifesciences, activities in medical schools were covered ateleven of the universities visited.
D. Interview Procedures
Site visits to institutions included interviews withcentral administrators, department heads, faculty, andindustrial scientists. A protocol of the types of ques-tions asked during interviews is appended (Appendix II).
Table 1
Universities Surveyed in Study Grouped by R&D Ranking and Percent Industiial Support of AcademicR&D by Total Campus R&D ExpendituresTop 200 R&D Ranked Institutions, FY '79
% Total R&D Derivedfrom Industry, FY 79 Rank and Range of Total R&D Support
Overall 1-25Average $58.9M-141.6M4.4%* 3.9 %'
<3.0%
3-4.5%
4.6-10%
> .10%
No data onIndustrySupport
26-50$35.1M-58.1M
4.0 %'
51-100$22.0M-21.6M
4.1%*
101-200$2.6M-14.2M
7.5%*
U. WisconsinYale UniversityU. Texas (Austin)U. Chicago
HarvardStanford 'U. MinnesotaU. WashingtonU. Illinois
MITU. MichiganPenn State U.USC
U. Rochester
U.C. San DiegoJohns HopkinsUCLA
Washington U.Louisiana State U.U. Utah
Princeton University
Colorado State U. U. MarylandDuke U. U. North CarolinaCal TechCase Western U.
North Carolina St. U. DelawarePurdue U. Clemson U.U. Arizona
Georgia Tech. Carnegie Mellon
Rice U.
Lehigh U.
U. HoustonRensselaer Poly. Tech.Colo. School of Mines
Excluding institutions for which there is no industrial support
The questions asked fell into three categories:
(1) General questions asked of both scientists andadministrators;
(2) Questions directed toward administrators, and(3)Those directed toward directors and partici-
pants in university/industry research programs.
Requests were made at each institution visited fornumerical data on the amount, types, and form of indus-trial support of university research. If this informationwas not forthcoming, an attempt was made to documentsome of the difficulties in accounting for industriallysupported research at universities.
E. Response
All institutions requested to participate in thisstudy responded positively. Those interviewed usually
12
responded enthusiastically to the majority of ques-tions asked in the time allotted, most often one hour.One question, "What do you believe to be the idealmix of government/industry/university support of univer-sity research?" was only answered by a few and thenreluctantly.
While the response to the questions on the nature,origins, level of support, and structure of university/industry research interactions was generally easy toobtain, information on the outcomes for individualprograms of these programs was usually less explicit.
Comprehensive data on the total amount of indus-trial support was unavailable at most institutions evenfor the current fiscal year. Not one institution couldprovide comprehensive data on the trends in indus-trial support of university research within the last threedecades, or even over the last few years.
21
CHAPTER IV
THE STATUS OF UNIVERSITY ANDINDUSTRY R&D
This study was conceived just prior to the presentshift (Bromley, 1982; Fusfeld et al., 1981) in nationalfocus and climate for research and development. Ourfield trips were carried out amidst an outpouritng ofarticles that drew attention to university/industry re-search interactions in the '80s. These articles generallyfell into three categories:
(1) Those which addressed the need for improv-ing research cooperation between academic and indus-trial sectors to help lagging U.S. innovation,
(2) Those which raised concerns about university/industry research connections, and
(3) Those which document a variety of new arrange-ments.
This active discussion of, and speculation about,university and industry research and development inthe '80s provided the investigators with a sense thatthere is a genuine interest in stimulating university/industry research interactions. Our interviews and in-depth investigation of the material at hand suggested.that the character and level of these interactions Werestill in the process of change. Thus, while an evaluationof the current status of university/industry researchrelationships is valuable as a base line, any analyses oflong-term implications is premature.
A. Current R&D Efforts Within the Universityand Industry Sectors
A brief statement of the current level and directionof R&D efforts within the university and industry sec-tors should place this current debate in some perspec-tive. The data used is derived from "Science Indicators.1980" unless otherwise indicated.
The total amount of R&D conducted within uni-versities in those disciplines covered by the NSF surveyis given below, with the funding for this activity shoWn.
R&D at Universities & Colleges'(in billions)
Source of Funds 1978 1981 (est)
Federal government $3.06 . $4.10Industry 0.17 0.24Universities & colleges' 1.03 1.49Other non-profit 0.36 0:48
$4.62 $6.31
"'National Patterns of R&D Resources"NSF.'Includes state and local government funds of approximately
$800,000 in 1978 and $1 million in 1981.
The total R&D activity within academia and indus-try, divided into basic and applied research and devel-opment activities, is given below.
University R&Din billions)
Industrial R&D(in billions)
197d 1981 1978 1981(est.) (est.)
Basic research $3.17 $4.30 $ 1.03 $ 1.55Applied research 1.21 1.68 6.27 9.35Development 0.24 .33 25.87 38.25
$4.62 $5.31 $33.17 $49.15
The July 6, 1981 issue of Business Week magazinereports that 1980 R&D spending by industry increasedby 16.4% above the 1979 level, a real gain of 4%. Anaccompanying article suggests that industrially fundedR&D is on an established upward trend, and the breadthand scope of research currently underway in U.S. lab-oratories suggest that there will be a renaissance intechnological vigor during the 1980's. It should beremembered that about one third of industrial R&D isfunded by the federal government, the remainder byindustry itself.
The above data on university and industry R&Ddeserve additional comments. We have given only themacroscopic data for these two sectors. The division
2213
into basic research, applied research and development;at best a very loose and difficult separation, is .verydifferent for different industries. Even more variationlies in the extent of government funding, which fallslargely in the aircraft and missiles-industry and elec-trical equipMent industries. These breakdowns areshown in "Science Indicators" (NSB 1980).
There are comparable differences in the break,downs of industrial support within disciplines at uni-versities, but these are not collected nationaily. Thus,an important feature of the present study has been toidentify the, division of industrial support at universi-ties, for example, between chemistry and chemicalengineering.
Since the greatest emphasis in university/industryinteractions is on basic research, this should be placedin particular. perspective. The data of "Science Indi-cators 1.980" show that the total national basic researchactivity is given by:
Basic Research(In billions)
1978% ofTotal
1981(est)
% ofTotal
Universities $3.17 50.08 $4.30 49.03Industry 1.03 16.27 1.55 17.67Government 0.97 15.32 1.17 13.34Other non-profit 0.59 9.32 0.85 9.69Federally Funded R&D Centers 0.57 9.00 0.90 10.26
Total $6.33 $8.77
Several points are of interest from these data andthe preceding tables:
1. The emphasis within university R&D is on basicresearch, about 70% in 1978 and 68% in 1981. Thisstill leaves substantial activity in applied research anddevelopment to the extent of $2 billion in 1981.
2. The emphasis within industrial R&D is on devel-opment, about 78% in both 1978 and 1981. Basicresearch in industry has increased by $520 million or50% in current dollars, about 13.8% in constant dollars.It has remained essentially constant as a percentageof total industry R&D. 3.10% in 1978 and 3.15% in 1981.This is, at first glance, contrary to the perception thatless industry emphasis is going to long-range programstoday then, say, five years ago. However, "long vs. shortrange" includes consideration of development pro-grams as well as research.
3. Basic research at universities and collegesaccounts for about 50% of all basic research in the U.S.Industry conducts about one-third as much as the uni-versities, and government laboratories about 25% lessthan industry.
4. Of the total basic research conducted nationally,the percentage performed by industry has increased(16.3% to 17:7%), while the university share has de-creased approximately one percent (50.1 to 49.0).
14
Thus, while the distribution of R&D activities isquite different percentage-wise between university andindustry, there is a substantial overlap in absoluteterms. We refer to the $1.55 billion of basic researchin industry and the $2.0 billion of applied R&D in uni-versities for 1981 (est.). This overlap is hardly the solebasis for interaction, but it serves as a minimum startfor initiating dialogues. Whether this is the principalbasis, whether basic research interests of thei univer-.sity are tied to applied research interests of industry,and how these interactions differ among disciplines areamong the points explorea in this study.
B. Current Circumstances Favoring University/Industry Research Interactions
These broad trends in university and industry re-search and development suggest that there is a sufficientbasis for increased interactions. This can be seen asfollows: On the one hand, federal funding of universityresearch,..while still increasing, is doing so at a slowerrate (Five Year OUtlook on Science and Technology,1981). Nevertheless, overall industrial R&D expendi-tures are increasing steadily. Furthermore, there is suf-ficient overlap of types of funded programs in the twosectors to consider coordination of resources. Studieson support of basic research by industry (Nason andSteger, 1978) and the interdependence of academicand industrial basic research (Proceedings of a Con-ference on Academic and Industrial Basic Research,NSF, 1961) suggest that an increase in internally fundedbasic research in industry is usually concurrent With anincrease in industrial support of university research.Besides these considerations of levels of funding, thereare several other observations which suggest a favorableclimate for increased university/industry research inter,actions. They include:
(1) A disenchantment with the restrictions of fed-eral funding mechanisms is causing universities andscientists to look toward broadening their funding base.
(2) Several scientific fields have reached maturity,and industry is in a position to recognize their poten-tial for new business (biological synthesis, micropro-cessors) and for increasing industrial productivity.
(3) Industry is expressing with some degree ofurgency an interest in, and need for, specific types oftechnical personnel.
(4) University scientists are beginning to look tosome industrial laboratories as a way to gain access tofrontier research equipment and technical advances.
Most of the above mentioned forces driving in-creased interest in university/industry research. inter-actions were alluded to during our field visits. A morecomplete description of factors motivating researchersto cooperate is given in Chapter VII. The point we wishto illustrate here is that there is at present a favorableclimate for university/industry research cooperation.
23
CHAPTER V
OVERVIEW AND TRENDS INCURRENT INTERACTIONS
In this chapter we summarize the extent andvariety of university/industry research interactions andpresent a broad view of current trends in university/industry coupling. The spectrum of university/indus-try research interactions is described in detail inChapter IX.
A. The Vehicles of Support and Interaction
Our field investigation of university/industry re-search interactions documents their variety and multi-facted character. Examples of university industry re-search interactions are given in Table 2. Appendix IIIlists the interactions identified at 95 institutions, bothcompanies and -universities, which we visited. Theseinteractions, can be formal or informal. They involvenot only monetary support of research, but also in-clude donatioris, transfers, exchanges and sharing ofpeople, equipment, and information. The duration ofsuccessful interactions can be for less than an hour orfor more than thirty years. An important interactioncan be as simple as a telephone call, or as intricateas a ten-year contract. Some require collaborativeefforts either among scientists of different disciplinesor between university and industry scientists, othersthe work of only one scientist. Examples of selectedmechanisms of interaction are given in Table 2.
On occasion, special administrative structures orresearch units are formed to carry out the objectives ofthose interactions (Chapter IX, p. 106). There is someindication that such arrangements are being used in-creasingly. In one case, a venture company was formedto distribute research funds, collected from industry,to university scientists.
On our site visits we identified 464 examples ofuniversity/industry research ties (Table 3). We wish tostress at this point that we were not comprehensive inidentifying all university/industry research interactionsoccurring at the institutions we visited. This study was
not an attempt to establish a'complete inventory ,Fur-thermore, It should be noted that the more f rfnalprograms were much easier to identify.
In order to grasp more easily the nature lof therather large variety of interactions, we separated t `emechanisms identified into four major groupingsaccording to principal objective: 1
*General research support, 1
*Cooperative research support,*Support for knowledge transfer, and*Technology transfer.
Of the 464 research ties identified, approximately60% can be characterized as cooperative interactions.It must be stressed here that this is a disproportionatenumber of the total number of university/industryinteractions that occur at the schools we visited. Coop-erative programs were generally easier to identify thanother program types. Of the remaining total interac-tions identified, we classified 13% as knowledge trans-fer, 14% as technology transfer, and 11% as generalresearch support (Table 3). This marks an expansionof the two broad types of university/industry relation-ships identified by Baer in his examination of theeffects of university/industry interactions on industrialinnovation (Baer, 1977). his categories include: colla-borative research and knowledge transfer.
Types of Interaction: The Broad View
1. General Research Support
General research support continues to be an inte-gral part of industrial philanthropy. There are severalmethods by which industry gives general funds to theuniversity. One is through gifts. There can be shortterm gifts (funds or equipment) which are expendedin a finite period of time. or gifts which enter into thegeneral university endowment and provide ongoingresearch funds. Both types of gifts can be designatedfor research.
2415
Table 2
Examples of Selected Mechanisms of Interaction
Mechanism of Interaction Examples
University-Based Institutes Serving IndustrialNeeds
Jointly-Owned or Operated Laboratory Facilities
Research Consortia (U/I or 11/1/Gov't.)
Cooperative Research Centers
Industry-Funded Cooperatilie ResearchPrograms (Partnership Contracts)
Government-Funded Cooperative ResearchPrograms
Industrial Liaison Programs
Innovation Centers
Personnel Exchange
Institutional Consulting
Industrial Parks
Unrestricted Grants to Universities and/orUniversity Departments
Participation on Advisory Boards
Collective Industrial Action (Including TradeAssociations Support)
Textile Research InstituteUniversity of Michigan Highway Safety Research InstituteUniversity of Minnesota Mineral Resources Research CenterFood Research Institute, University of Wisconsin
Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of RochesterPeoples Exchange Program, Purdue UniversitySynchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Michigan Energy and Resource Research AssociationCouncil for Chemical Research (CCR)
Case Western Reserve Polymer ProgramUniversity of Delaware Catalysis Center
Harvard-Monsanto Contracted Research EffortExxon-MITCelanese-Yale
MIT Polymer Processing ProgramNSF Industry-University Cooperative Research Program
Stanford University MIT CalTechSystems Control, Case Western Reserve University \Physical Electronics Industrial Affiliates, U. of IllinoisWisconsin Electric Machines & Power Electronics Consortium, U. of Wisconsin
Center for Entrepreneurial Development, Carnegie-Mellon U.Utah Innovation Center
NSF Industrial Research Participation ProgramIBM Faculty Loan ProgramSummer Employment of Professors
School of Chemical Practice, MITYale-Texaco ProgramMechanical & Manufacturing Systems Design, Clemson U.
Research Triangle Park Stanford Industrial ParkMIT Technology Square (Route 128, Boston, MA)University of Utah Research Park
Gifts from industry to departments of chemistry (e.g., Columbia University; U. ofNorth 'Carolina (Chapel Hill); U. Illinois, etc.,)
Visiting committees at most schools of engineering
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)American Petroleum Institute (API)Gas Research Institute (GRI)Motor Vehicle Manufacturers AssociationSoybean AssociationCouncil for Chemical Research (CCR)
Table 3
The Spectrum of Interactions Documented in NYU Field Study
Types of Interactions% of Interactions Documented
Falling Into Each Category (N)*
All Categories of Interactions 100 (464)
General Research Support 11 (54U/I Cooperative Research 61 (284Knowledge Transfer 13 (58Technology Transfer 14 (68
U/I Cooperative Research (Selected Categories) 100 (284
Special Interest Liaison Programs 23 (65U/I Cooperative Research Centers & Institutes 25 (71
Research Consortia 5 [15Grants & Contracts 45 . (128Collaborative Interactions 2 (5
'Total Number of Interactions Falling Into Each Category
16
We heard of a few recent (4) substantial corporatedonations for research facilities. Our talks with univer-sity administrators and department chairmen indi-cated that corporate donations of equipment, whilevery valuable in certain fields (e.g., computer science),were not at a level to significantly upgrade equipmentavailable for frontier research. Yet we did observe thatmany technical departments were receiving new giftsfrom corporations.
The recent Council for Financial Aid to Education(CFAE, 1981) Survey of Voluntary Support for Educa-tion verified our observations. This survey indicatesthat in relation to all sources of voluntary support forhigher education, corporate philanthropy has steadilyincreased in share over the past decade, accountingfor about 18% of the total by 1980. The CFAE surveyalso showed that corporate contributions for capitalpurposes (e.g., "bricks and mortar" and endowment)have been declining in recent years. However, the per-centage of total corporate contributions earmarked forresearch support increased to 27% of the corporatetotal in 1980.
2. Cooperative Research Support
Cooperative research interactions are defined asthose requiring some degree of cooperative technicalplanning. These mechanisms include a spectrum ofinteractions from joint research ',endeavors, to coop-erative participation of university'and industry scien-tists in contract research, to the \establishment ofresearch consortia. Many times theead to the devel-opment of special administrative structures and/orresearch facilities (see Chapter VI, \p,. 26). It is anactivity where the two parties to sorne\extent jointlyplan their research, the program goals,,and the dis-position of the outcomes.
The general nature of cooperative research is todevelop a basis for orderly flow of scientific \and tech-nical information on several levels in order to' acquirenew ideas or accomplish a specific objective throughbroader inputs, and to provide the foundation forfuture technical programs.
Money may or may not change hands. Thus,' insuch a program a company has a direct interest in, andrelationship to, the research at a university. It is prob-able that work going on within the company will relatedirectly to research carried on within the university.
We attempted to focus on the development of thesetypes of interactions because here there is the mostintimate interplay between university and industry, andthe barriers between university and industry researchsystems can become most pronounced (Chapter VII,p. 37). Cooperative research appears to be an areawhere there is much current creative movement, andis an area where we believe one might seek betterand more efficient uses of our resources.
All the mechanisms identified as cooperative re-
search interactions require an element of collabora-tion, even if only at the initial negotiation phase. How-ever, the collaboration is usually only in general terms.One scientist suggested that the only true collabora7tive research projects occurred when the principalinvestigator at the university was also on the board, orwas an executive of the company, as in the Germanmodel of interaction. lie said that only in this waycould the scientist ensure that the development anddesign work be truly integrated with the evolution ofthe feasibility of 'a concept, developed within the uni-versity. This appears to be an extreme statement, butdoes characterize a difficulty in designing truly coop-erative research interactions between university andindustry.
Thus, despite the current interest and activity incooperative research, there are very few programs withextensive collaboration between university and indus-try scientists in research design and management. Outof 284 interactions we classified as cooperative, webelieve only about 2% fall in this category of truly col-laborative interaction (Table 3).
However, there are some recent models of exten-sive collaboration, particularly in the fields of bio-technology and microelectronics. In Chapters VII, VIIIand IX (pp. 43-46, 55-56, and 70-84), we providedescriptions of several of these interactions. In gen--_--eral, it is too soon to determine if these new collab-orative ventures are significantly better than othermechanisms in terms of value or significance of out-comes.
The other extreme is when a company negotiatesa research contract and does not provide any substan-tial information pertinent to the internal companyresearch or how this contract fits into the company'sresearch strategy. This occurred in about 2-3 cases wereviewed.
Between these extremes there is a spectrum ofcooperation. While all mechanisms can foster coopera-tion, it was repeatedly stated that only those whichrevolve around individual investigators develop intotrue collaboration. Several interviewees suggested thatintimate collaboration is not always good, becauseeach must then compromise his objectives, and thegoals of the two differing research systems becomesubmerged and/or diffuse. There is a fear that. withextensive collaboration, a university professor will be"bought," and directed away from pursuing new ave-nues of research. One physicist warned that industry isonly interested in supporting a knowledge base whichis already formally conceptualized. University scientists, he said, must be allowed to explore so that theycan provide the technical base of the future. In fact,most industrial scientists do not believe that a univer-sity scientist should focus his research too narrowly orbecome involved in developmental research. On theother hand, it is generally believed that by becomingtoo involved in the environment of university interests
2617
in basic reseal ch, the industrial scientist may losesig'It of practical solutions and research design.
3. linowledge Transfer Mechanisms
Programs facilitating research connections throughknowledge transfer (our third category) become ofincreasing interest as the U. S. becomes more andmore concerned abt:ut research coordination, innova-tion, and the technological base of its industry.
Knowledge transfer mechanisms essentially fallinto two categories, those which are structured withthis as a primary objective and those which are not. Forexample, a seminar is held for the purpose of-exchang-ing information and ideas (knowledge transfer), whilea university research institute is established to do con-tract research. however, industry contracted researchat the institute will in effect provide a network foruniversity/industry knowledge transfer and is a re-search connection.
Industrial support of knowledge transfer mechaLLErnisms is less formal and may not involve monetary
4. Technology TransferPrograms to Expeditethe Commercialization Process
University extension programs in agriculture andengineering testify to the long and enduring role ofuniversities in technology transfer (Rogers et at., 1976).In difficult financial times, formally structured pro-grams to capitalize on university research are likely toincrease because there is a sense within the universityas well as industry that opportunities are being missed.
Starting in the early '70's,the United States govern-ment established several special programs which weredirected at innovation and university/industry technol-ogy transfer (Zerkel, 1972; Prager and Omenn, 1980).They were structured to transfer outcomes of coopera-tive ventures to a third party, or to play a role to seethat the outcomes were brought to fruition as com-mercial ventures in and of themselves, or were inte-grated into the technology and science base of U.S.industry. Examples include: The DOE Industrial Energy
ogram, the New England Energy Development Sys-tem (NEEDS, one of NSF's cooperative research cen-
research support. There is generally no institutional-ized research structure in programs set up specificallyto provide for knowledge transfer. In this study a broadbrush treatment of knowledge transfer mechanisms
IX, pp. 85-98) is made to illustratealterna-
ters), the University of Utah Innovation Center, the MITInnovation Center, and the Carnegie Mellon ProcessingResearch Institute, (Chapter IX, pp. 98-99).
Manyofthamforrnal government technologytransfer programs have experienced difficulties, suchas not attracting significant company participation orfinding financial support from sources outside thegovernment. Technology transfer from campus toindustry has always been a difficult issue (Declercq,1979).
(Chaptertive possibilities for interactions and their relationshipto other university/industry research mechanisms.
Knowledge transfer mechanisms, such as consult-ing, the exchange of people, seminars, speaker pro-grams, and publication exchange, are key to forgingstronger research ties between universities and indus-tries (see Chapter IX, pp. 85-92). Program structureproviding for personal interaction between scientistsappear s to be the most efficient means of transferringknowledge between the two sectors. Most companyand university representatives interviewed stated thatone-on-one communication is essential for effectivelinking of academia and industry research. Furthermorepersonal contacts and consulting relationships werementioned frequently as critical factors in the initia-tion of university/industry research coupling (Tables 4and 5).
Formal dual purpose program structures leadalso to informal research ties. Continuing educationprograms and centralized liaison programs are knowl-edge transfer research interactions because the con-tacts developed in these programs provide the ground-work for the exchange and transfer of ideas for researchand/or for adaptation of research techniques.
Informally structured programs of knowledge trans-fer were extensive and varied. Such programs, it wassensed, were the basis of all ties between companiesand universities. Although there is no data base onwhich to detect to what extent these informal ties haveincreased, we sensed that as the climate for coopera-tion and coordination becomes more positive, theseinformal interactions will increase greatly.
18
The recent extensive literature developed on es-tablishing government spOnsored technology transferthrough establishing generic technology centers (U.S.Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Trans-portation, 1980; Industrial Research Institute, 1979;Cooperative Automotive Research Program, 1980;Mogee, 1979; Pavitt and Walker, 1976; U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, 1980 a&b; U.S. Department ofEnergy, undated), and the subsequent failure of suchprograms to materialize, highlights some of the prob-lems in setting up successful formalized technologytransfer programs (Large, 1981; Fusfeld, h. L, R. N.Langlois and R. R. Nelson, 1981). They include com-pany fears of antitrust difficulties and a lack of consen-sus on how to effectively structure such programs andallocate resources.
But with continuing concern about lagging U.S.innovation there is still much interest ir1 developingsuccessful technology transfer programs. Universities(e.g. Georgia Tech and Penn State) are beginning totake their own initiatives.
A few have structured programs to assist professorsand/or entrepreneurs in developing new businesses.New products have not as yet been produced but theseprograms are still very young (one year or less).
Universities are also beginning to take the lead incapitalization of their own research through more
27
Table 4
Initiation of University/Industry Research Interactions
Number of Cases in Each Category(as derived from interview data)
(1) TotalNumber ofInteractions
Initiator Prior"Relationships
Consultingas an important
element inInitiation
University IndustryMutuallyInitiated Other*
ContributingFactors
General ResearchSupport 34 14 16 3 1 2 2
Cooperative ResearchSupport 214 .142 33 19 20 46 43
Knowledge TransferMechanism 42 29 12 1 0 2 4
Technology TransferMechanism 47 40 2 1 4 3 6
Total 337 225 63 24 25 53 55
(1) Total number of interactions = university + industry + mutually initiated and other.
Other includes: government, alumni, or any other third party.Prior relationships include: professor having previously worked in industry; personal or industrial contacts; etc.
Table 5
Origins of University/Industry Cooperative Research Programs
(as described in interviews)
Initiator
(1) TotalNumber of Mutually'nteractions University Industry Initiated Other'
Pricr' .ConsultingRelationships as an importantContributing element in
Factors Initiation
Cooperative Research
Centers and Institutes 46 32 7 2 5 6 5Grants and Contracts 78 43 17 12 6 31 28ILP and Research
Consortia 73 62 4 2 5 6 5Other 17 8 6 1 2 3 2
Initiations of Cooperative Research Programs: Response to Direct QuestioningConcerning Erozh of Factors Involved in Initiating a Project
Government FundedU/I Cooperative(Grants andContracts)
Initiator Prior ConsultingRelationships as an important
(1) Total Contributing element inNumber of Mutually Factors InitiationInteractions University Industry Initiated Other'
4Nt
29 16 2 9 2
(1) Total number of interactions = university + industry + mutually initiated and other.
Other includes: government, alumni, or any other third party.Prior relationships include: professor having previously worked in industry: personal or.industrial contacts; etc.
10
19
28
aggressive attention to patents and through the estab-lishment of university based licensing and brokerageprograms (see Chapter IX p. 101-106).
C. Technical Fields and Differencesin Industrial Support
Industry generally supports research in scientificand technical fields most closely allied to their in-terests. The nature and tradition of the field also deter-mine the level and type of industrial funding. Profes-sionally oriented schools and departments tend toattract greater industrial support than traditionaldepartments. This is most certainly tied to the com-panies' overwhelming motivation in supporting univer-sity researchaccess to qualified professionals withskills the company can use within one to two years(Chapter VII, p. 34).
Opportunities for cooperative university/industryresearch interaction frequently lie in subject areas atthe interface of traditional academic disciplines, e.g.,polymer science, biomedical engineering, materialsscience, robotics, very large systems integration (VLSI).Of the 464 university/industry research ties we identi-fied in our field study, 179 (approximately 40%) wereprograms covering two or more academic disciplines(Table 6).
A disproportionate amount of industrial supportgoes to engineering, medical and agricultural depart-ments and schools. The breakdown for total industrialsupport of university research at ten universities wasapproximately 60% to engineering, 10% to agriculture,and 30% to all other technical programs. Severaladministrators stated that departments or schools ofagriculture were "nickel and dimed to death." Althoughthe total number of projects supported within the agri-cultural school was usually much greater than in anengineering school, the monetary support of engi-neering schools and the size of the projects supportedwere much larger.
Medical school support from industry is compli-cated because of the large influx of NIH money and thecomplexity of the schools themselves. Medical schoolsand their pharmacology departments do receive largegrants or contracts from industry for specific pur-poses. Pharmaceutical firms contract large amounts ofmoney to university medical schools to perform clin-ical trials of their new drugs (see Chapter VIII, pp. 62.;63).
Of the academic sciences (biology, physics, chem-istry, math, and the social sciences), chemistry gener-ally receives the greatest amount of industrial sup-port, not only contract support Nit also support in theform of unrestricted money. In a questionnaire to 100chemistry departments asking for information aboutunrestricted gifts, Professor A. L. Kwiram of the Uni-versity of Washington, found that the unrestrictedgrant total to a department averaged about $27,000
20
annually. Excluding the five largest departments, theunrestricted fund average is about $18,000 per depart-ment. In keeping with greater industrial support ofengineering, chemical engineering departments re-ceive three times the amount of money given to chem-istry departments. Fifty chemical engineering depart-ments responded to the questionnaire. The averagetotal for unrestricted gifts to chemical engineeringdepartrrAents was about $67,000.
At one university, where chemistry, chemical engi-neering, and biochemistry were combined into oneschool, both the chemistry and chemical engineeringdepartments received $150,000 each in unrestrictedgifts; and the biochemistry department, zero dollars inunrestricted gifts.
At most universities, there is little industrial mone-tary support of research (for contract research or ingifts) in departments in biology, physics and mathe-matics (Table 6).
Biology :s usually supported through a basic med-ical science department in a medical school ratherthan an academic biology department. The Harvard-Monsanto, the Dupont-Harvard, the Harvard-Hoechstagreements are contracts with medical schools. Des-pite the fecent_krry of activity over genetic engineer-ing, there has been-little_support of frontier geneticresearch, cell biology, or molecular biology by industry.Several scientists and administrators stated that theywere in the initial stages of negotiating industrial con-tracts in support of the "i iew biology." Most expect thatthere will be growing support in this area, as thenumber of interested companies grows larger andmore stable. There are at least two new biochemistryaffiliates' programs attracting industrial support, andat least three of the new biotechnology companies aresponsoring grants at several universities. Genetic engi-neering research in the plant sciences.is also receivingincreasing funds from industry (e.g., from the oil andchemical companies). Traditionally, this type of sup-port for plant science research is from agribusinessesand through the agricultural schools.
Much of the ongoing research in high energy (ex-perimental physics), astronomy, and oceanographyhas not in the past been considered to be relevant toindustry's immediate interests. Therefore these sub:jects have not received much monetary support fromindustry. These fields usually require large expensivespecialized research facilities which, because of thegeneral nature of the research results coming out ofthese facilities, are supported by government funds.Yet there are opportunities at these facilities for jointuniversity/industry research interactions and somecompanies have taken advantage of them. Bell Lab-oratory scientists in cooperation with university scien-tists have made major advances in astronomy. Syn-chrotron Light Sources at the University of Wisconsin,Stanford University, and Brookhaven National Labora-
29
Table 6
Technical Disciplines Represented in Cases Documented (N=464) in NYU Field Survey
Discipline Sub-Disciplines Included
Single*DisciplineProgram
_
Joint"Areas
EngineeringGeneral 54 36Materials Materials engineering, materials science 18 9Chemical 28 15Electrical 26 17Mechanical Mechanical engineering, fluid mechanics, ceramic engineering 6 18Other 9 i1
Science 1 5
Computer Science 28 26
Chemistry 29 16
Physics Space physics 5 6
Biology Microbiology, environmental sciences 13 14
Biochemistry 4 4
Agriculture Agriculture, plant science, forestry 15 9
Medicine Medical sciences, toxicology, immunology, pharmacology, oncology, radiology 19 8
Oceanography 1 7
Mathematics 2 7
Metallurgy 2 5
Social Science 5 1
Business Economics-industrial & mineral 2 2
Geology Geophysics, geochemistry, geoscience 2 5
Non-ProfitOrganization 3 0
Multidisciplinary 67
Other 14 9
Total Number Single Discipline Programs = 286"Joint Area Programs May Encompass Two or More Disciplines; Total Number = 179
tories (administered by an association of universities)have all been supported and used by a number ofprivate companies including IBM, Exxon, Bell Labs andXerox. A. particularly unique university/industry/govem-ment research interaction has occurred in the devel-opment of the Brookhaven Synchrotron Light Source.here the private companies have borne the cost ($15million) of the design and instrumentation of a num-ber of beam lines which are available to the generaluser at least for one fourth of the beam time (seeChapter IX, p. 85).
Oil companies are increasingly giving their sup-port to departments of oceanography. This is tied totheir interest in seabed exploration for oil and min-erals. It appears that much of this support to date hasbeen in the form of gifts and participation in liaisonprograms. There may be a great potential here forincreased cooperative research interaction and sev-eral scientists expressed the view that such interac-tions are beginning to occur.
In mathematics, which presently gets the least
3
amount of industrial support (excluding computer sci-ence), academic scientists suggest that there areopportunities being missed. In developing robotics,certain basic geometry problems will have to be solved.Mathematicians also have a role in the new softwareexplosion. They can be essential in providing newalgorithms and in the development of new languages.
D. Current Trends of University/IndustryResearch Interactions
Our study indicates that there is a surge in thevolume and variety of these interactions (Table 7). Al-though a majority of these interactions are initiatedby university scientists with an applied background oran association with industry (e.g., either a previoushistory of working in industry or continued participa-tion in consulting arrangements), there is a wide var-iety in the structures and functions of these joint ven-tures. The volume and array of presentinteractionsprovide researchers not only with new opportunities to
21
diversify funding sources, but also with alternativeapproaches to the conduct and design of researchprograms.
Specifically, with respect to mechanisms of univer-sity/industry research interactions, there are severalemerging trends:
(1) Increased magnitude of industry funding Dfspecific projects or programs. (However, in less thanten instances was this of truly significant magnitude:$1 million per year.)
(2) Increased duration of industry commitmentto university programs.
(3) Increased efforts at collective industry sup-port of university research.
(4) The s'.ructuring of multi-company support ofuniversity research in ways allowing active participa-tion of company scientists in the technical aspects ofa program.
(5) The founding or redirecting of university asso-ciated research institutes to conduct research pro-grams on behalf of industry.
(6) Expansion of university activities designed tocommercialize results from university research.
The outcomes of university/industry coupling arealso multi-faceted and can include spin-off companiesas well as publications and the production of Ph.D.'soriented to an industrial career (see Chapter VII, p. 43).However, in our sampling of cases, we could rarelyidentify instances where a commercially marketableproduct or process was an immediate and direct out-come of a research interaction.
Because of the recent formation of many pro-grams, it is too soon to tell if there will be a shift inthe extent of traditional outcomes, the produCtion ofPh. D.'s and publications, and an increase in non-tradi-tional outcomes, patents and commercial products,processes or services.
E. University/Industry Research Interactions:A New Era
There have been several significant developmentsduring the past year that bear directly on university/industry research ties. They include changes in federallaws, policies, and regulation, and a resurgence of theventure capital business and the interest of the finan-cial community in investing in "high technology" busi-ness ventures.
These developments are apparently affecting thelevel of activity in developing new university/industryresearch ties. Our field investigation and a survey ofthe relevant literature revealed a tremendous numberof recently initiated university/irdLstry research inter-actions. Of the university /industry ties where we couldidentify a period of existence to 1981 (n=463), approx-imately 51% were currently being started or less thanthree years old. Very few programs (10%) reviewed'have been in existence for a long period of time (20years or more). About 80/0 were in existence for be-tween eleven and twenty years, thirteen percent for sixto ten years, and 17% for three to five years (Table 7).Scientists and administrators have stated their in-creasing interest in university/industry support, andperhaps this is substantiated by the large number ofnew programs identified in this study. This is no doubta reflection of a more favorable climate for university/industry research interactions provided by changes ingovernment policy and greater public and private sec-tor awareness of the new potential commercial valueof some areas of science, e.g., genetics and computerscience.
Over the next few years a major element of policyanalysis will necessarily consist of assessing the con-sequences and implications of these new develop-ments in the financial community, in the maturity ofcertain sciences, and in policy actions in the area ofpatent laws. It is to be expected that these new devel-
Table 7
Numbers of University/Industry Research Interactions Existing for Various Time Periods
Time Periods (Years)
Types of Interactions <3 3-5 6-10 11-20 >20
All Categories of Interactions 236 80 60 37 49
General Research Support 35 11 3 1 2
U/I Cooperative Research 149 7 37 17 18
Knowledge Transfer 31 10 5 3 7
Technology Transfer 21 3 10 11 21
U/I Cooperative Research Programs (Selected Categories(
Special Interest Liaison Programs 48 14 6 12 4
U/I Cooperative Research Centers & Institutes 21 11 14 14 8
Research Consortia 7 2 3 3 1
General Purpose Industrial Programs 4 1
22
opments will affect the character of university/industryresearch ties and will bear importantly on the nature ofthe newly evolving relationships. This was a, subject ofdiscussion during many of our interviews. Such discus-sions served to underscore our perception that univer-sity/industry research interactions are currently in astate of flux. Changes in the tax code, antitrust policies,and revisions to the budgets of major R&D agencies ofthe federal government were frequently mentionedboth by company and university representatives asbeing critical. The new patent law (which ,went intoeffect July 1981) provides that all federal agenciesmust allow universities, along with small business andnon-profit institutions, the right to retain ownershipand patents arising from federal funding agreements.The legislation provides unambiguous policy guid-ance, and this allows universities to negotiate licensingrights with companies that partially support theirresearch programs. It thus provides universities withincentives to pursue patenting. Companies feel corn-fortab:e in negotiating licensing rights with universitiesparticularly if they can obtain an exclusive license:
In the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, twospecific tax incentives are of potential importance touniversity/industry research interactions: the incre=mental tax credit for industrial\ R&D and increased
for manufacturers wh donate new equip-ment to universities. Both univerSity and industry rep-resentatives stated that they were unsure if in factthese revisions would provide new monies for univer-sity/industry research interactions. Several other billsconsidered (e.g., the Vanik and Danforth bills) wereregarded more favorably than the one that actuallypassed.
A clarification of the U.S. government antitrustpolicy on the other hand did appear to have significanteffect on the character of university/industry interac-tions. There is now a greater disposition in industry toparticipate in university-sponsored research consortia( e.g., Delaware Catalysis Center, the Case WesternReserve Polymer Center) and in the collective indus-trial support of university research (e.g.. the Councilfor Chemical Research and a new program undertakenby the Semiconductor Industry Association).
Among the other events highlighting potentialchanges in the character of university/industry tieswere those relating to the ferment over the role of theuniversity in high technology ventures. A review of fourevents occurring within the last year serves to stressthe rapid rate of change and high stakes in this 'area.
(1) In October 1980, Genentech, a spin-off com-pany started by two university scientists in 1976,issued public stock. They became millionaires over-nhht.
(2) In 1980, the Harvard administration proposedthat Harvard take equity in a new company beingformed by one of its faculty members. A long debateensued on the proper role of the university in com-mercialization of university research. Subsequently, inDecember 1980, Harvard discarded its plans for di-rectly investing in this biotechnology enterprise. Thecontroversy created by the Harvard initiative tended toobscure many other slightly less bold plans and devel-opments. A visit to iarvard and many other schools onthe forefront of biotechnology research revealed thatmost faculty members in this line of research areparticipating in the development of new ventures.
(3) In the fall of 1981, Stanford University and theUniversity of California participated in the develop-ment of a. unique and complex interaction involvingthe establishment of a non-profit Center for Biotech-nology Research, and in the creation of Engenics Inc.,a for-profit arm of a foundation established by sixdiverse firms to support academic research in geneticengineering. Engenics Inc. will concentrate on developmerit of commercial biotechnology processes. Neither
\\ of the universities will be a direct participant in thenonAmofit Center for Biotechnology Research or inEn\gei,-iics, but they will receive $2 million over the nextfour, years from the foundation that set up Engenics.They'also expect to share in any financial success ofEngenics. Two faculty members from Stanford and onefrom Berkeley are associated with Engenics. The sixfirms setting up the foundation have equal portions ofa 35% equity in Engenics. The Center for Biotech-nology Research holds a 30% interest in Engenics andwill use profits from that interest to support univer-sity research although not necessarily at Berkeley orStanford.
(4) In another development in this area also atStanford, 73 genetic engineering companies fromaround the world signed up with Stanford for use of itspatent covering basic gene splicing and cloning tech-niques. A gross revenue of $1.4 million for the firstyear was guaranteed to Stanford by December 15,1981 through this licensing effort.
The implications of -many of these new develop-ments are discussed in Chapter X and their potentialeffect on the future of university/industry cooperationare outlined in Chapter XI.
32 23
CHAPTER VI
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACADEMIC ANDINDUSTRIAL SECTORS AND THEIR EFFECTON PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY COOPERATION
A. Institutional Objectives: Implicationsfor Research Cooperation
The functions and objectives of the academic andindustrial sectors govern their institutional structures,their organization and management of research, andthus their approach co cooperative interactions. Thereare real differences between the two sectors. Thesedifferences bring about mutual misunderstandingswhich can be exacerbated by a lack of communication.Open recognition of these differences is essential tosuccessful cooperation.
Academic research institutions exist primarily toeducate students and to discover and extend knowl-edge. As a consequence, freedom of communicationand publication is essential. Universities are subjectto public and peer evaluations. A university's successis directly related to perceived quality of students andresearch produCtivity.
Industry exists to provide the optimum return oninvestment consistent with stable growth; it does soby producing a product, process, or rendering a usefulservice. A factor in this process is the development ofproprietary knowledge, which often necessitates thatpatent protection be established. These concerns tendto restrict communication and publication. "Bottomline" considerations are emphasized and profitablereturn on stockholders' investment is a minimumnecessary objective.
Industry's approach to research anddevelopmentis ultimately governed by the view that research is along-term investment whose function is to provideeventual payoff in terms of a product, process, or serv-ice that will improve corporate performance. The dif-ferences in corporate attitudes toward research, e.g.,level, direction, division between basic and applied,
24
are governed by a variety of factors: perceptions ofrelative importance; available capital; traditions ofdependenceamstate_orlederal entities; and complex-ity of technology required fatinnevation._Life cy lephenomena such as stability or growth of mark ts,and corporate size and complexity all play a role.
Attitudes towards research in universities are g v-erned by their educational and research missionMost universities start with the notion that research ian integral part of education and training. Both research and training in their view are essential in thpursuit of knowledge for its own sake and for the gen-eral long-range benefit of humanity. Universities, bothpublic and private, are also committed to public serv-ice and the dissemination of knowledge.
Universities differ in their perceptions of theirfunctional roles in education, training and public serv-ice. It is their perceived mission which affects theirorientation and attitudes toward cooperation. Someuniversities regard themselves primarily as basic re-search institutions, some admit to a greater techno-logical orientation. A goal of many institutions is tograduate professionals while others state they wish tograduate leaders. The founding charter, motto or state-ment of purpose of a university frequently explains itspresent orientation. For example, Georgia Tech's pur-pose is "The advancement of scientific and technicalknowledge and achievement;" University of Illinois'motto is "Learning and labor;" University of Chicago'smotto is "Let knowledge grow from more to more andthereby life be enriched;" the Stanford motto, "To pre-pare students for direct usefulness in life." The orien-tation of a university to some extent will constrain orfocus the types of research interactions a universitywill have with industry.
In general, despite different university orienta-tions, university research has three goals which arerarely in conflict with each other. They are:
(1) To train students in research techniques,(2) To provide state-of-the7art information in fun-
damental and applied research, and
33
(3) To conduct research as a source of financialsupport.
The pressure on research to generate universityincome permeates every level of the university. Forexample, it can influence the way development moneyis allocated by the central administration. It can causea scientist engaged in fundamental research to workon one system rather than another. Or, it can cause ashift in direction towards applied research.
At one major private eastern university, an individ-ual doing fundamertal research with Nuclear MagneticResonance (NMR) those to work on biochemical prob-lems related to cancer because the funding by theCancer institute exceeded that available for structuralchemical problems related to energy research. This isnot a judgment on whether such influence is good orbad, but simply that it exists.
Yet, universities usually recognize that maintain-ing broadly based programs is essential to their mission. University administrations allocate income tohelp maintain scholarship in the sciences, humanities,and the arts. They must be sensitive to those areasthat cannot be easily funded because they have no per-ceived practical value. Net dollar drain from incomeproducing units, however, can set up counter-tensionswithin the university that may cause it to challenge itsown mission and affect its capability of meeting indus-trial needs.
The respective objectives and functions of uni-versity and industry also affect their perceptions ofsuccess. University value and reward systems, power-fully reinforced by years of massive federal funding ofbasic research, it is observed, have operated to showpreference for theory building over applications, anal-ysis over design, abstraction over operations. Conse-quently those things of prime importance to industryfrequently receive secondary status at universities.Industrial commitment to basic research has declinedsince its heyday in the '50's and early '60's, though itis now rising within the past five years. Purportedlyits recent commitment has' been to incremental im-provements on old products and processes (David,1979; Bromley, 1982).
Thus, there are important mismatches in therespective value systems and time concerns of univer-sities and firms and these can be intensified by a trendin industrial decision-making that favors short-term,low-risk projects (Smith and Karlesky, 1977; Nasonand Steger, 1978; Shapero, 1979; Natibnal Commis-sion on Research, 1980).
There are, however, common grounds in the ob-jectives of both research s3 stems, and there is, prece-dence for minimizing the gaps between the goais andfunctions of the two systems and establishing effec-tive linking mechanisms. There have been historicalexamples of highly productive convergences betweenthe two institutions. The most obvious and dramatic
convergences have been achieved in times of war. Butthere are other examples of successful interactions.in the 1930's, General Electric supported Dr. Bridg-man's basic research in high pressure physics at Har-vard University. he later won the Nobel Prize for hiswork and General Electric developed a process formaking industrial diamonds.
While the interactions that exist are constrainedby the mismatches between the two systems, they arealso stimulated by the needs of each type of institutionand the way these needs coincide with the capabilitiesof the other to satisfy them.
Economic need on the part of universities, as indi-cated before, has been one recurrent pressure towardsconvergence. Universities have turned to industry andhave invented new programs that would be, of interestto industry. One such example was the development ofMIT's Technology Plan. After World War I, the state ofMassachusetts discontinued its support of MIT. Thisschool then devised a program to attract industrial'support.
An obvious overlapping interest of the two institu-tions is the production of well-trained and educatedstudents. Furthermore, industries are continually seek-ing new ideas, new knowledge, and fundamental con-cepts, precisely the goals of research at universities.
The differing objectives and functions of the aca-demic and industrial sectors are reflected in their dif- 1
ferent organizational structures. Universities tend to I
be more pluralistic. The faculty form the framework ofthe organizational structure. Industry is structured forgoal-oriented outcomes. Therefore, it generally followsa more hierarchical, structured plan. The differences '
in structure can confuse those areas where objectivesand functions of the two sectors do overlap.
Likewise, the regions of overlap of the goals andstructures of the two systems have a diversity which isreflective of the many different goals of the institutionssubsumed within these two headings. Therefore, seek-ing out and matching two institutions with mutualinterests can be an overwhelming endeavor.
It should be remembered that there are great var-iations contained within the omnibus headings "uni-versity" and "industry." There are more than 2,000 col-leges and universities, and 14 million businesses, notcounting the subdivisions of corporations. Each has itsown structure and organization, and this further com-plicates discovering areas of mutual interest. however,to put this in more realistic perspective, the bulk ofU.S. research is indeed conducted within 20 majorresearch universities and 20 corporations.
In the net two sections, we review the complexi-ties of the structures of each of the sectors. Then wereview how these differences2can affect university/industry cooperation. In Chapter VIII (p. 47 II) we con-sider how differences in goals and structures withineach sector can affect research interaction.
25
B. Institutional Structures
1. Industry Structure for UniversityResearch Interaction
The diversity of industrial organizational struc-tures interfacing with the university in cooperativeresearch produces an occasional sense of frustrationwhen one looks for a single number to describe theextent of support provided by a single company ,foruniversity research, or wishes to obtain from a singlecompany representative a reasonably completedescrip-tion of the scope of such support and cooperationthroughout the company. To get a complete'picture ofa large corporation's involvement with university re-search, data must, in principle, be obta/med from per-haps 20 to 50 individuals within the company, giventhe many operating divisions of a General Electric ordu Pont. Nevertheless, some understanding of thiscorporate structure is necessary it/order to appreciatethe richness of interactions that / is possible betweenuniversity and industry, even/ '',vhen we restrict ourinterests to research.
Although the precise /organizational structurevaries from company to company, there are. generalpatterns and structures which correlate with the var-ious mechanisms for research interaction. The basicelements that are engaged in university relations are:
(1) Corporate, foundation for financial support ofexternal activity ,2- charitable, educational, cultural:/which may add value to the environment in w ich acorporation operates, but is not in the direct s pportof a specific business need.
(2) Corporate central laboratory, which no inallyprovides/technical support for existing and future I rod-
\ ucts and processes throughout the company cling' for specialized or longer range effort, and which canpu'rsue investigations in new technical area , or inrelatively basic science and engineering progra s thatcai be the source of new products and processes, andeven new business interests.
(3) Divisional laboratories, which provide directsupport for the products and proces'ses of a particulardivision, and develop new product's and processes forthe established business interests of Lhat division.
(4) Operating units of the corporation'which man-ufacture and distribute the products that make up thebusiness of the corporation. (This study covered indus-tries engaged in manufacturing or in providing tech-nical services such as utilities. It has not been con-cerned with the bulk of the service industrybanking,retailing, entertainment.)
As a reminder, a few of the mechanisms for re-search cooperation as covered in this study are:
(1) Fellowships which are intended to be used forresearch personnel by a particular technical depart-ment or in 'a particular technical area.
26
(2) Research grants intended for a particulartechnical department, a particular technical area, or aparticular research program. (These can include re-search operating costs and/or equipment.)
(3) Research contracts with specific-economicaims.
. (4)/Joint research programs involving both uni-versitY and industry activities, and usually involvingindustry funding of the university portion.
The above are simply highlights to facilitate dis-cussion in this section. The many forms that thesemechanisms can take are illustrated in the anecdotaldata of this study (Chapter IX).
Let us consider how the principal corporate enti-ties already mentioned engage in these several formsof research cooperation.
Industrial foundation support of university re- /search in most cases is directed toward education andtraining. Some foundation directors indicated thatbecause they pad limited funds, they concentrated onsupporting the schools where they hired the majorityof their professional staff. A few limited the giving toareas related to their own technical interests, e.g., theywould give only to engineering schools. And a few saidthey gave only to private schools because they felt theyalready contributed to public schools through taxes,but many who stated that this had been company policyin the past indicated that this was changing.
The corporate foundation will rarely support a,project or grant for specific research. It can be theprincipal source of research fellowships, justifyingthese primarily because they provide for educationalneeds of individuals. Nevertheless, the allocation offellowships is likely to be to those departments, inthose areas, and to students of those professors per-ceived to be relevant to the technical needs of thelaboratories and/or of the business interests of thecompany. Thus, a mining company is not generally agood source of research fellowships for a biologydepartment, nor is a pharmaceutical company a likelysource for fellowships in metallurgy.
The corporate foundation May also be a source offunds for a broad research area, e.g., genetics, or fora research center or institute. 1p such instances, bene-fits must be perceived as accruing to an entire industryor all industries, and such funds would not be ear=marked for a particular research program required bythat specific company.
Any research laboratory, corporate or divisional, is'normally free to use its own operating funds for anyforms of university research cooperation. It is lesslikely to use such funds for fellowships, since othercorporate sources can be called on, particularly whena foundation exists. Since divisional and corporate lab-oratories are financed in accordance with the separate
-functions and needs of the respective business units,they' '11 each establish linkages with universities inlight of ese separate requirements and opportuni-
35
ties, not as a part of a coordinated corporate-widemaster plan for supporting university research. Thisis a fundamental cause for dispersal of data concern-ing the university relations of a particular company.Of interest to academic scientists is that a corporateor central laboratory is more likely to conduct basicresearch and be attuned to university research.
finally, there are many operating units of a largecorporation. They may support university research onthe-basis of either geography or subject matter. "Geog-raphy" may be interpreted loosely as being a good cit-izen of the city or region. Thus, a manufacturing orassembly plant will support the local hospital, the localsymphony orchestra, and the local university. Generalsupport is not included An this study. however, whenthe local university is known for a center of excellencein a particular technical area or can make a good casefor developing one, the corporate unit may providesome funds on the basis of citizenship rather thansubject matter.
But subject matter can indeed be a basis for sup-port by operating units, and the case can be compel-ling when a university is also close geographically. Amanufacturing plar.c is concerned with product designand with specific manufacturing processes. Supportcan be justified in areas that bear on productivity, e.g.,robotics or control systems, or operating conditions,e.g., epidemiological research related to air and waterconditions, and on specific product design compo-nents, e.g., material. The point is Viat operating unitsthroughout a company can suppor. university research,usually/in engineering fields and lelatively short range,but not necessarily. Such support may not be reportedor even well known throughout the company, except inthe individual accounts of that operating unit. Whilecorporations will segregate any expenditures whenthere is a tax advantage in doing so, a research pro-gram that is expensed in the year it is paid for, and'istherefOre simply another item in the cost of sale, offersno such advantage. Thus, there may be a number ofindependent sources of support for university researchfrom operating units that are not known to a centralsource of corporate data.
In principle, this multitude of sources within acorporate structure for supporting university researchwould seem to be simplified by the fact that the largerresearch-oriented corporations may have an individualor group charged formally with university-industryrelationships. Where this exists, coordination acts tofacilitate such relations and provide support for sepa-rate organizational units when helpful, not to takeresponsibility for the totality of company actions. Infact, the guiding principle is normally to encouragedirect interaction between the research personnelwithin the company and those of the appropriate uni-versity, and thus decentralize such arrangements.Hence, there are usually a large number of linkagesproceeding independently throughout the technical
structure of a large corporation, the results of whichtend to appear within the operating budgets of theindividual laboratories or business units.
In summary, then, corporate structure leads tomultiple sources 'of corporate support for universityresearch cooperation. This makes a truly completepicture for the scope of such interactions difficult toobtain.
The information gathered through interviews inthis study indicated that indeed companies use a widevariety of mechanisms in support of university re-search, and that industrial support can come frommany organizational units within the company. Mostindustrial .representatives interviewed said that sup-port by their companies was decentralized, and con-firmed that it was extremely difficult to get an exactfigure of corporate support of university research. How-ever, most seemed to believe that the largest fundingfor support of cooperative industry/university researchcame from the corporate research laboratory, and to alesser extent from divisional research laboratories.Managers in operating divisions were said to be notinclined to support university research unless they hada specific problem to solve, because they were underimmediate pressul .. to justify their operating budgetsin terms of output. Most company and university repre-sentatives pointed out that the product manager isanxious to spend money on the problems of todayrather than long-range ideas. He is not interested indesigning new prototypes. One academic investigatorthought the company would, under particular circum-stances, provide support for a university to build aprototype. He cited the Swan-Gans catheter as anexample. If a relationship is established with peoplewho make decisions and have funds, then he thoughtsupport from industry for new products was possible,but difficult to obtain.
2. University Structure for IndustrialResearch Interaction
Universities are far fewer than industrial firms andare far more homogeneous. Thus the university struc-ture for administering research is not as diversified asthe private sector. There is a faculty responsible forresearch as well as education, and a central adminis-tration (including the dean of the graduate school andthe office of academic affairs) which facilitate theseresearch efforts. University faculty initiate, govern,manage and carry out research programs, and can beregarded as the permanent officers of the university.Such a definitive statement about faculty control overadministration is not the case at all universities, how-ever, faculty committees usually monitor the overallresearch efforts, of a university. Academic research iscarried out under faculty guidance within academicdepartments, at research institutes, or in specializedresearch laboratories. It is very rare that a center orinstitute director does not have a faculty appointment.
3627
The university's central administratioh normallyacts to coordinate administrative procedures and facil-itate the research efforts of the faculty. At many uni-versities, there is a vice president for research who isin charge of these activities (Tables 8 and 9). he isresponsible to a provost or vice president of academicaffairs. In those cases where there is no universityresearch officer, it is the responsibility of the academicvice president to oversee these matters. In a few cases,the Academic Vice President and Chief Research Admin-istrator hold separate but equal positions. Both publicand private universities have offices of developmentwhich receive gifts only, including those from indus-try, and offices of sponsored programs which receivefunds for externally supported research with a specificpurpose.) Normally, in both public and private univer-sities, these are two separate offices under separateadministrators and with minimal contact between thetwo. The office of sponsored programs at all the insti-tutions we visited was under the direction of the uni-versity official ultimately responsible for the admini-tration of research. At one institution visited, theOffice of Sponsored Programs and the DevelopmentOffice were under the. Vice President for Ac,ademicAffairs. In another case, there was no office of devel-opment per se, and all research was adminiStered bythe Graduate Dean.
The Development Office generally receives fundsthat are put in the trust or endowment accounts of theuniversities and are applied to a general operatingbudget of the university. Many gifts are restricted, e.g.,earmarked for research, sometimes even for a specificarea of research. Funds donated for industrial liaisonprograms or even focused liaison programs are fre-quently received by the Development Office. Equip-ment gifts and loans can be administered through theOffice of Development as well as funds for researchfacilities and endowed chairs.
Development Offices are structured to attract con-tributions. Their budget is sometimes related to thefunds they attract. They must demonstrate activity..Development office figures can be inflated. Sometimesthere is double accountinga corporate grant solic-ited as part of external fund raising by the develop-ment office may go to fill a specific research requestand therefore also be accounted for by the Office ofSponsored programs. Foundation grants from com-panies are not necessarily unrestricted gifts. Founda-tion grants also come to the Office of Sponsored Re-search. There is difficulty concerning when to classifysuch an award as a gift. This is an important issue forthe university. If it is a gift, there is no tangible serviceincome (overhead), and the internal Revenue Servicedoes not make it clear where to draw the line. Many
Table 8
Patterns of Research Administration: Public Universities
University Research Development
Central Administration Graduate School Office of Academic Affairs
U. of Arizona1980-81
V.P.-Research
U. of California Academic V.P. S.D. Campus: Spec.(San Diego) Ass't. to Chancellor:
1980-81 Development
U. of Colorado Assoc. Dean for Grad.1980-81 & Research Programs,
College of Engineering& Applied Science
Colorado State U.1980-81
V.P.-Research & President,CSU Research Foundation
Acting Academic V.P. Assoc. V.P. for.Development
U. of Delaware Univ. Coordinator for Provost & V.P. for V.P.-University1979-81 Research Academic Affairs Development
U. of Illinois Assoc. Dean and Assoc. Vice Chancellor for(Urbana) Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and
1980-82 Research (Grad.College) Two Assistants
Acting Vice-Chancellorfor Research (CampusOfficer)
Louisiana State U. V.P. Instruction and Baton Rouge Campus:1980-81 Research Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs
U of Michigan. Vice President of Research V.P. for Academic Affairs V.P.-University1981-82 Relations and
Development
Michigan State U. V.P.: Research and V.P.-University1980-81 Graduate Studies Development
2837
Table 8ContinuedPatterns of Research Administration: Public Universities
University .' Research Development
Central Administration Graduate School Office of Academic Affairs
U. of Minnesota1980-81
U. of North Carolina1980-81
V.P.-Research and PublicService
V.P:-Academic Affairs(Central Administration )
V.P.-Academic Affairs Vice-Chancellor,Development andPublic Service
North Carolina V. Provost and Dean for V. Provost and Dean'ofState University Research Graduate School
1980-82
Purdue University V.P. Research, Dean V.P.-Development1980-82 Graduate School
U. of Texas V.P.-Research V.P.-Academic Affairs1979-81 (Graduate School)
Texas A&M V.P.-Academic Affairs V.P.-Deveiopment1980-81 (Central Administration)
U. of Utah V.P.-Research V.P.-Academic Affairs1980-81 (Central Administration )
Two Adsistants
U. of Wisconsin Dean for Graduate andResearch Programs
Clemson University Dean of Graduate Provost & V.P. forSchool & University Academic AffairsResearch:
Georgia Institute of Vice Chancellor, Research V.P.-Research V.P.-Academic V.P.-Institute RelationsTechnology (Institutional Adm.) Development (Central and Development
Administration)
academic administrators were concerned becausesome companies are unwilling to pay overhead. Manytimes these companies give their support through thedevelopment office, which does not charge overhead.Their point is that they wish the full sum of money tobe spent on research.
At most state universities, the Development Officeis closely linked to, or is an integral part of, a univer-sity foundation. These foundations were developedto separate certain university activities and fundingsources from state funds and regulations. Developinga better interface with industry was an original objec-tive of one of the first foundations, the Purdue Re-search Foundation. Several state universities, Minne-sota, Colorado, Arizona, and others, have followed thismodel. Usually these foundations work on their own insolicitation of funds. Sometimes they will have a sep-arate division or a unit for a specific purpose, e.g.development of a research park. In what may be anemerging trend, some university research foundationshave established separate entities to handle industrialcontract research. One example of such a foundationis at Texas A&M.
The Office of Sponsored Research (or Office ofGrants and Contracts) is generally responsible fornegotiating agreements for all externally sponsoredresearch. The patent office or attorney is usually allied
with this division, and it is within this office that univer-sity research administration policies are establishedand records kept. In their accounting systems, mostuniversities in the past have only kept records on theimmediate sources of funds but not on the ultimatesource. Thus, a contract from an engineering firm maywell be a subcontract from a federal contract with thecompany. Furthermore, most universities do not dis-tinguish between private foundation, industrial founda-tion, and industrial funds. Th..:y categorize funds asderived from federal, state, local, and private sources.Because of the relatively small percentage of spon-sored industrial support, in the past ten years, therehas been no real need to separate it out.
There are many cases of industrially supportedresearch that does not flow through the normal admin-istrative and accounting procedures. Industry gifts forresearch are sometimes given directly to individualinvestigators. research departments, or technic.al'unitsof universities (schools of engineering, agriculture,etc.), centers, and institutes. This money may or maynot be processed by either the development or spon-sored program office. Professor X will get a gift and isalso engaged in providing some professional servicesfor the company. This has been especially true in thepharmaceutical area.
Occasionally, professors will set up special accounts
38
29
where they deposit money received for consulting withindustry. These accounts may be sep,:rate-from allother accounts established by the university account-ing systems. They are frequently used as discretionaryaccounts for research. One such account is the "Mer-cury Fund" at Duke University.
The Mercury Research Fund provides the depart-ment with unrestricted money which allows it to hireextra research associates or send students to variousplaces. In one instance, an industrial hygienist washired to carry out measurements. Although he wasoriginally hired on "Mercury Fund" money, he is now
supported on contracts. This fund also allows forfaculty salary supplements of up to $8,000 or $10,000.It has a departmental code as a university accountbut, by gentlemen's agreement, a department memberwishing to use these funds has to seek approval fromthose who pay to the fund most frequently. If the pro-fessors who make contributions leave the university,the fund is still the university's, under control of thedepartment.
The advantage of this fund is that it can help tolaunch projects speedily, or to support projects of anunorthodox nature.
Table 9
Patterns of Research Administration: Private Universities
University Research Development
Central Administration Graduate School Om rte of Academic Affairs
California Tech.1980-81
Carnegie-MellonUniversity
1981-83
Case Western1979-81
Clarksor' College1980-82
Duke University1980-81
Harvard University1980-81
Lehigh University1979-81
MIT
Princeton U.1980-81
Rensselaer Poly-technic Institute
1980-81
Rice University1979-81
U. of Rochester1980-81
Stanford U.1980-81
Vanderbilt U.1980-81
Washington U.1980-82
Yale University1980-81
Associate Director ofFinancial Systems forResearch Administration
/V.P.- Research
V.P.-Research
Director of Research andProject Administration
Administrative Comm.System; Chairman,Sponsored ResearchCommittee
Dean, Three AssociateDeans
V.P.-Undergraduate andGraduate Affairs
Dean, Graduate School& Director, Division utResearch
Dean of GraduateSchool
V.P. UniversityDevelopment
Director ofDevelopment
V.P.-Development
Dean, Graduate School V.P.-Development
Dean, Graduate School;Asst. Dean, Engineering& Applied Sciences
Dean of AdvancedStudies and Research
Univ. Dean o'Graduate Studie
Dean of Graduu,eStudies & Research
Dean of GraduateSchoci
Dean, GraduateSchool of Arts &Sciences; TwoAssistants
Dean of GraduateSchool
V.P.-Academic Affairs;Prov, 't & Vice Provostfor R-tearch
303.9
Office of Development
Executive Director ofDevelopment
University Officer forDevelopment &Alumni Affairs
For example, the Mercury Fund was used tohelp a student do research on pneumoconiosis, adisease of the kings. People with pneumoconiosis,are exposed most frequently to both silica' andcarbon. The question was whether the damage tothe lungs was by the silicon or the carbon. A studentat the university had a brother-in-law from Sri Lankaand she thought of the idea of going to Sri Lanka tostudy people who work in the graphite mines there,because these people would only be exposed tocarbon, and not. to silicon. The Mercury Fund fundedher trip to Sri Lanka. Her research showed that thelungs of these people were filled with coal, but thepulmonary function was normal, and she was ableto establish that silicon is the problem in pneumo-coniosis.
Despite the difficulty in tracking some sources ofsupport, several scientists and administrators havepointed out that the university system of administeringgrants and contracts has evolved after thirty or moreyears of dealing with the government agencies, andthat even if there is a large increase in industrial sup-port, it must be properly integrated into the adminis-trative system. Others felt that there will have to besome change in sponsored research administration, ifthere is in fact a large increase in industrial support.One of the reasons given is the great diversity of theindustrial firms themselves, as discussed in the pre-ceding section and Chapter VIII. It is helpful to knowwhom to contact and how to approach different admin-istrative units. This may require special administrativeprocedures and structures.
C. The Role of Administrative Structures andUnits in Fostering University/IndustryRelationships
On the university side, as stated in the previoussection, there is normally a clear demarcation betweenthe Development Office responsible for expanding theuniversity endowment by raising funds from corpora-tions, alumni, and foundations, and the Research Con-tract Office, which specifically helps develop and ad-minister research grants. Sometimes this demarcationcan be a frustration in developing cooperative univer-sity/industry research ventures.
In the past, there has been no barrier to industrydirectly approaching individual research scientists,with the Research Office playing a role only whennegotiating grants or contracts. Most university/indus-try research interactions still develop, at first, betweenscientists. But, at many universities, the research con-tract office has recently been given the task of helpingto develop increased research interaction within indus-try. Out of the 39 universities we visited, approximately50% had industrial liaison offices or positions, andapproximately 50% were newly appointed positions ornewly reorganized offices.
As the perception of industrial interest in univer-sity activities has increased, the. Research Office hasbecome much more concerned with patenting and
contractual negotiations with industry. At least one pri-vate southern university has made a great effort todevelop schemes for profiting from university innova-tion with the help of an external consulting firm. Manyuniversity scientists feel that innovative ideas are notgetting out and finding industrial connections. Increas-ingly, universities have hired patenting officers orindustry liaison experts who actively seek out potentialinnovations and present them to industry. In ChapterIX, we discuss the recent patenting activities of univer-sities in greater detail.
There are few administrative or structural bafflersto industrial interaction in the universities, but thereare perceptions of barriers (e.g., the universities'departmental structure, patenting, and licensing activi-ties; see Chapter VII). This may well change as univer-sities seek to protect their interest in innovation. Anexample is the case of the University of California,which claimed patent rights over gene segments andbecame involved in litigation with the Roche Instituteof Molecular Biology. Despite potential areas of fric-tion, most contracts can be negotiated with a mini-mum of difficulty on the university side.
While most university research units are scienceand engineering departments, there are also signifi-cant numbers of non-departmental centers and lab-oratories. Many of these are multi-disciplinary and canserve as foci for industrially funded multi-disciplinaryefforts. In a few cases, the basic science units and engi-neering schools are combined into institutes of tech-nology (the University of Minnesota, the University ofMichigan, and Case Western Reserve). Two private uni-versities (Chicago and the California Institute of Tech-nology) are organized by division rather than college.Both of these organizational structures were seen asfacilitating the initiation of multidisciplinary efforts, buttheir existence is not necessarily tied to above averagelevels of industrially sponsored research.
Many believe that in order for there to be substan-tially increased collaborative work between industryand university research systems, the universities mustbe able to provide the team and/or a project approach.However, there was no relationship between the numberof multi-disciplinary units and the level of industrialsupport of university research. An encouraging attitudetowards multi-disciplinary efforts and flexibility withinthe organizational units were more facilitating formutually beneficial collaborative efforts than the factthat such multi-disciplinary units exist.
An important trend in universities is the develop-ment of management structures which make it rela-tively easy to develop collaboration with industry orto create university spawned industrial enterprises.These are usually related to engineering-based enter-prises, although in future years they may increasinglybecome related to molecular biotechnology. Thesestructures include the establishment of buffer organi-zations, either non-profit or profit, or institutes within
40.
31
the university in which contributions on the part ofprofessors and students can be made directly to theindustrial enterprise (see Chapter IX). Examples ofthese are the University of Utah Research Institute(UURI); the Washington University Technology Associa-tion (WUTA), headed by the Dean of the Departmentof Engineering; and the Center for Manufacturing Pro-ductivity and Technology Transfer founded at Rens-selaer Polytechnic Institute. Such institutes or centerscan be wholly within departments and schools or totallyexternal to the university. They seem to work best whenthey are under direct control of no more than a fewindividuals within the university structure.
There are several advantages in setting up suchinstitutes. For directed research, industry generallyrequires a concentration of manpower brought to bearfor a relatively short time in a multi-disciplinary setting.Generally, because of academic constraints, unless theuniversity sets up external mechanisms such as cen-ters and institutes, they cannot respOnd to this kind ofindustrial need.
Another advantage of separate institutes and cen-ters is that projects can be readily terminated. Theresearch personnel associated with such projects canbe reallocated without affecting the basic tenuredfaculty pool or the academic calendar. Many universi-ties, however, are still resistant to undertaking thoseindustrial research projects which are time-intensive.They will only take on projects which generally fit intothe educational enterprise.
Increasingly, the central administration of univer-sities are beginning to play a role in fostering univer-sity/industry relations. For example, the president ofone eastern state university is actively negotiating forthe establishment of a research park adjacent to theuniversity. Presidents who have cultivated their longterm relationships with industry are proving to beinvaluable to their constituencies. Many successful uni-versity/industry interactions have been cultivated attwo levelspresident to president and research scien-tist to research scientist.
While industry has relatively easy direct access tothe university research base, access of the university tothe industrial research base can vary from relativelyeasy to bewilderingly difficult. Very- often, it is simplydee to the complexity of the corporate structure or thelack of centralized information or a formalized chan-nelling system, as noted in the previous section. Some-times, the difficulty is due to the confidentiality assoc-iated with an industrial laboratory.
The need on the part of inthistry for secrecy orlegal documents before communication of industrialtechnical data or concepts can take place is againsometimes perceptual or traditional, or related to theproportion of scientists in the higher management ofthe industry. For example, nowhere in the UnitedStates is industry as closely allied to the university, oras intricately interactive, as is the chemical industry
32
with universities in Germany. The interaction largelyresults from a management structure in the Germanchemical industry which, at the highest corporatelevels, contains individuals who are simultaneouslyuniversity professors as well as corporate executives.
Industries, as described previously, vary widely inthe structures they have developed to interact with theuniversities. Large research-oriented corporationsoften have the whole range of interactions described,where competitiveness and,secrecy needs permit. Inone large petroleum corporation, for example, there isno unique entry point into the system for a university-based scientist. That corporation has a constantlyupdated data bank of outstanding university scientists,and uses that both as a consulting pool and as thebasis for making unrestricted giants. Smaller com-panies generally do not have such resources (seeChapter VIII, pp. 48-49). Corporate administration, ob-jectives, and structures within industries range widelyand influence university relations.
The relation with universities is often based directlyon the way a particular company regards its own cor-porate research interests and structured to meet theseinterests. For example, two large companies in thepetroleum industry have very different relations withuniversities. One focuses primarily on consulting. agree-ments, which are highly individualized, secretive, andvery directed. The other spans the broad range of inter-actions. The difference in this approach is in part tradi-tion and in pad t!te standing of the corporate researchentities in the two companies. In the company withextensive university relations, its own research groupis relatively autonomous and concerned with new direc-tions. In the other corporation, the research group isa part of the operating structure of the organization,and is more di(ected and responsive to short-termcorporate goals.
In one midwestern consumer product company,research is completely related to the marketing struc-ture of the company. At the beginning of the decade(1970), the company decided to deemphasize cor-porate research. This company's present contributionto university research is minimal and Led to productdevelopment. Other consumer product companieshave large commitments to research and develop-ment as well as to marketing. One such company hasrecently made a significant effort to support universityresearch.
Most pharmaceutical houses have extensive directresearch connections with the universities, to the pointof contracting with universities for statistical evalua-tion of drugs in medical school patient populations.But one pharmaceutical house is foundation-ownedand is structured to do most of its research exclusively in-house. Its support for universities is primarily throughfellowships and by providing adjunct faculty free ofcharge to teach at local universities.
In the computer industry, most companies have
41
well-developed corporate research structures. Onelarge computer firm rivals the universities in the funda-mental nature of its own research. Nevertheless, itmaintains strong ties to the university, through thewhole range of peer interactions, fellowships, anc, cor-porate giving. On the other hand, a midwestern basedcomputer corporation prides itself on contractingmost of its basic research to the universities. It doesnot have a corporate research laboratory. Such large
differences in corporate outlook, which can be re-flected in corporate structures and objectives, some-times relate to the attitude of single individuals. Towhat extent these factors responsible for differenceswithin industry can affect the outcome of a cooperativearrangement is a subject for future study. We simplynote here that these factors do make a difference. Wediscuss sectoral differences in university/industryresearch interactions in more detail in Chapter VIII.
4233
CHAPTER VII
THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY RESEARCH INTERACTIONS
Through the development of case histories of uni-versity/industry research interactions and discussionswith key representatives of the university, government,and industry research sectors, we were able to charac-terize many of the barriers, motivations, and proc-esses involved in forming these interactions. In thischapter, we present many of the recurring themesrelated to establishing and, managing these interac-tions. We then pro.ide s:rnopses of several uniqueinteractions.
A. Motivations for Interactions
1. Industrial Motivations
Because of differing needs and structures, boththe motivations for interaction and the perceptions ofthose motivations differ to some extent between in-dustry and universities.
Company representatives cited many reasons fortheir interest in establishing research interactionswith universities. The following reasons were amongthose mentioned most frequently (Table 10).
(1) To obtain access to manpower (students andprofessors).
(2) To obtain a window on science and technology.(3) To solve a problem or get specific information
unavailable elsewhere.(4) To obtain prestige or enhance the company's
image.(5) To make use of an economical resource.(6) To provide general support of technical excel-
lence.(7) To be good local citizens or foster good com-
munity relations.(8) To gain access to university facilities.
Access to high quality manpower is the primemotivation underlying industry's desire to establish
34
joint university/industry research programs. Seventy-five percent of the company representatives askedstated that manpower was a motivating factor In theirsupport of university research (Table 10). Most statedit was the single most important motivator. Com-panies are partir.ularly interested in access to graduatestudents who are potential employees. Those indus-tries most concerned about the current shortages intechnical manpower (chemicals, energy supply, andelectronics; see pp. 54-57, 51-53, 58-61) are amongthe most vocal and active in the support of new pro-grams for university/industry research cooperation.
Thus, science-based companies that arc expand-ing or have-high turnover rates of technical personnelare more likely to support university research vigorously.For example, after considerable concern and delibera-tion about. the "manpower" crisis, Exxon announced aprogram of contribution, a $15 million grant to beutilized over 3-5 years, to 66 institutions to supportgraduate fellows and "supplement faculty salaries.Atlantic Richfield will distribute $5 million over fouryears for students in science and engineering depart -.ments in over 30 universities. IBM contributes $1 mil-lion'annually to advanced education programs at uni-versities. The importance of manpower to chemicalcompanies is seen in the following development. Thenew Council for Chemical Research (CCR) (see pp. 81-82)is basing its membership fees on a formula related tothe number of chemists and chemical engineers (B. S.;M. S., and Ph.D.) in the employ of member companiesand CCR will distribute its research funds to depart-ments based on their production of chemists and chem-ical engineers.
A large portion of industrial funding impacts stu-dents indirectly. Direct funding of research equipment,general endowment money, or departmental unrestrictedstipends all provide the kind of flexibility for researchand development critical to graduate training at theuniversity.
43
Table 10
Motivating Factors for Participating in University/Industry Research Interactions as Derived fromInterviews with Scientists and Administrators at Institutions Surveyed in NYU Field Study
Motivations for U/I Interactions Cited By IntervieweesPercent of Institutions Surveyed Where
Representatives Cited That SuchMotivations Existed
Universities(n = 39)
1. To obtain access to manpower (students and professors).
2. To btain a window on science and technology.
3. To solve a problem or get specific information unavailable elsewhere.
4. To obtain prestige or enhance the company's image.
5. To make use of an economical resource.
6. General support of technical excellence.
7. To be good local citizens or foster good community relations.'
8. To gain access to university facilities.
9. Industry provides a new source of money. This helps diversify the university's 41funding base.
10. Industrial money involves less red tape than government money, and the 28reporting requirements are not as time-consuming.
11. Industrially sponsored research provides student exposure to real world 36research problems.
12. Industrially sponsored research provides a chance to work on an intellectually 24challenging research program which may be of immediate importance to society.
13. Currently, some government funds are available for applied research, basedupon a joint effort between university and industry.
14. To provide better training for the increasing number of graduates going toindustry.
15. To ..gain access to company research facilities and equipme-nt.
33/as motivating industry
13/as motivating industry
13/as motivating industry
18/as motivating industry
8
33
23
Companies= 56).
75
52
11
32
14
38
29
36
'Cited more often by administrators than scientists."Including opportunities for education and training, adjunct professorships and personnel exchange.
Although access to high quality manpower is thestated primary motivation underlying industrys interestin supporting university research, this motivation hasmany nuances and can be intertwined with a firm'sadditional motivations for interacting with universities.Thus, chemical company representatives look towardnew employees that will provide a window on new tech-nologies which will help the company initiate newproduct or process lines. Hence, they will support uni-versity-sponsored Industrial Liaison Programs in bio-technology to gain access to potential employees. Inanother typical instance, a company has an unfore-seen problem with a product. After consulting with alocal professor, the company hires one of his studentsto solve the problem over the summer. Alternatively,the company contracts with the local professor tosolve the problem and later hires the student whoworked on it.
The second most commonly stated reason for acompany to interact with a university is interest inobtaining a "window on science and technology." This
is a high priority in rapidly changing industries suchas genetic engineering and microelectronics, whichhave recently stemmed from, or have close ties`to, theuniversity. For these industries, the technology transfercycle is very short. They are evolving so rapidly thatboth the university and the industry must participatein all aspects of the cycle. Frequently, scientists men-tioned that access to manpower and obtaining awindow on science and technology could not be sepa-rated from each other.
Another related motivation is use of the univer-sity as a trial base for a new research activity. Anindustrial laboratory that is considering a new area ofresearch may support such research in the university,where manpower is relatively economical, before mak-ing a major investment on its own. For example, onepetrochemical corporation that wanted to develop itsown resources in laser physics was motivated to sup-port a major' project at an eastern private universityin order to build knowledge from which to initiate itsown program.
44
35
Another element of company motivation is pres-tige. This motivation was not always articulated at first.After considering many cases, the numerous pressannouncements, and the predominance of the largerprogratns_of supporLat prestigious universities, itbecame evident. It was verified upon questioning corn-pany representatives that this motivation is not insig-nificant. Companies interested in a cooperative researchventure wish to obtain the "best" expertise. Companiesoften affiliate with major research universities becauseof their eminence. Some of the well-publicized, large-scale interactions contain a strong element of thedesire to gain esteem. Affiliate programs may also fillthis role.
Another aspect of this point is an awareness on,the part of companies that support of "pro bono publico" research is good public relations. It will enhancetheir image. University researchers are happy with thisarrangement because they get the benefit of supportfor research of their choice. One particularly goodexample where all parties benefitted was a UnitedTechnologies program in support of research in lasermicrosurgery.
A research employee who had undergone lengthysurgery decided that laser technology could shortenthe process and convinced the company to supporta research program in this area. The company whichhad expertise in laser technology but no directinterest in fields related to biomedical technologywas commended for its support.
Industry also looks to the university to solve veryspecific scientific problems in which the university hasspecific expertise. Large companies have well-devel-oped networks of consultants whom they can call, onvery specific problems, in a wide range of fields. Lowtechnology industries may also come to the universityfor solutions to technical problems.
For example, one southern state university hasan engineering extension program that guides smallindustry in the state in problems of plant siting, modi-fication, or structure. The function of these servicesis to disseminate mainstream knowledge and tech-nology, not to generate fundamental new knowledge.The benefit to the university of such services is oftengeneral good will, rather than tangible financial con-tribution.
Finally, and far, down the list of motivations forindustry and university interaction, is actual innova-tion. We are distinguishing between new technicaladvances which may be a contributor to the process ofinnovation, which industry would certainly welcome,and the development of a usable product or process,which is not normally expected.
Industry rarely looks to the university for technolo-gical innovations that directly result in new products orprocesses. Furthermore, industry does not supportuniversity research as a planned stage of productdevelopment. In fact, if a company is interested indeveloping a product and must go outside its own
36
research organization, the company is not likely tosupport this research at a university because of pro-prietary concerns and time constraints.
A major petrochemical company, when ques-tioned about what percentage of innovations over thedecades had been derived from interaction with uni-versities, answered less than 10% (although somerevolutionary technical concepts had come from uni-versity sources). Many other company representativesagreed with this figure. Industry has, by and large, notdeveloped mechanisms for seeking out innovativeideas and products stemming from the university.However, as traditional sources offunding dry upLuni-versities are beginning to desire such connectionswith industry.
It appears natural for the university, which per-ceives itself as an idea generator, to want to exploitideas to support itself in needy times. However, exceptfor such unique situations as gene splicing, industrydoes not have high expectation of receiving a signifi-cant number of direct innovations from the university.
The difficulty is partly one of semantics. Innova-tion to a company scientist usually refers to the totalprocess of generating and introducing technical change,e.g., invention plus exploitation. A "breakthrough"which is frequently the professor's idea 'of innovation,implies r. totally new concept, idea, or approach to afield, a new source of technical change. Those who 'seehow to develop these "breakthroughs" to fit society'sneeds, and/or wants, and who have the kn- .'ledge andbackground to do so, are usually found wit in the com-pany while the breakthrough itself often emerges atthe university.
2. University Motivations
The reasons universities choose to interact withindustry appear to be simpler. An oversimplificationis that universities seek money. The range of reasonsis more sophisticated and includes the following:
(1) Industry provides a new source of money. Thishelps diversify the university's funding base.
(2) Industrial money involves less red tape thangovernment money, and the reporting requirementsare not as time - consuming;
(3) Industrially sponsored research provides stu-dent exposure to real world research problems.
(4) Industrially sponsored research provides achance to work on an intellectually challenging re-search prograin which may be of immediate impor-tance to society.
(5) Currently, some government funds are avail-able for applied research, based upon a joint effortbetween university and industry.
(6) To provide better training for the increasingnumber of graduates going to industry.
The strongest motivation in the university for inter-acting with industry, far above all the others, is the
45
desire to obtain funds to strengthen basic research andgraduate training, and to support the facilities that makethat research possible. This is expressed in many ways,but frequently (41% of the time) researchers state it isimportant to diversify their sources of funding for basicresearch and industrial money is currently helping themaccomplish this goal (Table 10).
As government conditions absorb more of the sci-entist's time in non-technical tasks, he is increasinglymotivated to seek industrial support. Twenty-eight per-cent of the time researchers said they sought indus-trial funds to escape government red tape (Table 10).
__Once a-researcher convinces a firm to support hisresearch, there is usually much less detail involved inadministration of, the program. More time and energyare available for the research itself.
Although it was not mentioned frequently as aprime motivation for interacting with industry, twenty-three percent of the time researchers said they soughtinteraction with industrial scientists in order to usetheir research facilities and equipment. Such interac-tion may increase as equipment obsolescence andshortages become more severe (Berlowitz, 1981).
B. Barriers and Constraints to University/IndustryResearch Interactions
In our discussions with both university and com-pany representatives, given the assumption that auniversity/industry research interaction was seen asdesirable by both parties, there was a consensus thatthere are no insurmountable barriers to joint univer-sity/industry research interactions, but several obsta-cles were outlined. The difficulties mentioned mostfrequently included patent and licensing conflicts,information dissemination restrictions, including pre-publication review requirements, and the handling ofproprietary information (Table 11).
Others have stated that there are five key barrierswhich could prevent a given cooperative activity frombeing initiated (Brodsky, et al., 1979). These include:
(1) Value Conflicts(2) Distance(3) Career constraints(4) Information dissemination restrictions(5) Patent conflicts
Table 11
Barriers to University/Industry Research Interactions Derived from Interviews withScientists and Administrators at Institutions Surveyed in NYU Field Study
Barriers to U/, I Research Interactions Cited By Interviewees
1. Patent conflicts (patent and licensing arrangements includingwhether or not to issue an exclusive license).
a. Patent conflictsb. Legal problems
2. Information dissemination
a. Proprietary rightsb. Prepublication review
3. Institutional dift?rences
a. Differing :Jbjectives and goals'b. Differi:ig administrative structures"c. Time frame differences
4. Personal attitudes
5. Communication networks
6. Distance
7. Concern for research facility and management"
8. Career constraints
9. Over!lead costs'
10. Decreasing federal funds
11. Company expertise in a particular area
'Cited more often by administrators.Cited more often by scientists.
46
Percent of Institutions Surveyed WhereRepresentatives Cited That Such
Barriers Existed
Universities(n = 39]
Companies(n = 56)
100 23
67 2338 0
100 43
74 3233 11
79 52
18 2128 1333 18
36/13 as a barrier to industry 16
28 5
23 20
21 11
21 4
15 4
0 .40 2
37
Of these, only the last two were consistently men-tioned by interviewees as potential barriers, thoughour studies indicated that this may be more a percep-tual than actual barrier. On the other hand, the institu-tional differences, including value conflicts, which werementioned as potential barriers by 79% of the univer-sities visited and 50% of the companies visited may bereal barriers (see Chapter VI).
University representatives always mentioned threeproblems encountered when initiating an industryresearch program (Table 11):
(1) Patents and licensing arrangements(2) Pre-publication review requirements(3) Proprietary information
Industrial managers discounted the first two asproblems and were only half as likely to perceive thethird as a stumbling block. They repeatedly suggestedthat such issues are negotiable. Many academic inves-
tigators who have had extensive interactions withindustry said that patents and licensing arrangementsare not real problems. however, both partners agreedthat negotiation between lawyers tends to bring outthe inherent differences between a company and auniversity. This sets up an adversary climate, delaysestablishing the interaction, and sometimes even pre-vents it from occurring. In this study, at least twelvedocumented cases were noted where legal differenceshad delayed, or even prevented a collaborative re-search interaction.
Most universities will allow a company sponsoringresearch some time to review manuscripts resultingfrom the sponsored research for comment to ensurethat they do not contain company proprietary informa-tion. The pre-publication review period allowed variesfrom university to university, but it is usually for notmore than one year and, most frequently, for one to sixmonths (Table 12). Academic scientists conducting
Table 12
Prepublication Review Period at Universities Surveyed in NYU Field Study
University Publication Review Time
Carnegie MellonCase WesternClemsonColorado StateColorado School of MinesJohns HopkinsLehighPenn StatePurdueRensselaerRiceUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of IllinoisUniversity of MarylandUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity of North Carolina, RaleighUniversity of UtahUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonWashington UniversityUniversity of HoustonUniversity of MichiganUniversity of DelawareGeorgia TechDukeUniversity of Minnekta
Louisiana StateStanfordUniversity of Texas. AustinUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of RochesterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCal TechHarvardPrincetonUCLAMITYale
30-60 days actually willing to delay 1 yearusually 6 mOnts, but departments differN.A.N.A.none1 monthN.A.40-60 daysN.A..6 months6 monthsvariableno delayFerrri institute, I monthChemistryN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.6 rnor..;isfisheries no review, C: departments "very strict"strictly regulN.A.N.A.negotiatedheld until patent position clarifiednegotiated but always a time limitN.A.no delayInst. of Technology negotiatedHydraulic Lab no researchunless release in a "timely way"N.A.90 days for Cancer Bio LabN.A.N.A.90 days6 mos.-1 year no research without eventual publicationno delay1 day to 1 monthN.A.N.A.N.A.30-45 days
NoteN.A.= not available
38
47
frontier research are very sensitive to this issue, andare inclined to only allow a company to review the pre-publication for one week to one month. Since theirs isfast-moving research, they are in a particular hurry topublish their results. however, most university scien-tists are generally willing to delay a publication so thatit can be reviewed for patent possibilities or, in somecases, for the time it takes to file a patent. Their rationaleis that publication of an article often takes place a yearor more after it is submitted.
Another difficulty from the university's point ofview is that industrial support tends to come in smallshort -term allotments, i.e., $10-20,000 for one year orless. While this is not a barrier per se it does constrainsome university scientists in the effort they are willingto put forth to solicit industrial funding for their re-search. Government grants on the other hand tend tobe for larger amounts and longer terms (Shapley et al,1980). Companies at least in the past have rarely beenable to make long-term commitments to university re-search. Short-term commitments can negatively affectthe quality of a given research program. At present,most companies appear not to be geared towards plan-ning for long-range basic research efforts. Some havecommented that strategic long-range planning is sorelylacking in industry. Others suggest that science cannotbe planned, though such statements call for carefuldefinitions to avoid semantic misunderstandings.
In many academic fields, there appears to be apsychological barrier to interacting with industry. Themore basic the research, the greater the feeling is thatindustry will, in some way, impede the ability of theindividual investigator to follow his own perceivedoptimal course. This psychological barrier on the partof university scientists is even true, in part, for indus-tries which have had minimum constraints on grantsand whose principal focus has been on new graduates.This applies to chemical, petroleum, and computercompanies, for example, which provide grants-in-aid,fellowships, and stipen& with little rd tape. While pro-fessors who have received such funds recognize their
importance and value, they still hesitate to enter intocooperative research programs where they perceivethat industry, through their directives, will constraintheir research.
C. The Origins of University/Industry ResearchInteractions
There are many ways to initiate university/industryresearch interactions. We have noted cases where agovernment official brought two parties together; caseswhere the president of a company decided it would beuseful to give greater support to universities and directedthe research vice president to develop appropriate pro-grams; cases where industrial scientists catalyzed aninteraction; cases where university presidents and cor-porate executives provided the initiative for a coopera-tive program; cases where a prOduct manager soughtthe assistance of university scientists; cases where anindustrial scientist and university scientist, through ajoint effort, developed a program, and so on.
It is not unusual for the seeds of joint efforts tobegin in discussion at informal social affairs. One largeprogram can be traced back to discussions between auniversity official and company official who had sum-mer cottages next to each other. Another program isreputed to have been started after discussions be-tween a university scientist and corporate presidentwhile they waited on a gas line. Discussions at con-ferences are also important in initiating future inter-actions. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the different fac-tors involved in the origins of various categories ofresearch interactions.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the initia-tive to establish a university/industry cooperativeresearch program comes from within the university.Tracing the origins of over 214 cases of university/industry cooperative research showed that in onlyabout 15% of cases reviewed did the company startthe interaction (Table 13). However, there are manyinstances when a company wishes to interact with uni-
Table 13
Variation in Origirgs of U/I Coupling by Categories of Interaction*
Categories of Interaction
Percent FAO of Total Cases
University as Initiator Industry as Initiator Mutually Initiated Other"
General Research Support 41.2% 47.1% 8.8% 2.9%Cooperative Research Support 66.4 15.4 8.9. 9.3Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms 69.0 28.6 2.4 0Technology Transfer Mechanisms 85.1 4.3 2.1 8.5
Cooperative ResearchCenters & institutes 69.6 15.2 4.3 10.9Grants and Contracts 55.1 21.8 15.4 7.7ILP & Research Consortia 84.9 5.5 2.7 6.8Other 47.1 35.3 5.9 11.8
Expressed as a % of Total Cases in Each Category Where Origin is Known.-Includes: Gov't. Mediation, Alumni Actions, Community Actions
39
48
versities by hiring a consultant: a knowledge trans-fer mechanism. The company then makes the choicebased largely upon the contacts and information of itsown technical personnel, and this can serve to initiatea continuing interaction.
As a general guideline, relationships betweenindividuals are therefore most often the informal start-ing point for these interactions. The specific evolutionof such initial contacts into working programs can,however, follow different paths, as discussed in thefollowing situations.
1. The Origins of a Cooperative ResearchVenture
An academic investigator will frequently consultfor the company with which he desires to develop acooperative research program. Although he may bethe, first to propose a cooperative research programwith the company, we point out again that consultingarrangements are most often initiated by a company.These consultancies are then often the nucleus of alarger university/industry research program.
Industry makes an effort to identify young, promis-ing investigators. Frequently a company will initiate aninteraction by asking this investigator to consult in aspecific area. Then he may receive a small researchgrant from the company. Industry will work to bui d upa bond of trust with this promising scientist. In ti hebecomes more familiar with company needs and inter-ests and can identify areas for cooperative re arch.If a good working relationship is established, 191clustrywill have confidence in him and be willing to support alarger cooperative effort. This confidence and sensitiv-ity to industrial needs may also have developed liecatisethe investigator has worked previously for industry. Inover half the cases we reviewed, the major academicparticipant had a past history or corking in industry.
Thus we may view the initiation of joint university/industry programs as a two-step process:
(1) The company takes the initiative to find goodpeople for consultancies, and
(2) Consultants use these contacts and confi-dence to generate cooperative research relationships.
As interest and awareness of the value of joint.university/industry research programs grow, there isa growing number of instances where both universityadministrators and Company managers are providingincentives and an appropriate climate to establishjoint research programs. For example, the presidentor vice president of Johns Hopkins or the Universityof Chicago will contact top level executives at an oilcompany or cosmetic firm to discuss how their interestsand capabilities match. Frequently they establish theircontacts through university alumni. Sometimes univer-sity alumni who are now corporate executives suggestdiscussing joint programs. In these cases, a two -step
40
7 ..
initiation process still exists, but may be more gen-erally stated:
(1) Courtship: Exploring the feasibility of a matchbetween university scientist and company program,
(2) Marriage: Bulling a research relationshipthrough scientist-to-sue ist technical exchange.
.In summary, a university/industry cooperativeresearch' interaction is more like.4 to come about afterthere has been an interaction through an informal ornon-institutionalized knowledge trsfer. mechanism.
2. The Origins -of an Industrially FundedInstitute or Center
A university/industry interactions can be the basisfor establishing a center or institute oriented towardindustrial research interests or at iast a definabletechnical mission, e.g., corrosion r earth. Severalcenters (or institutes) at universities came about inthe following ways:
A member of the faculty with industrial t es becameinterested in a particular area of interest to industryand he contacted five or six scientists a ross cam-pus. Very frequently they participated in an Indus-trial Liaison Program together, or the fo ation ofsuch a program was antecedent to establ shing thecenter. The scientists determined thro gh theirindustrial contacts that they would gain s pport byhaving an institute or center providing a focus totheir work. They then made a proposal to the researchcouncil or university administration.
A research council is usually an elective grOup andincludes faculty as well as scientific administrators.The council considers proposals in terms of\severalcriteria. The prerequisite is that the future' of theresearch area will evolve, it must be a subject orthyof investigation in the future, not a transito sub-ject. On industry's side, there is a desire to 'h ve acritical mass of scientists capable of doing the ork.Sometimes there is industry concern with the ni-versity's administrative capabilities and avails leresearch facilities.
After tt---:;eilmversi_ council establishes that the celpter focus is in an al'ea'of research worthy of study-ing in depth, it must consider criteria for the centerdirector. This. was regarded by company and univer-sity administrators to be critical. If the conclusionsare favorable, the council recommends 'the forma-tion of an institute or center to the university Presi-dent. The President and the academic or researchVice President review the proposed center from a
\ financial point of view. If approval is met, then the\ proposal goes to the trustees and the trustees are\ likely to concur at this point. Then it is up to the\scientists to maintain their industrial contacts andsupport. Forming an advisory board of company
embers is one way of facilitating or providing thenecessary continuity.
In another example, this time at a public university,a Strong faculty member supported by NSF soughtto do catalysis work but needed spectroscopy equip-ment. He convinced the university to buy sophisti-
4 9
1
catcd equipment with its endowinent funds. Thisattracted additional NSF support, hen, with the aidof a retired company scientist, everal universityscientists, sonic of whom had c nsulting ties withindustry, organized a program at d asked a few highlevel company research directregarding the research directio.rs
to advise themof the center. This
became the core of a highly successful industriallyfunded research program.
\ Several important points were made to the uni-versity researchers by their advisory board, as follows:I
( I ) Industry recoinmended emphasis on long-r Inge basic research. One company executive said,
lbrow up lots of balls into the air, and the corn-') lilies will take home the ones they want."
(2) They advised that the support level fromin ustry should be sufficiently high so that a com-'Ili ment is made, and that this support shouldconic from someone's budget, not through the edu-cation foundation. For this program, a fee of $25,000a year was set, and all companies paid the same fee.
11 The board suggested that they aim for twelvemember companies, but that it could not functionas a closed club.
A critical element in the development of many ofthese programs, as in the program example above,-isgovernment seed money. Most of the large, industriallyfunded programs were funded, to some extent, by thegovernment in the beginning. Of the 220 cooperativeprograms we reviewed, approximately 219 had somegovernment support in the first,year of operation.Another important point in the structuring of theseprograms is that both producer and user companiesbe solicited as members.
D. Administration of University/IndustryInteractions
Although funds in support of university researchare processed in the office of sponsored programs orthe development office in practically all cases, it is thefaculty scientist I who is responsible for managementand administration of the conduct of university/indus-try programs. This includes final say on the programdesign, project selection, and allocation of resources.On occasion, the faculty member will also have a con-sulting arrangement with the company to help manageor give advice regarding the company programs re-lated to the university sponsored research. This is par-ticularly true in the case of programs that involve verysizable funding levels.
Industry's technical input into the program is fre-quently not through formalized channels. Rather, theprincipal investigator and colleagues will solicit sug-gestions regarding areas of emphasis from companysponsors. They then design the research program.Usually this is done on a yearly basis. Many timesthere is no formal commitment to project reports, onlyto yearly oral presentations. This is changing, however,as is the informality of company participation in uni-
versity /industry projeCts, especially in the larger, longerterm projects more generously supported by industry.
Many of the industry oriented centers now haveadvisory boards which include company representa-tives. They meet once a year to discuss policy, andprograms with the principal investigator. A few of thelarger programs have two separate boards: one is apolicy board made up of industry and university officers;the other, an advisory board composed of companyand university scientists to aid in project selection.
However, usually one faculty member, the princi-pal investigator, still has veto power and ultimate sayabout project management and research design. Sev-eral of those interviewed have suggested that theyfound through experience that university/industry pro-
fgrams do not work if they are administered by com-mittee. In one case where an attempt was made toconduct a prggram through committee, the programdid not begin until one faculty member was appointeddirector. We heard of only'one instance where a com-pany scientist managed a university research program.This occurred because university scientists did nothave the scope of knowledge or the time to managethis project. Usually, if a company wants a universityto be part of a larger program, they /subcontract aspecific portion to the university. Only/this part of theprogram will be managed and directed by the facultymember.
As projects become larger and more comprehen-sive, this may become an issue. Many of those inter-viewed poiDted out that companies were frequentlydissatisfied with a professor managing a research pro-gram because of his other commitments at the univer-sity. Some have suggested that a post-doctoral studentor research associate be given the responsibility forday-to-day program management and coordination.However, the ultitriate responsibility for research pro-grams and the allocation of resources_will continue tolie in the hands of the faculty scientist.
In industry, the ultimate responsibility for man-agement normally resides at a level above the researchscientist. This difference in the structure of researchmanagement in academia and industry may continueto cause frustrations and difficulties in cooperativeresearch, at least in the initial stages.
E. Characteristics of University/IndustryResearch Programs
1. Successful Programs
The most successful interactions are almost alwaysinitiated and nurtured by a key individual who is ener-getic and has a belief that the success of this programis essential to his professional development. Thisindividual must demonstrate management capabili-ties as well as excellence in science. Very rarely do
5041
programs succeed which are developed conceptuallyat the top levels of university administration. Theremust be enthusiastic faculty support of the program.
In several successful cases, university foundationsor endowments were used to establish a programwhich they tied to the university's capability of obtain-ing government support, which was then instrumentalin attracting industrial support. Industry is much moreapt to support a program which is in place than to ini-tiate a whole new area of research at a university.
Indeed, federal leveraging of cooperative fundingis critical to many successful programs. While the rela-tionship between universities and corporations is of astrictly voluntary nature, the federal government fre-quently plays a role in influencing conditions underwhich such linkages may develop. We observed several /-cases where direct grant awards to the university calyzed the establishment of significant university/in s-try cooperative ventures (e.g. the MIT Polymer/Proc-essing Center, the Materials Science Center athighUniversity). Programs of support and encouragementfocused on specific industries (e.g. the role/of the gov-ernment in the communication and information indus-try) may also generate successful university/industryprograms. /
In characterizing successful interactions, we wouldlike to point out that many of the present significantinteractions are new. In many instances, participantsstated that it was too soon to tell if the interactionswould stimulate further industrial activity, or produce'-new and non-traditional outcomes (see p. 43, thischapter, and Chapter V).
2. Unsuccessful Programs
In an attempt to shed light on the difficulties ofuniversity/industry research cooperation, the researchteam identified a few case histories which could becharacterized as failures. These were difficult to iden-tify because most would only characterize a failure asan interaction that did not occur. One such examplefollows:
The director of a research institute at a publicuniversity and representatives of an oil company,including the company research director, discusseddeveloping a solar energy research/program to befunded at a level of $1 million a year. They consid-ered several ways of interacting in- house, or team-ing with the university. The director of the universityresearch institute talked with top level technical,legal, and management people at the oil company.After having spent his time with them, he discoveredthat the oil company was not seriously consideringfunding this project. They had even talked aboutsuch details as patent rights before the universityscientists realized that the oil company never hadany intention of interacting with the university.
Other "unsuccessful" interactions were attributedi
to lack of continued company commitment.
42
In one case a professor's research was sup-ported by local industry. The company supportedthe program for a Ph.D. candidate, and in the in-terim, the company licensed a product which madethe project irrelevant. The student had to find a totallynew thesis project and a new company to supporthim. This is a recurring problem with thesis worksupported by a company. There is an inability toguarantee company support for completion of thethesis.
In ariother case, an aerospace company sub-contracted research to a prestigious eastern univer-sity and then lost interest in the project because thegovernment changed its funding priorities. Althoughthe contracted research was completed, the univer-sity scientists thought the program insufficientbecause of the lack of company commitment.
Most other failures documented are those caseswhere there is an expectation for success and theresult did not sustain this expectation.
For example, a chemical company withdrewfunds from a large research project because the re-sults indicated that a commercially viable productwould not be forthcoming, at least in the foresee-able future.
There are several instances of university/industryresearch interaction that could be characterized as
.
failures because the university scientists promisedmore than they:could, deliver.
In one instance, a company gave $1 million fora period of two to three years to a Canadian univer-sity professor and obtained no valid data in return.The difficulty was partly the investigator's fault andpartly the company's fault. If a company expects aspecific outcome from the project, it must be pre-cise about the program design and monitor the pro-ject continuously.
The research team was rarely able to document acase where a university/industry research interactionhad failed because the two parties could not come toan agreement concerning patent ownership and distri-bution of royalties. However, one investigator, at amarine sciences institute at a public university, didstate that he had to back away from one grant becausehe could not come to an agreement with the companyon patents. Some universities refuse to interact withcertain companies because of their policies on patentrights, licensing, and publication delay. Companies, insome instances, do not choose to support universitiesbecause of their policies. For years, IBM and the Uni-versity of California system have been trying to cometo an agreement over patents.
In summary, most unsuccessful university/indus-try research interactions can be characterized by acommunication gap resulting from a lack of time andeffort put into building up a trust relationship betweenthe two parties.
51
F. Outcomes of University/Industry Coupling
Data indicative of the numbers and types of spe-cific outcomes of university/industry research collaboration are generally difficult if nbt impossible to obtain.But as an illustration of possible results of a coopera-tive research program we provide the data in Table 14on outcomes of selected U/! cooperative researchcenters.
Most programs have produced Ph.D. students andpublications. Graduates associated with university/industry cooperative research programs generally takejobs in industry. As university/industry cooperativeprograms increase in number, there is a belief that thenumber of I'll. D.'s oriented to an industrial career willincrease, or at least new Ph.D.'s will be better preparedto meet industrial needs.
University/industry research interactions yieldingspecific results in the final stages of useful applicableresults directly related to technical change are rare, ifthey occur at all. however, the data gathered in ourstudy indicate that university/industry research pro-grams are not initiated with that objective in mind.Most companies recognize the role of the university inbasic research and in training students. Their interestis in students and access to new ideas rather than to aspecific product, process or service. Frequently, com-panies hire students that they have, at least in part,sponsored in a university/industry cooperative researchprogram. Faculty are also hired after participation in
these programs. We documented at least three caseswhere the director of a highly successful university/industry research program was subsequently hired bya company sponsor.
G. Model Interactions
The following are a few representative examples ofthe programs we reviewed. A complete listing of uni-versity/industry programs identified is given in Appen-dix Ill. Chapters VIII and IX provide descriptions ofseveral other interactions.
Harvard-Monsanto Agreement. Under a twelve-year agreement initiated in 1974, Monsanto agreedto provide $23 million to the Harvard Medical School(including a sizable contribution to the Harvardendowment) to support the work of two medicalscientists engaged in basic cell research related tounderstanding the growth of tumors. The agree-ment provided for Monsanto to receive patent rightsto any useful results from a specific area of researchon a particular biological substance under investi-gation by the Harvard researchers. In addition toseeking a concrete basis for corporate growth, Mon-santo was motivated by a desire to gain access toHarvard's capabilities in biological research, anarea in which Monsanto sought to increase its in-house capabilities. The agreement reportedly placesno constraints on the Harvard researchers' rights topublish the results of their research.
Exxon-MIT. In April, 1980, Exxon Corporation andMIT announced a ten-year agreement under whichExxon will provide $8 million to support basic research
Table 14
Outcomes of Selected. University/Industry Cooperative Research Centers
Twenty-Two Yr. 01.1 U/I CooperativeResearch Centers Located at
Public Universities
Seven Yr. Old U/I CooperativeResearch Center Located at a
Public University
Three Year Old U/I CooperativeResearch Center Located at a
Private University
Center 1 Graduates Graduates (associated with Center)Graduates: 267 100 B.S. 25
M.S. 173 20 M.S. 25Ph.D. 94 Ph.D. Ph.D. 15
Publications (in 10-13 yrs.) 375 Publications 60 Publications 285Visiting Scholar Residences Visiting Scientists & Visiting Scientists &
( 1 970-1980) 12 Residences 2 Residences 13Conferences & Short Courses Conferences & Short Courses 25 Conferences & Short Courses 34
Activities (1978-1980) 12 Commercial Outcomes 0 Commercial OutcomesCommercial Outcomes 0 (Commercial Products) 4
(Patents Pending) 8Center 2 (Licenses Sold) 3
Graduates (over 20 yrs.)' M.S. (directly assoc.w/
Center) 100Ph.D. (directly assoc. w/
Center)Publications 554Visiting Scholar Residences
(1970 -1980) 10-15Conferences & Short Courses
Activities(Designated training) 400
people)Commercial Outcomes
(products, licenses)Spin-Off Companies 12
4352
at MIT in combustion processes. Research is to beconducted on the burning of coal, coal liquids, shaleoil, anti heavy crude oil. The agreement provides for
to hold patents to technology arising from theresearch with Exxon, and to share in any royaltiesresulting from third-party licensing. Exxon will havea royalty-free, non-ex1usiVe license to use suchpatents. All research results under the Exxon-MITagreement can be openly published. In announcingthe agreement, both the company and the universityemphasized the long-term nature of the commit-ment and its emphasis on long-term, r7,Iatively basicresearch.
du Pont-Harvard. In June 1981, the du Pont Com-pany and harvard University announced a $6 mil-lion, five-year research agreement with the harvardUniversity Medical School, under which du Pont willreceive exclusive rights to use any resulting patentsfrom the research. Harvard will hold title to the patent:.The du Pont agreement is focused on genetic re-search, an area in which the company is investingheavily in a long-term program of building in-houseresearch capabilities.
Hoechst-Massachusetts General Hospital. Thelargest financial commitment for industry-universityresearch collaboration is contained in a May 1981ten-year, $50 million agreement between the Germanchemical corporation, Hoechst, A.G. and Massachu-setts General Hospital. The Massachusetts Generairesearch program will be carried out jointly with Har-vard Medical School in a new laboratory facility to befinanced by a separate $15 million gift from an Amer-ican donor. Hoechst was considering developing itsown research institute but apparently could .rot finda researcher of sufficient stature to head the effortin biotechnology. The agreement provides for openpublication of research results, for ownership of anyensuing patents by Massachusetts General, and forexclusive licensing by Hoechst.
Mallinckrodt-Washington University (St. Louis).In September, 1981, Mallinckrodt, Inc., a chemicalcompany in St. Louis supplying medical products,entered a three-year, $3.9 million research agree-ment with the Washington University Medical School.The focus of the research is on "hybridomas," a tech-nique for producing useful biological materials suchas antibodies. In keeping with the general pattern ofagreements in biotechnology discussed above, theMallinckrodt-Washington University agreement pro-vides for open publication of research results, forthe university to hold title to any resulting patents,and for the company to have an option for exclusiveuse of the university patents.
Celanese-Yale. In February, 1982, the CelaneseCorporation and Yale announced a $1.1 million,three-year research contract under which Celanesewill support basic research on the composition andsynthesis of naturally occurring enzymes. Yale willhold title to the patents' but Celanese will pay forthe patenting and will receive exclusive rights to useany resulting patents from the research. The Yaleresearchers will allow Celanese to review their pub-lications for up to forty-five days. Thereafter, Yaleresearchers have unlimited publication rights. Thisis the largest contract ever made by Celanese to auniversity, according to corporate officials, and itis Yale's first venture with an industrial agreement
44
of this sort. The money will be used in part to sup-port approximately four post-doctoral fellows.
University of MichiganUniversity/Industry Pro-gram in Microbiological Processes. The Universityof Michigan interaction with Upjohn in microbiolog-ical processes is part of the NSF University-IndustryCoupling Program. Upjohn's contribution to the pro-gram involves manpower and facilities rather thanmonetary contributions.
A University of Michigan professor, who had pre-viously worked in industry, was responsible for get-ting the grant. The importance of personal contactsis illustrated by the professor contacting someoneat Upjohn, whom he knew was interested in univer-sity-industry cooperative research. The chairman ofhis department had had contact with Upjohn pre-viously through a consulting arr..ngement and sothe company was responsive to the younger pro-fessor's approach. Additionally, they were involvedwith another IUC program.
There was a need to find an area of overlappingresearch interest. That overlap was uncovered througha desire to develop process improvements for twcproducts already being produced at Upjohn. In addi-tion to Upjohn's contribution to the project, theyhad already assembled information for the researchthat saved the Michigan researcher a substantialamount of preparatory research. The agreementreached between Michigan and Upjohn granted10% of the sales revenues generated through proc-ess improvements to the university. Upjohn wasgranted exclusive license to any patents developedbut would pay for the patent process, although theactual patent would remain with the university. Anadded feature of the agreement permitted Upjohnresearchers to publish along with the universityresearchers.
MIT-Whitehead Institute. A unique situation in thedevelopment of biotechnology research programsconcerns the Whitehead Institute and MIT. Througha $7.5 million gift from Edwin C. Whitehead, MITwill be involved with the establishment of a $120million research institute.
The importance of this institute concerns thedual status that twenty professors will hold with MITand the Institute. Equal power over screening andappointing these new professors and their studentswill rest with both institutions. Concern exists withregard to MIT losing control over faculty appoint-ments, graduate students and research directions.The willingness to accept this situation appears tobe influenced by the expectation of shrinking fed-eral support.
Purdue-Computer Integrated Design, Manufac-turing and Automation Center. The Computer inte-grated Design, ManufaCaring and Automation Cen-ter (CIDMAC) at Purdue developed out of a CAD/CAM project with the Control Data Corporation. Thecomputer aided design laboratory (CADLAB) wasstarted as a research project in computer graphicsand computer aided design by a professor in mech-anical engineering in 1969. Ten years laier, this pro-fessor, who had left Purdue, was on the Board ofDirectors of CDC. he did consulting work for themand later involved one of his ex-students at Purduein consulting for CDC.
When the company decided to go into CAD/CAM,the decision was made to go to the university, rather
53
than develop a program on their own. The programwas initiated in 1980, with a three-year grant fromCDC for $2.8 million: $1.5 million for facilities and$430,000/year for researchers. In addition, CDCbought computer graphics and commercial quality-software, which it owns but leaves at the university.Research topics were not determined until after theinitial funding. CDC gets non-exclusive rights to pro-grams developed through the project but deter-mines the royalties on licensing.
The CADLAB is a research laboratory affiliatedwith Purdue's Institute for Interdisciplinary Engineer-ing Studies. As a result of the influx of CDC money,the Dean of Engineerirg sought the development ofa broader, much larger program; CIDMAC.
Five companies have been enlisted as sponsorsfor the Center. The names of those companies willbe released by the school in the coming months.Purdue is asking for $1.2 million over five years fromeach company. The first year's funding will includeupfront money in the form of either cash or equip-ment. Although separate contracts were negotiatedwith each, Purdue gets patent rights while the com-panies get exclusive license. Additional funding hascome from NASA and NSF.
CIDMAC will draw upon the design faculty fromCADLAB, the Advanced Automation Research Lab-oratory, the Laboratory for Applied Industrial Con-trol, manufacturing and computer aided manufac-turing research in the School of Industrial Engineer-ing and the Business School. There will be extensivestudent involvement and the Center seeks to developprojects that may be used as thesis projects.
Lehigh-Materials Science Research Center. TheMaterials Science Research Center was the first( enter started at Lehigh (1962). Important in gettingstarted was a large metallurgy development grantfrom NSF for five to six years. The next step was theinitiation of an industrial liaison program in materialsscience to bring industry to the university and developthe exposure necessary for facilitating cooperativeresearch. There are approximately twenty com-panies involved in both the Center and the affiliatesprogram.
Research faculty may have dual appointments tothe Center and an academic department. Thz Cen-ter draws faculty from amongst several departments:metallurgy, chemistry, physics and materials, mech-anical, chemical, electrical and computer engineer-ing. In addition, there are non-academic appoint-ments, with the center paying 50% of the salaryand research contracts paying the other 50%.
The Center has participated in personnel ex-change, with Center personnel having spent time atAllied Co., IBM and the National Bureau of Stand-ards. Less than 10% of the center's support comesfrom industry. Of that industry support, most of ittends to be local companies providing funding, onthe order of $10-20,000.
Although researchers may pursue any directionthey desire, as long as it is supported, there areadvisory committees. As is required of all Lehighcenters, there is_a_visiting committee, made up ofindustry and govIernment representatives. Addi-tionally, there is a Materials Research Council, con-LAsting of senior faculty, providing advisory and com-munications support. The director of the center, aswell as most of the technical staff,. have worked in
industry,' providing an understanding of industry'sperspective.
Innovation Center-University of Utah. The Irmo-vation Center at the University of Utah was estab-lished in 1978 with a grant from NSF for $900,000over three years. The goal of the program is to assistin the development of new companies. Between 500and 1000 ideas are reviewed per year, arising mostlyfrom independent inventors outside the university.The initial screening process is informal. In review-ing the submitted proposals, the Center looks forthose ideas that might lead to the founding of acompany in the geographic area, based on an ad-vanced technology and for a person with the capa-bility to run the company that will eventually arise.There is a waiting period for potential projects thatlasts 2-18 months. The second phase in the processof fostering the development of these new technicalventures consists of those steps that can be accom-plished in six months for about $5,000. This in-cludes prototype improvements, market research,patent research, or performance research.
If the Innovation Center decides to continue withproject, the next phase is finding seed capital, whichis easier to acquire for the entrepreneur associatedwith the Innovation Center than on' his own becauseof the credibility the Center lends to the project. Ifthis capital is acquired, then over the next 12-18months the product must be produced in prototypeform, a business plan and objective written, and ateam established.
The fourth phase is the assembly of key manage-ment and bringing the product to the commerciallyready stage. The fifth phase involves assistance inobtaining start-up capital.
Two companies have reached this stage of theprogram. Representatives of the Center state thatits equity in the two companies will exceed NSrsoriginal investment within a year.
Robotics Institute-Carnegie Mellon University.Carnegie Mellon has for the past two years operatedthe Robotics Institute, a multi-disciplinary programinvolving the computer science, electrical and mech-anical engineering departments. The main sourceof funding for the Institute comes from Westing-house, which is providing $1 million per year for fiveyears. Additional funding is supplied by AdvancedResearch Projects Agency (ARPA), Office of NavalResearch (ONR), and a small National Science Foun-dation (NSF) grant. Another sponsor is a consultingfirm headed by the chairman of the computer sci-ence 'department and another professor. The Insti-tute does contract work for companies willing tosupport--a_major project. The iponsors receive allnon-proprietarfclata-and_com uter programs on aroyalty -free, non-exclusive basis. 131-annual "research-in progress" reviews are held to update sponsorson research activity.
Institute objectives include: scientific advance inrobotics science, technology transfer, to industry,and training of engineers and scientists. To facili-tate the technology transfer, an affiliates program ismaintained.
The Institute was initiated at the behest of theuniversity president. The man put in charge of rais-ing the funds had worked for Westinghouse. Rightfrom the beginning equipment was available fromthe various academic departments. Althougl. an
5445
informal grbup of advisors exists, researchers largelydecide what they will work on. The staff includesfull-time research scientists as well as faculty withdual appointments between the departments andthe Institute.
University of Arizona-Office of Arid Land Studies.The Office of Arid Land Studies at the University ofArizona has existed for sixteen years but only for thelast two has it had any industry support. It was startedwith support from the RoCkefeller Foundaticn andoperated out of the College of Earth Sciences. TheOffice was later moved to the Division of Interdis-ciplinary Studies in an effort to pcol together amultidisciplinary research team. It is important tonote that the Office is not an academic department.Students arc considered a resource for researchefforts.
Currently, one-third of the financial support coniesfrom industry and the rest from the federal and stategovernment. Personal contacts were very importantin initiating cooperation with industry. The majorportion of industry support comes from DiamondShamrock, with Phillips Petroleum just recently join-ing the program. Strong leadership has played acrucial role throughout negotiations on industryirvolvemerit as well as particular aspects of researchagreements.
Any patents originating out of the cooperative re-search stay at the university with Diamond Sham-rock receiving exclusive license in return for royaltypayments. Some problems have arisen due to pro-prietary rights but have been overcome due to thestrong positions of the industry and university rep-resentatives. Monthly project meetings are held aswell as advisory committee input.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute-Center for Man-ufacturing Productivity. Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-tute's Center for Manufacturing Productivity is a uni-que form of university/industry interaction. TheCenter is solely supported by industry funding.Started in 1979, it was initiated through the effortsof the university vice president and dean of engi-neering. They sought to rectify existing deficienciesin productivity growth in manufacturing, as well asincrease university/industry interaction at the uni-versity.
46
i.1 l, r
Although the Center is within the engineeringschool, is has no faculty of its own. The key to theprogram is the use of project engineers from incias-try that are hired at the Center for a maximum offive years.
It is not a generic program. All projects are theresult of a specific need by z, particular companyand are conducted accordin3 to contract agree-ments. Contract costs are in addition to sponsorfees.
The sponsors are divided into two groups; theFounders Group, consisting of five companies con-tributing $250,000, and an Associates Group, con-sisting of five other companies contributing $10-50,000 annually, based on the size of the firm.Membership in the Founders Group provides a spoton the Advisory Board, a policy making committee.
University of WashingtonOcean Margin DrillingProgram h,..(.1 been a part of the proposed AdvancedOcean Drilling Program. Initiated by the governmentin 1977, the decision was made to involve the petro-leum industry in the program. Of the 24 companiesapproached, only 10 made a positive commitment.The first-year costs were shared equally between theNational Science Foundation and the industry par-ticipants. The cost for industry was $5 million.
A Science Advisory Committee was establishedwith representatives from the 10 petroleum com-panies, 10 universities that were to be involved inthe program and various representatives from gov-ernment. A substructure was created to developcontracts for the research program based on the sci-entific plan developed at a conference in late 1980.
At the-end of the first year of planning, the indus-try participants made the decision to discontinueparticipation in the program. The primary reasonfor the decision was due to a feeling that per com-pany costs were too steep. The anticipated costswere $500 million over ten years. Originally therewas an expectation that other industry sponsorswould be enlisted during the planning stage. How-ever, this did not come to fruition. An additionalspeculated reason for their discontinued participa-tion was that the world oil glut made it difficult forpetroleum companies to justify program expenseswith a long term profit potential. Therefore, the pro-gram could not meet this requirement.
55
CHAPTER VIII
DIFFERENCES IN TYPES AND INTENSITYOF COOPERATION WITHIN ANDAMONG SECTORS-,
Successful research interaction between two sec-tors having differing but not competitive goals and out-looks depends on their preconceived and real degreeof complementarity and the mutual benefit to bederived. The highest degree of complementarity be-tween the universities and industry is clearly in high-technology research where technology transfer is rapidand requires close apposition both for fundamentaland product-oriented research. Current examples ofsuch research are microelectronics, polymer science,materials science,'and molecular biotechnology. Thereare indeed many joint programs in these areas.
The potential for high complementarity exists insome universities but not in others, in some com-panies but not others. Approaches to cooperationdiffer according to the objectives and traditions ofeach institution (see Chapter VI, pp. 24-25).
A. Variation Among Industries
1. Characteristics of Industrial Support
Different industries vary greatly in their attitudestoward supporting university research and in the typeso; programs they tend to support. This is in part ares(,It of interests related to their products and in partrelated to the nature of their business. Specific differ-ences among industries in their participation in uni-versity/industry research will be discussed in SectionsA.3.a to A.3.h of this chapter.
The companies that tend to support researchinteractions with universities are frequently (N-50% ofthe time) mernbers of the Fortune 500. Most areresearch-oriented companies and are listed in theBusiness Week R&D Scoreboard. Firms listed by Busi-ness Week must spend at least $100 mil1on on R&Dannually. The industries most frequently representedin sponsoring university research spent from 2-6% of
their sales on R&D. Those industries interacting lessfrequent y generally spend less than one percent oftheir sales on R&D (Table 15).
Though a great many companies hire universitygraduates, a small percentage of the total numberinteracts directly with the university by recruiting orby expressing needs regarding the nature of educa-tional programs. Typically, between 200 and 500 com-panies recruit at a given campus. Only 500 companiesdo any recruiting on campuses at all, approximately0.3% of the 150,000 companies that have more than500 workers.
Indeed there are a limited set of-industries, eachdominated by a relatively few companies, that have anysignificant researcn interaction with universities (Table16). Of the 464 programs reviewed, about 292 com-pan ieS were involved-in the support of over 60% of theprograms documented. In these programs, about 97different companies were represented more thanonce. All of these had more than 500 employees. Thisis about 0.06°0 those companies that have morethan 500 workers, i.e., those not considered to besmall business. Additional data suggest that in thecases where we did not list company participants, asimilar spectrum of participation exists..
The industries that fund research at universitiesare, as expected, those that are more dependent onresearch and development and who perform researchand development themselves: chemicals, pharmaceu-ticals, electronics and computers, fuels, aerospace,automotive (Table 17). however, even among thoseindustries, a very small percentage of their researchand development dollar is spent in universities. Phar-maceutical companies, for example, spend less than10% of their R&D funds outside their walls, primarilyfor clinical testing of drugs. Less than 3% of that 10%
-.goes to basic research at universities. however, thepI-6rmaceutical industry does have extensive interac-tions with universities, primarily through exchange ofresearch personnel and information. They provideadjunct professors, participate in conferences andseminars, and invite distinguished faculty to partici-
t.i,56
47
Table 15
Research & Development as a Percent of Sales
Industry Ranking 1977 1978 1979 1980 Average
Aerospace 7 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.0Appliances 19 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5Automotive (cars, trucks) 8 2.6, 2.8 3.2 4.0 3.2Automotive (parts, equipment) 18 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.6Building Materials 22 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Chemicals 12 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4Computers' 1 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.1Conglomerates 16 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.7Containers 23 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9Drugs 3 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.8
Electrical 11 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.6Electronics 10 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.8Food and Beverage 27 0.5 0.5 0.5 9.6 0.5Fuels 29 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Instruments (measuring devices, controls) 5 4.7 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.2
Leisure Time 4 4.3 NA 4.2 4.2 4.2Machinery (farm construction) 9 3.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8Machinery (machine tools, industrial mining) 17 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Metals and Mining 25 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8Miscellaneous-Manufacturing 13 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9
Office Equipment' 6 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2Oil Service and Supply 21 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.3Paper 24 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9Personal and Home Care Products 15 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7Semiconductors 2 5.8 5.8 5.7 6.0 5.8
Services (engineering, data service leasing) 0.3 D.C. D.C. D.C.Steel 26 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6Telecommunications 20 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.5
Textiles, Apparel 27 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5Tires and Rubber 14 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7
Tobacco 29 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4Information Processing' (peripherals, serv.) 5.9
' In 1978-changed to Information Processing (computers, peripherals).In 1978-changed to Information Processing (office equipment).'In 1980-changed to Information Processing (computers).'In 1980-separated from Information Processing (computers, peripherals).
D.C.-discontinued category.
pate in programs of varying length. They support grad-uate students. With the advent of molecular match-making, they are just beginning to develop a wholerange of cooperative interactions. The task of routinedrug testing, although willingly performed by someuniversities, is not closely allied with the fundamentalgoals of the university: highly repetitive, not innova-tive, and labor intensive, such research may be inap-propriate within university academic units.
Several manufacturing companies said that theypreferred dealing with contract research laboratories(e.(;., not-for-profit research institutes such as SRI orBattelle) when they decided to sponsor research out-side their own organization. They found that suchorganizations could mobilize more easily to completework on short schedule, and proprietary informationcould be dealt with more readily. Sometimes theseattitudes are based more on perception than reality.The differences in attitude among companies towards
48
Source: Business Week annual R&D Scoreboard.
development and cooperation with universities weredescribed in Chapter VI, Section C.
2. Firm Size and University/Industry Coupling:Differences Between Small and LargeCompanies' Programs
We have already observed that there are a limitednumber of companies that have much research-relatedinteraction with universities and that only the largercompanies as defined in terms of employees andannual sales tend to participate in cooperative univer-sity/industry research programs (see Table 16). Veryrarely did we discover an instance of a smaller com-pany providing funds for university research. Of the287 documented cases of cooperative research, onlyone program has been funded by a company withsales of less than $10 million. Recently, this companywas bought by a larger food processing company.
57
Smaller companies, if they interacted with univer-sity researchers, did so by participating in knowledgetransfer programs. Even then, organizers of such pro-grams said it was difficult to attract the interest andparticipation of small companies. Several directors ofengineering extension programs, or programs directly
=set up for smaller companies, stated that these com-panies came to the university only as a last resort. Inorder for a program to work for the smaller company,a university researcher had to seek out their partici-pation energetically.
In summary, there are several barriers to univer-sity research cooperation with smaller companies:
(1) Smaller companies are primarily interested insolving specific problems, many of which are not con-sidered to be of sufficient challenge by university pro-fessors.
(2) Smaller companies frequently do not have theresearch organization or personnel necessary to fostertechnical contacts between itself and a. university.
(3) Smaller companies must husband their re-sources. They do not have the funds to spend on aca-demic research programs.
The exceptions are small high technology or in-strumentation companies where corporate officers are
themselves scientists and may have begun their careerin universities. Such companies, even when they havelittle liquid capital, are often interested in providingservices in kind to universities, personnel support,internships, equipment loans, and other services.
3. Differences Among Industrial Sectors inCollaboration with Universities andthe Modes of Interaction Favoredby Different Sectors
The motives and modes of interaction with univer-sities of companies within each industrial groupingare based on the specific commercial interests of thegroup, tradition, and differing technology bases. Eachindustrial sector is characterized by a product cycle.tiow well developed the technology associated with agiven product is influences the kinds of research inter-actions in which a particular industry engages. Thematurity of a scientific concept, the economic climate,and serendipity all play a role in the readiness of anindustry to cooperate with university researchers. Thetine must be right for cooperative commitment tooccur.
The primary industrial groups inclined towardsresearch interactions with universities are, as statedpreviously, petroleum, chemicals, automotive, elec-
Table 16
Summary of Companies Actively Supporting University Research
Ten Leading IUCRPerformers Industrial Sector
NSF Industry University Cooperative Research Program (FY 1978-81)
Projects* Value of Awards" Share of Total Awards(No.)
IBMAT&T Bell Labs)Hughes AircraftWestinghouseExxonLockheedMartin-Mariettadu PontGEHercules
Eleven LeadingParticipants NYUField Study
IBMExxonGEForddu PontXeroxBurroughs-Wellcome'ChevronBoeingDowHughes
Information ProcessingInformatior ProcessingAerospaceElectricalFuelAerospaceAerospaceChemicalsElectricalChemicals
Industrial Sector
Information ProcessingFuelElectricalAutomotiveChemical8Information ProcessingDrugsFuelAerospaceChemicalsAerospace
15866544333
Projects*(No.)
201717151312988
88
($1,000's) (070)
2,326 7.8993 3.3
2,491 8.41,570 5.3
721 2.41,480 5.0
598 2.01,449 4.9
914 3.08'11 2.7
NYU Field Study 1980
'Some research projects have received more than one grant. These figures do not count continuation grants."Includes matching funds provided by other NSF Divisions.
58 4Q
Table 17
Distribution of U/I Research Interactions into Business Week Industry Groupings
Industry
Number of Firms Participating
NSF IUCR*Program
FY 1978-81
VoluntaryAid to Education NYU Field Study
1980 1980
Aerospace 4 2 10Appliances none 1 1
Automotive 3 6 10Biotechnology Company none none 3Brokerage none none 1
Building Materials none 1 6Chemicals 9 29 26Conglomerates 4 2 5Containers none 1 1
Drugs 3 7 17
Electrical 3 5 3Electronics 3 1 7Engineering none 2 7Food and Beverage none 11 12Fuel 6 15 26
Information Processing (computers, peripherals, office equipment) 5 4 13Instruments 3 1 6Insurance none 19 2
,Leisure Time 1 none 2Machinery (farm construction) 1 2 6
Machinery (machine tools, etc.) 1 5 3Metals and Mining 2 11 7MiscellaneousManufacturing none none 5Oil Service and Supply none none nonePaper 1 10 7
Personal and Home Care Products 2 none 1
Semiconductors 1 1 3Steel 3 4 5Telecommunications 2 4 noneTextiles and Apparel none 3 3
Tires and Rubber 1 4 noneTransportationEquipment, Ship Building, Railroad none 4 3Utility none 9 9
Source: Program award sheets NSFSource: Council for Financial Aid to Education, CFAE Casebook (11th ed.)
tronics and computers, aerospace, food and pharma-ceuticals (Table 17). Chemical companies have thelongest history of actively contributing funds to univer-sity research and participating in cooperative researchprograms. The mining and'minerals industry, and con-struction industry, have in the past been less inclinedto fund or be involved in cooperative university/indus-try programs. In general, poor capital-intensive indus-tries find the sort of research programs conducted atuniversities not well suited to their needs. Their fundsmay be limiter,, their needs more immediate, and tech-nical decisions may require expensive and specializedequipment.
To illustrate the differing views and modes ofuniversity/industry research interactions in differentindustries, the following sections will present an over-view of such interactions within the aerospace, energysupply microelectronics, chemical, pharmaceutical,
50
mining and mineral, and construction industries. Eachis operating under a different set of financial and marketconditions which have a definite influence on each in-dustry's interactions with universities.
a. Aerospace Industry
An industry which is devoted exclusively or pri-marily to producing aerospace products is dependentto a great extent on the uncertainties of governmentdefense spending. The frequent "boom and bust"cycles have had a negative impact on the long-rangeresearch commitment of the aerospace industry, andconsequently on its involvement in university/industryresearch cooperation. Nevertheless, a few aerospacecorporations have maintained a continuing commit-ment to research and, to one degree or another, mostare involved in some type of university interaction
involving research, usually very specifically productoriented.
The most common research interactions betweenthe aerospace industry and the universities are con-sulting by individual professors and membership inindustrial affiliates programs or research centers. Per-sonnel exchanges are not uncommon, most typicallyinvolving industry-based scientists or engineers work-ing at least part-time in universities. Such personnelexchanges sometimes involve formal joint appoint-ments at both institutions.
Collaboration in contract research is sometimesdiscouraged because of proprietary rights. However,corporations with a commitment to research, the fewaerospace firms which support their own central re-search facilities, collaborate extensively with universi-ties. This collaboration sometimes extends beyondthe confines of the central research facility to othercorporate divisions.
The most common types of university/industryrelationships in aerospace research facilities involvegovernment-contracted joint research projects. A var-iety of government funding agencies are usually involvedin supporting cooperative research projects includingDOE, AFOSR, DARPA, ONR, and NSF. Many aerospaceindustry research programs have resulted from gov-ernment-sponsored collaborations. A typical mode ofcooperation involves the industry partner as the primecontractor and the university as the subcontractor.This seems to be preferred by both partners. Industryhas greater control over project management, which itprefers, while the university partner does not have tohandle the burdensome paperwork involved with govern-ment contracts. Nevertheless, the paperwork requiredby some agencies can be a barrier to encouraginggreater university/industry cooperation in govern-ment-contracted research. Although aerospace firmscite past encouragement of university participation inresearch by the Department of Defense, they report arecent drop-off in cooperative support from DOD fund-ing agencies.
Aerospace firms receive discretionary indepen-dent research and development (IRAD) funds from thegovernment, based on a percentage of their federallysponsored work. Some aerospace firms use part oftheir IRAD funds to contract with university research-ers, either as individual consultants or in university-based projects. Such IRAD-supported university/industrycollaboration seems to be preferred over government-contracted research cooperation because of the min-imum of paperwork involved, especially in the pro-posal stage. One major aerospace firm claims that abarrier to greater utilization of IRAD for universityresearch is that only two-thirds of it can be recoveredas part of the overhead on federally-sponsored work.Total recovery of IRAD funds was suggested as anincentive for increased IRAD funding for universityresearch. It is not clear, however, whether such a
change would encourage those aerospace firms whichonly utilize their IRAD funds internally to switch someof these funds to support university research.
Top corporate commitment is critical to the sup-port of university/industry interactions and may evenoverride the lack of a strong research facility. A typicalindic.ator of such a commitment was the assignmentof a top executive to the responsibility for developinginteractions with universities. One such executive indi-cated that his performance would be determined bythe degree to which he is successful in increasing uni-versity interactions. A strong corporate research facilityusually implies a strong commitment to university/industry cooperation at the top corporate level whichgoes well beyond the collaborative activities of theresearch facility. However, the lack of such a facilitydoes not necessarily imply a lack of commitment tothe support of university/industry collaboration. In atleast one aerospace firm, which has downgraded itsown research laboratory, corporate commitment touniversity/industry collaboration appeared at least asstrong as in firms which strongly supported their ownresearch facilities. In several other firms, the greatestincreases in research support focus on university col-laborations. however, corporate commitment in theaerospace industry to increase university supportappears to be the exception rather than the rule.
Occasionally, individual aerospace firms havepooled their resources to support university programswhich were of crucial concern to the industry. Forexample, when several companies felt that there was aneed for a manufacturing engineering research pro-gram utilizing CAD/CAM technology, and support fromthe federal government was not forthcoming, the firmsthemselves initiated. the ,development of such a pro-gram at a western public university. The companiesestablished an advisory board and agreed to divideresponsibility for providing specific components, per-sonnel, hardware, and software to help develop theresearch program. One firm even established an en-dowed chair.
It was no coincidence that the CAD/CAM programwas established in a California school. Since much ofthe aerospace industry is concentrated on the WestCoast, especially in southern California, most of theiruniversity interactions are focused in that geographicarea. This is perhaps a unique example of the impor-tance of propinquity for a whole industry establishinginteractions with local universities. West Coast univer-sities develop research expertise and produce grad-uates who are up-to-date in areas of science and tech-nology relevant to the industry. Despite the importanceof proximity, some aerospace firms will seek out exper-tise in universities as far away as the Northeast.
b. Energy Supply Industry
The energy industry, as a whole, is one of the mostactive participants in university/industry cooperation.
6051
The vast array of energy research directions is the sub-ject of over 15% of the cooperative university/industryventures in the sample matrix (Appendix III). Theindustrial participant's main area of business, how-ever, may not be energy. An auto manufacturer and ininsurance company both conduct energy research withuniversities. -
Some of the earliest university/industry interac-tions have involved the energy industry. The longestrunning interaction (75 years), a fellowship program,involves a Great Lakes area gas trade association anda large state university. That cooperation has accel-erated within the past ten years.
The increased attention the energy industry hasgiven to university research capabilities has resultedfrom the oil shortages experienced worldwide duringthe 70's. These shortages underlined the importanceof developing new sources of energy, whether conven-tional or alternative, and the need for long-range fund-amental research.
The dramatic increases in oil prices have had amixed effect on industrial research support. The in-creased oil prices have helped the fuel suppliers (i.e.,oil companies) but have hurt the fuel users (i.e. utili-ties). The utility companies, some of the most activeparticipants in the early university/industry interac-tions, have limited cash for research expenditurebecause of the higher fuel and construction costs. Forexample, a New England program established to fosteruniversity/industry cooperation and specifically tar-geted to the utility companies, failed in part becauseof this cash squeeze. Other contributing factors were:
(1) A competition for funds with the programs ofthe Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). a collec-tive industrial organization formed to concfuct andsponsor research; and
(2) A hesitancy by companies to spend their ownfunds on research projects when government agenciesgave the impression that they would provide support.
The utility companies in response to limited cashand an urgent need to be up to date regarding newtechnological developments banded together to col-lectively support R&D in 1972. This marked the begin-ning of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).With the formation of EPRI, the utilities refocused onshort-term applied research expenditures. Only 7-8%of their total research expenditure is now directed touniversities. Many universities have difficulty accom-modating to EPRI's patent and equipment purchasepolicies. EPRI often asks for the return of equipmentat the end of a project, preventing university labora-tories from maintaining research continuity.
Another collective industrial organization formedin' response to current energy research needs is theGas Research Institute (GRI), formed in 1976. GRI, anot-for-profit organization, plans, manages, and finan--ces a coordinated R&D program in gaseous fuels and
/52
their use on a national level. Additionally, it managesand funds the cooperative research of the AmericanGas Association.
GRI is supported by 197 companies on the basisof a funding formula. Many programs are coordinatedand co-funded with government and industrial organi-zations.
The research program is in four major areas andincludes fundamental research. GM contracts out allproject work to leading research organizations. UnlikeEPRI, nearly half of GRI's program is conducted at uni.versities, through grants and contracts. In 1980, 38university grants were awarded graduate students forthesis work in gas-related research. The trend of uni-versity funding has been increasing: from $600,000 in1979 to a projected $3.2 million in 1982.
As the large oil companies take over an increas-ingly large share of the energy industry, they have alsostepped in to take the place of the utilities in financingnew energy projects. This includes the financing of uni-versity/industry research cooperation as well as indus-trial exploration development and research projects.Many oil companies, of course, were already accus-tomed to working closely with university research per-sonnel and were highly research oriented. During theyears prior to OPEC the utilities exploited oil industryresearch propensities. They often financed projects bysmaller oil companies in exchange for guaranteedsupply contracts.
Increased university/industry interaction withenergy supply companies also results from the shoft-age of manpower affecting the energy industry. Withthe increased efforts in oil and gas exploration anddevelopment and alternate fuel development, therehas been an ever increasing need for geologists andengineers. Universities have been hard pressed f-omeet these demands. The implications for the univer-sities have been been quite significant. With the sup-ply shortfall, salaries for university graduates haveincreased 'dramatically. Such demand for faculty andgraduate students causes immediate problems at theuniversities in terms of retaining quality teaching andresearch. It is becoming of increasing concern thatsuch a drain will result in a long-term problem forindustry. Future engineers and geologists may be in-adequately trained. In response to this problem, sev-eral types of university/industry interactions are beingutilized; consulting, extension programs, internships,fellowships, personnel exchange, and institutionalconsulting, as well as direct salary supplements.
Education extension programs have developed tokeep industry people abreast of the quickly develop-ing technologies and issues related to the energyindustry. At least one of these programs is using video-tape presentations to permit the flexibility that indus-try often requires for retraining its personnel.
Institutional consulting has been an infrequentlyutilized type of university/industry interaction, only two
61
instances noted in all the interactions studied. how-ever, in both of these, the industrial participants havebeen from the energy industry. One of the programsutilizes student consulting teams for short-term proj-ects. The other has the objective of bringing consult-ing onto campus rather than having the professorleave campus to consult. Student involvement is re-quired under this project.
Because of the varied nature of energy research,university flexiblity across disciplines is particularlyimportant. Twenty-nine percent .of the energy relateduniversity /industry programs involve two or more dis-ciplines. Additionally, of the 24 research institutes,organizational structures established to facilitate mul-tidisciplinary research, over one-third are related toenergy projects.
Another attribute of the energy industry's utiliza-tion of university/industry interaction is the non-pro-prietary nature of the technology. Because of this,patent rights appear to be less of a problem. There isa disproportionately large amount of multi-companycooperation in university/industry projects. Such co-operation may occur through trade associations, re-search consortia, or other multi-company interactions.The energy industry frequently utilizes joint venturesand cross licensing agreements and is at ease withcooperative situations when dealing with university/industry programs. Many of the research programsundertaken, whether involving the university or not,are very costly and therefore companies seek to sharethe costs and risks of projects. Thirty-one percent ofthe consortial arrangements cited involve energy relatedprojects.
The objective of spreading the risk and cost ofdeveloping energy related technology has resulted innumerous instances of government funding of projects.However, several companies and universities considergovernment involvement to beinhibiting to the research.
Because basic research in oceanography andgeology have the most direct applications to theindustry, the energy industry is most open to univer-sity/industry cooperation in these fields. Additionally,with the longer time horizon of many energy projects(i.e., synfuels, photovoltaics, fusion),, industry can iden-tify many opportunities for the research capabilities ofthe university.
Because of the potentially lucrative returns fromenergy projects, many companies normally outside theenergy industry have initiated programs with universi-ties on energy research.
Numerous spin-off companies in the energy in-dustry have arisen as the result of university basedresearch. One northeastern university has a programto help these companies get started by housing themon campus and allowing them access to equipmentand faculty. This program is not limited to energyrelated companies, but so far they are the most fre-quent participants.
Proximity also appears to play an important rolefor an energy company seeking out a university re-search partner, perhaps because of the geographicalconcentration of oil and gas. Twenty-nine percent ofthe energy university/industry interaction occurs in thesouthwest-south central region, where many of the oiland gas companies are located. Schools in this areatend to have well developed engineering and geologyprograms.
The diversification initiatives undertaken by thelarge oil companies have led them beyond energybased technology ventures. With a tremendous availa-bility of funds, they have stepped into a new industry,biotechnology. Although some of the biotechnologyprojects involve techniques to improve enhanced oilrecovery and production of methanol, many involveresearch only indirectly related to the energy industry.One major oil company has bought major seed com-panies. Basic molecular biotechnology for this com-pany will produce more than energy-related seed stockimprovements. Indeed, such companies may be thefuture repositories for the many libraries of geneticmaterial. how they take their responsibilities towardsthe world food community will have a direct impact ondeveloping countries.
The avenues of investment have been quite varied.New laboratories have been developed from scratch,joint agreements have arisen with new biotechnologyfirms, and several energy companies have turned tothe universities to tap their expertise.
One such university/industry endeavor has beenquite creatively designed. A non-profit foundation wasestablished which holds an equity interest along withthe industry participants in a for-profit organization.The profits associated with the non-profit center'sequity interest would be used to sponsor university__research. Faculty from each of two West Coast univer-sities are associated with this for-profit organization.
c. The Building Materials and ConstructionIndustryThe building materials industry, and in particular
the associated residential construction group, hasexperienced neither significant federal procurementnor much federal research and development supportfor either basic or applied work. Analysis of the resi-dential construction industry indicates that, unlikeagriculture, it has neither the constituency interestedin establishing applied research and developmentrelevant to their needs, nor a sound scientific basisunderneath its technologies (Quigley, 1982). Thisappears to be true to some extent for the buildingmaterials industry, though far less so. There, activity isevident in developing new products and applications.
These industries lack a broad university scientificbase oriented to their needs, which might provide newoptions for applied research and development activi-ties. One company manager said his company looked
6253
to European university research programs when theyneeded basic research results related to companyinterests.
Research and development as a percent of salesin the building materials industry averaged 1.1% overthe last four years (Business Week, 1977-.1980). Theirranking in this category out of 29 Business Weekgroupings was 22. however, in the Nason-Steger study(1978), the building materials industry reported thatthey spent 6.4% of their total research expenditures($47M) on basic research.
Regulatory regimes strongly influence the techno-logical advance of these industries. The response ofthe building industry to regulation has been conserva-tive. Building codes and standards have stayed rairlyclose to prevailing technologies and materials,or simplemodifications thereof (Quigley, 1982). One constrainton change has be,en the position of unions, a strongfactor in the construction industry.
There would appear to be research of interest tobuilding materials companies at university-based mate-rials science centers, and perhaps in CAD/CAM androbotics programs. Of the programs we identified inthis study, approximately 1% were supported by thebuilding materials and construction industry. howeverthe importance of regulation to these industries andthe way it is interpreted tends to put them in a defen-sive research mode. They are generally geared to favorcontract research to solve specific problems when theyfind it useful to support research outside of their owncompanies. Thus, they tend to look toward contractresearch institutes to supplement their own researchprograms. Further deterrents to the support of basicresearch at universities are that these industries aresensitive to the immediate economic climate andlarge fluctuations in the demand for housing and con-struction significantly dampens incentives for innova-tion in building construction.
One university research scientist interested indeveloping a cooperative program with the construc-tion industry also pointed to his difficulties and frustra-tions on account of the atomistic nature of this indus-try. Several scientists and administrators involved inthe development of the NSF sponsored Furniture Insti-tute a' North Carolina State University-Raleigh sug-gested that the difficulties in developing this programwere in large part due to the fragmented nature of thisindustrial sector.
d. The Chemical IndustryThe chemical producers as a group continue to
be one of the most active, if not the most active, sup-porters of university research and training. Researchinteractions between academia and the chemicalindustry has a long and respectable history (Thackray,1982). Historically, the chemical industry has been aninnovative one, particularly in process technology
54
(Brown, 1981). Important to this effort is research anddevelopment, particularly basic chemical researchwhich can open up new areas. To this end, the chem-ical industry continually seeks windows on new tech-nology. The industrial research laboratory appearedfirst in chemical and electrical companies.
ResearCh and development, including basic re-search, continues to be an important element. of thechemical industry. As a whole, the industry spent $5.3billion on research and development in 1981, and $4.7billion (89.5%) of this was company funded (ResearchManazement, 1981). In 1980, chemical producers spent$4.6 billion on research and development (Chemicaland Engineering News, 1981). Typically the industryspends 2.4% of its sales on research and development(Business Week, 1977-1980). In 1975, the chemicalindustry spent 10.9, 37.9 and 51.2 percent of totalcompany R&D expenditures on basic, applied and de-velopmental research respectively ( Nason and Steger,1978). Among all industries, the chemical industryspent the largest percent of total research and devel-opment expenditures on basic research. Nason andSteger's estimate of the average proportion of indus-trial budgets allocated to basic research was 4.2%,less than half the proportion reported to be spent onbasic research in the chemical industry.
Basic research performed at universities contin-ues to be extremely important to the chemical industry(Brown, 1981). There are strong historical links be-tween industry and academic chemists. Throughoutthe twentieth century, the majority of American chem-ists and chemical engineers have worked in industry(Thackray, 1982). In 1980, chemists accounted forabout 45% of all scientists in manufacturing indus-tries (NSF, Scientists, Engineers and Technicians inPrivate Industry: 1978-80, (1981)). Although the longterm importance of industrial employment of Ph.D.chemists and chemical engineers to the Americanchemical community has not been researched (Thack-ray, 1982), the large number of industrially employedchemists suggests a partial explanation of the contin-uing interest of chemical companies in universityresearch and training.
The mechanisms the chemical industry uses in itsinteractions with university research span all the cate-gories we identified.
The chemical industry 'has always been generousin providing unrestricted grants to chemists and chem-ical engineering departments (See Chapter V). Duringthe last decade, the chemical industry had the greatestnumber of companies represented each year of all in-dustries reporting voluntary aid to education (Table 18).Of the companies reporting that they gave voluntaryaid to research, the greatest proportion were chem-ical producers. In terms of total dollar expenditureson research, the chemical industry total was second tothe petroleum refining and related industries.
63
Table 18
Number of Firms in Each Industrial Sector Reporting Voluntary Aid to Education*
Year
Industrial Sectors 1970 1972 1974 1978 1980
Advertising 1 1 N.A. 1 1
Banks 17 19 26 16 17
Business Services 3 3 6 1 2
Chemical & Allied Products 23 24 44 25 29
Electrical Machinery & Office Equipment 13 14 28 15 12
Engineering & Constrixtion 2 2 5 2 2
Fabricated Metal 5 5 8 N.A. N.A.
Food, Beverage & Tobacco 3 7 16 11 11
Insurance 14 16 20 17 19
Machinery 9 4 9 8 8
Merchandising 2 3 8 6 7
Mining 2 2 2 3 3
Paper 11 8 17 10 10
Petroleum Refining & Related Industries 15 15 23 18 15
Pharmaceuticals N.A. N.A. N.A. 5 7
Primary Metals 13 12 17 13 10
Printing & Publishing 3 3 2 5 6
Rubber N.A. 3 5 3 4
Stone, Clay & Glass 3 3 1 1
Telecommunications 2 3 5 3 6
Textiles & Apparel 4 5 6 5 3
Transportation 3 4 7 4 3
Transportation Equipment 11 12 14 9 8
Utilities 11 13 16 9 9
TOTAL 172 181 287 195 198
Source: CFAE Casebooks 1970-1980
N.A. = Not Available
In our study, which included cases of voluntary aidto research and contract research, the chemical com-panies were represented in over twenty percent of thecases we identified. Of the approximately ten existinguniversity/industry partnership contracts where com-panies have committed annual sums of more than amillion dollars over a period of years, approximately70% are sponsored by chemical companies. The par-ticipating companies include: du Pont, Monsanto,Celanese, Hoechst, Diamond Shamrock and the AlliedChemical Corporation.
The chemical industry is a strong supporter ofgeneric research centers at universities in polymer sci-ence, catalysis and materials science. Chemical com-pany support of generic research centers may be areflection of the growing complexity of the technical
base underlying this industrial sector, and recognitionof a need to solve complex multidisciplinary researchproblems. Many of the centers supported by the chemi-cal industry follow the cooperative industrial centermode where an industrial affiliates program is anessential part of the continuing base of research sup-port (See. Chapter IX, pp. 79-81). A description of arepresentative sample of these programs follows:
University of Delaware-Center for Catalytic Tech-nology. The Center for Catalytic Technology at theUniversity of Delaware is located within the Chem-ical Engineering Department. There are approxi-mately twenty companies represented from the oiland chemical industries, each contributing $25,000/year.
Personnel exchange is facilitated by industrialsabbaticals of three to six months within the Center.
64 55
Proprietary contracts have been undertaken at times.Because the Center is located within the Chemi-
cal Engineering Department, they have had to re-strict the size of the program to maintain a balanceof departmental teaching and research capabilities.Additionally, this departmental affiliation has causedproblems when the Center sought to bring chemistsinto various research projects.
There has been a .certain degree of technologytransfer from the Center, but this is a secondaryconsideration for the companies. They are moreconcerned with access to students.
Currently, one-third of financing comes fromindustry, one-third from NSF, and one-third frialymission-oriented agencies.
Case Western Reserve-Center for Applied Podi-mer Research. A new program at Case WestOnReserve is the Center for Applied Polymer Research.This program is supported by a $750,000 NSF grantover five years. Again, as in several other NSF grantprograms, the aim is to become self-sustaining atthe end of one grant period. Unlike several othersimilar centers with many industrial sponsors (e.g.the MIT Polymer Processing Program), the universityis seeking to get fewer sponsors to put in moremoney, with the feeling that this will result in greatercooperation by the corporate sponsors and a betterreturn for their money.
The research is to be tied closely to the needs ofthe sponsoring companies. The company will be in-volved in each project with a project investigator atthe university and another at the company. Thecompanies are granted patent rights. So far theyhave attracted four corporate sponsors to matchthe NSF funding.
In addition to this Program, Case has operated afocused liaison program for the past seventeenyears. There are twelve members at $20,000 eachper year. These funds are discretionary' and areused for equipment, seminars and seed money fornew projects. Personnel exchange, although notwidespread, has been successful, with a sabbaticalprogram bringing industry people to the universityand various faculty spending summers working withindustry.
The Center of University of Massachusetts-Indus-try Research on Polymers (CUMIRP)University ofMassachusetts. CUMIRP was started in 1980 withNSF seed money of grants of $1 million over fiveyears. The yearly grants decline over the time periodwith the objective of achieving self-sufficiency at theend of the five years (i.e. dependent only on indus-trial support). Currently, there are thirteen corporatesponsors each at $20,000 per year. Located withinthe university's Polymer Research Institute, the mainthrust of the Center is towards basic research in net-work polymers and extended life polymers. Deter-mination of projects is made through a steeringcommittee advised by a board which includes repre-sentatives of the sponsoring companies.
The NSF is experimenting with a new approachtowards waiving patent rights by the inclusion of aclause in the grant contract in which the universitygets the patents and corporate sponsors get royalty-free licenses. An allowance has been made for upto a one-year publication delay. An important fea-ture in the structure of the program is the separa-tion of the technical direction from program man-
56
agement. There are three stages laid out for theNSF funding period; a one-year exploratory start-up,two-year theme definition stage, and a two-year pro-gram demonstration stage.
All the members of the Polymer Science Engi-neering Department of the university must spend15-20% of the time at the Center. There will also beadjuncts from industry.
Polymer Processing Program-NIT. The MIT-Indus-try Polymer Processing Program is another programbegun with NSF seed money. Started in 1973 with afive-year grant for just under $500,000, the programmanaged to achieve a goal of self-sufficiency afterthe NSF grant expired in 1978. This program isdirected towards polymer processing as distin-guished from the basic polymer industry. Researchprojects center upon the manufacturing of plasticand rubber products.
The research is carried out by graduate studentsunder the direction of faculty. Probiems are identi-fied by the director, with sponsor advice and con-sent. Technical review meetings are held quarterlyto discuss the progress and directions of the proj-ects. The sponsors get royalty-free, irrevocable,non-exclusive license to patents developed whilethey are members. If a company wishes to usepatents developed prior to their joining the pro-gram, it must pay licensing fees which are sharedbetween MIT and its corporate sponsors. Allowanceis made for pre-publication delay with the under-standing that publication must be permitted forgraduate student theses.
Industry support is determined by a formula,depending upon the level of the. firms' own plasticsoutput, of between $20,000 and $80,000.
Center for Composite MateriaLs-University of Dela-ware. The University of Delaware's Center for Com-posite Materials was the first center at the university,
/: created in 1974. However, it was riot until 1978 thatindustry was brought into the program. The aca-dentic base was initially established through aUnidel (University of Delaware foundation) grant of$250,000. Over a two-year incubation period, theCenter received government grants and support.The objectives of Center programs are to advancecomposite materials technology, train scientistsand engineers, and transfer technology to industry.There are two aspects to the program; the normalresearch function and a design guide which docu:ments the state of the art in composite materialstechnology. This guide serves both to transfer tech-nology and to illuminate gaps in the existing tech-nology. In addition, workshops and progress reportsare issued frequently to enhance this technologytransfer.
There are thirteen corporate sponsors who eachcontribute $30,000 per year. About 25% of the spon-sors are chemical companies. The directors of theCenter sought out companies that could contributetechnically to the research at the Center. The directorand associate director both previously worked inindustry. To avoid any constraints on research activi-ties, government funds arc kept separate fromindustry-funded projects. Additionally, the universitydoes not seek patents in order to avoid any conflictof interest with the corporate sponsors.
Recently the chemical industry as a whole hastaken a very innovative step in the formation of the
65
Council for Chemical Research (CCR, see Chapter IX,pp. 81-82). The rationale of many participants was thatin the long run the health and even the viability ofthe United States chemical industry was dependent onthe basic chemical research carried out at universities.There was a perception among rilemical manufac-turers that such research was seriously underfunded.Therefore, chemical manufacturers should foam anorganization to funne; extra financial support fromindustry to the academic chemistry community. Therehas been a recent change in the emphasis of the pro-gram toward providing support for the training of grad--uate students.
In keeping with Thackray's thesis of the impor-tance of individual scientists in the history of univer-sity/industry research relationships in chemistry, thisendeavor had a strong leader, Mr. M. E. Pruitt, a formerVice President of Research from Dow Chemical Com-pany. lie initiated the original proposal, and served tobring together the initial corps of industrial and uni-versity representatives required to develop a consen-sus for action.
c. The Instrumentation Industry
The United States remained the world leader inexporting instruments in 1980. Shipments of scientificand laboratory equipment continued to grow through1981 (U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1981). Technical ad-vances are the essential roots of this industry. Theinstruments industry has on the average invested4.2% of sales over the last four years in research anddevelopment (Business Week 1978-1981). The NationalScience Foundation reports that in 1979 the profes-sional and scientific instruments industry rankedsecond to office computing and accounting machinesin terms of company R&D funds as a percent of netsales (NSF, Science Outlook, 1981). The 1981 com-pany funded R&D was $2.3 billion for the industry as awhole (91.3% of total company R&D expenditures).figures available for 1975 (Mason and Steger, 1978)indicate that the instrumentation industrial sectorspent 5.3, 7.7, 87.0 percent of total research expendi-tures for basic, applied and developmental researchrespectively.
Some researchers make the case that the instru-ment companies do not invest enough money in basicresearch to develop new instruments and are there-fore dependent on academics or scientists outside thecompany to develop new instruments. Out of the totalinteractions we identified (465) only 6 instrumentationcompanies were involved, and none participated incooperative research interactions involving monetarysupport of university research.
The technological innovative capacity of this U.S.industry, recognized world-wide, can, however, berelated to the strength of our university system. Theconceptual basis for the instruments frequently comes
from university scientists who require a unique measure-ment capability to solve a problem.
A recent study of 111 improvements of basic sci-entific instruments used in chemical and biologicalresearch reported that, of the 44 innovative conceptswhich were later incorporated successfully into com-mercial products, 81% had been initiated by instru-ment users rather than by instrument manufacturers.Of these users who contributed the concepts, 72%were employed by universities or affiliated researchinstitutions rather than by private manufacturing firmsor other non-university organizations (Hippel, 1978).
Indeed, an outcome of the university research canbe the joining of university personnel with other entre-preneurs to form spin-off companies which carry inno-vative instrumentation developed at universities tocommercial development. Foxboro is an example ofan MIT spin-off company. Spin-off firms played majorroles in the development of such modern instrumentsas the CAT scanner, state-of-the-art computer graphicsdevices and a variety of medical diagnostic instru-ments. Of the 144 spin-off companies we specificallynoted in our present study, 10 involved developmentof a new instrument. We note here, however, that thesewere not necessarily a direct outcome of university/industry interactions.
It is evident from our study and others (Berlowitz,et al., 1980; hippel, 1978) that university researchersplay important roles in the development of new scientificinstrumentation through its use. The unique relation-ship between the instrumentation user to the pro-ducer is suggested in several anecdotes presented inthis report (Chapter IX, pp. 69, 72-73).
Researchers often provide the specifications forspecial features to manufacturers, or modify instru-mentation altogether. The electron microscope wasfirst developed by a beginning graduate student andits development was continued for many years by uni-versity researchers. This on-going process of develop-ment and modification at the university level eventuallyresulted in the perfecting of a very powerful tool for theinvestigation of molecular structures. however, univer-sities or_ university scientists frequently receive little orno industrial monetary support for such research orfunds in return for their efforts.
One scientist, in telling of modifications he madeon the electron microscope, which he published in ascientific journal, pointed out that the instrumentcompanies picked up on what he had done throughtheir literature reviews. His research had been sup-ported by the Department of Energy and this agencyheld the patent: but did not claim royalties. He madeno money on his invention and said he did not wantto get involved. This attitude, while typical of thepast, may be changing.
A significant amount of instrumentation develop-ment occurs at medical schools (see Chapter IX, pp.72-73).
6657
In instrumentation technology development, it issometimes difficult to sort out the relationship of thescientific methods or technology to the instrumenta-tion hardware. This makes it particularly difficult todetermine questions of proprietary rights and free-dom of communication. Thus, while the instrumenta-tion company values the interaction with the universityresearcher, circumstances may require complex re-search arrangements. This may be particularly true inthe field of medical instrumentation development.
One medical researcher described a case wherehe was given funds to develop a:frontier researchinstrument. The company wanted no other fundsinvolved, in order not to jeopardiie its patent rights.Therelbre, the company which Owned a laboratoryin the participating medical research institution.assembled the equipment in that laboratory so that/it would he readily available to the university scienflist, and at the same time not jeopardize the com-pany's proprietary rights.
This was a difficult interaction for all participants.The university scientist expressed concern aboutthe speed with which he was allowed to publish hiswork and how he was allowed to present his researchresu'ts. Yet he was anxious to be involved in devel-opment of a leading-edge scientific instrument.
The exact relationship of university and induStry inthe development of scientific equipment and instru-mentation will be the subject of a future study. But itis our present hypothesis that personal knowledgetransfer mechanisms (university scientist participationon company advisory boards and consultancies) andactive, aggressive marketing play the major roles, atthis time, rather than cooperative research. Part of theaggressive marketing techniques include equipmentdonation and requesting researchers to communicateany equipment difficulties and/or modifications. Thismay change as universities and industry devise newmechanisms for sharing instrumentation.
One example is the recently established "PeopleExchange Program" at Purdue University. Thesearrangements allow university and industry scien-tists to work together on projects of joint interestand to learn each others' techiques while sharingsophisticated equipment.
Another example is the new practice of acquiringtop-of-the-line equipment such as electron micro-scopes and computers, through debt financing andretiring the debt through user fees (see Chapter IX,p. 69). This may also encourage this shared instru-mentation use.
Shared equipment use may result in new coopera-tive arrangements and have important consequencesfor equipment for development and manufacturing aswell as help the university maintain access to state-of-the-art equipment.
Recently deep concern has been expressed thatscientific instrumentation obsolescence in researchuniversities and inadequate resources to replace thisequipment may impede the unique relationship be-
58
tween universities and the industrial sector. Industrystatistics indicate that in the period from 1976 to1980, sales of instruments shifted away from the edu-cational market. In 1976, 18% of instruments soldwent to educational users; by the third quarter of 1981,the figure had declined to 11%. One of the majormanufacturers of state-of-the-art high-field nuclearmagnetic resonance (NMR) equipment states that theyhave not had a new instrument order for a year. Theactual amount spent on instrumentation by universi-ties has not kept up with inflatiom-This has resultedin manufacturers shifting their production away fromthe type of state-of-the-art equipment which is requiredfor research, and which is likely to be refined by uni-versity users, and toward more routine instruments.State-of-the-art instrumentation becomes even moreexpensive7as fewer units are being produced.
Instrument manufacturers as indicated above havealways participated in the production of frontier equip-ment with little commercial prospect in order to main-tain their ties with academic scientists and stay at theforefront of their fields. As capital becomes less fluidand as universities become a smaller share of theirmarket, manufacturers are less likely to do so. Expen-sive hand-made prototypes will then become evenmore expensive to acquire. In addition, the transfer ofnew ideas from state-of-the-art equipment to routineproduct lines will be slowed and U.S. manufacturersmay lose their international competitive edge. Thus,providing the climate to maintain university/industryinteractions within the instrumentation industrial sectormay be of particular importance for business develop-ment and international trade, as-well as a means oftechnology transfer.
f. Microelectronics Industry
In contrast to many other industries, research inmicroelectronics has been traditionally dominated byindustry. Research and development as a percent ofsales over the last four years is highest in the com-puter and semiconductor industries, 6.1 and 5.-8%respectively (Business Week, 1978-1981). For manyfirms in Silicon Valley this figure is closer to 10%. Amore detailed description of the microelectronicsindustry is given in a book by Nico hazewindus (1982).University scientists have always maintained ties withthis research base but, in response to a number offactors, they are now making greater efforts to developbroader university based research programs. A smallnumber of universities have developed multidisciplinarycenters for microelectronics research in cooperationwith firms in the industry.
There are a number of reasons why these centersdeveloped:
1. The rapid growth of the industry has increaseddemand for graduates and a manpower short-age developed (See Chapter VII, p. 34).
67
2. The laboratory facilities at the universities.'lagged behind the state of the art, so that newgraduates were not trained in current tech-niques.
3. Industrial positions seemed to attract presentand potential faculty at higher pay.
States have acted to attract high technology com-panies strengthening the university structure throughsupport of microelectronic facilities and faculty. Thecomplex technical growth in microelectronics is strain-
___._ing the resources of even major firms to pursue alldirections of interest, leading to collective support foruniversity basic research.
The following is a brief description of the majoracademic research centers in the U.S. concerned withmicroelectronics:
Stanford UniversityCenter for Integrated Sys-tems. The Center began formal operation in Febru-ary. 1981. Three departments at Stanford cooperatein this Centercomputer science, physical scienceand Materials science.
Seventeen sponsors from industry are involved.Each sponsor agrees to contribute $250,000 a yearover a period of three years for use of the facilitiesand support of the educational and research activi-ties at the Center. The sponsors receive some privi-leges such as early access to scientific results. Anumber of policy matters remain to be decided bythe steering group of university and company spon-sored representatives; but it is agreed that the indus-trial members can send individuals from their re-search and engineering groups to carry forwardboth research and advanced learning activities inthe Center. Presently some members from industlyarc on campus.
In addition, the Center has obtained an $8 millioncontract from the Defense Advanced Research Proj-ects Agency (DARPA) to serve as a fast-turnaroundfacility for very large scale integration (VLSI) research.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Microsys-tems Program. Recently, MIT put forward a proposalto increase activities in the microelectronics field;The existing Microsystems Research and EducationProgram at MIT covers research efforts in a widerange of projects conducted in the Artificial Intelli-gence Laboratory, the Center for Material Scienceand Engineering, the Laboratory for Computer Sci-ence and the Research Laboratory of ElectrYonics.The subjects include 3 ubmicron structures, semi-conductor processing; large-scale circuit theory,'ft,s1 design automaton, 11.51 complexity theory and
integrated circa`:: (IC) systems architecture.The new program w:11 be centered around a new
VLSI laboratory, featuring a computer-controlledlast-turnaround processing facility for manufactur-ing VLSI circuits. Additionally, the existing labora-tories would be expanded to accomodate the newresearch programs envisaged.
The .entral theme of the efforts will be the inte-gration of the various efforts needed for VLSI pro-duction. This requires a thorough understanding ofthe full range of activities that constitute this proc-ess, from semiconducting materials to systemsdesign. This should lead to a comprehensive effort
to manage the complexity of large-scale systemdesign.
MIT proposes to finance this program by meansof grants from corporations which would participatein a new Microelectronics Industrial Group, either asfounding members or contributors. Several exclusivebenefits to the participants are proposed, includinga program for visiting industrial researchers, work-shops and seminars. It is expected that the VLSI,research facility will become operational in 1984.
Organizationally, a Microsystems Advisory Council(composed of representatives from the sponsoringindustries) will assist the Director of the Microsys-tems Research and Education Program.
California Institute of Technology-Silicon Struc-tures Program. The Silicon Structures Program atCalifornia Institute of Technology was organized in1978. Initiated by Ivan Sutherland, who had beenbrought to CIT to start the computer sciencesdepartment, the program is organized as a researchconsortium. The importance of industrial contactscannot be understated. Sutherland, in addition toowning his own company, has worked in industry.The plan for the program was developed with thehelp of previou, industrial contacts.
Five of the six companies that they had contactswith and asked to join did so tIBM, rifle!, Xerox, Hew-lett-Packard and DEC). The program receives sup-port from NSF, but this did not hegira until the pro-gram was already under way. The companies pro-vide money and equipment (12 corporate sponsorsare presently involved, each contributing $100,000).
Several potential sponsors chose not to participatedue to the university's policies. First, all researchoccurring at the university is rigorously regardedas public information. Second, the university receivesall patents with the companies getting royalty-freelicenses.
An important feature of the program is the indus-trial sabbaticals which last from 1-114 years. Seniorcompany scientists teach and work with graduatestudents. A company's success is largely a functionof the quality of people they send to the university,as well as the ability of some program participantsto continue the line of research begun the uni-versity program when they return to industry.
The objectives of the program are two-fold: one isto develop closer ties with industry, and anotheris technical in nature, to improve IC design. Theprogram is based on exploring the techniquesdeveloped by Lynn Conway and Carver Mead in chipdesign.
The ultimate objective of the program is technol-ogy transfer. There are ties with Carnegie Mellon,MIT, and the University of Washington'through thesoftware developed at Cal Tech. At this point, theyare looking to set the direction of the second phaseof the program.
University of California et Berkeley. Berkeley hasa centralized microelectronics technology facilitythat is shared among many faculty members andstudents from many disciplines. Its achievements inthe past have included:
computer programs for transistor design,process development and circuit simulations
novel device concepts, such as switched-
68
capacitor filters
59
certain new circuit designs, such as analog-to-digital connectors.
Recently, the Governor of California proposedthat the state support the activities of the elect.calengineering and computer science departments atBerkeley with a substantial amount of money. Anapparent objective of this proposal was to counter--act the activities of other states which are activelytrying to lure high-technology companies away fromCalifornia.
A main goal of the program is to enlarge and re-equip the antiquated microelectronics technolt. 3i-cal facility with the necessary clean rooms andmodern equipment for lithography, processing, test-ing and characterization. This will give Berkeley thenecessary facilities to continue its educational andresearch programs at a more sophisticated level.The intention is to pursue a policy of direct accessto the facility for as many people as possible.
I im(' ng of the:subsequent research projects wouldbe done cooperatively by the state and industrialsponsors. This so-called MICRO-program (Micro-electronics Innovation and Computer ResearchOperation) could substantially advance the size andlevel of the future microelectronics and systemsactivities at Berkeley.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. The micro-electronics center at the University of Minnesotaoriginated from discussions between university sci-entists and Control Data Corporation representa-tives abOut solid state surface science. The univer-sity is well known in this field (NSF established anational center for surface analysis techniques at;.the campus) and suggested that novel techniquesmight be applicable to integrated circuit technology.
These discussions led to a grant from ControlData Corporation, later (mid-1980) augmented bygrants from Honeywell and Sperry Univac. The pur-pose of the grant was to establish a basic researchprogram in microelectronics and information sci-ence, Including surface science. The Microelec-tronics and Information Science Center (M.E.I.S.)was established to carry out this task. Industry hascontributed about $7 million to the Center.
The Center has focused on four areas of micro-erec:tronics research: software engineering, designautomation, new device physics, and new materialsfor microelectronics.
The university has first rights to seek a patentfrom any research coming out of M.E.I.S. Once theuniversity obtains a patent, the Center's patentpolicy allocates- 50% of potential royalties to theuniversity, 25% to the college and 25% to the indi-iclual professor or student. However, in the case ofcorporate sponsors, licensing fees can be written offthe initial gift to the Center. The university willlicense the patent to anyone.
The management structure that evolved aftersome time includes a management team of a direc-tor. assisted by three associate directors. A group ofeight representatives from sponsors and partici-pating departments serves as an advisory boardregarding the program and policies.
Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, ResearchTrianqle Park. "rhe goal of the Microelectronics Cen-tel of North Carolina is to develop an educationaland research activity in microelectronics that willestablish North Carolina as a national center in this
(5()
significant technology. The state has actively beenseeking to further the establishment of high-tech-nology industries (see Chapter X, p. 109). Earlier,this resulted in the creation of the Research TriangleInstitute, a non-profit R&D organization, and theResearch Triangle Park, where a number of com-panies have established research laboratories. Inthis context(an active and high-level university sys-tem is regarded as a major asset both as a sourceof manpower and research, and as an intellectuallystimulating environment:
The MCNC will be formed by the f011owing parties:
five universities (Duke University, North Caro-lina State University, North Carolina Agricul-tural and Technical State University, Univer-sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte)
one non-profit institute (Research Triar;leInstitute).
A close cooperation will be established with theNorth Carolina Community College System. TheCenter will have a VLSI computer-aided design facil-ity, which will be connected with data links to theparticipating institutions. A comp; ete, modern ICfabrication facility will also be located at the Center.
These sophisticated facilities will be used by theparticipating institutions to improve and expandtheir educational and research activities in VLSItechnology and systems. This will be facilitated by asystem of video links allow :ng specialized classes tobe shared by the different institutions.
It is expected that the universities will be able toeducate an increased number of scientists trainedin VLSI, which may prove attractive to a broad rangeof high-technology companies. General Electric hasbeen the first company to announce its decision toestablish a major research center for chip fabricat-ion in the vicinity of MCNC.
Summary of Academic MicroelectronicResearch Centers
In reviewing university industry interactions, severaldifferent areas of specialization can be distinguished.
Stanford and MIT intend to secure a leadingposition in "VLSI-Science." Both have estab-lished special organizations to obtain that goal.
U.C. Berkeley's goal is to be a center of excel-lence in VLSI techniques. One observer believes
that- Berkeleys center_is _more student-orientedthan MIT and Stanforr'. No special organiza -..
tional arn..ngement is required.
The activities of Cal Tech's Silicon StructuresPr: je.ct focus on pioblem of VLSI designmet' iodology.
The research centers at the University of Min-nesota and the University of North Carolinaprovide examples of regional models.
Each of these centers is multidisciplinary and allexcept derhaps for M.E.I.S. are making forceful attemptsto bring engineers and computer scientists together.
69
The sophisticated integration of these centers may__.reflect the long traditional interactions of microelec-tronics companies with academic researchand thehigh general investment in research that nas beeninherent to the structure and development of thisindustrial sector.
g Mining and Minerals Industry
The mining industry embodies technology through-out its operations. It draws upon biology, chemistry,physics, electronics, and every branch of engineering.But because it is a mature industry, perhaps secondonly to agriculture, and heavily capita! intensive, itslinkages with universities are very different from thoseindustries such as pharmaceuticals or computers.
A mining company normally conducts the range ofactivities given in oversimplified form by:
(1) Explorationgeology, geophysics.(2) Miningmechanical and civil engineering,
transport.(3) Ore processingcomminution, flotation, biol-
ogical leaching.(4) Production of meal process metallurgy,
electro-reflning, chemical separations.
The products are a few simple shapes, e.g.; ingotsand wire bars, and occasional metal powder or chemi-cals for industrial processes. The subsequent steps bywhich the elementary metal shapes are converted toproducts such as sheet, tube, and wire composed of asingle metal or an alloy are conducted by metal fabri-cating companies. W1,:e many of the large miningcompanies art vertically integrat-d and have fabri-cating divisions or subsidiaries, there is a major metalindustry of independents not part of any mining com-pany. Metal fabrication calls upon process metallurgyand the sciences related to the structure of metalsand alloys.
In short, the mining industry or, better, the metaland mining industry, has a broad network of co,Itactswith technology generally, and with the technical activi-ties of universities. Yet it is not considered "high tech-nology" and it rates low in terms of its percent of salesdevoted to R&D. Let us examine briefly the nature ofthe technical activities of the industry, its needs andcharacteristics, and the resulting impact of all this onuniversity interactions.
Since the products of the industry have to beessentially identical in properties with competitors,domestic and foreign, the principal focus of R&D is on:
(1) lowering operating costs,(2) lowering the capital cost required to add,addi-
tional facilities, and(3) improving exploration techniques.
There is considerable activity in certain metal fabri-cating areas to develop new products and enlarge
markets, as in the case of aluminum versus steel forcontainers, for auto bodies, and so on. Much of thiseffort also emphasizes lOwer cost, thinner sheet, dif-ferent forms of product.
Thus, the h ;ttstry emphasizes process research.This can fall into several categories:
(1) Modest improvements of present processes(2) New approaches t-1 present processes(3) Development of wholly different processes.
The cost of conducting R&D obviously increasesas one goc-, ,rom category (1) to (3). Equally important,the cost of an actual installation of a process change,even of a pilot plant operation, increases dramaticallyfrom category (1) to (3).
In practice, 'then, the metal and mining industrystresses R&D to improve present operating processes.New approaches may be pursued, but pilot plant costscan he a major barrier to implementation. And majornew systems as, for example, development of seabedmining, require consortia of the great mining com-panies to pursue serious efforts. It is therefore notsurprising that the internal R&D activities conductedby the metal and mining industry are modest.
But these do not provide the total picture of tech-nical che.,ge related to that industry. The industry hasconstraints related partly to capital requirements,partly to the value added by R&D: These constraintsare not necessarily present for suppliers and users,as will be mentioned now.
Traditionally, many advances related to the indus-try cor.te from suppliers, who can spread their R&Dcosts over many purchasers, and for whom this R&D isincremental to other efforts. For exampie, improve-ments in flotation chemistry are pursued by chemicalcompanies. The del Piopment of huge trucks to carry10C-ton ore loads, permitting the elimination of rail-cars at the mines, required major programs on four-wheel electric drives by the electrical equipment man-ufacturers. Control equipment, process equipment, tominimize environmental problems, and advancedinstrumentation all emerge' from those suppliers.
Furthermore. technical advances in material proper-ties normally represent 1,14- greater valLe to the productor system which uses these materials rather than `:,the producer of a thousand pounds or a thousandtons. The high-strength alloys required for modern jetengines result from research conducted at GeneralElectric, Pratt & Whitney, and the engine manufac-turers. Basic research on the electric properties ofselenium used in xerography was carried on by theXerox Corporation not the mining companies whichsold only pounds of selenium for each machine.
Finally since the use of our natural resources hastraditionally been a matter of national concern, wemust also consider the role of the Bureau of Mines. Itsmany laboratories, located in key mining areas of thecountry, do conduct programs that can lead to lower
7.061
cost processes for the different metals, or serve toconduct the early stages of greatest technical uncer-tainty for new metals, as in the case of titanium.
It is against this broad background of industrialand government R&D in the metal and mining industrythat we must now consider the linkages with universi-,ies and the role of university research. This industryis not technology driven and therefore tends to mini-mize support of university research. Yet the modestamount of basic research in process metallurgy at uni-versities is essentially the source of basic researchfor the industry. Much of the early pioneering researchin flotation, the approach which makes open -pit min-ing of low grade ores economic, was done at MIT.Today, advances in comminution go on at the Univer-sity of California and the University of Utah, and so on.
The university programs are modest for the samereasons the company programs are modest. Processmetallurgy research past the bench stage becomesexpensive very rapidly, and any reasonable-size pilotplant becomes a major capital investment decision.Even university-based institutes, such as the Minne-sota Minerals Resource- Center, have difficulty main-taining' the infrastructure and funds necessary tooperate its experimental pilot plant. Whether theindustry does not want to change rapidly or dramati-
c,
catty is not the issue. It cannot afford to do so, unlessthe new structural changes resulting from acquisitionsof mining companies by oil companies change thisstatus.
What the industry must have is a reasonable at-traction for the wide range of technical graduatesneeded in its operations: research, engineering, pro-duction, and so on. Despite the fact that technicalactivities emphasize process improvements, the con-version of advances in electronics, computer sciences,chemical processes, and the like to the continual up-grading of mining and metallurgical processes can becritical to the productivity and health of the domesticindustry. This calls for high quality technical personnelwith bi oad scientific background who might be at--t.:acted to more glamorous-appearing industries. Thisis perhaps another reason that this industry tends tosupport educational training programs (e.g. the Colo-rado School of Mines) rather than support researchdirectly.
An iMportant function served by industry.sepportof-university research in mining and metallurgy is at-tractinc interest of bright students. How many cen-ters of excellenze among mining schools should bemaintained is a critical question.
h. Pharmaceuticals
In pharmaceuticals, as in agriculture, significantfederal monies have gone into basic research and intothe establishment and maintenance of programs totrai scientists (Grabowski and Vernon, 1982). The
62"") '
pharmaceutical firms, as do research universities,maintain strong linkages to ongoing research at theNational Institutes of Health. The pharmaceutical tiesare primarily through personnel exchange, personalcontacts and participation in scientific conferencesand advisory committees.
The pharmaceutical companies do very little gov-ernment contract research. In 1980, approximately0.4% of pharmaceutical research and developmentexpenditures came from government grants and con-tracts (Chemical and Engineering News, 1981). Al-though drug companies have partiCipated in govern-ment funded cooperative university/industry researchprograms, in general, they are not enthusiastic par-ticipants in such programs. This pattern of havingextensive outside research ties but being reluctantlyinvolved in outside contractor grant research (exceptin the special case of clinical trials), also holds true ingeneral with regard to the pharmaceutical firm's inter-action with university research.
Yet this industry is very actively engaged in re-search and development. The ratio of research anddevelopment scientists and engineers per thousandemployees is quite high in the drug industry, with anaverage over the past five-years of 62. In chemicals andallied products, this ratio is 41 per thousand, whilethe average ratio over all industries is 27 per thousand(Chemical and Engineering News, 1981). Drug com-panies are extremely supportive of basic research,particularly in-house basic research. Research anddevelopment (R&D) spending among the drug com-panies rose from $1.63 billion in 1979 to $1.9 billionin 1980a gain of 16% (Chemical and EngineeringNews, 1981). Average spending on R&D over the lastfour years in this industry is 4.8% of sales (BusinessWeek, 1978-1981). In 1975, the pharmaceuticals spent5.1, 38.6 and 56.3 percent of total R&D expenditureson basic research, applied research, and development,respectively (mason and Steger, 1978). While the phar-maceutical firms spend large sums of money on basicresearch in-house, figures we collected indicate thata small percent of total R&D expenditures (0.5-1.8%)is spent in support of university basic research. Thereis a continuing compromise between the tendency ofdrug companies to cooperate in basic research arid todraw back because of proprietary concerns. This ten-sion is enhanced by the fact that in the past a largenumber of pharmaceutical innovations have derivedfrom external research (Mansfield, 1971), and the cur-rent need to maintain proprietary control grows ascompetition increases in the new fields of biotech-nology. The drug companies, however, must ally them-selves with medical, schools in order to follow govern-ment mandated testing regimes for their new drugs.
Unlike many industries, pharmaceutical firmsspend larger -sums of money for applied research anddevelopment at universities (e.g. in clinical trials andtoxicity testing). The proprietary and regulatory con-
71
terns of the pharmaceutical firms are important fac-tors in this practice.
Patents are considered by pharmaceutical firmsto be essential if a new drug is to be profitable forthe company that creates it. Indeed, the history ofthe pharmaceutical industry indicates that the presentstructure would have been different had the courtsruled that antibiotics as natural substances could notbe patented (Grabowski and Vernon, 1982).
Since the effective.life of a patent in the pharma-ceutical industry depends on the relationship betweenthe issue date of the patent and the date of the com-mercial introduction of the product, pharmaceuticalfirms tend to seek outside research help after theyhave established their patent rights or when the re-search is very far remr -ed from a product. Thus, legalprotection of proprietary rights is extremely importantand hence may explain the smaller amount of coop-erative research sponsored by this industry than onewould expect from such a highly science-based sector.In funding contracts and grant research at universities,drug companies are frequently adamant about obtain-ing exclusive licenses, if not patents. In our samplingof cases, pharmaceutical companies were representedin 21 of the cases, 81% of which were cooperativeresearch programs. There may be a growing tendencyfor pharmaceutical firms to support basic research atuniversities because of growing interest in recombi-nant DNA technology.
It is also evident that drug company participationin liaison programs is increasing, particularly in newbiotechnology and biochemistry programs. In keepingwith the large numbers of scientists and engineerswithin this industry, drug companies contribute signifi-cant amounts of graduate research fellowship support.
Through personal contacts, the drug companiesarc very much in touch with the university researchsystem. The level of participation in these activities is.probably greater for the drug industry than most otherindustries. Many drug companies have 100 or moreuniversity consultants on retainer. In comparison toother industrial sectors, many drug companies supplyon company salary, free to the university, a relativelylarge number of adjunct professors (30-75) to univer-sity departments.
Pharmaceutical companies sponsor many scien-tific and technical meetings and they also send theirscientists regularly to such meetings, seminars andworkshops. It is also our observation that this tech-nical area. is characterized by a high degree of univer-sity/industry sectoral mobility.
The pharmaceutical firms look to universities forscreening of compounds. In 1979, screening, testingand clinical studies took 40% of the drug industry totalR&D expenditures, while synthesis and extraction took15.6% in outlays (Chemical and Engineering News,19811. The exact amount spent at universities onscreening, although unknown, may be on the order of
$100 million. The amount spent on testing and clinicaltrials can be estimated to be $100-300 million.
Pharmaceuticals is an industry marked by compli-cated regulatory-procedures, as pointed to above,which significantly affect its cost of R&D. Several dif-ferent company representatives pointed out to us thatthe industry may spend up to 3% (a figure which iscontrary to data we received) of its total R&D expendi-tures on university basic research, but a much largeramount (up to 10% and consistent with figures re-ported to us) is spent at universities on clinical trials,in response to government regulations.
Drug compare R&D spending by U.S. firms dou-bled between 197- and 1980. A partial explanation isthe increasing cost ri nri eting government regulation.Recent studies have shown that regulation has signifi-cantly increased the R&D costs and delayed the intro-duction of new drugs compared to the date of intro-duction with different regulatory regimes (Grabowskiand Vernon,11982). A. few scientists (from industry andacademia) suggested that basic research money hadbeen reallocated to research designed to meet govern-ment regulation.
The money spent at universities for clinical trialsand meeting government regulation is usually in theform of applied contract research. however, some sci-entists stated that these large contracts also providedthem with enough, funds to continue their basic re-search programs as well (see Chapter VI, Section C).
B. Variation Among Universities
Universities and departments within universitiesdiffer widely in the kind of research interactions theywill have with industry. For example, one chemistrydepartment far from the top, as ranked by their peers,perceives itself as a pure basic research departmentthat will only take non-contractual funds from industry.That department considers polymer chemistry, forexample, too applied for its interests. would like tohave a scientific affikiates program but is not viewedas an elitist institution by industry.
Where elitism is mutually perceived, universitiesgenerally have little difficulty attracting a wide rangeof industrial funding. A president of a prestigious uni-versity is approached directly with offers of support orcooperative agreements. Sometimes the projection ofelitism is found grating by industry sci;mtists, whoresent being treated as second-class citi,: -is. They willprefer working with a university whose self-image allowsit to become absorbed in the industry's interest.
Engineering-oriented schools of comprehensiveuniversities with large engineering faculties are mostapt to devise practical and applied research programswhich can be supported by contract research. Indeed,the size of an engineering school can be related toindustrial support at a university (Table 19). There isa prevalence of interest at these institutions in devel-
72 63
Table 19
Average. Industrial Funding of University R&D Expenditures and Average Size ofEngineering Schools Over a Period of Five Years (1976-1980)
UniversityAverage'
Industry Funding(thousands of $(
Erbineering School Size'
Average R&D Expend. WithinEngin. School
(thousands of 5)
Average Number ofGraduate Students
Enrolled
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6,669 67,391 1,697University of Rochester 6,639 10,962 218University of Michigan 5,031 16,650 1,046Carnegie Mellon Uniyersity 4,848 6,138 530Pennsylvania State University 4,610 11,297 510
Georgia Institute of Technology 3,973 22,700 893University of Arizona 3,433 3,723 432Purdue University all campuses) 3,350 14,603 914Harvard University 3,235 E 2,622 160University of Southern California 3,143 13,373 1.173
University of Minnesota 2,855 6,648 634University of Illinois (Urbana) 2,665 18,878 1,541University of Wasnington 2,378 5,280 745University of North Carolina (Raleigh) 2,134 6,116 527University of Wisconsin (Madison) 2,013 8,425 695
Colorado State University 1,659 8,496 384Stanford University 1,496 22,079 1,430Case Western Reserve 1,304 7,810 409University of Maryland (College Park) 1,243 3,635 507University of Utah 1,121 5,553 436
University of N. Carolina (Chapel Hill) 1,006 1,599 128Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 968 5,615 797University of Texas (Austin( 939 8,942 898California Institute of Technolbgy 922 7,044 330Washington University 827 5,099 293
Duke University 825 1,466 92University of Delaware 782 2,401 221University of Chicago 742 NA NALehigh University 713 3,885 449Clemson University 600 3,393 220
Princeton University 526 6,187 220Louisiana State University 522 2,471. 218University of Houston 456 1,607 660Colorado School of Mines t 441 2,859 443Vale University 439 E 2,094 78
Johns Hopkins University 363 '- 967 127Rice University 186 E 1,527 130University of California (Los Angeles) 89 E 6,439 NAUniversity of California (San Diego) *** NA NA
' Source: NSF, Expenditures for Scientific Activities at Universities & Colleges, 1975; NSF, Academic Science, 1976-198J.'Engineering Education, "Engineering College Research and Graduate Study," March, 1980 & 1981.
'4 year average 1977-1980*4 year average 1976-1979
"'University of California does not collect this information.
oping centers devoted to research in manufacturing,robotics, industrial control, computer aided design,integrated graphics, and bioengineering. A developing,bustling, smaller institution may be well placed tocorner the market in specialized areas, using suchopportunities as a strategy for growth.
The importance of top level administrators in set-ting the terfie for university/industry research cooperationand encouraging such interaction has been alluded toseveral times in this study. In several of the institu-
64
E = Estimated
tions visited, both public and private, new administratorshad recently been hired wiih specific directive to fosteruniversity/industry research ties. At one mid-westernpublic university, the preMdent, a former faculty mem-ber, stated that he had received enthusiastic responseto a speech he had given on university/industry researchcooperation.' Although he, as a faculty member, hadnot perceived any real barriers to university/industryresearch cooperation, the letters he received from hisconstituency indicated that many faculty members
73
per eived otherwise. During visits with faculty mem-s at this university, reference was continually made
tolthe new president's support of university/induStryresearch cooperation;which-was--felt to- be-a-change-
ifrom the previous president's policy.Many.major universities which have a continuous
high level of industrial support have cultivated somespecial interest area. Table 20 shows the five-yearaverage industrial funding at the 39 universities in-cluded in this field study. At least the first twelve uni-versities ranked in order of industrial support haveindustrially funded programs in what can be character-
ized as specially cultivated areas of research strength.Regional economics and local industry are some-
times reflected in the educational focus of a university.For-examplerthe premier department in the world forpetroleum engineering is round at ihe University ofTexas at Austin. The most comprehensive university-based microelectronics research program is to befound in Silicon Valley. A major eastern university hasan excellent aerospace department which has grownin conjunction with the local aerospace companies.
Sometimes local industry can influence the statelegislature to allocate state resources to form an insti-
Table 20
R&D Expenditures at Selected Universities Given as Five-Year Average of Total Funding,Federal Funding and Industrial Funding for the Years 1975-79
University5-year AverageIndustry-Funding
1.
2.3.4.5.
6.7.
University of RochesterMITUniversity of MichiganCarnegie-MellonPenn StateUniversity of Southern CaliforniaGeorgia Tech
5,4565,2684,6424,5083,3043,1433.037
8. Harvard 2,705 E
9. University of Arizona 2,58410. Purdue-all campuses 2,44111. University of Minnesota 2,28712. University of Illinois; Urbana 2,11913. University of North Carolina.
Raleigh 2,07514. University of Washington 1,79215. University of Wisconsin, Madison 1,78716. Colorado State 1,38817. Case Western Reserve 1,12318. University of Utah 1,03319. University of North Carolina.
Chapel Hill 1.01220. University of Maryland,
College Park 1.00821. Stanford 86722. University of Delaware 81323. University of Texas. Austin 80824. RPI 77325. Washington University 76926. Duke 74227. University of Chicago 73128. Johns Hopkins 67029. Lehigh30. Cal.Tech f:.48
31. Princeton ,.1$32. Clemson 46933. Colorado School of Mines' 441 "I34. Yale 35r.35. Louisiana State University- 34436. University of Houston 340 I
37. UCLA 115 E38. Rice 93 E
39. University of California,San Diego 0
Thousands of $
5-year Average 5-year AverageTotal Funding Federal Funding
50,586108,44285,51520,23348,75240,70829,84375,19140,18044,33985,64463,470
30.98279,994
105,48330,75927,86929,887
33,25690,88454,52713,03029,89937,69116,59657,35021,03026,82249.93639,722
10,76666,79060,08722,17220,30025,072
30.933 25,055
27,34381,30010,17953,5647,602
41,090
59.58363.2936,942
29,36822,97113,4102,594
46.685
/.411 I
57,5356.391
17,03573,5925,83.
33,2205,719
34,33127,13845,117252,484
3,69225.51017,0763,8981,816
43,16710,1474.872 I
54,5005,129
59.9'i7 80,343
Source: NSF. Expenditures for Scientific Activities :tt Universities and Colleges FY 1975-79. Tables B-18, B -17. B-19,
'4 year averages"3 year averages"'approximate
E = EstimatesI = Imputed
74
B-10, B-16.
65
tute that will serve its .needs. Examples include a sugarinstitute at a southern university, a minerals resourceinstitute and a hydraulics institute at a midwesternuniversity. Such institutes are particularly prevalentin fields related to agriculture, food and nutritionalresearch, forestry and textiles, all relating to localor regional industries.
This kind of regional educational focus is less aptto occur at the.major.private universities. Regional. dif-ferences in coupling interactions will be discussed inmore detail in Chapter X, Section B.
Both climate and opportunity for industrial inter-action may differ between private and state-supporteduniversities. Generally, private universities have moreflexibility in their ability to negotiate contracts, patents,and royalties. Some states have highly restrictive rulesabout industrial interactions. If institutions which arenow engaging in molecular biotechnology are not care-ful to lr Iffer proprietary research from state-supportedresearch, they can expect even stricter arrangements.
On the other hand, there are several states thathave carefully created climates propitious and encourag-ing to university /industry interactions, providing sup-port to both partners to make the match, or encourag-ing the development of industrial research parks onland adjacent to universities. State-supported agricul-tural or engineering extension services are the oldeststale-supported uni%,ersity/industry entities.
In general, 1ntii rerently, there was certainly agreater awaren Iss of the need for industrial support atprivate institutions for obvious reasons. Company repre-sentatives Lemselves said that in the past they weremore like, , to support research at a private institution,that they ielt they already supported state institutionsthrow! their taxes; they also felt more comfortable
66
with the private university's freedom to deal with theissues of patents, royalties, publications, and proprietaryrights.
Faculty in public institutions seem to be morevocal about proprietary rights issues and secrecyagreements. It was mentioned several times at thestate universities that faculty were very hesitant toengage in large amounts of industrially supported re-search because of these concerns. This was rarely men-tioned at the private universities.
The private universities are most actively pursuingchanging their patent policies and exploring ways ofgenerating money through patent licensing and royal-ties'. Of the 12 patent policy revisions in the last years,8 were at private universities (Table 28, p. 100). At least3 private schools were in the process of organizingnew patent offices. This was happening at only oitepublic school. Private universities are more willing tr.negotiate patent rights and licensing agreements tow'public universities.
Private universities tend to respond more quicklyand directly to industrial needs, but they expect indt1.-try to pay more. While the public university finds it chi-ficult to respond as quickly, in general it can do theresearch more cheaply.
Some 6f the most successful research universitiesin the country are those which have both large privateendowments and state funding, with the flexibility thatsuch a system allows. Many state institutions tiaverelied on federal dollars to fund research. As fc.c1c...r.4idollars dry up, such institutions will find th.za'is,:lvesincreasingly turning to industry for support, annsure will be on state governments to create morepermissive atmosphere.
75
CHAPTER IX
A TYPOLOGY OF RESEARCH INTERACTIONS
In this chapter, we present examples of the entirearray of current university/industry interactions. Forconvenience, we have divided the interactions into fourmajor categories by primary objectives:
General Research SupportCooperative ResearchKnowledge TransferTechnology Transfer
For descriptions of these major categories, seeChapter V. In this chapter, we describe types of inter-actions within these major categories. Table 21 pre-sents the variety of interaction we observed in matrixform, according to major function of support and byadministrative mechanism. Table 2 (p. 16) lists repre-sentative examples of the major typt_ - interactionswe observed. In Appendix III, we list the research inter-actions documented in our field study. This chapterfollows the categories of interactions listed in Table 21.
GENERAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
General research support usually consistsof industrial gifts of money and/or equipmentin support of university research. The majorobjective is to provide support to maintain uni-versity research excellence, rather than tostrengthen research ties (see Chapter V, p. 15).
A. Institutional Gifts in Support of Research
These are unrestricted gifts to a technical depart-ment, to a technical unit or university or college (e.g.,engineering school, agricultural school, environmentalscience institute).
1. Monetary Gifts
Monetary gifts from industry are valued highly byuniversity scientists because they provide the flexible
CO 'it
seed money for new projects and start-up funds foryoung scientists. They also provide funds for travel toconferences, for temporary support of graduate stu-dents and for bridging research contracts. Several pro-fessors said that "grants-in-aid" (e.g., gifts) to thedepartment are critical in their impact on graduateprograms. Scientists frequently stated that these fundsare worth five times their face value. There are few, ifany, other sources of such flexible funds.
Despite these statements, there is a growing feel-ing that unrestricted gifts or grants-in-aid do not pro-mote interactions between the two sectors and, there-fore, are not an optimum mode of industrial supportof university research. Industry's emphasis on this typeof support in the past may have been due to proprie-tary concerns. Changes in patent laws and clarificationof ant; -trust laws have changed the climate. There isrecognition that other more interactive modes of sup-port may accomplish similar purposes. There is agrowing. belief in industry that by integrating suchfunds into-a more formal research structure, industrycan provide a more reliable source of funds for univer-sity research: Creating a stable link. between industryand university can allow industry interests related toresearch and. curricula to be more fully considered.
Figures prepared by the Digest of Education Sta-tistics (1979) show that, over the past 60 years, privategifts and grants have provided a consistent but smallproportion of the current fund income of U.S. collegesand universities, between 3.8% and 6.8%. However,several scientists interviewed commented that_unn_restricted funds from industry were rare and/or diffi-cult to obtain. Most of these gifts, they said, are smallamounts, in the $5,000-10,000 range. The largestunrestricted gift documented in our study was for$500,000 to a computer science department at a pub-lic university. This is an unusual amount for unrestrictedgifts, especially to a public university. In another case,a gift of $2 million was given to a department of engi-neering. Although a gift, it was designed for a research '
facility.
7667
General Research Support
Table 21
A Typology of Research Interactions
Cooperative Research Support Knowledge Transfer Formal Technology Transfer
A. Institutional Gifts in Supportof Research
1. Monetary Gifts.2. Equipment Donation3. Contributions for
Research Facilities
B. Endowment/Annuity/TrustFunds
1. Research Facilities2. Endowment Chair
A. Institutional Agreements
1. Contract Research2. Equip. Transfer & Loans3. Grants to a Professor4. Graduate Fellowships .
Support5. Gov't. Funded U/I
Cooperative Research
B. Group Arrangements
1. Special Purpose IndustryAffiliate Programs(Focused & DisciplinePrograms(
2. Research Consortia
C. Institutional Facilities
1. Coop. Research Centers2. Univ.-Based Institutes
Serving Industrial Needs3. Jointly Owned or Oper-
ated Facilities &Equipment
D. Informal Cooperative Inter-action: Co-AuthoredPapers, Equipment Sharing
A. Personal Interactions
1. Personnel Exchanges2. Mechanisms for Per-
sonal Interactions:Advisory Boards Semi-nars, Speakers Pro-grams, PublicationExchange
3: Adjunct Professorships4. Consulting
B. Institutional programs
1. Institutional Consulting2. General Industry Asso-
ciates Programs
C. U/I Cooperation & Educ.
1. Univ. Serves as Sourceof Graduates for Indus-try: Internships, U/ICoop. Training Programs
2. U/I Coop. in graduatecurriculum development;Alumni Initiation of Re-search Interactions
3. Continuing Education isUtilized to InitiateResearch Collaboration:Short Courses, PersonalContactsIndustry-FundedFellowships
D. Collective IndustrialInteractions
1. Trade Associations2. Ind. Educ. Affil.3. Ind. Sponsored R&D Org.4. Ind. Res. Consortia
A. Product Development andModification Programs
1. Extension Services2. Innovation Centers
B. Univ. and/or Industry Asso-ciated Institutions & Activi-ties Serving an Interfaceand/or Foundation for U/IResearch Interactions
1. U/I Research Coop. &Technology Brokering &Licensing Activities
2. University ConnectedResearch Institutes
3. Industrial Parks4. Spin-Off Companies &
U/I Research
2. Equipment Donation
Most corporations we visited had equipment dona-tion programs and most of the u.iiVersities we visitedreceive equipment gifts from industry.
Very frequently, equipment gifts are not includedwhen administrators account for industrial contribu-tion to university research. For example, the computerscience department at a southern university receiveda $115,000 computing system from a local computermanufacturer. This gift was not treated as researchmoney although that was its purpose. It is difficult todetermine to what extent this type of giving is a sourceof support for university research.
Academic scientists stated that industrial equip-ment gifts, except under special circumstances werenot extensive. Several cases were cited where com-panies: donated equipment but not the money tomaintain it. Many academics stated that company-
68
donated equipment was useful for teaching but not forresearch. Company representatives themselves al-luded to the inadequacy of their equipment donationprograms. This is not always the case.
Extensive industrial gifts for university researchwere frequent within one industrial sector, the infor-mation processing industry. Over 50% of the univer-sities visited indicated that they had received signifi-cant gifts of computers or computer related equipmentand systems.
Widespread donation of other types of researchequipment is not evident, and seems to be idiosyn-cratic. Several scientists emphasized the importanceof the problem. One investigator needed a $500,000electron microscope for his research in materials sci-ence, but did not think that industry was a likelysource for it. lie believed that the National ScienceFoundation was his only recourse for support for suc
equipment, and expressed concern that foundationequipment funds are becoming increasingly difficultto obtain. University scientists in general were under-standing of companies not being able to supply equip-ment in the $500,000 range, but many said that indus-try should be able to supply equipment ranging in costfrom $20,000-100,000, but for the most part did not.
The circumstances surrounding equipment giftsare often complex.
In one case, an information processing firm,after hiring a number of top university graduates,decided to repay these universities in frontier re-search equipment. The firm gave each of three pri-vate research universities a system of personalizedcomputers. There were other motivations involved.The donated equipment was a tax write-off, as is alldonated equipment. Perhaps more important to thecompany was that the next generation of computerscientists would be familiar with the firm's newequipment and help modify it for future markets.(See this Chapter, pp. 72-73). A difficulty with thisdonation was that those universities not receivingequipment accused the company of having an elitistattitude.
Companies frequently give equipment to localuniversities to upgrade research and training in anarea of direct interest to the company. Several in-stances were reported where a major company (espe-cially in electronics, information sciences, or petro-chemicals) moved to a new geographical area anddonated several hundred thousand dollars in equip-ment to a local university to build up the university'stechnical capability in fields of interest to the firm.This was also seen as a way to foster, good cornmu-nity relations.
A semiconductor firm that moved to the north-west gave the University of Washington several hun-dred thousand dollars worth of high technologyequipment. When a computer firm moved to SouthCarolina, they gave Clemson University over a mil-lion dollars worth of computer equipment on a dis-counted basis, Likewise, when several high technol-ogy companies moved to Colorado and Arizona,they contributed equipment to local universities,and when a food processing company moved to asouthern state, they gave the agricultural schoolgifts of equipment to help them set up a program infood processing.
A few universities have laboratory equipmentfunds to which industry contributes.
In the engineering school at one public univer-sity, a special committee was formed to foster proj-ects which would be of mutual benefit to the univer-sity and industry. This committee, the TechnologyImprovement Plan Committee includes four indus-trial representatives. The Committee solicits fundsfrom industry to support projects in computers andmachine control. In particular, they solicit equip-ment gifts. The Committee's efforts have providedthe school with a digital computer laboratory andseveral additional computers and machine controlsystems. One investigator commented that, although
It 1
the Committee has been quite successful, it requireda crisis situation before industry responded.
Another mode for supplying equipment is the loanagreement. In this, a company loans equipment to theuniversity but retains title in order to depreciate thevalue of the equipment. At the termination of theagreement, the equipment reverts to the university.Under certain conditions, the loan mode is a problemto the university. The company might take back theequipment, without which the researcher might not beable to complete his research.
One example of a sophisticated loan agree-ment occurred between the University of Washing-ton and an aerospace firm. The university had awind tunnel that was built in the late 1930's. By1978, it had fallen behind the state of the art. Theaerospace firm was aware that the wind tunw. couldnot meet its needs in the future. Company use wasabout 80% of the total use of this facility. A newarrangement was structured. The aerospace firmbought $1.5 million worth of software, and thendonated $2.5 million to the university under a loanagreement to up-date the wind tunnel facility. Theagreement helped the company provide a state-of-the-art facility for the faculty at the university, whichthen formed a stronger base for student trainingand experience. The interaction made it possible tohave courses in which the students could use theequipment and the company's software programs,and it was in the company's interest to have theuniversity provide course work compatible with thecompany's system.
Equipment gifts can form the nucleus, or be criti-cal to the formulation of university/industry coopera-tive research programs (see p. 73).
3. Industrial Contributions for Research Facilities
Companies occasionally give funds to build researchfacilities or buildings. Sometimes this is an outcomeof a university's general fund-raising effort. Usually,companies contribute only part of the money neces-sary to build the facility, and this is typical at bothpublic and private universities.
During the University of Michigan's sesquicen-tennial campaign, it was given money ($5 millioneach from two car manufacturing companies) tobuild a highway Safety Research Institute.
In another case, the idea of building a com-bined engineering and business school attractedindustrial- support at-Louisiana State-University:Companies contributed more than $2 million towardbuilding such a facility.
In the past, several large corporations, rather thandirectly interact or cooperate on research with a localuniversity, gave substantial foundation funds to buildresearch facilities. Such gifts came about because ofthe linkage between local companies and a university'sboard of trustees.
For example, a medical supply company, sev-eral years ago, gave $3-5 million for a research build-
78 69
ing at a private midwestern university, and then gave$1 million to its Institute of Radiology. More recently,the same university and company initiated a $3.8million, three-year, industry-funded cooperative re-search program.
Despite the occasional contribution for researchfacilities, most said that such funds were not common,and that since the '50s and '60s, most new buildingswere built with government funds. In the last ten years,government funds have also become less available tobuild research facilities. Figures from the Digest ofEducational Statistics, (1979, p. 131), indicate thechanges in industrial contribution to capital funds.These figures show that between 1920 and 1940, pri-vate sources form one-to-two-thirds of the capitalfunds for colleges and universities. During the 1940'sand 1950'sa period of rapid expansionthe privatesource portion of capital fund receipts dropped tobetween 1 /6th and 1/7th of the total.
Currently, capital is tight for many American cor-porations, or so we are told by many company repre-sentatives. Gift contributions fluctuate with the fluidityof capital. It is entirely possible for a company foun-dation to pledge funds for building a university researchfacility and then not be able to meet its pledge if thecompany business does not fare well the next year.
One administrator cited another difficulty with theuse of corporate funds to build facilities.
He cited a case where a company built a facilityat a university and then wanted to use the facility incooperation with the university for the company'sown research purposes. This created a difficult sit-uation, yet to be resolved, for the university, anda conflict of interest for many university researchers.
B. Endowment Funds and Annuity and Trust Funds
This section is concerned with funds given to adepartment or technical unit of a college or universitywhich can be used in on-going general research support.
1. Construction of Research Facilities
Endowment funds donated by industry are onlyperipherally related to the subject of university/indus-try research interaction. However, we did identify a fewinstances where an industrial endowment providedfunds to build a research facility which then later attrac-
---ted-a-ctive dif§tiar Participation.
For example, money originally given by thefamily owners of a large chemical company to aneastern state university was used to buy equipmentand star t a catalyst program at this university.
In another case, one-third of the endowmentfunds of a private university were used to build theirresearch facilities in computer integrated graphics.Both these programs are now highly successful andindustrially sponsored.
70
2. Industrially Endowed Chairs in a TechnicalUnit of a University
Industrially endowed chairs car, be another sourceof support for university research. The scientist whoholds the industrially sponsored chair or professor-ship is apt to be sensitive to the needs of that com-pany. Frequently, he will set up meetings for companyrepresentatives and encourage discussion of theirproblems and interests.
Many universities are actively seeking to increasethe number of industrially-endowed chairs within theirscience and engineering departments. There appearsto be a prevalence of research chairs in the area ofmedicine and pharmacology. Several newly endowedchairs have been set up in chemical engineeringdepartments. Despite new initiatives, most universitieshave few industrially endowed research chairs (usuallyless than six). however, a few universities have beenparticularly successful in attracting this sort of money.Harvard has about 259 endowed chairs, (1979/80academic year), 48% of which are for faculty in a tech-nical area; and MIT has approximately 126 chairs, 55%of which are in science or engineering. Not all of thechairs are fully endowed. At MIT, 99 are fully endowed,20 are career development chairs, which go to supportmore junior faculty and 7 are term chairs, which mustbe renewed periodically. It was reported to us that at11/2. most universities, a fully endowed chair costs any-where from $750,000 to $1 million, while an endowedprofessorship, or partially endowed chair, requiresabout $100,000 to $300,000. Thus, endowed chairscan be a significant source of research support.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
Cooperative research interactions requiresome degree of cooperative technical planning,at least in the initial negotiation phase. Themajor objective of such support is to strengthencompany and university research ties. All themechanisms presented in this section are notnecessarily always instruments for university/industry cooperative research interactions.There is tru:y a broad spectrum in degree ofcooperative research (see Chapter V, p. 17). Wepresenrher. i I '9se categories of sup-port and iti!cl.w. !ion that can, for the most part,provide for . ::;merit of cooperative researchinteraction.
A. institutional Agree; rents
Institutional agreements are instruments for for-malizing university/industry research cooperation.They are usually developed only after a scientist-to-
79
scientist rapport has been developed. It is in the dis-cusionspusuiint_to.the-development of these agree-ments that 50111 cooperative technical planning cantake place. To a large extent, however, matters of anon-technical nature must also be considered. Mostfrequently, these discussions concern allocation ofresources and disposition of the outcomes of jointresearch efforts. These agreements must take intoaccount university procedures and policies developedin the university's office of grants and contracts (seeChapter VI, p. 29), and industry's objectives and pro-prietary concerns. Mese agreements form the basisand foundation for subsequent university/industryresearch cooperation.
1. Industry Funded Contract Research: Specificto a Research Program or Project
Contracted agreements to an individual investi-gator generate strong person-to-person interactionsthat favor technical cooperation. They are the basis formost university/industry technical cooperation. Over50% of industrially supported research at universitiesis by way of contracted research. Such industrial sup-port in the past has generally been for small amounts($20,000-50,000) on a project-by-project and year-by-year basis. It is the specific limited nature of such con-tracts that makes them easier to negotiate but moresusceptible to cuts. In difficult economic times, theseprojects may be the first to be cut off, and they areparticularly dependent on the continued presence ofone individual within the supporting industrial firm.
For example, in several cases, an ongoing under-standing was developed between an industrial proj-ect manager and the university's scientists. Thenthe industrial manager was promoted or put on adifferent industrial project and the contracted uni-versity project was discontinued.
Contracts with specific economic aims are subjectto discontinuation if it becomes apparent that thepotential economic value is not sufficient to justify theprgject (see Chapter 1,L, p. 42) but projects need nothave such limited aims.
It is in contract research programs that issuesreflecting the different objectives of the two partiesmust be addressed (see Chapter VI and Chapter VII),such as those related to real academic and corporatedifferences in research objectives, in the time framefor obtaining and reporting results, i! information dis-semination and appropriate means to ensure proprietaryadvantage. Thus, in developing contract agreements,publication, patents and proprietary rights issues canbe thorny problems, and negotiations over rights fre-quently delay the signing of the agreements, or sorm-times redirect the scientist's wishes. In our discussionswith academic and industry scientists and adminis-
1
trators, we sensed a real willingness to negotiate suchmatters. However, a few academic scientists reportedcases where the university administration made it dif-ficult for them to finalize their research agre.rientswith industry, and in a very few instances, negoVitionsled to the total abortion of the project. Som,.7 of thepresent difficulties in negotiating contracts may reflectthe transitional state of many university policies per-taining to industrial support of research. Many univer-sities are presently reviewing and changing many ofthese policies (e.g. whether or not they will grant afirm an exclusive license and for what period of time).
Contracts between university and industry arenegotiated for the conduct of a broad spectrum ofresearch activities from basic to applied to develop-ment work. However, in the area of applied contractresearch and development, universities face strong com-petition from industry, go'.ernment laboratories andnon-profit research institutes, and have few compara-tive advantages in relation to these other performers.
A new development is the negotiation of long-termpartnership contracts containing high level companycommitments to support university basic research inreturn for some proprietary advantage (e.g., an exclu-sive license, lead time in a new research area). Thelarge, prestigious research universities in particularare seeking and receiving this type of support. The pro-totype for this kind of contract is the Harvard Monsantoagreement signed in 1975. Such large, open-endedresearch contracts with university scientists, however,are still rare. About eight such contracts were reviewedin this study. Six were in the biomedical area, and twofocused on energy production and use. A review of theliterature indicates that there are probably fewer thanten such contracts presently in existence between uni-versity and industry research divisions. Examplesinclude: Mon.i into-Harvard; Dupont-Harvard; Hoechst-Massachusetts General Hospital; Celanese-Yale; Mal-linckrodt-Washington University; Exxon-MIT; AlliedCorporation-University of California, Davis.
An integral part of these contracts is the equentcontacts made between the university and indi try sci-entists and provisions for exchanges of scientific per-sonnel. The principal investigators of these programsalmost always have a separate consulting agreementwith the sponsoring company. In all cases we reviewed,the scientist has had previous research interactionswith representatives of the sponsoring company. Sev-eral company representatives said they would not evenconsider such arrangements unless they knew the uni-versity scientist extremely well. Another prerequisiteto such arrangements seems to be the desire of acompany to extend their research capabilities into newfields.
80 71
One stated difficulty with such partnership agree-ments is that the expectations of both parties areraised unrealistically beyond the normal research out-comes. This can cause friction within the institution,and may in fact affect the conduct of the research. .is the publicity surrounding such agreements, becauseof their newness and the substantial amounts of moneyinvolved, that may be more of the cause of the frictionand rising expectations than the open-enfledness ofthe contracts.
Cooperative research agreements are thought bymany industry scientists to be the most capable ofcontributing to the industrial innovation process be-cause these programs provide a superior match to thelong-range time frame in which innovations take place.Such programs require a consistent level and contin-uity of funding. This requires considerable commit-ment on the part of university and industry. The newlong-term partnership contracts suggest that at leastin certain fields both partners are capable of makingsuch commitments. Senior university scientists saidthat the program continuity and consistent fundinglevels provided by these contracts enabled them toassemble unique multi-disciplinary research teamsand to hire technical personnel not directly related totheir immediate research goals. Some said it providedthem with an opportunity to circumvent departmentalstructure. All emphasized the importance of continuityand commitment to allowing pursuit of research diffi-cult to "sell" to government agencies, or for whichthere otherwise would have been insufficient time.
One assistant professor listed the followingreasons for joining such a partnership program:
(1) He liked the director(2) He knew of the long-term industrial con-
nection.
He said that the security of the long-term com-mitment was his "bottom line" for coming to theuniversity. He felt that the long-term commitmentallowed him to be more productive in research sincehe did not have to spend his first year at the univer-sity writing grants. He also stressed that his partici-pation in the program provided him with access tootherwise unavailable resources.
2. industry Fun-led Equipment Transfers and Loansand/or Construction of Research Facilities
Transfers and loans of equipment are made touniversities part of the ongoing process of develop-ment and modification of a firm's equipment. Scien-tists from industry and university cooperate in thedevelopment of this equipment and agreements aremad- ...'out the outcomes.
,uently, but not always, this research is of anextremely applied nature.
A great number of these types of interactionsoccur within Tredical schools.
72
As one example, the Radiology Department of aprivate school had an agreement with a computerhardware company. A professor at the university,using the company's hardware, developed a man-agement control process for radiological imagingreports. The university is now developing the soft-ware for this investigator's process, and the com-pany is building the equipment to implement it.When the equipment is fully developed for market,the university expects to receive money in return,$500 per terminal for every one sold in the UnitedStates.
The Radiology Department in the above examplehas extensive interactions with companies. They bar-gain for equipment. For example, they identify a needor research interest, set down technical specificationsand negotiate with a company for an equipment grant.In return, they help the company develop their equip-ment.
In one case, a drug company gave tnis sameradiology department a scanner. The negotiationsfor this interaction took one year. University scien-tists talked with scientists at several companiesinterested in developing scanners. The universityresearchers wanted to find out which companieswere on the cutting edge in development. The uni-versity investigators narrowed it down to four com-panies and said to each: We will work with you indeveloping your equipment if you will donate theequipment to us. One company came forward. Theformal agreement took two months for companyand university lawyers to negotiate.
A close relationship continued between thepartners for several years, as they developed thescanners. The company benefitted from the depart-ment's use and development of their equipment.The hospital associate° with university was ableto purchase equipment ra a tower cost than other-wise because of this interaction. But no dollarschanged hands in support of the program.
Despite these fruitful interactions, the Director ofthe radiology program said he has not been very suc-cessful in generating money from the companies tofund activities, aside from equipment development.
In some instances, such as those cited below,equipment is given for general research, but the natureof the equipment leads to particular areas of coop-erative research and almost necessitates interaction.
The School of Agriculture at a southern publicuniversity has received several machines on loan. Inone case, researchers at this school were interestedin computer-base6 automatic control systems forcombines. The American Presidents Associationgave them money to conduct the study, and twoequipment manufacturers loaned them the $50,000combine. In another instance, a company in-Nebraskaloaned the department irrigation equipment for threeyears. The company then sold the used equipmentto farmers and replaced the system at the university.In another case, the department worked with a com-pany to develop a tobacco harvester. At anotherstate school, a researcher was given a wet processorvat to allow him to develop chromotographic wetprocessing procedures for textiles.
81
In most cases, when the agricultural school, or thetextile school, does the modification, design and devel-opment of a piece of equipment, it has the option ofpatent ownership. But if industry bears the full cost forthe project, schools generally concede full proprietaryrights. At least one southern school has concededsuch rights though it is a state university. Most schools
c very careful about such proprietary arrangements.Some difficulties may arise if a company wishes uni-versity scientists to help ilevekT research equi'p'mentfor which a company patent is pending (see ChapterVIII, pp. 57-581.
Equipment transfers and support towards build-ing research facilities can be an integral part of a com-pany's efforts towards helping to develop a new coop-erative research program.
Three CAD/CAM cooperative research programsat an eastern, a midwe:-itern and a western state uni-versity were recently developed largely throughequipment donations. A petroleum laboratory isbeing built at a private midwestern schooi throughequipment donations from a petrochemical com-pany. An objective of the program developers is co-operative research.
Several vases (8) were documented where indus-try,, as part of a cooperative research effort, helped auniversity build facilities in specific research areas,e.g., energy and biotechnology, in order to provide afoundation lb:- the program.
For example, a pharmaceutical firm is providinga private eastern university with several million dol-lars to build an institute of preclinical ptfarmacol-ogy. An employee of the company will be the Insti-tute's director. The Hoechst Chemical' Company ofWestern Germany, as part of its agreement with Mas-sachusetts General tlospital provided funds to builda molecular biology laboratory.
3. Industry Funded Research: Grantsto a Professor
Grants are most frequently used to support ex-ploratory research, or research which advances thefrontier of a particular technical discipline. This oftenresults from an unsolicited proposal by a professorbased on an original concept. The opportunity for co-operative interaction arises if the mechanism of select-ing the proposed research for funding provides for theestablishment of scientific contacts which lead tofuture scientific interaction. For example, these con-tacts may lead to discussions and actions betweenuniversity and industry scientists concerning how thebasic science is related to problems of technologyrelevant_to_company interests. The company's technol-ogy problems subsequently may suggest new avenues6f basic research.
In the past, industry has not, to any large extent,funded unsolicited proposals submitted by individualswith whom they had no previous technical interaction.
,
Thirty-two of the companies visited said they almostnever funded such unsolicited research proposals, al-though they frequently received up to 100 per week.This is not to suggest that industry does not supportuniversity basic.research programs. As noted previously,industry, through unrestricted gifts (see Chapter IX,p. 67i, supports research of a general nature with fewstrings attached. Such funds are continually used byuniversity scientists as seed money to explore newresearch areas. When coupled with personal scientistto scientist friendships cooperative basic researchactivities can develop. We also heard of at least threecases where a significant grant (e.g., $1 million overthree years) was awarded to university scientists andthe description of proposed research was no morethan a paragraph.
Despite the above, some university scientists per-ceive that government grants are less encumberedthan industrial funding. According to some scientists(particularly biologists and basic medical scientistswhose funding largely comes from government grant-ing agencies, e.g. NSF and NIH), government grantsare given to pursue'research in a general area, ratherthan on a specific topic as in industrially supportedresearch. A problem from the industrial point of view;G that without some mechanism for reviewing basicresearch proposals internally, it loses an opportunityto select basic research projects in areas underpin-ning their own interests. Indeed, in the past, industryhas, for the most part, foregone this opportunity forcooperative research interaction with university basicresearch programs by supporting university basicresearch programs through unrestricted gifts. A diffi-culty for industry support of university basic researchis how to maintain or establish a cooperative interac-tion in broadly based basic scientific research withoutconfining the research while ensuring maintenance ofhigh quality research of interest to the firm.
The quality of government grant supported re-search is thought to be controlled by peer review. Thiswas a frequent subject of discussion regarding indus-trially funded research which, as noted above, usuallymakes no provision for peer review. Many researchersin university and industry expressed some dissatisfac-tion with the'present system of peer review. it is theperception of several of these individuals that the peerreview system becomes conservative as funds for re-search become more restricted. When there are lim-ited funds for research, there may be a hesitancy tofund exploratory research of an unusual or non-tradi-tional nature. Furthermore, the established scientistsv do the reviewing tend to reinforce their own expe-riences and this can be a deterrent to fundamentallynew or innovative areas of research. One scientist ex-pressed the view that, in earlier years, pn exploratorygrant of $100,000 to a university would, in ten years,lead to something useful, but thought such funds wereno longer available. "Funds for, seeding speculative
82 73
ventures in the university have dried up and have notbeen replaced," he said. Whether factual or not, thisperception was expressed on several occasions duringthis study. In the course of exploring new ways of sup-porting university /industry cooperative research efforts inbasic science, several firms have designed programsto help redress these perceived deficiencies.
During 1980, two companies, the Dow ChemicalCompany and the Procter & Gamble Company, an-nounced trial grant programs. The objective of bothprograms is to support exploratory basic researchrelated to areas of interest to industry. Each companyinstituted an internal mechanism for proposal review.In recognitiescientists
awing dissatisfaction of somean:lit peer review, each company
hied to clevi, ms to address some of the criti-cisms of pre3e. Ithpvernment systems of peer review.tioth companies desired to increase their cooperativeresearch interactions with universities.
The Procter & Gamble program began in the fallof 1980. The company Vice President for-Researchwanted to strengthen the company's research tieswith the academic science community and havethem become familiar with the technical base of thecompany. Company representatives from the cor-porate research and development laboratory visitedten universities gave presentations, and said: "Thisis the type of research we are interested in. Do youwish to submit a research proposal to us?" Facultythought this approach unusual, because few com-panies let them know their research interests, andmost had never participated in a company researchpresentation.
The company sought proposals that wouldbroaden the horizon of research, i.e., exploratoryresearch proposals. They wanted to fund programswith great uncertainty for success, but high potentialrewards if successful. They were looking fOr pro-posals difficult to defend based on the present sys-tem of peer reviews. however, this approach wasviewed as an alternative to peer review programs,not as a replacement. They hoped to select the bestproposals through advocacy.
The company received 88 proposals from 11universities. They convened a Selection Committeeof company senior R&D managers to review the pro-posals. After an initial review, advocacy developedfor about 14 proposals. The internal advisory boardreduced the number of successful proposals toseven. Hie winners appeared to be those with anenergetic champion. Each of the 7 professors wasinvited to give a seminar. The professors came, wereexposed to the laboratory, facilities and staff, andmade friends in the process. The company sponsorbelieved that if company and university scientistsinteracted, the research programs would be en-hanced and the foundations for a cooperative inter-action would be-established. The' company selectedthree to be funded by the new grants program. Theawards were for $40,000 each. tr, addition, anothertwo of the seven were funded by a separate divisionthat had a particular and immediate interest inthese programs.
74
7
All the investigut.ors in this program can pub-lish. however. the university scientists must allowthe company one or two months to review their pub-lications for potential patents. But the companydoes not really expect that a patent or a product willdevelop out of this program. On the other hand,the company does expect to extend the scientificinterests and management of science within thecompany to new areas and/or opportunities. It isalso the company's objective to strengthen theirrecruiting program as well as their cooperativeresearch interactions with university scientists.
The Dow Chemical Company sponsored itsgrant program as a result of the discussions held atthe first Council for Chemical Research Conferencein 1979 (See pp. 81-82). After this meeting, thecompany set up a foundation with $5 million. Theintent was to use these funds or the interest gen-erated each year in support of basic research.
The mechanism the company developed forreviewing proposals was based on that of the Petrol-eum Research Fund and other foundations, such asResearch Corporation, the Welch Fund, and NSF.Despite the fact that they were following these otherprocedures, they made an effort to alter them inorder to speed up the overall process of proposalsubmission and granting. They had the principalinvestigator send a preliminary proposal outline.Company scientists evaluated it in terms of its basicscientif: quality and as to its worth as a potentialproject. After this screening, they submitted it tosubsequent peer review and promiSed to answerwithin three months. Scientists at the company weretold not to view the proposals in terms of an oppor-tunity for the company and to treat the proposalsWiith'all confidentiality. Lawyers were not involved.
Before the program was .a year old, the com-pany was inundated with proposals and could notaccept any more. To some extent, the companydecided that this was an inefficient way for a com-pany to fund universities, but was still firmly com-mitted to developing cooperative basic researchinteractions with universities, and did oot want todo away with their commitment to basic sciencebecause they were dissatisfied with the grant pro-gram. Now, they are looking at ether ways to supportbasic research at= colleges and universities.
Although both these programs have been wellreceived within the academic and industrial communi-ties, it is recognized that they are only small programs,and most companies do not have the n .;ources at theirdisposal for such programs. Even if several other com-panies develop programs to fund basic science aimedat developing cooperative interaction, industry couldnot, with this level of support, replace or fulfill the his-torical role of government agencies in maintaining thecurrent U.S. base in basic sciences. Furthermore,mechanisms for proposal review are time-consuming.Most company representatives stated that industrydoes no' have vast sums of money for funding basicscience at universities, yet they believed that mostbasic research activities should be conducted at uni-.vcrsifiESand wanted to tie their own R&D programsinto university basic research programs.
83
O
4. Industry Funded Research: GraduateFellowship Support
Industrial support of graduate research can be amechanism for strengthing cooperative research ties.In the past, General Electric. and Westinghouse hadEarly Talent Search Early Awareness grants. Thesewere primarily grants for graduate and post-doctoralresearch and did not emphasize cooperative researchprograms, but were often the b43is for future coopera-tive interactions. With a large amount of money avail-able in federal fellowship support, these funds becamediluted. In general, though, many suggested that thesewere good models for industrial support of research.Many said they would like to see this type of indus-trial support increase.
The followi are examples of how graduate fel-lowship support can be an integral OA of a university/industry cooperative . search interaction:
A professor in a che..1,'':al engineering depart-ment had a consulting arrangement with a com-pany. This company also supported one of his grad-uate students and funded his research through agrant. In a. geology department, two or three grad-uate students were supported by oil companies. Aportion of the money, a gift, went to the researchassistants' salaries, and the rest of the money in thebudget was itemized for supplies and travel. Thistype of graduate support is not formal, it is notexactly a grant, and it is understood that the grad-uate student will be working on a specific area ofresearch relevant to company interests.
Thus graduate fellowship support can be an integralpart of a more extensive cooperative university/indus-try program as noted above (se also Chapter V, pp.17-18). It is also a mectnism used by companieswhen they have limited funds to spend -on universityresearch and wish to join their support to companyprograms. Some companies find that it is a way to getthe greatest value for their limited research and devel-opment funds.
For example, several companies offered to paythe difference of a salary of a graduate assistant andthe pay the student would get if hemere working forthe company. One company is giving a $4,000. ?h.D.fellowship supplement, and intends to give ten suchfellowship supplements. In each of these cases,the student will spend time working on companyresearch programs.
In another case, a textile cc.mpany will fund. agraduate student in chemical engineering. The stu-dent will work at the company research laboratory in'the summer, and in the fall he will attend classesand be paid $1,000 a month by the company. The
. company will have some input into the thesis topicof the student. An alumnus of the university who isworking for the company sponsoring the fellowship,was instrumental in initiating this program. he wasinterested in relating his research program to thatgoing on at the university. This sort of research sup-
c-%
port at universities seems to be on the increase. Butit is not dependable, and requires extra efforts onthe part of the university principal investigator.
There are several new general fellowship programsbeing started by companies which are not tied to aprincipal investigator. These will be discussed in a sub-sequent section of this report (p. 95).
5. Government Funded University /IndustryCooperative Research: Grants and Contracts
Government funding for cooperative university/industry research is provided by many governmentagencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD),the Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy(DOE), and others. The government-funded coopera-tive research model has existed for some time, forexample, the government-sponsored agricultural ex-tension program (Rogers, 1976). During the early1960's, the Department of Commerce, through itsCivilian Industrial Technology Program, sponsoredprograms aimed at the textile industry. In recent years,there has been an increased effort in all governmentagencies towards finding ways of using governmentfunds to facilitate university/industry cooperative re-search programs.
In the traditional university/industry couplingmode, the government, in the role of. matchmaker,brings the two parties together and provides the fundsso that one institution becomes the prime contractorand the other the subcontractor. This practice is wide-spread, and DOD and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) have used it to a consid-erable extent. Frequently, these programs are tied inwith government procurement.
. For example, in the aerospace industry, wherethe government is frequently the main customer, atypical mode of university/industry research coop-eration involves the industry partner as the primecontractor and the university as a subcontractor(see Chapter VIII, p. 51). A case in point is a com-pany under contrast to the federal government todr:Agn a new generation of helicopters, subcontract-ing the research to a university to develop dynami-cally scaled models fir flight simulation.
Sometimes the government brings universitiesand industry together to conduit research as part of anational effort in a particular area.
For example, in the past, the Department ofEnergy has been interested in cost shared technol-ogy demonstration programs and accompanyingprograms to help achieve the adoption of energyconservation techniques. Accordingly, the key con-tractors in this work are usually industrial firms.however, in some cases, university research groupsoffer appropriate technical capabilities for perform-ing portions of the work either by themselves or in
8475
collaboration with an industrial partner. In one ten-year program involving the 'development of a solartower, the university was initially the prime contrac-tor and industry Illt! subcontractor. This reversed asthe research healed the 'development stage.
As another example, three university groupshave DOE contracts to operate energy analysis anddiagnostic centers, which provide direct assistanceto small and medium size industrial plants. This isseen as part of the national effort to encourageenergy efficiency.
Government interest in an area critical to thedevelopment of defense-related projects can bring thetwo partners together.
For example, switching mechanisms are impor-tant to many DOD projects. A scientist from Tracor,an electronics firm, gave a talk at a conferenceattended by an official of the Office of Naval ResearchIn his talk,the TracQr scientist discussed the work ofa University of Texas professor on sequence estima-tion. The ONR offiCer was interested and suggestedthat ONR would like to support research in the areadescribed. The Tracor scientist got together with theuniversity scientiSt who had, given a course at thecompany in estimation theory. They agreed to developa joint program in which the university scientist wouldsuggest approaches and employ graduate studentsin the research, while the company scientists wouldevaluate the approaches using classified data. Theprofessor had access to the company researchthrough a consulting arrangement. ONR has sepa-rate contracts with the university and with the com-pany: The joint research effort permits Tracor toguide the university thinking and it permits the pro-fessor to train students. Tracor hires most of itsemployees from the University of Texas at Austin.
Recently, groups like NSF and DOC have beenattempting to identify through experimentation in avariety of modes the conditions which promote suc-cessful cooperative endeavor. Much of this experimen-tation has involved the establishment of cooperativeresearch centers.
One program, the NSF Industry/University Coop-erative Research grant program (IUCR) was particularlywell received by most of the investigators with whomwe talked.
The objectives of the IUCR Program are:
111 to strengthen the fundamental tr.....!arch inscience and engineering in ori.:r to en-hance future industrial techno':,gical op-portunities, and
121 to improve the linkage between . ;versifiesand industrial firms.
Cooperative industry/university research pro-posals are prepared jointly by academic and indus-trial researchers and submitted jointly by theirrespective institutions. Thus this encourag:s workwhich is jointly defined and conducteA Criteria forproject funding from this program are:
( 11 strong and active research collaborationbetween university and industrial research--
76
ers in the performance of the proposedproject;
(2) significant cost-sharing by the industrialparticipant for the- industrial participationin the proposed research as evidence of theindustrial relevance of the research;
13) quality of proposed research.
The administration of the program requires the(UC research proposal to be peer reviewed in corn-petition with other proposals (cooperative and non-cooperative) in the same area of research. Thesepeer review procedures are the same ones thatapply to any research proposals received by NSF.
Funds provided by NSF through the programare not intended to substitute for funds the firmwould normally commit for research but, rather, toprovide for new and expanded cooperative researchprograms with universities. NSF normally pays forthe costs of university research in the cooperativeprojects. In about one-half the projects, industrypays for their own participation, and in about one-half, NSF provides some funds to industry. It is cur-rent policy that NSF will pay only up to 50% of theindustrial participant's costs (except for small busi-nesses, up to 90% of their costs). The rationale ofrequiring industry to pay a-significant portion oftheir research costs in cooperative projects is that itensures that the proposed research is industriallyrelevant to the firm's management.
NSF is flexible in its contracting arrangements forthis program. Of the NSF university/industry programsreviewed in this study, three different modes of con-tracting were identified. In one instance, NSF Fundedthe company and the company subcontracted to theuniversity. In other cases, this was reversedNSFfunded the university, and the university subcontractedto industry. In other examples, NSF contracted separa-tely with the company and with the university. Investi-gators seemed to prefer a program where both theindustry and the university had separate contracts withNSF.
The NSF industry/university cooperative research(IUCR) activity has grown from a program of eightawards totalling $1.4 million in 1978 to a program of79 awards totalling approximately $7-8 million in1980. The initial response to the program was slow.(Interviews confirmed the one or two-year lead timeneeded to negotiate university/industry cooperativeagreements.) But all those interviewed in our studywho participated in the IUCR program were enthusias-tic about it. One investigator stated that without hisuniversity /industry coupling grant, which gave himaccess to industrial resources and data, he would havebeen set baCk a year in his research.
By the end of its first four years, the program hadawarded 231 competitive research grants totallingnearly $30 million. Grants have been provided to 79universities to carry out cooperative research projectswith industrial researchers in 88 companies, includingmany of the leading sponsors of industrial R&D in theUnited States.
85
Table 22 provides a summary of industr;alinvolve-ment in the IUCR program, based on total populationof grants awarded through Fiscal Year 1981. Four ofthe top ten industrial R&D companies, based on theJuly 1981 Business Week survey, are included amongthe top ten IUCR performing, companies (Table 15).Several large comp6nies (e.g., IBM, Bell Labs, HughesAircraft, Westinghouse, and du Pont) have been activelyengaged in the IUCR program, with multiple projectsfunded and total shares of the IUCR program exceed-ing their company percentage shares of U.S. IndustrialR&D as reported in the Business Week statistics. Theleading 100 R&D companies together account forabout 58% of the total value of IUCR awards with thebalance of the awards going to firms that spend frssthan $50 million/year on R&D. Two of the top tenIUCR-performing companies (Hercules Chemical andMartinMarietta Corporation) are not included amongthe top 100 industrial R&D firms. Thirteen companiesin the awards lists are formally identified as "smallbusinesses" using the NSF award definition (havingless than 500 employees). These small companiesaccount for about 7% of the total value of awardsgranted in the IUCR program.
Table 23 provides a comparable data summaryfor assessing the involvement of the major "researchuniversities" in the IUCR program. The pattern of uni-
versity involvement presents an interesting picture, inwhich the leading research universities (as measuredby total value of R&D performed in FY 1979 from allfunding sources), are well represented, but by nomeans dominate the distribution orlUC-a-cvards. Theleading IUCR universities are, for the most part, uni-versities with national reputations-but the ten lead-inglUCR-performing universities include only Stanfordin common with the list of top ten research universitiesin the United States. The latter group, however, is well-represented on the list of IUCR awards-all but two ofthe top 20 research universities have received at leastone IUCR award, as have 37 of the top 50. Takentogether, the top 100 research universities account for84% of the value of total IUCR awards.
Indicative of the way many of these programsstarted, one investigator described tie origin of hisNSF university/industry coupling grant in the followingmanlier:
The professor was interested in potential usesof gallium arsenide in chip formation. tie attemptedto develop interaction with a microprocessor com-pany, but found it difficult. lie discussed his workwith company representativeg- and scientists, butdiscovered it was hopeless te, initiate an int...ractionuntil he developed a friendship with an industrialscientist who was interested in what he we doingand v:as will'ng to put time in on the project on his
Table 2?
Distribution of IUCR** Program Into Business Week Industry Groupings
Industry
IUCR Program (FY 78-81)Shares of Valueof IUCR Awards*
(1,78-81)
Average IndustryR&D as a °/0
of Sales(1977-80)
Firms(No.)
Projects(No.)
$ Awards*(000's)
Aerospace 4 13 4,326 14.5% 4.0%Automotive (cars & trucks) 3 5 722 2.4 3.2Chemicals 9 22 4,397 14.8 2.4Conglomerates 4 8 1,423 4.8 1.7Drugs 3 5 665 2.2 4.8Electrical 3 11 2,664 8.9 2.6Electronics 3 3 392 1.3 2.8Fuel 6 14 1,920 6.4 0.4Computers 5 22 3,161 10.6 6.1Instruments 3 3 371 1.2 4.2Leisure Time 1 1 32 0.1 4.2Machinery (Farm Construction) 1 1 77 0.3 2.8Machinery (Machine Tools, etc.) 1 1 48 0.2 1.6Metals & Mining 2 2 175 0.6 0.8Miscellaneous Manufacturing . -- -- -- 1.9Paper 1 2 253 0.8 0.9Personal & Home Care Products 2 2 128 0.4 1.7Semiconductors 1 1 246 0.8 5.8Steel 3 5 759 2.5 0.6Telecommunications 2 9 1,063 3.6 1.5Tires & Rubber 1 1 167 0.6 1.7
Total Above 58 22,999 77.1
Not Distributed 31 6,840 22.9
Grand Totals 89 165 29,771 100.0
Includes matching funds provided by other NSF Divisions."NSF. Industry/University Cooperative Research Projects F
77
Table 23
Summary of University Involvement in IUCR Program
IUCR Program (FY 78-81) Percentage Shares of
IUCR Awards (1978-81)
Rank"
(In Top 100)Projects (No.) $ Awards' (000's)
(en Leading IUC Performers:Stanford 10 2,832 9.6 6UCLA 3 1,585 5.4 14Delaware 2 1,410 4.8 100Purdue 7 1,076 3.6 28Rochester 3 1,024 3.5 23Florida 4 1,016 3.4 32USC 4 955 3.2 24Cal. Tech 2 848 2.9 41Pittsburgh 4 840 2.8 59Carnegie7Mellon 5 803 2.7 69
Concentration of Funding:Leading IUC Universities
Top 10 44 12,389 41.9Top 20 78 18,336 62.1Top 50 131 26,641 90.3Top 79 (all performers) 165 29,771 100.0
Leading R&D UniversitiesTop 10 40 6,798 24.2Top 20 60 10,768 36.4Top 50 102 18,971 61.8Top 100 139 25,853 84.2
Includes matching funds provided by other NSF Divisions.Universities ranked by total value of all R&D performed in FY 1979 (based on NSF data;.
own. It was difficult for them to develop .this inter-action formally. Such interaction was not encour-aged by the top level company managers. Accordingto the professor, the way the system worked at thecompany made it hard. Time and money had to bejustified and there was a feeling in the top manage-ment that there was no benefit to working withsomeone who would publish everything.
. However, the professor continued his interac-tion with the scientist at the company. Finally, thecompany provided him with a small level of support,$20,000 for two years. He had access to the com-pany's instrument labs, and the money he receivedwas flexible. The professor was impressed with thecompany research efforts. He then proposed thatthey submit a joint proposal to the NSF industry/university coupling (IUCR) program. Their proposalwas funded. The government program is based on athree-year interaction between the company and theuniversity. There are provisions for exchange of per-sonnel, support of three graduate students and apost-doctoral scientist. Six researchers at the com-pany will be involved. The professor felt that thisprogram was very cost-effective for the company,and that the NSF funding was having a very signifi-.cant effect on his interaction with the company. Hebelieves that the NSF program attracted interestwithin the company to his research. An importantaspect of the university/industry coupling program,according to this professor, was that it gave them achance to address at a basic level something that isimportant for the national. need as well as the com-pany's need. impurities in chips are a limitingprobicm for device applications. The university willprovide the company with samples that they cantest for these impurities.
78
The difficulty of the individual university scientistssecuring access to key indusLiial research managerswho can support a project, as alluded to in this anec-dote, was frequently mentioned as a problem in initi-ating university/industry research prograros, and wasmentioned particularly by those acacieniic.interested in initiating government funded r.:'.;Jpz:rativt!research efforts.
In conjunction with .1k increased interest of gov-ernment in universityl:ndustry programs, extensivedebate has occurred over issue of ti,e necessity fora government funded cooperative research effort. Oneapproach is that such support is not needed becanise.if industry and universirs really developed mutualinterests, they would get together independently. Anal-ysis of the origins of several of these cooperative gov-ernment funded programs indicated that this is notnecessarily so.
In the previous example, the difficulty of companyand university scientists eliciting formal companyencouragement for cooperative research in a programriot perceived to be of immediate interest to the com-pany was alluded to. In several other cases, both com-pany and university researchers stated that if the IUCRprogram didn't exist, then the company would nothave funded university research in that area.
. In one case, researchers stated that they went tothe government because the company "couldn't pro-tect its own interests" and to do the research justice
87
they needed additional funding and more general sup-port.
In support of government-sponsored university/industry coupling programs many scientists from bothindustry and university suggested that such programsallow industry an opportunity to investigate theoreticalaspects of their commercial interests. It was suggested.by company representatives that participation in theseprograms boosted the morale of scientists in industryand they welcomed the chance for joint authorship inscientific publications. in many government spon-sored university/industry cooperative research pro-., 'iris, including the NSF IUCR Program, the govern-Aent requires cost sharing. A few of the company
sentatik.es interviewed said that these costshar-e;:t.irementS were a significant barrier to their
iii n in such programs..,..;:;:cture and criteria of government spon-
sored conpling programs affect the participants, subj-ect i.iler and commitment of both parties.
l':ivate universities have been more actixic partici-pants in the ^Si HICK program than public universities.Of !h aniversitics visited by the research team, theprivate tinker sides had 15 of the NSF university coup-ling grant s a' 9 universities in 1979, and had 26 of thegrants at 13 universities in 1986. The public universi-ties had 10 NSF IUCR grants at 7 schools in 1979, and12 at G different schools in 1980.
Basic science research aligned to commercia:interests in fields otherwise minimally supported byindustry may be fostered by the NSF IUCR program. Inthe first year of the NSF IUCR program, all but one ortwo grants could be characterized as basic engineer-ing research. This was tree : - for the second year as well.In aimost 50% ' 9 out of 38 programs) of thecoupling programs at he schools the research teamvisited could be characterized as basic science re-search as Opposed to ba engineering research. Theinformatiot gathered in this -turfy indicates that verylittle industrial support tapprt .mately 30% or less ofthe total industrially supported university research)goes to science programs in physics, math and bio-
. And about 60% of industrial support of universityis hi engineering. (See Chapter V, pp. 20-21.)
Thus, the . .atively high level of cooperative researchih these areas basic sc',-nce within the industry/University coupling program could be an indicationthat the critei a of the NSF IUCR program serve asincentives for industry to couple its needs to new areasof bask: university science.
II, 'he Office of Naval Research Programs, wherethe co,ipl:ng procedures and criteria are different, andfunding is primarily through subcontracts, most of theprograms were in engineering. Eighteen of the 39schools visited by the research team participated in 30of the 41 university/industry programs in which ONRparticipates. Fifteen programs were at 7 of the privateschools visited, and 15 programs were at 14 of the
public schools visited. About 61% of the programsV% ...re in engineering. (Table 24.)
B. Group or Consortial Arrangements FosteringCooperative University/Industry Resew ch
Research funding for a university program by anassociation of-companies is adparently of -.rowinginterest to industry as well as universities. Such inter-actions can include support through focused indus-trial liaison programs, multi-company support of aresearch center or laboratory, collective industry sup-port of research, and an association of a group of com-panies and universities in order to conduct research.The growth of these types of interactions may he re-lated to the increasing complexity and cost of scien-tific research, as well as to the recent clarificationof U.S. anti-trust laws regarding basic research. (SeeChapter V.)
1. Special Purpose Industrial Affiliate Programs(Focused Industrial Liaison Programs.)
Focused industrial affiliate programs must bedistinguished from institutional Or general purpose,industrial associates programs (see Chapter IX, p. 92)to the extent that these programs involve a degree oftechnical focus or cooperation by the partners in-volved. To some degree, this is difficult to determinebecause there is a spectrum of focus in industrialassociates programs and a spectrum of degree ofinteraction. Examples of focused industrial liaison pro-grams include: The Electromagnetics Propagation andCommunications Affiliates at the University of Illinois;The Metal Cutting Industrial Affiliates Program atthe University of Michigan; The Wisconsin ElectricMachines and Power Electronics Consortium (WEMPEC)at the University of Wisconsin; The Industrial SystemsControl Program at Case Western Reserve; The Emul-sion Polymer Liaison Program at Lehigh University;The Optics Industrial Associates Program at the Uni-versity of Rochester; The Geosignal Processing Indus-trial Affiliates Program at the University of SouthernCalifornia.
As a liaison program beedmes more focused andstructured around a research program, there is moreinteraction between parties, and at some point theycan be better characterized as mini-research con-sortia. Sometimes these programs naturally evolveinto research consortia. This was the case with sev-eral industrial associates programs in the polymerfield, and in the fields of electrical engineering andcomputer science.
From the point of view of the university, a focusedindustrial affiliates program is a means to create stableindustrial support of university research. From the in-dustrial point of view, it is a chance to gain a windowon technology, have ready access to students, and play
88 79
Table 24
Distribution of Selected Government Funded U/I Cooperative Research Programs
Directorate/Program
NSF IUCR' Program (FY 78-81)
Grants (No.)Average Value
(5000's)
Current ONR"U/I Cooperative
Programs"'
% of Total IUC Grants (No.)
Astronomical, Atmospheric, Earth and Ocean Sciences . . .
Astronomical SciencesAtmospheric SciencesEarth Sciences
Biological, Behavioral & Social Sciences
5
221
10
Environmental (tiology 2PhysioIgy, CellcIar & Molecular Biology 8
Engineering 119
Civil & Mechanical EngineeringChemical & Process EngineeringElectrical, Computer & Systems EngineeringOther
Mathematical & Phys.'cal Sciences
ChemistryMaterials ResearchMathematical & Computer SciencePhysics
TOTAL ABOVE
206235
2
97
24491212
231
111
38214
50
1.8 2
0.2 01.40.2
142 2.8
189 0.6 1
133 2.2 3
174
187168163333
54.9 / 25
10.1 / 427.2 315.4 / 132.2 5
124 40.4
12395
144227
129 100.0
1
242
41
Seace: National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research ProgramSource:Office ct Naval ResearchApproximate time frame 3-4 years
a role in suggesting basic researci efforts which willunderpin their own company research program.
The forerunner of the focused industrial asso-ciates program, or specizl interest industrial affili-ates programs, is the liaison program of. StanfordUniversity. This program is over 30 years old. here,membership has always been at the departmentallevel. At thi': university, there are over 19 affiliateprograms. Each program is managed by fa.cultymembers working in their subject discipline areas,rather than-by an administrative staff. This facilitatesa program developing along the lines of the interestof the scientists and engineers, and the needs ofthose- industries most closely allied to it. Eachmem, -.. company is assigned to a faculty member.Thus, the emphasis is on individual contacts be-tween the representatives of each member com-pany and the faculty, staff, and students in the pro-gram. A :ccss to students is the prime reason whythe companies join. These programs also providecompany representatives a chance to participate inthe direction of a research program, and to obtain awindow on technology.
Most focused liaison programs provide similar.:services as general associates programs. Most pro-grams host one or more meetings'on campus, providecopies of reports, publications and resume listings,and encourage company campus articipation. A fewprograms provide for annual 1. ultyisite visits to acompany location. When this occurs,/ the- faculty are
/80
generally ent siastic about the value of such visits,and the opp rtunity they provide for closer researchties. It is t ie focus on subject matter that providesopportun'ties for cooperative interactions to occurwithin t se programs. In many focused industrial affil-iates p o/ grams, .affiliate members are encouraged tobrim technical problems of a non-proprietary natureto t e attention of the faculty members and to outlinewh t they believe to be the key problems in advancing
gt state of the art of their fields. Thus members mayve an influence on future research directions. As this
'advisory capacity becomes more formalized, to theextent where the member companies form an advisoryboard, this activity is better characterized as a researchconsortium.
A few representative examples of this evolutioninclude the Case Western Reserve Industrial Asso-ciates program in Polymer science, the ElectricalEngineering Affiliates. Program of Stanford Univer-sity, The Energy liaison program at Lehigh Univer-sity, the Geology Liaison- program Louisiana StateUniversity, The hydrocarbon Industrial AssociatesProgram at the University of Southern California,and the ChemiCal Engineering Industrial Associatesprogram at Georgia Tech,A more- complete descrip-tion of this evolution is given in chapter VII, p.40.
The membership fees for focused industrial liai-son programs run anywhere from $1,000 to $25,000,
89
but most often the fee is approximately $10,000 percompany. Some programs are requiring commitment()I membership lor two to three years.
The current surge of interest in industrial asso-ciates programs indicates the extent of increasedinterest in university/industry coupling, and particu-larly in cooperative research. Of the 71 industrial asso-dates programs documented in this study, 35% werenew programs in existence for less than one year. Only-two of these new programs were general purposecampus-wide industrial associates programs, and thistype of industrial associates program accounted foronly 10% of the total number documented (Tables 3and 7). Therefore, we suggest that the increase inthese programs is not only being viewed as a fund-raising activity, but also as a means for creating morestable cooperative programs of university/industryresearch through focusing on specific research areas.Approximately 95% of these new initiatives are occur-ring at public schools. One public midwestern univer-sity had 28 programs, of these 29% were new programs(one year or less) and 64% were up to five years old.
There are also many older successful specialinterest liaison programs. At the universities Visited,there are approximately 16 liaison prograMs that haveexisted for longer than ten years, and 20 between threeand ten years (Table 7). Every private university visited(17) had at least some form of a focused industrialassociates program already in existence. Of the (22)public universities visited, no industrial associ7.`,eSprograms existed at 6 universities, and 3 of these uni-versities made no mention of interest in starting suchprograms in the near future. Of the older programs(greater than ten years old), about "60% are at privateuniversities.
Only two industrial associates programs in bio-chemistry were documented, both less than one yearold, and none were documented in physics, math orbiology. Approximately 80% of the programs werewithin a school of engineering. One of the oldestspecial interest industrial associates programs is aprogram at a private university in systems engineeringwhich had been in existence for 27 years.
In order to institute a focused industrial liaisonprogram many researchers noted the impoytance ofhaving a critical mass of researchers. Th /followingprovides a descripti. ,n of the initiation of a cut. entlywell-established special interest industrial affiliatesprogram.
ThiSprOgrain-, an industrial affiliates programin polymer science, was initiated by a professor ofmacromolecular science at a- private university.
The professor made the point that in trying :to enlist companies, he had to seek out "enlight-ened" rescaich directors. Many at the companiesappr :Idled were those he had consulted for atsoon , ooint. The other conipa Ifes were proximateto the university. Additionally, he had worked for
DuPont and thereby understood the needs and per-spective of industrial managers. Important in estab-lishing the program was the willingness at theuniversity to make an investment. This was accom-plished through the applicatic.n of Ford Foundationfunds which had been made available for develop-ment of engineering at the university. The professoremphasized the importance of critical mass in start-ing a program. When he got the companies to jointhat critical mass barely existed.
2. Research Consortia
Research consortia can be characterized as speci-fic mission programs organized to ensure that thegeneric or mission-oriented research will be carriedout. A key to the development of many successfulresearch consortia is an industrial affiliate prograrn.Affiliate programs have led to very successful indus-.trially funded consortial research programs in polymerscience, micro-electronics, robotics, and computerSci:ence (including computer graphics and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing).(See Chapters VII and VIII, pp. 44-46, and 55-5659-60).Many new initiatives are evolving in the biotechnologyarea. A primary element of the successful developmentof these research consortia seems to be that the indus-trial affiliates program allowed a leader to evolve, andthe program naturally developed through the give-and-take of personal contacts between the industrial asso-ciates members and the university scientists. (SeeChapter VII, pp. 41-42.)
Less successful are those consortia put togetherby a group of organizations, or ,/group of people whoorganize programs by piecing heir interests together,rather than letting their inter ctions evolve. During theevolutionary procesS, researi hers find mutual areas ofinterest and complement y capabilities.
When large consortia /are directed by committeesand are accompanied y high adminkative costs,they tend to be viewed With skepticism by universityscientists and industrial scientists. Such programshave been particularly prevalent in the fields of energyand environmental science. Presently, there are initia-tives to establish several such programs in the micro-electronics field. The complexity of these subjectsrequires vast resources, and thus there is a rationalefor such programs. However, of four committee-runconsortia reviewed, sponsoring energy related research,none was viewed as successful in facilitating univer-sity/industry cooperative research by those scientistsasked, who had a chance to pait'cipate in these prodgrams: The problem may have t en related to program organization and manageli ient. Coordination ofeffort in these programs often depended on informalmeetings for exchange of information, and there wasno central facility on which to focus the program.
A new initiative taken by the chemical, industrymay prove to be a successful model con initiation of .large consortial research programs.
90 81
This collective industrial action was initiated by1vc11-respccted former vice president for research
.11 I «ffilpdlly. He was interested in tip-()hiding le( hnology at the ( ompany and wanted tostimulate longertonge ICM*.11(11. Out of his concernabout engineering andl the loss of innovation in edu-cation in the United Stales, he attended three gov-ernment sponsored conferences on our decliningteclnnoltx alter each meeting, all the participantswent home and nothing was done. Ile decided to dosomething. Ile organized a 111Cetillg Of the directorsul research and the deans and heads of engineeringand c hemistry oepartments for about $300,000,donated by his own company. At the conference, heasked vell-knoWn chemists to speak in the morning,and in the ;ifternoon he held an open session. Theopen session was critical at this first meeting. Alarge number of investigators with whom this initia-tive was disc used said that the meeting's mostimportant outcome was the opening up of channelsof communication between university and industrysc ientists.
At this first meeting, the attendees set up aSteering Committee, which chose a task force. Equalnumbers of representatives from industry and uni-kersity sat on each of these committees. NSF tosome extent, encouraged the initiation of this activ-ity by !lining the Director of NSF give a talk at thisfirst conference, and in agreeing to support the uni-versity people for their participation in,the task forceset up to explore the mechanisms of cooperation.
The task force focused on the possibility of set-ting up a research consortium of chemical compa-nies and universities. They determined the goalsand object'ives of such an organization, and madetheir proposal to a second 10rge conference ofincitistry and university chemists and chemical engi-neers. At this second conference, the attendeesdecided to form the Cyuncil for Chemical Research.The central issues then betame:
(1) should there be a central fund for supportof University research and, if so,
(2) hoW should the money be distributed?
A third meeting was held in the fall of 1981. Acentral fund of new money for basic research oreducationwas established. The recommended divi-sion of fees for membership were: a company willgive of the membership fee to the central fundof the Council lor Chemical Research, and the other75');,) of the fee will be spent on direct company fund-ing of university programs. However, a companycould still he a member of the Council forChemicalResearch without paying. into the central' fund. Themembership of the Council for Chemical Researchis to be made up of anybody who wants to join. The,cost to a company depends on the number of corn-pally chemical engineers and chemists. There willbe 0 premium of 4 times lor Ph.D.s, ell., if they settile. lee at $100 for each bachelors degree chemistor chemical engineer the fee for each Ph.D. will be$400. Presently, CCR has decided that tney will dis-tribute the central fund money according to a formulabased on the number of Ph.D.s a chemistry or chem-ic al engineering departmen produces.
As of March 1982, CCR had 100 university mem-bers and 27 company members. The organizationexpects to have a ttital of 40 company members byApril I, 1982. To date, (March, 19/l2), pledges to thecentral fund exceed $3 million.
82
The benefits of establishing research consortiasuch as CCR can be considerable. The founders of theCCR expect that transfer of technology and new ideasshould occur more readily, that there shOuld be in-creased opportunity for industry exposure to break-throughs from the university, and that CCR shouldfoster stronger research programs that integrate aca-demic pursuit of basic science with engineering.
C. Institutional Facilities
Centers, institutes, and research facilities furnishmeans for coordinating programs to attract industry.They can provide equipment in a central location. Ourstudies on university/industry research interactionssuggest that certain targeted research centers (Stan-ford Center for Integrated Circuits, University of Dela-ware Catalysis Center; Laboratory for Laser Energetics,University of Rochester) are particularly effective inattracting industrial support. Often these specializedlaboratories and centers are formed especially to meetindustrial needs and concerns (e.g., Center for Manu-facturing Productivity, RPI; Minerals Resources Re-search Center, University of Minnesota; Center for Bio-technology, Stanford .University).
The center concept brings focus to research andthis may facilitate cooperation with industry. Thecenters need not necessarily be physical entities, butthey must serve as a focus, provide a piece of equipmen( or provide coherence for related research effor?conducted in a general area. Many believe that titlecenter and institute structure is a transitional stale-.Lure between the typical university environment andthe outside, or external world. Their 'administrativestructure is viewed as making possible a better inter-face with industry. (See Chapter VI, Section C.)
At some universities, a substantial amount ofresearch is done in centers or institutes, and fre-quently the predominance of industrial support is atcenters or institutes. (Libsch:1976.) Several successfulindustrially sponsored programs have occurred wherea center is formed in conjunction with an industrialliaison program. (See pp. 31-32.)
We reviewed 89 centers and institutes which hadsome form of industrial support. Of these, 76% can becharacterized as U/I cooperative research centers,eleven were newly planned institutes, and six wereabout one year old. About 50P,i, of the cooperative re-search centers were lesS than three years old (Table 7,p. 22). By far, the greatest number of centers or institutesinteracted with industry through contracted research.
A new feature of the industrial support of many ofthese newer centers is multi-company support, includ-ing companies from several industries.
For example, one materials science centerhas support from producer companies including'_DuPont, Celanese, Hercules, Owens 'Corning-Fiber-glas and user companies in( luding Ford. CieneralElectric, General Motors, Rockwell International and
91
PPG Industries. A catalytic research center has bothoil company and chemical company support, and apolymer processing program has support from theautomotive indushy, the information processingindustry, instrumentation companies and the chem-ical industry.
For the most part such centers attracting wide-spread company support are addressing areas ofresearch that cut across and might prove fundamentalto several industries. Thus the concept of industry sup-ported "generic research centers" which conduct re-search that cannot be captured by individual firms isbeginning to .)me well established or gaining ac-ceptance in some areas.
Most centers and institutes reviewed had a combi-nation of state and federal government, industrial andsome university support. Only one center was com-pletely supported by industry in its initiation and itssubsequent maintenance or operating funds. Oneprincipal issue concerning centers and institutes is theextent to which they are aligned with a department.(Sec Chapter VI, Section C, p. 32.) Of the centersreviewed, those centers closely associated with adepartment seemed to suit industrial needs of accessto students more closely and cause less friction in theacademic environment.
I. Cooperative Research Centers
ar,ters having associated industrial affiliate pro-grams where member companies serve in an advi-sory capacity regarding the direction of research canbe characterized as cooperative industrially fundedcenters.
Examples of such centers include: The SeismicAcoustic Laboratory at the UniverSity of Houston;!hydrocarbon Research Institute at the University ofSouthern California; Center far Futures Research atthe University of Southern Califon- .a; Center forApplied Polymer Research at Case Western Reserve;Center for Surface and Coating Research at LehighUniversity; The Materials Science Center at LehighUniversity; The Materials Research Laboratory atPenn State; The Center for Microelectronics at Rens-selaer Polytechnic Institute IRPI); The Center forManufacturing Productivity at RPI; and The Centerfor Integrated Graphics at RN.
In over 90% of cases reviewed (68), these centershad agreed to provide their sponsors with royalty-free,nonexclusive licenses. -
The use of this mechanism of approach to univer-sity/industry research seems to be gaining enthu-siasm, but its prevalence is relatively new. The oldercooperative centers interact with industry through con-tracts, and frequently do not have the associated affiliateprograms. Furthermore, the older centers tend to beoriented toward a specific industry and receive supportfrom companies within an industry.
Over 50% of the industrially funded cooperativecenters (centers which have industrial affiliate pro-
grams associated with them) are less than five yearsold. A distinguishing factor of many of these newcenters is they receive multi-company support fromseveral industries. Further, these centers tend to belocated at private universities, e.g., 14 out of 20 centersreviewed.
Cooperative funding of generic technology cen-ters, such as was proposed by the Department of Com-merce, was not viewed with enthusiasm by any of thecompanies interviewed. One problem here seemedto be the lack of a mechanism to build strong tiesbetween individual investigators at the universities andindustry.
Cooperative research centers, such as those fundedby NSF, have been written about extensively. (NationalScience Foundation, 1981) Examples include:
The Polymer Processing Program at MIT, theFurniture R&D Applications Institu at North Caro-lina State University (Raleigh), The New EnglandEnergy Development System (NEEDS), The OhioState Welding Center, and The Computer GraphicsCenter at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Withinthe past year, two new centers were established, TheUniversity/Industry Center for Robotics at the Uni-versity of Rhode Island, and a Center for Universityof Massachusetts Industry Research on Polymers(CUMIRP) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst
In helping to establish such research centers, NSFprovides-seed money to aid the center in commencingits research program. The objective is to encourageindustry to join the program and provide increasingsupport. After a period (hopefully five years) it is ex-pected that companies will be responsible for the com-plete support and financial operation of a center. TheMIT Polymer Processing Program is now completelysupported by industry. The two new centers are beingestablished with considerable initial company support.
The cooperative university/industry centers ex-periment is designed to explore the feasibility of uni-versity /industry linkages that will more closely couplethe capabilities and products of academic research tothe production sector of the economy. The identifica-tion of the circumstances that encourage the creationand maintenance of strong, self-sustaining linkages isthe overriding objective of the NSF program. Thus,individual grants are structured through cooperativeresearch agreements with the quantitative and qualita-tive goals that include the attainment of sufficientfinancial support from industry to continue withoutsubsidy. In this broad framework, NSF is trying a varietyof concepts. Of the several such centers reviewed inthis study, one had reached the point where it wassolely supported by industry, and most others weresuccessfully attracting indu F.trial support. The mostcritical factor in developing such centers seems to bean energetic leader with a sense of direction. Onecenter reviewed was not successful.
9283
The reasons given were as follows:
(I) there was no strong faculty leader,(2) (lie prograni was structured by administrators
first. and faculty second,(3) the approach of the program was too broad,(4) the industrial sector this center served was
extremely fragmented.
Several academic scientists associated with the pro-gram suggested that rather than approach a numberof companies, they should have worked with one ortwo companies. This assumes that others would havefollowed suit as they saw useful results from one ortwo companies' interaction with the university.
2. University-based Institutes ServingIndustrial Needs
Centers characterized as university-based butserving industrial needs most often are supportedthrough substantial government funds as well asindustrial contracts. Most of these institutes are firmlyestablished. Many have significant support from stategovernments. Of those reviewed, all had been in exist-ence for more than three years. University -based insti-tutes (or centers) serving industrial needs tend to beestablished at public universities. Of about 20 suchcenters or institutes reviewed, only 4 were at .privateuniversities. Frequently, these institutes are initiatedafter local industry puts pressure on the legislature toallocate state resources to form an institute to servetheir needs. These institutes most often receive indus-trial support or interact with companies classifiedwithin one industrial sector. Such institutes are par-ticularly prevalent in fields related to agriculture, foodand nutritional research, forestry and textiles. Thesetend to represent important natural resources and in-dustrial activity of a given region, hence the emphasiswithin the public institution. Because of the regionalfocus, propinquity of interested companies, and thestrong public service mandate of the institutionswhere these institutes tend to be located, they providea strong base for cooperative research activity.
Historically, an important model is the agricul-tural institute (e.ci, the Swine Producers ResearchInstitute at the University of Wisconsin, the Food andNutrition Science Institute at the University of Minne-sota, the Institute for Plant Development at the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, and the Animal husbandry Instituteat Colorado State University), which has been criticalto agricultural development and received great sup-port from state and local government as well as com-panies. Critical to the functioning of many of theseinstitutes has been a close relationship with the U.S.Department of Agriculture Laboratories. Laboratoriesor centers directed toward the interests of the minesand minerals industry (e.g., the Department of Metal-lurgy and Metallurgical Engineering at the University ofUtah, the Earth Mechanics Institute at the Colorado
84
School of Mines) which have had close relationshipswith the Bureau of Mines serve as additional examples.
A typical example of this sort is the MineralResources Research Center (MRRC) of the Universityof Minnesota. MRRC was established as the MinesExperiment Station, a service of the School of Minesanalogous to the Agricultural Experiment Station.Minnesota is a state of vast mineral wealth and iron-bearing ores have been an important source ofrevenue for nearly a century. In the early days, anyindividual or company could bring a problem to theMines Experiment Station and research could bedone free. It was at MRRC that the taconite processwas developed that made possible the profitablerecovery of low grade magnetic ores from the MesabiRange.
In the 1970's, the Mines Experiment Stationunderwent reorganization and became the MineralResources Research Center. The Institute has a pilotplant which enables the researchers to separatetheoretically possible processes from those that aretechnically feasible. The pilot plant is one of the fewlocated.,at edUcational institutions in the UnitedStates.
The minerals industry is showing particularinterest in mechanisms for better control over feed-ing ore into plants, in grinding processes, etc. TheMRRC pilot plant is equipped with computer controldevices to monitor such processes. AlthOugh indus-try has continually benefitted from the Institute andparticipated in Institute activities in the past com-panies have tended to regard it a service, a placewhere they can contract research aimed at solvinga technical problem, rather than a center for basicmining research. This may be partly due to thestructure of the mines and minerals industry (secChapter VIII, pp. 61-62), and partly due to histori-cal reasons concerning the origin and developmentof the institute. However, there are indications thatthe attitudes of the industry may be changing.
3. Jointly Owned or Operated Facilitiesand Equipment
Jointly owned or operated facilities are rare. Theresearch team saw none that were jointly owned. how-ever, there were a couple of instances where a facilitywas jointly operated, or at least jointly used. Usuallysuch programs are based on a unique facility or ex-pensive equipment. One such facility is the Laboratoryfor Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester.This was described in an earlier report (Brodsky etal., 1979).
Another example is a shared research facility at aprivate midwestern university administered throughtheir Chemistry Department.
The university originally established the facilityseven or eight years ago through funds obt-inedfrom industry for the purchase of the equipment.The equipment is housed at the university. Thefacility is open to industry on a fee basis. Companiespay a fee to join, and in addition, pay a fee eachtime the equipment is used. The fee for industry ishigher than for departments at the .university. Anadministrator at this university stated that this way
93.
of funding the program is a double-edged sword. Ifthe university raises the fees to be able to buy newrtfilipMnt, of ht'cl) Ow equipment in top condition,they will c lose our some users who actually dependon the use of the facility. furthermore, it they raisethe rates, this might be considered by tile InternalRevenue Service as creating unrelated income. How-ever, since it is very expensive to maintain and operatethis equipment, balance must be established. Accord-ing to this administrator, this mode of industrialsupport is not really a long term solution, becauseit companies really want the equipment, they willbuy it.
A unique example of university/industry collab-oration in the use of big research facilities has devel-oped at Brookhaven National Laboratories. (Teich,198 1. )
A research facility known as the National Syn-c hrotron Light Source (N51.5) which began Opera-tions in the loll of 1981 has been built at Brook-har,en National laboratories (BNL). In order to bedble to equip fully the more than forty experimentalsites al the facility, a unique organizational plan wasdeveloped.
Two categories of users were established. Anumber of beam lines have been desigw .d andinstrumented by a class of users called "Partici-pating Research Teams" (F'WI's). These Pigs havepaid for and set up their own instrumentation inreturn for exclusive usage of their beam line for upto three-quarters of its scheduled time over a periodof three years. The remainder of the beam time andthe equipment must be made available by the 11 R7sto general users, and the PRTs must assist the gen-eral users in setting up and conducting their experi-ments and, if mutually desirable, collaborate withthem. These "general users," who make up thesecond category of uFers, also have access to theother beam lines and instruments built by N51.5stall and intended for general usage.
In order lo achieve a "critical mass" of scien-tific and technical skills, as well as usage needs; theNS1.S management has ([[(raged potential usersto join forces in setting up PRTs and shorter-termexperiments. In several instances, these joint effortsinvolve both university and industry teams. Onegroup on the ultraviolet ring, involves collaboratorsIron' Brookhaven, State University of New York, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania, and Xerox Corporation.Another, an x-ray beam line, involves scientists fromIBM Corporation and MIT. Since the facility is sonew, it is still too soon to judge how well thesearrangements arc working.
D. Informal Cooperative Interaction: Co-authoringPapers, Equipment Sharing, InformationSharing, etc.
During our interviews, cooperative interactionwithout the exchange of money (informal cooperativeresearch) was not alluded to frequently. Yet, we areaware that such interaction does occur, particularlywith industrial scientists from companies that havelarge basic research efforts (e.g., IBM, Bell Labora-tories, Xerox, G.E. and United Technologies). At a fewindustrial laboratories, we witnessed university scien-
tists using company laboratory equipment and co-operating with the industrial scientists. Such coopera-,live interactions are difficult to document systematically.The following anecdote is presented to illustrate whatsuch an interaction can entail;
A scientist, upon returning to a large high tech-nology company after spending a few years teachingat a university, was introduced to the chairman of thephysics department at a local university. They devel-oped an immediate rapport. It turned out that they11:-.c1 been acquainted previously. They had similarresearch interests and began a dialogue on scien-tific matters. They continued to do so and this ledto cooperation in research for seven years. Severalco-authored papers lia".: come out of this program.The company scientist helps supervise graduatestudents. lie eventually received an appointment asa visiting professor. The academic scientist uses thecompany laboratory and he now has a consultingrelationship with the company. The company scien-tist moved sonic of his own equipment to the uni-versity. lie feels that this interaction has providedhim with a mechanism for participating in new re-search with minimum commitment of his time. Theinteraction enhances his own company program.Although the company scientist is not in a positionto give the academic scientist a grant, he can payfor services and issue work orders. The academicscientist uses this money to support graduate stu-dents. Purthermore, this interaction provides a basefor obtaining government grants.
KNOWLEDCilf MANSF7K
Knowledge transfer can occur through avariety of mechanisms, some of which haveknowledge transfer as their main purpose, andsome which do not. They arc frequently anessential element to the development of coop-erative research interaction. (See Chapter V,p. 18.)
A. Personal Interactions
Personal interactions between unKorsity and com-pany scientists are particularly critical in helping toinitiate large cooperative aniversity;indt:stry researchprograms. They involve both formal and informal pro-grams that may or may not have scientific or technicalknowledge transfer as their primary purpose. In asurvey..(Pica.-d, 1981) of 128 MI'l Industrial Liaison Pro-gram members, and former members, company con-tacts were asked to choose which services provided bythe ILA' Program were most useful. Choosing from alist of 26 specific services, company contacts rankedmost highly the personal interactions with the faculty.
Pe.rsoniel Exchange
Personnel exchange between univerities andcompanies can be an important means for extendingpersonal interactions. The practice of personnel ex-change is implemented both through formal and in-formal programs that include: visiting profossoiships,
94
post-doctorals, travel overseas, assignments at univer-sities engaged in high priority research, consultants,company seminars by visiting scientists, participationin intensive workshops, and lectures by company sci-entists.
A majority of individuals contacted believe thatpersonnel exchange, when it occurred was a fruitfulinteraction. However, there were no extensive or formaluniversity/industry exchange programs at most insti-tutions visited.
Investigators in over 50% of the schools visitedmentioned they had participated in personnel ex-change to a small extent, or knew of other individualswho had. All stated that this was not a large or signifi-cant university/industry research interaction. Mostindicated that few scientists come from companies ona temporary basis to conduct research at universities,but when it occurred, it was a success. These cases areusually instances where a company sends a man forretraining and pays his salary and fees.
Several cases were reviewed where company sci-entists were paid by the company while spending timeat a university research laboratory.
for example. one drug company pays the salaryof a scientist who works two days a week at a south-ern public university and three days a week at thecompany research laboratory.
In another case, the chemistry department atDuke University provided space for personnel froma chemical company. The company paid rent for thespace and in return a new and relatively inexperi-enced company employee was supervised by a facultymember. The university benefits from the rent andthe interaction. This is a unusual interaction butother simildr cases were documented.
The mobility of scientists at one information proc-essing firm is a prime example of informal exchange.
Each year, approximately 150 visiting scientistsfrom 113M spend time in another research site. Abouthalf of these opportunities are within the UnitedStates, and half arc abroad, primarily in Europe. Thecompany employees who participate frequentlyspend time at other laboratories belonging to thecompany, or in universities. The non-employee par-ticipants arc often post-doctoral students who cometo a company laboratory for varying amounts oftime. The areas of emphasis for these exchangesinclude: memory storage, input-output analysis, laserphysics, computer architecture, software and com-puting services.
Universities occasionally establish informal ex-change programs with local companies.
In one program, a faculty member worked at alocal company while two people from that companycame to the university to conduct research in mech-anical and metallurgical engineering. This programwas a mixed success. Those/who came to the uni-versity from industry brought an indushial researchapproach which served to broaden exposure offaculty anti students. However, the professors whowent to the company came back with a questionable
860 'tir
new outlook. The university mostly sent young facultyto industry, whereas experienced engineers came tothe university. This may have been the basis ofsome difficulties that arose. Despite the benefits ofthe program, according to one scientist, it was pain-ful to operate. The experiment went on for three orfour years, but stopped when the department headleft. This underscores another aspect of the mixedsuccess of the program. The program originatedbecause the head of the university department putpressure on his friend, the company vice president.This sort of program, established purely on a per-sonal basis, is quite subject to the mobility of theleader.
Sometimes personnel exchange emanates froman opportunity to participate in a consulting arrange-ment.
In one interesting case, a genetic engineeringfirm moved to achieve close proximity to a largepublic university with excellence in biomedical andagricultural research. A molecular biologist at theschool has worked out an agreement whereby halfhis time is spent at the commercial laboratory andhalf at his university laboratory and teaching. Thisarrangement required difficult negotiations abouttenure and conflicts of interest, and these issuesstill have not been fully resolved.
In another instance, four geneticists from amidwestern school of genetics arranged to spendone day per week at a local bioengineering firm. Inthis case, the university way concerned that therewould be no faculty left to teach if they did not allowsuch an arrangement. Now, there are difficulties inarranging schedules and ensuring the absence of aconflict of interest.
A large number of scientists interviewed said theywould favorably regard improving formal programs ofpersonnel exchanges and would welcome new oppor-tunities to participate in exchange programs. Indus-trial sabbatical programs are of increasing interest toboth university and industry scientists.
At one public university, the chemical engineer-ing department, with a large industrial program,decided to stop teaching short courses, becausethey were too time-consuming, and instead, spon-sor industrial sabbaticals at the university. This waswell received and two chemfr.al companies sent sci-entists for three to six months. The university wouldlike to enlarge this program, and feels that it hasworked out well. 0,1e participating scientist fromOhio, after receiving a brief indoctrination in theformal part of the program, immediately started"hands-on research" and working with students.This experience helped him in his new position atthe company. The company paid for the whole termof his university sabbatical. The university depart-ment chairman stated that the reverse has nottaken place, I.e., a university professor had not yetgone on sabbatical to industry.
The emerging interest in facilitating personnelexchange is indicated by its incorporation into severalnew university/industry research programs. Person-nel exchange is an increasingly popular element ofmany university/industry cooperative research centers.
95
Industrial scientists coming to spend time and doresearch at the university is an integral part of the Cali-fornia Institute of Technology's Silicon Structure Pro-'gram, the Computer Science Program of the Universityof Washington, the Catalysis Center of the University ofDelaware, the Polymer Program of Case Western Re-serve, and other similar programs (see Chapters VII,VIII and Section on Cooperative Research Centers inthis chapter). A feature of several of the new university/industry partnership agreements (e.g., Celanese-Yale,Hoechst-Massachusetts General hospital, DiamondShamrock-University of Arizona, see Chapter VII) is aprovision for a limited number of industrial scientiststo spend time at the associated university laboratory.During the tenure (7 years) of the Harvard-Monsantoagreement. there haS been continual short term ex-change of scientists. . _
Several company representatives interviewed statedthat as a result of a professor's work at the company.during the summer, cooperative. research programshad been established with the professor's university.
Frequently, 'personnel exchange is accompanied byequipment gifts or loans and, in ;a. few instances, per-sonnel exchange depended on availability of uniqueequipment facilities. Such interaction is particularlyviable when a large research company and researchuniversity are in close proximity to one another. Rarelyare there institutionalized programs for sharing facili-ties. The basis fbr such interaction is norma:ly per-sonal contact. At a large public northwestern ...:n:ver-sity, university scientists frequently use facilities atnearby aerospace and pulp and paper research lab-oratories. Industrial scientists use facilities at tic?iiiriversity, such as the wind tumid. This type of inter-action is particularly dependent upon geography.
On a more formal basis, General Electric Com-pany has several programs of interest.
Coolidcje Fellowships. Each year, up to thre=.._but normally two I of the company's senior scion
lists/engineers are named by a council of peers a:,Fellows. This award conveys inter alia the right tospend up to one year working on a project of theirown clity.J.,:tig, at any site worldwide. The companyprovides h li financial support for travel, living andsalary during this period. Upon completion, theaward recipient returns to his previous position,witlu i it loss of seniority, salary growth, or otherfringe benefits.
Visiting I'esearcli re//ours. To facilitate thereverse exchange, the company has established thisprogram to attract outstanding scientists and engi-neers to sr.:m(1 three months to one year at a Cor-porate It&r.; laboratory. These individuals are nomi-nated by if Corporate R&D technical staff. Mostoften, they select people who can stimulate newresearch areas or bring needed fresh ideas intoexisting programs. Twenty-four such Fellows haveKeen named to date, and five are currently in place.The company pays salaries, travel costs and certainbenefits. Only a few other large corporations. includ-
ing one aerospace firm, have similar formal.visitingprofessor programs.
Visiting Research Scientists. This is a relativelynew program designed to bring young, promisingfaculty members to laboratories for intense discus-sions on problems of common interest. The stay isshort-term, generally two weeks, and the companypays all the expenses.
Several investigators identified certain difficultieswith personnel exchange. The primary problem is dis-ruption of family life. Second, if a company is havingeconomic problems. it is difficult to justify this type ofprogram. Third, if the subject area is in the high tech-nology field, or a fast-moving field of .science, it maycreate a problem for the untenured university scientistto be out of contact with his department chairman, andit is also difficult for the industrial scientist to be outof contact with superiors. Each may be missing oppor-tunities for advancement. Therefore, if such programsare institutionalized, a scientist must be assured'ofreturning to a research program keyed to his researchat the host institution, and he must be assured of aposition equivalent to or better than what he left. A feiVuniversity scientists expressed concern that the facultymember, after working in industry, would be temptedto remain'there by a large salary offer.
Most agreed that any workable large formalizedexchange program would have to be flexible in thelength of exchange. Most felt that one to two month'swas a reasonable length for a good and fruitful interac-tion, but that one year was too long for those con-
,.
cemed about career development.
2. Mechanisms for Stimulating Personal Interac-tions: Equipment Lending, Advisory Boards;Seminars, Speakers' Programs, PublicationExchange
Other practices of fostering pers(.: al interactions,such as participation on advisory boards, 4eminars,speakers' programs, publication exchang and ad-junct professorships, were pointed to as /activitiesactivitieswhich could lead to greater cooperation between uni-versity and industry researchers,but their 'Ole in theactual development of such programs was difficult toevaluate. One mechanism, the cocktail party, was re-peatedly mentioned. as having established personalcontacts which lead to research interactions.
Several universities said they held special con-.ferences abOut half of them sponsored by industry, toattract more formal industrial support /in a specificarea. MIT recently organized a Chemical SciencesIndustry Forum to promote increased communicationbetween the parties. Ten companies are sponsoringthis activity. .
/Many said the advisory councils typically associ-ated with engineering and agricultural schools andinstitutes of technology are useful in providing infor-mation about current industrial concerns, and allow-
96 87
ing industrial input on research directions and curri-culum development. 'the councils can also help in thesolicitation of funds from the legislatures and/or get-ting equipment for the university. However, most couldnot document large industrial grants or contracts aris-ing out of industrial participation on these councils.Such things arc difficult to document, but at least oneinstance can be cited where an advisory council im-proved university/industry research interaction.
hemistry department at the University ofCalifornia. 'an Diego, established a formal indus-trial advisory committee in 1977, because the fac-ulty recogniz(!d the isolation of the department fromindustry. In ,' ion, the department hired a personto develop industrial relations. As a result of theseactivities, they increased their industrial funding byover 50%. Communications &v. loped between thedepartment and industry, and ca7 industrial recruit-ing job placement program wa.. established. Thecoordinated activities of the Indust. jot liaison officerand advisory committee helped st,...;:ulate technol-ogy transier. The department was al)! to forge tieswith from 36 to 48 research-oriented c, npanies. Inthree years. they established four grac...: re fellow-ships sponsored by industry, and attracted an in-dustrially sponsored Faculty Development Award.
In a case mentioned previously, the advisorycommittee of a public university's electrical engi-neering department anticipated a crisis situation inmanpower for the 1980's. They were able to attractequipment gifts and research support for the depart-ment from industry (sec Chapter IX, p.69).
A recent development arising from the surge ofnew bioengineering firms is that university molecularbiologists and geneticists arc being asked to partici-pate on the technical science advisory boards of thesecompanies. We sensed that a majority of these scien-tists at major research universities in this field hadalready made a commitment to participate on suchboards.
One plant molecular biologist had recentlybeen asked by 9 to 10 companies to be on theireclinical advisory boards. The investigator finally
decided to sit on one board because the companywas receptive to his advice to support activities ofinterest to him but beyond his own available time orfunds. According to this investigator, a desirableoutcome of his participation on the hoard would beunrestricted funds for the support of post-doctoralresearchers and graduate students.
University biochemist and organic chemistparticipation on corporate boards has a long history atdrug companies. Several other large research com-panies, especially in the electronics field, also said theyhad scientific advisory boards composed of universityscientists. These boards help ensure that they do notlose sight of new directions, and that they keep upstandards of excellence in their research programs.
For example, one telecommunication companyhas a scientists advisory board of 12 top level aca-demic principal investigators who visit two times ayear, These professors are on a retainer (they are
88 97
paid on a yearly basis). Twice a year, industrial sci-entists present their research results and new researchdirections. The object is to keep the company scien-tists on track, make them aware of and keepth-m apprised of new research developments whichmay affect their work.
Technical advisory boards composed of industrialscientists, formed to address specific university re-search programs, are less frequent, but a few largeresearch projects were reported to have industrialsteering groups. In some cases, the companies alsofund the research, and in others, they serve mainly asadvisors and critiquers of the faculty research.
3. Adjunct Professorships
Adjunct professorships car. provide a solid basefor continuing knowledge transfer between universitiesand companies. Many research departments said theyhad at least one or two adjunct professors in theirdepartments. Drug companies supplied a large num-ber of adjunct professors to many universities, and toa lesser extent, chemical companies provided person-nel for professorships (see Chapter VIII). In the Re-search Triangle area, one drug company supplies over27 adjunct professors, or part-time professors, to sur-rounding universities. In many cases, especially wherethe professional is an adjunct professor at a majorresearch university and from a major company, thecompany pays his salary and donates his' time to theuniversity.
Within engineering schools, adjunct professor-ships are increasing because of the faculty shortageand influx of students. However, these professorsusually just teach and do not participate in research.There are exceptions.
In one case, half of the departmental facultywere adjunct professors, and most participated inresearch programs. This same university main-tained a practice of hiring retired high level execu-tives from local companies on a part-time basis.both of these factors were important to develop-ing the sensitivity of this school's scientists to indus-trial neeck-,, and in fostering the establishment ofseverai large and successful university/industrycooperative ventures.
Many company scientists expressed a desire tohold adjunct professorships. The opinion was expressedfrequently that universities should be more open to-appointing scientists from industry as adjunct pro-fessors. A university policy of severely limiting adjunctprofessorships could be a barrier to university/indus-try research cooperation. One private university havihgstrict rules regarding adjunct professors had a historyover the past decade of infrequent university/industrycooperative research interactions and lower thanaverage industrially sponsored research programsbased on percent of total research expenditures.
4. Cons/thing
The critical element in initiation of cooperativenrivcrsits indush research programs in over 34% of
[he cases where this question was asked directly wasWe consulting practice of those who developed theprograms, usually the program director and activeparticipants (Table 5 0. 19). Prior relationships whichfrequently involved some degree of consulting wereimportant factors in 76% of these cases. Intervieweesspecifically mentioned consulting as being importantin about 20% of the total number of interactionsreviewed (Table 4, p. 9). The relationship betweenconsulting and an awareness of industrial interests isfurther underscored in a recent study by Roberts andPeters (1981) at MIT. They found that professo:sreporting commercial ideas were much more likely tobe involved in consulting with business or governmentthan were those who did not report ideas.
Consulting policy utilized by the universities inter-viewed, present a wide variety of attitudes. and objec-tives (See Table 251. Objectives in fostering consultingcan vary from providing professors with a mechanismto supplement their income, to providing a conduit forbringing industry research projects to the university,to maintaining a communications network betweenthe university and industry. Perhaps most critical is theaim of providing for increased ability to expose andguide students to career paths within industry. 'Thusconsulting can relate to the fundamental objectives ofthe university both education and research.
Sonic schools have special programs to promoteconsulting activity by the faculty and others have ahands-off attitude, and still others frown upon consult-ing as interfering with faculty teaching and researchresponsibilities, without crediting any positive relation-ship to these functions. Those not familiar with indus-trial needs and support seem not to recognize its realimportance in establishing links necessary to develop-ing large and stable industrially supported programs.
Many believe a degree of university guidance isnecessary. This occurs both through encouraging uni-versity scientists to find 'proper projects,' as well asestablishing a policy on the permitted frequency ofconsulting.
Several department chairmen were concerned aboutthe types of projects a professor took on through hisconsulting activities. They did not believe that it was inthe best interests of the university to have the pro-fessor's time taken up with problem-solving not related,or peripherril, to the professional development of thefaculty member.
The most common policy on consulting frequency,found in 02% of the schools with available informa-tion, is to permit one clay per week consulting. Twopublic universities had a policy of allowing two daysper month, and one private university said that theirpolicy was 13 clays a quarter (Table 25.) In some uni-versities, the policy varied on a school-by-school basis.
Most scientists said professors rarely added more than$10,000 to their salaries through consulting activities.Most schools, especially the private schools, are quiteinformal about their requirements for reporting on fac-ulty consulting. Typically, they are only interested inthe frequency and not the monetary reward. Reportingconsulting activity is usually voluntary, except at a fewstate universities. Of the schools providing this infor-mation, only 56% had formal reporting procedures.These were infrequently rigorously enforced.
Most of the schools interviewed did not discussthe fee structure for consulting. However, of those whodid, the daily fee ranged from 0.6% to 2% of the aca-demic year salary. The total annual compensation per-mitted ranged from $8-15,000. A formal reporting pro-cedure was the only means of enforcing the guidelines.
Thus it is not surprising that concrete data on¶he level of consulting at universities is particularly dif-Ecult to obtain. No one interviewed felt that these privi-leges were being extensively abused, and most statedthat only 10% or less of their faculty consulted at themaximal allowable rates. The results of our field studyare consistent with a 1965 study of the University ofCalifornia, indicating that only 30% of their faculty,primarily in medicine, engineering and social science,had some consulting activities during that year, and a1973 report by the American Council on Education,which found 48% of university and college professorsperformed some sort of consulting service (Perry1965; Baer, 1973).
The popularity of consulting can be associatedwith certain academic fields. It was frequently statedthat consulting in business schools is at a much higherlevel than in either engineering or science schools ordepartments. In the technical units of a university, con-sulting activity is most prevalent in the engineeringdepartments due to the applied nature of that disci-pline. In engineering schools, especially where tieswith industry are already in place, consulting activitiesmay even be taken into consideration at the time ofpromotion, all else being equal. In these schools, thereis frequently a general feeling that one's excellence asan engineer is somewhat substantiated by his demandas a consultant. One engineering professor stated thatif a professor did not have extensive consulting activi-ties, he was suspect because he was not then cogni-zant of real-world proolems.
All company representatives interviewed said theymake use of university consultants. Most high technol-ogy companies, especially chemical and drag com-panies, have rosters (some are computerized) of uni-versity consultants they have used in the past or areusing presently. During any one year, the larger com-panies (having sales of over $150 million) are not likelyto use more than 125 university consultants. Rep,sentatives for several of the companies in our samplesaid that on the average they spent about one halfmillion dollars annually on academic consultants to
9.8
89
University
Table 25
Consulting Policy and Activity as Reported in Interviews During NYU Field Study
Consulting
# of Days Use/Abuse Formal/Informal Compensation
Carnegie MellonCase Western
Clemson
Colorado State
Colorado School ofMinesJohns Hopkins
Lehigh
Pennsylvania S !ePurdueRensselaerRice
University of Arizona
University of ChicagoUniversity of Illinois
University of MarylandUniversity of North
Carolina. Chapel Hill
University of NorthCarolina. Raleigh
University of UtahUniversity of Washington
University of Wisconsin,Madison
Washington University
University of Houston
University of Michigan
University of DelawareGeorgia Tech
Duke
University of Minnesota
Louisiana State
Stanford
University of Texas,Austin
University of California,San Diego
University of RochesterUniversity of Southern
CaliforniaCal Tech
90
1 day/weekN.A.
2 days/month
infrequent except torBusiness School
infrequent1 day/week
1 day/week
1 day/weekvariableN.A.1 day/week
N.A.
variable1 day/week 2 days/month Chemical SchoolN.A.
variable
N.A.2 days/month1 day/week Dept. ofOceanography
N.A.most do less than 1 day/week1 day/month `emistry
N.A.
N.A.permit 1 day/week1 day/month averageN.A.
1 day/week
1 day/week average 1day/2 weeks13 days/quarter
1 day/week
1 day/week unwrittennorm
N.A.
N.A.infrequent a few do 1day/week. Contradictoryinformation.
T
1 instance of abuseencouraged as part ofindustrial liaison programaverage use 0 -10 days/year, pressure for lessno abuse
N.A.through liaisonprogramsthrough liaisonprogramsspin-off companiesN.A.N.A.through REDDI
Env. Res. Labno con-sulting in area of researchotherwise institutionalconsultingN.A.N.A.
N.A.
often initiated throughrecruiters
university first allegianceno abuseheavy use by engineer-ing, "abuses in one dept."
important in engineeringthrough Wash. U. Tech-nology Associationabuse noted in one unit.Consulting in Public Pol-icy led to 'researchInst. Soc. P.es. faculty notpermitted to consult,permanent relationshipshave developedN.A.i istitutional consulting50% of engrg. fac. concult.some consult throughMercury Res. Fundencouraged by HydraulicLab. One instance ofpotential abuse.Potential abuse in twounits.seek awareness of realworld problems
25% of faculty
small amount due togeography
N.A.
N.A.through Ind. LiaisonProgram
949
informalinformal
N.A.
formal
N.A.N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
reporting not pushed N.A.decentralized N.A.
formal
formalinformalN.A.formal
N.A.
informalformal
N.A.
formal
formalN.A.informal
N.A.informal
formal
decentralized
formalformal
formal
informal
formal-Business Sch.-informalN.A.
formal
no central reportingsystem but annual state-ments requiredN.A.
N.A.informal
through liaison programs
N.A.N.A.N.A.through REDDI up to 1.5%of academic salary per dayN.A.
N.A.N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.N.A.N.A.
N.A.annually 10-15% of salary
N.A.
5% montoly salary/day
N.A.N.A.
allow $8-10K annually
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
usually $2-3K/year
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.none for faculty in Ind.Liaison Program
Table 25Continued
Consulting Policy and Activity as Reported in Interviews During
Consulting
University
HarvardPrinceton
UCLAMIT
Yale
# of Days
1 day/week1 day/week
1 day/week1 day/week
1 day/week
Use/Abuse Formal/Info,
NoteN.A.= not available
N A.about 80% of facultyinvolved-same 80% whodo research.N.A.Eng. Dept-group incorp.themselves as consults.& hired someone to runthe company.none
N.A.N.A.
N.A.must report consultingarrangements, daysinvolved, client.
d Study
Compensation
where from $8 per hr.to ..;3000 per day
informal N.A.
their company. This suggests that on the average, byconsulting for one company, a professor could add$5,000 to his annual salary.
Industrial scientists and administrators said theyusually initiated interactions with consultants. The pri-mary means leading them to consultants were perusalof the scientific literature, recommendations of theirprofessional staff, which in many cases led them toformer professors or employees, participation in work-shops, seminars and conferences, and through com-pany recruiters at universities.
Several universities have set up mechanisms togenerate consulting opportunities efficiently for theirfaculty.
At Rice University, an engineering design anddevelopment institute (REDDI) was established asan internal applied research institute. REDDI broughtconsulting onto the campus. It established the fre-quency of consulting permitted, fee standards andother reporting information. REDDI policy allowsstudent involement in all projects. Proprietaryrights and publishing agreements are negotiatedthrough this Institute. While projects may be under-taken on a confidential and proprietary basis, thepublication of scholarly works, where appropriate,is encouraged.
Companies come to the Institute with theirproblems and the Institute seeks opportunities forfaculty participation. Faculty may charge a profes-sional fee up to a. maximum of 1.5% of their aca-demic year salary per day. The Institute charges a7% surcharge on the salary consulting agreements.Part of this surcharge is given to the University'sgeneral operating budget, and the rest is used tooperate the Institute. This arrangement providesadditional support money, support groups andequipment.
At Washington University, St. Louis, a similarprogram is being established, Washington Univer-sity Technology Association (WUTA). Its goals sim-ilar to the above-cited example, are to supplementthe salaries of engineering faculty and to formalizefaculty consulting research activities in appliedengineering research. WUTA is somewhat differentthan the former Institute in that WUTA is a for-profitcorporation.
tr Y.;
University liaison programs often provide oppor-tunities for consulting. At times, these programs directindustry to faculty, helping to establish consultingarrz -gements. At other times, consultancies providethe impetus for a company to establish an ongoingrelationship with the university by joining the liaisonprogram. Liaison programs which have, as a part oftheir services, trips of the faculty to company sites andalso actively encourage company representatives com-ing to campus, are particularly good programs for fos-tering the initiation of consultancies. In most liaisonprograms, there is a consensus about what constitutesan informal discussion between a faculty member andcompany representative, and what constitutes a formalconsulting arrangement. A first half-day visit betweena company representative and industry scientist isusually regarded as a service of the program. Whenthere is any longer degree of interaction, the companyand the professor are encouraged to enter into a con-sulting arrangement or agreement.
A number of universities have established central-ized listing of all research interests and activities byfaculty. Thus industrial firms may come to the univer-sity with a particular problem and see immediately ifthe university has people with the required capabili-ties. This referencing system may be used for contractwork as well.
An important issue related to consulting activi-ties is to determine when do such activities create aconflict of interest (see Chapter X, p. 113). As men-tioned earlier, faculty must maintain a balance betweentheir outside consulting activity arm kneir universityobligation to teaching and/or research. Frequently,attempts are made to combine these activities by uti-lizing students to assist the consulting projects as atthe engineering and design development institute.
A second issue involves the use of university facil-ities for outside consulting. here again, the univer-sity policies vary widely. Allowing the use of facilitiesserves as a drawing card for many companies, and
100 91
thereby increases university/industry interactions. Onthe other hand, this might bring the university intodirect competition with small consulting and labora-tory businesses. This is a special concern at stateuniversities.
A third issue concerns the attempts by one com-pany, in the view of a university administrator, tomonopolize a university's faculty in a particular area.A striking example is the actions at one midwesternstate university, of a company putting the university'stop four molecular geneticists on retainer, which in theview of some has resulted in cutting off others fromutilizing their knowledge and advances. Through pro-prietary restrictions, this could cut off not only othercompanies from these scientists' work, but also thestudents of the univer-ity.
R. Institutional Programs
These mechanisms of knowledge transfer aredefined as formal programs designed to contributeprimarily to information exchange between universi-ties and industry. Frequently, they serve as a broad-based information exchange providing a window onnew scientific and technical developments.
1. Institutional Consulting
Institutional consulting was described as a mech-anism of university/industry research interaction atonly four universities of the 39 visited by the researchteam. Only in two instances was there a formal institu-tional consulting program. In each of these cases, theprogram involved a faculty member and a group of stu-dents who worked on an industrial problem. In bothcases, the problem-solving was done at the companysite. Both of these cases can be characterized as aneducational program to acquaint students with real-world problems, rather than as a research program.
An example is a program conducted at YaleUniversity. 111.1973-74, graduate students at thatinstitution's chemistry department participated in anovel student consulting team approach to basicresearch problem-solving. Engineers at Texaco'sResearch Center at Beacon, New York, identifiedproblems of interest to the corporation which thestudent team analyzed. Although the program wasdevised more as a training exercise for the youngchemists, the interchange sparked more systematiccontact than is ordinarily generated by many facultyconsultations. Researchers at both ends of the uni-versity/industry spectrum gained knowledge of theother's research capabilities and expertise.
Still another program which has generated along -term consultative relationship is the MIT Schoolof Chemical Engineering Practice, established in1916, which operates two "Practice Schools"oneat General Electric's plastics and silicon productionfacilities at Albany, New York, and the other at OakRidge National Laboratory (operated under contractto the U.S. Department of Energy by Union Carbide'sNuclear Division). This school integrates classroom
92
experience and practical work by providing MIT stu-dents with a four-month, intensive industrial re-search-oriented internship away from the university,but under the direct supervision of MIT facultymembers. The curriculum is based on key industrialproblems. The host company benefits from the fre-quent consultation efforts of visiting MIT faculty andits recruiting efforts are facilitated by the presenceof students at the company. The Practice Schooloperates much as a small consulting company, withstudent groups working intimately with host plantstaff in solving problems. The resident faculty en-sures that assignments are of significant edUca-tional benefit to each student and that assignmentsresult in a major contribution to the plant opera-tion and/or to the understanding of a phenomenonof professiclal significance.
2. General Industrial Associates Programs
There is a growing feeling that institutional gen-eral purpose industrial associates programs are notbeneficial to either university or industry partners inresearch. At least five schools visited by the researchteam mentioned that they had initiated general indus-trial associates programs within the last ten years thathad failed. Most company representatives were notenthusiastic about general industrial associates pro-grams, although they usually belong to one or two pro-grams of that nature.
The reason generally given for this dissatisfactionis that they are too broad and general, so they do notattract attention and commitment. General industrialassociates programs are not designed to foster or tofund collaborative research. They offer loose supportand links to several elements of industrial interestsin the production of curricula, students and research.Universities usually organize these programs as ameans of obtaining unrestricted funds from industry.Unrestricted funds, as stated previously, are extremelyimportant to university scientists and administrators.Frequently, the money is used for the support of grad-uate students. At least one new large general indus-trial associates program is being initiated solely forthis purpose.
At least 31 of the 71 industrial associates pro-grams documented in this study can be characterizedas general industrial associates programs. Eight of thesewere campus-wide programs. The largest campus-wideprogram had 265 member companies and generatesover $4 million for the university.
Two private schools have had very successf!il gen-eral purpose industrial associates programs for Over30 years. however, the point was made several timesthat these schools are already focused and thereforethe general purpose industrial liaison program works.
The membership fee for a general industrial ast-o-elates program is usually about $20-30,000. however,there are some programs which cost considerably less,from $1,000-5,000. Consequently, the services pro-vided to industry are also considerably less. however,one engineering industrial associates program at a
0.1
public university charged only $5,000 in fees, and theschool was still able to provide what several companyrepresentatives characterized as one of the best annualindustrial associates symposia they had attended.
A dilemma expressed by many university adminis-trators was whether or not to keep industrial associatemembership fees sufficiently low so smaller com-panies could join, or to charge more and have fewercompany members and a more elaborate program.Several schools are experimenting with fees based ona percent of sales, or at least with a differentiated feestructure for small and large companies.
Schools with successful industrial associates pro-grams generate from one to four million dollars annuallythrough these programs. Less successful schools gen-erate approximately $100,000-200,000 in their liaisonprograms. Each of the successful schools Las activeand energetic liaison representatives (the smallerschool has two to three, and the larger: fifteen) whorun the program. The job of the liaison officer is toarrange programs and facilitate linking the professorand the company. A liaison officer is usually an indus-trially experienced graduate engineer. Each liaisonofficer is assigned a group of member companies forwhich he/she is responsible. Each officer is also as-signed the responsibility for monitoring the activitiesof several departments, laboratories and centers at theuniversity. The officers visit key company personnel toascertain their interests and needs, alert the companyto research patents atm educational opportunities,and arrange host visits of company personnel to thecampus.
If the program is to be successful, the officer alsofrequently visits with faculty to ascertain their researchneeds, alert them to industrial research needs and op-portunities, and arranges faculty contacts with mem-ber companies on campus by telephone or by travel tocompany sites. In addition, the officer provides fordiscussions between company representatives andfaculty. The service provided to industry also includessending member companies a directory of currentresearch, making available important university publi-cations and reports, and giving short. courses, sym-posia and seminars.
A general industrial liaison program is particularlyuseful to a company when it is interested in obtaininga technical overview of a new area. Schools with largeand diversified research programs are usually the onlyinstitutions that can provide in-depth, broad spectrumoverviews in a sufficient number of areas to make itworthwhile for the companies to pay high membershipfees. Companies who regarded a particular industrialliaison program to he useful understood that theymust make active use of the program and attend sem-inars and symposia on the campus. Many companiessupporting such programs recognize that they arereally giving support to general technical excellence.A company is usually dissatisfied with such a program
if it expects to get something very specific for its mem-bership fees.
C. University/Industry Research Cooperationand Education
Education is the central activity of universities andthus industry support fer research is inextricablyrelated in many ways to that educational mission.Some of the more central relationships of educationto university/industry research cooperation involvedthe following:
I. Universities Serve as the Source of flew Scienceand Engineering Graduates for Industry: Fellow-ships, Internships, University/IndustryCooperative Training Programs.
The most prevalent motivation for industry coop-eration with university is based on the need for quali-fied science and engineering graduates. This needexists not only for Ph.D.s, but also at the baccalaureatelevel where the numbers required are much greater. Intimes of economic decline and at times when there is apersonnel oversupply, these interactions become crit-ical for the student as a guide to make contacts and tohelp direct their job-seeking.
Graduate students. The personal relationshipsestablished between industry researchers and univer-sity faculty help provide one path of access to grad-uate students as potential employ ees. The researchrelationship can provide industry researchers directcontact with graduate students, e',pecially those at thedoctoral level, since these stud, nts typically are in-volved in carrying out sponsored research. From theperspective of the university, industry support of grad-uate research assistants is most welcome. Graduateassistants generally become familiar with researchproblems of interest to the industrial sponsor, e3pe-cially if they are working on contract research. Thestudents, in turn, can be evaluated as potential em-ployees of the sponsor. Therefore, it is not at all unusualfor a graduate student working on an industry spon-sored research project to work for the sponsor upongraduation. hiring such graduates offers great advan-tage to industry, since costs of recruiting, and initialon-the-job learning are reduced, if not eliminated.Moreover, the employer has already had an opportu-nity to evaluate the performance and capabilities ofthe new graduate, thereby increasing the likelihood ofhiring individuals who will pursue successful careersin the company. Thus, industry support of graduateresearch assistants is perceived as cost effective, notonly for its own sake, but also for its recruiting potential.
Undergraduate students. Whereas the contactestablished with graduate students is often a directoutcome of research interaction, such is not generallythe case with undergraduate students. however, indus-
10.293
try has a continuing concern with the need for upgrad-ing and updating university curricula so that the grad-uates are prepared to utilize the latest scientific andtechnical knowledge. Such upgrading and updatingtypically enhance the research capabilities of the uni-versity. This is accomplished through mechanismssuch as equipment grants and personnel exchange..Upgrading the training and education of students caninvolve the loan of experts by industry to a universityon a short-term basis to acquaint faculty and studentswith recent technical advances.
A case in point is the aerospace industry whichperceived that new engineering graduates were notkeeping up with CAD/CAM technology, and proceededto develop a university program on the undergrad-uate and graduate level. This program was devel-oped primarily through the initiative and coopera-tion of several aerospace firms who sent industrypersonnel to work at the university, donated appro-priate hardware and software, organized the semi-nars, established fellowships and even endowed auniversity chair at the University of California, LosAngeles. This program also involves faculty andgraduate students on research projects, therebyenhancing the research capability of the universityin a new emerging technology.
In another case, a private university used itsendowment funds and NSF seed money to rebuildtheir instructional laboratories and also build a re-search center which subsequently attracted a largeamount of industrially supported research. Thus,from having an original purpose of developing theirundergraduate curriculum, the university ended upat the leading edge of technology with a highly suc-cessful, industrially supported research program.
In a recent initiative, two new biotechnologycompanies and a public university are developing acertificate program (BS and MS degrees) in appliedmolecular biology. The companies involved will sup-port a scholarship for a st: dent in the program and/or help support seminar Speakers connected with theprogram. They will also have company staff presentoccasional lectures or demonstrations. Some stu-dents may serve as interns at the company. In thelong term, they hope that joint research projectswill develop out of this program.
Minority students. Another reason for industry's sup-port to a university is to increase the representation ofminority graduates in science and engineering. Suchindustry programs have concentrated on selected uni-versities with large minority student bodies. Some pro-grams have extended to the graduate level and havetransferred high technology capabilities from industryto those universities. This has resulted in enhancingthe research capabilities of selected institutions. Insome instances, federal government support has beeninstrumental in developing comprehensive plans ofthis type. however, industry initiative has typically pre-ceded government support of such programs.
An example of soch an initiative is given bythe efforts of an aerospace company's corporateresearch laboratory in establishing solid state elec-
.tronics research capabilities at two eastern minority
94
institutions. For three-and-a-half years beginningin 1976, the company invested over $800,000 incapital equipment and research program sponsor-ships as well as approximately $400,000 of indirectsupport through services provided to the two uni-versities by the company science center and univer-sity personnel from a highly respect.A engineer-ing school. As a result of the advanced capabilitiesestablished at both universities, they were able toobtain over $1.5 million in solid state electronicsresearch grants with almosi a third of the fundingfrom NASA. These research capabilities were inextri-cably related to the establishing of a Ph.D. programin electrical engineering at one un:versity, and astrong masters degree curriculum at the other. Oneof the two universities is now a member of a consor-tium of universities and several companies which isdeveloping the Micro-Electronics Center of NorthCarolina.
2. Doctoral Graduates of Science and EngineeringCurricula Initiate University/Industry ResearchCooperation: Alumni Initiation of ResearchInteractions
In some cases, doctoral graduates who are em-ployed in industry may serve as key links in initiatingcooperative research efforts with their former univer-sity. The familiarity of these graduates with the capa-bilities and interests of their forma professors andwith the needs of their employers makes them highlydesirable as initiators of university/industry researchcollaboration. It is not uncommon for a former grad-uate student to call his major professor and propose ajoint research effort.
One professor of chemical engineering attrib-uted his large amount of industrial support directlyto his former graduate students. These were his per-sonal contacts.
In another instance, a former student was sointent on having the professor work on his com-pany's problem that he wrote the proposal for theprofessor.
Many company representatives said they frequentlyidentified their consultants through an employee'srecommendation of his former professor.
3. Continuing Education is Utilized to Initiate andReinforce Research Collaboration: Short Courses,Personal Contacts
The use of continuing education programs byuniversities has occasionally served to stimulate inter-est by industry in collaborative research participation.By means of short courses, seminars or workshops,industry participants are introduced to the university'scapabilities and new areas of science and technology.
This approach has been utilized by one professorto obtain industry sponsorship for a highly success-ful research program focusing on new technologyfor the petroleum industry. Possible industry spon-sors were invited to participate in short courses at
103
the professor's initiative. Out of the short coursesCaine wide industry support of his research program.
Moreover, continuing education can be utilized tomaintain the interest of industry in supporting univer-sity research. Short courses, workshops and seminarscan be utilized as knowledge transfer mechanisms tokeep industry sponsors abreast of the latest develop-ments in university programs. Such knowledge trans-fer mechanisms are included as a benefit to the con-tributors of some industrial associates programs andprovide feedback for participants in industry spon-sored research programs and centers.
4. lndustrp Provides Funds for GraduateFellowships
Company foundations have long provided generalfellowship support to certain schools and certaindepartments. Support for graduate fellowships wasgiven by the 83 companies reporting such informationin the Council for Financial Aid to Education (CFAE)Case Book (11th edition).
For example, a fellow of an aerospace firm at awestern private university joined the faculty at theschool and became a consultant to the aerospacefirm. As a result of the consulting relationship, hehelped develop cooperative research contracts withDARPA and ONR funding in which the university sub-contracted to the aerospace company.
Trade associations also provide general fellow-ships to specific technical units of a university.
A case in point is a midwestern public univer-sity's 75-year program with a midwestern gas asso-ciation. This association is subscribed to by all thepower and gas companies in the state.
Cases of general fellowships designated to a spe-cific technical department were numerous. While thisis not support for a specific project, the intent is thatresearch will be conducted in a certain area. Manyinvestigators expressed the wish for a greater numberof such fellowships.They do Ft in with the primary moti-vations of industry, the production of well trained grad-uate students. These funds usually are not confiningin the eyes of the professor.
An element lacking in general fellowship pro-grams is an interplay in the planning of the research,but this does not necessarily have to be the case.
In the new intern program at one private univer-sity, the target group is people in their late twentiesor thirties. The intern student and the companyenter into a formal contract agreement. The com-pany agrees that:
(1) their employee can have a one-year leave ofabsence to go to school;
(2) the company will provide a person to serveon the Ph.D. committee- and
(3) when the person comes hack to the com-pany, he/she will have an assignment within which
to work on a thesis and be able to conduct that workas part of the company duties.
'Therefore, industry can share in the direction ofthe research project. These types of programs arerare. A unique aspect of this program is that it wasinitiated by a university. Such programs, unlikecooperative research programs, are most ofteninitiated by industry.
In another case, a Scholars program sponsoredby a large aerospace and electronics firm at aneastern public university was initiated two years agoby the chairman of the board of the company in orderto attract graduate students to systems engineering.It is a work/study program where the Scholars are,first of all, employees of the company. As such, theyreceive full salary and full employee benefits whilein the program. There is a fifty-fifty mix betweenexisting company employees and those newly re-cruited by the company and the university. Sixtypercent of the Scholar's time is spent working at thecompany's research laboratories. The remaining40% of the time is devoted to instruction and re-search. The MS degree is earned within two years.The goal of the program is for the student to con-duct research and write a thesis related to the tech-nology interests of the company sponsor.
The recognition of a shortage of graduate stu-dents and faculty in fields such as engineering andcomputer science, due largely to demand within theprivate sector, has resulted in an attempt by industryto increase sponsorship of university fellowship pro-grams in these fields.
One of the most significant of such attempts isthat by the Down Foundation, which is providing atotal of $15 mi,:ion to support one hundred doc-toral students at sixty-six colleges for three years,and a supplement of $20,000 annually to a hundreddepartments of engineering and allied programs forthe support of junior faculty to keep them frombeing lured away by industry. Clearly, not all univer-sities are being assisted, and even some of thosereceiving these awards need more funding to over-come the impending crisis in engineering educa-tion. It remains to be seen whether attempts suchas those of this corporation will be effective in at-tracting graduate students and faculty to schools ofengineering and science, and if they can be success-ful in fostering research programs more relevantto industrial interests.
Also in an attempt to keep faculty at the univer-sities, another petrochemical company is consider-ing the establishment of a program which will pro-vide a forgiveable loan to a junior faculty memberwho agrees to work for four years in an academicposition. The loan is for $40,000. For each year Lipto four years, $10,000 will be taken off the loan whilethe professor stays in an academic position.
D. Collective Industrial Actions in Supportof University Research Programs
The role of trade groups in fostering university/industry research interactions is largely an untouchedsubject. Shapero (1979) stated that before World WarII, most industrial support of university research was
104 95
via trade associations. Yet an NYU survey indicated thattrade group support and interest in sponsoring tech-nical university l'('SCi11.01 is relatively recent. Currently,of the 30 trade associations studied, 12 (40%) fundedno university research (Table 26). There are about7,000 bade groups in the United States, each serving atarget industry on matters of common concern (NationalTrade and Professional Associations of the United Statesand Canada and Labor Unions, 1981). We describe thetotal activity of these trade groups and/or industry-wide research activity as collective industry support ofresearch. In order to discuss the ways in which theseindustry groups interact with universities in the area oftechnical research, it is convenient to divide them intofour categories:
Trade associations
Affiliates of trade associations (mainly founda-tions)
Independent research and R&D organizationsaffiliated with a university
' Industrial research consortia.
Of the 22 industrial sectors covered, 5 did notfund technical research on university campuses throughone of the above means.
1. Trade Associations
A trade association is defined by the AmericanSociety of Association Executives as 'a non-profitorganization of business competitors in a single indus-try, formed to render a number of mutual aid servicesin expanding that industry's production, sales and em-ployment."'
The headquarters of a typical trade associationfunctions as a secretariat for a wide range of commit-tees and councils which will carry out the woi k of theprimary operating units, these units are either perma-nent or formed on an ad hoc basis. Staff peopleresponsible for their operation are permanent, whilecommittee members, drawn from the supporting com-panies, volunteer to serve. The organization of a tradeassociation is the key to tracing connections with uni-
versity technical research. The most common arrange-ment consists of operating units created by function.These generally cover areas of governmental affairs,communications, finance, legal issues and technicalneeds to the industry. A few associations, such as theRubber Manufacturers' Association, are organizedalong product lines, and there is no central researchbudget or committee. Therefore, their interactions withuniversity technical research are dispersed and theoverall level of such activity difficult to assess.
The technical unit of a trade association can covera variety of areas. It can operate as a central agency forgathering, compiling and disseminating statisticaldata on industry-wide economic and market research;it can work for the improvement of product and indus-try classifications; it can deal with testing and stand-ardization of the industry's products and processes; orcarry out a combination of these functions.
Standardization often accounts for much- of atechnical unit's work, and as such, warrants some dis-cussion. A standard is a definition of a product or pro-cedure in terms of certain features, and standardiza-tion is the process of reaching agreement on the formand content of such a definition. Many associationswork on the development of voluntary standards intheir field, a practice challenged in 1980 by the Fed-eral Trade Commission. Work in standardization typ-ically includes literature searches and collection ofbroad-based industry input on the standard underreview.
Another aspect involves testing to determinewhether a product or process meets the standard.Testing equipment and procedures are continuallybeing improved. Pertinent to the subject of university/industry research interactions, the testing facilities ofseveral trade groups are located on university cam-puses. Although the level of technical research in-volved in testing may be low, students arc trained intechniques, thus gaining practical, industrially-orientedexpertise.
Only a few of those organizations surveyed areinvolved in technical research on any significant scale.Some exceptions arc, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers'Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the
Table 26
Three Categories of Trade Groups Surveyed and their Current Funding of University Research'
Category
Fund University Research
Yes No No Response
Trade AssociationResearch AffiliateIndependent Research or R&D Organizations
1358
122
0
5
1
0
Of these. five have no technical research
96
'The level of funding has not yet been ascertained in every case, but the fact that they do fund university research to some degree hasbeen determined.
105
Arno ricri Gas Association, all three of which sup-ported vc,11-regarded programs as testified to by inter-viewees j11 this livid study.
2. lfffti,les of Trade Associations
For those trade associations serving industrieswith hez)vy technical requirements, a common practiceis to -(!t- tiP a separate foundation or corporation whichacts in hair t as its research arm. These affiliates qualifyfor tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Inter-nal fievk,fitie Service Code. The requirements are thatthey he organized for scientific purposes, that no partof their pet earnings go to the benefit of any individual,that no yUbstauntial part of their activity consists ofPror'iltida, or attempts to influence legislation, andUfa tliy play no part in any political campaign.
e)(al"Ple of this type is the Bituminous Coalficscorcii, Inc.. formed in 197.3, as the research arm ofthe National Coal Association (established in 1917).Its (etid-rcli center has laboratories for equipmentdexCloitoc.:iit and chemicals research. In 1980, Bitumi-nous Research, Inc., allocated only a very smallportior) to universities of its substantial researchbudget, This was explained by the steadily decliningcalf', hit% effort in coal research over the past 20 years.ODilort unities arc provided to students to performchentic4 research in its laboratory.
3. Incvpendent Kesearch and R&D OrganizationsAffiliated with a University
.A f'v$v industries are served by independent R&Dinstflutk,y which provide a pool of advanced scienceand jrnology for Companies to draw upon. Withinthiy gR)01-3. some coordinate their research role withthe responsibility to provide a professional and man-actcrikil lase for their industry.
As d consequence of a dual focus on educationanci revarch, this type of organization has success-fully' integrated the traditional interests of industrywitfl tile of the university, often perceived as incom-Piitible,
There are three prominent examples of such insti-tutCs it) the United States: The Institute of Paper Chem-istry, 1h Institute of Gas Technology, and the Textile
Institute.
the Institute of Paper Chemistry (IPC) is an out-Ntakiffinfl example of a unique partnership betweenind otry and academia. Affiliated with Lawrence Col-Icflk. in Wisconsin, the Institute of Paper Chemistrytva established as an independent, privately sup-uor-ted educational institution, devoted to educationanti research in the natural sciences and engineer-ing, Os academic programs lead to the MS and Ph.D.(nArces. Lath student receives a fellowship stipendiurCt full tuition fees from the Institute. Upon grad-oat jog, the students usually take positions in thepater and pulp industry, often in R&D areas. Sinceits CfitithitStinicnt fitly years ago, the Institute hastiliti.iculated 838 students.
A special feature of this program is the tech-nical and research experience gained in industryduring the summer term. This experience acquaintsthe student with industrial processes used in dif-ferent regions of this country and abroad.
Support for the Institute is derived from foursources: annual dues from United States producersof pulp, paper and paperboard; contract researchperformed by the staff on a non-profit basis; scholar-ship and fellowship gifts; and miscellaneous sources.In 1980, the budget was $10 million.
The Institute provides the industry with a co-operative research facility dedicated to solutions oftechnical and scientific problems of the industrythrough fundamental and applied research of long-term interest, as well through developmental proj-ects. Research directions are guided by a ResearchAdvisory Committee, made up of nine senior com-mittee executives who meet regularly with the Insti-tute administration and staff.
. The Textile Research Institute (TRI) in Prince-ton, New Jersey, had a 1980 budget of $1.3 million.It provides the textile industry with an independentresearch facility, focusing on fundamental scientificprinciples in the physical and engineering sciencesconcerned with polymers, fibers and textile systems.TRI's aim is to carry out basic research without los-ing sight of industrial relevance. Guidance for thecore research program is provided primarily by theResearch Advisory Committee, composed of 21senior managers of textile companies.
The training aspect of TRI's program centersaround a cooperative effort between TRI and theDepartment of Chemical Engineering at PrincetonUniversity. The students awarded TRI fellowshipsundertake thesis research on a fiber or textile-related topic. This program involves both studentsand faculty in the TRI effort to serve as a bridgebetween industry and academia, and to orient scien-tists and engineers to fiber and textile science andtechnology. In 1980, five research fellows and twoundergraduate students at Princeton Universitywere associated with the Textile Research Institute.
The sources of revenue come from general sup-port and grants, industry supported research, gov-ernment supported research, and publications.
The Institute of Gas Technology (IGT), affiliatedwith the Illinois Institute of Technology, was set upin 1941, modeled on the Institute of Paper Chem-istry. It serves American companies involved in theproduction, distribution and utilization of gas andits by-products, and its budget was in excess of $30million in 1980. Besides the laboratory, its researchcapability includes the Energy Development Center,which has three production plants. There are about100 active projects per year, both in fundamentaland applied areas. Contract research is routinelyundertaken.
The educational programs offered provide grad-uate degrees in gas technology. There is also anundergraduate option in gas technology availableto engineering students. Since 1941, IGT has pro-duced 25 Ph.D.s, 113 masters degrees, and the under-graduate option has been taken by 204 students.
Those interviewed who had participated in a pro-gram at one of these Institutes (IPC, TRI, IGT) felt thattheir interactions had been professionally valuable.
10697
However, in several instances, a question was raisedconcerning the impact upon the host university. Oneprofessor stated that there was absolutely no impacton the host university research program. The researchcapabilities of such institutes are constrained to someextent by their constituencies. As science moves innew directions, these institutes find it difficult torespond. One company representative stated that hisfirm had decided not to renew their institute member-ship because they had to invest their limited fundselsewhere to gain expertise and access to new devel-opments in biotechnology. Presumably this is an issuecurrently challenging the major institutes mentioned.
4. Industrial Research Consortia
Several other independent industrial sector R&Dorganizations can be characterized as industrial re-search consortia funding university research. Oneexample described below is the Council for TobaccoResearch. Two others, the Gas Research Institute andthe Electric Power Research Institue (EPRI) are describedin Chapter VIII. Another example, and a new initiative,the Council for Chemical Research was described inthis Chapter (pp. 81-82) under the heading coopera-tive research because it is established through theactions of both university and industrial scientists.
The Council for Tobacco Research is an inde-pendent organization drawing its financial supportfrom dues of its member companies, representingtobacco growers, manufacturers arid warehousers.Although it does research of ultimate use to theindustry, it does not contract work for the industry.No research involving tobacco itself is done, nordoes it have any product testing capabilities.
The 1980 budget was $6.5 million, of which $6million was given to faculty at university medicalschools. Its research emphasis is on etiology orpathogenesis of non-germ diseases such as cancer,emphysema and cardiovascular ailments. The workis carried out principally through universities. Nowork is supported on treatments or cures.
There is a continuous planning process fordetermining its research program. This begins typi-cally with contract from someone seeking to applyfor support. A proposal for a three-year study is sub-mitted and screened by a Council Executive Com-mittee for relevance. If positive, a formal proposalis requested. These are assigned to the proper sub-committee for the Scientific Advisory Board. Pro-posals selected are reviewed over a four-day periodat an annual meeting of the nine-member ScientificAdvisory Board. The staff determines the appro-priate level of budget allocations and proposals areawarded within these limits. A visiting committeefrom the Council follows the work in progress, andthe results are published in the open literature. Aresearcher is typically awarded one or two renewals.
The researchers used to be chosen from theranks of those promising scientists without suffi-cient credentials to obtain support from large fund-ing agencies. With the cutback in government re-search support, however, those applying are apt tohe established researchers.
98
Several other industries (e.g., the mining and min-erals industry, the semiconductor industry) are review-ing the possibilities for collective industrial support ofbasic research. All view academic research as an inte-gral part of any collective industrial action.
TECVNOLOGY TRANSFER
Programs structured with a view to capi-talizing on university research or integratingtechnological resti,,, of university researchinto private sector programs or commercialproducts can be characterized as technologytransfer mechanisms. (See Chapter V, p. 18.)
Such programs are designed to:
(1) address specific research problems ofa company, or
(2) give technical assistance to compa-nies in need of developing new pro-duct lines, or
(3) provide technical assistance in the de-velopment of a totally new business, orhelp entrepreneurs initiate their ownhigh technology companies, or
(5) provide technology brokerage and li-censing services.
A. Product Development and Modification Programs
1. Extension Services
The extension service programs point to the factthat the current interest in policies dealing with univer-sity/industry interactions is only the latest manifesta-tion of a recurring theme in the United States. TheMorrill Act of 1862 establishing land grant collegeswas intended to develop and relate higher educationto industrial economic performance. This act providedthe mechanism for the establishment of agriculturalextension and engineering extension at many stateuniversities. The first engineering experiment station(EES) was established by the University of Illinois in1903. The Illinois EES was to do for industry what theagricultural experiment stations did for farmers. Therewas a concerted drive to get federal support for univer-sity based engineering experiment stations that builtto a peak in 1916 when it failed in Congress. By 1937,38 engineering experiment stations had been estab-lished at land grant colleges using university and statefunds.
Extension services are essentially used as a meansof bringing technical assistance to small companies orhelping industry develop in a rural area. They consti-tute a service rather than a mechanism to facilitatecooperative research. however, they do establish a net-work of industrial contacts and make the universitieswho participate more sensitive to industrial needs.
107
Innovation Centers
At innovation centers, emphasis is on the processby which innovation occurs and entrepreneurial activi-ties arc stimulated. Innovation centers are a means ofhelping entrepreneurs to develop their skills throughprototypes to the point where they can start their owncompany. (Sec Chapter VII, p. 45.)
In 1973, the National Science Foundation under-took a five-year experiment designed to promoteinvention and entrepreneurship in American society.The Foundation established several innovation cen-ters. The first three were at MIT, Carnegie Mellon Uni-versity, and the University of Oregon. Table 27 listsexamples of innovation centers in the United States.
The major goal of these centers is the initiation ofan academic program to.train and facilitate the work ofyoung inventors and entrepreneurs. Enthusiasm forsuch centers seems to have waned in the last fewyears. However, the innovation centers have partici-pated in the creation of over thirty new entrepreneurialventures, a thousand new jobs, and have generated inexcess of $6 million in tax revenues. (NSF, IndustrialProcyon] Grantee Conference, 1980.) Over 2,000 stu-dents have participated in the programs. Because ofthe long term nature of the innovation process, it is
difficult for one to judge fully those centers in termsof any substantive contribution to innovation at thistime. One innovation center reviewed in this studyserved primarily as an educational facility and cateredto the needs of student's who wanted to develop anidea. At two other innovation centers, the focus wason the developed entrepreneur It is clear that themost successful of these programs had an extremelyactive, energetic and knowledgeable director. Exten-sion services and innovation centers are importantways the university can function in industrial develop-ment of its surrounding area.
B. University and/or Industry AssociatedInstitutions and Activities Servingas Interface and/or Foundation forUniversity/Industry Research Interactions
There are many institutions associated with a uni-versity that are not directly related to university/indus-try research interaction, but play a role in facilitatingthe integration of university research into the indus-trial innovation cycle. Likewise, many institutionalizedactivities such as technology brokerage and licensingaffect the structure and functioning of this integration.
Table 27
Examples of Innovation Centers
American Center for the Quality of Work LifeAmerican Productivity Center, Inc.Center for Entrepreneurial DevelopmentCenter for Government and Public AffairsCenter for Productive Public ManagementCenter for Productive StudiesCenter for the Quality of Working LifeCommittee on Productivity (AIIE(Experimental Center for the Advancement of Invention and InnovationGeorgia Productivity CenterHarvard Project on Technology. Work, and CharacterInnovation CenterInstitute for ProductivityLaboratory for Manufacturing and ProductivityManagement and Behavioral Science CenterMDC. Inc.Manufacturing Productivity CenterMaryland Center for Productivity and Quality of Working LifeMassachusetts Quality of Working Life CenterOklahoma Productivity InstitutePENNTAPProductivity Center, Chamber of Commerce of U.SProductivity Center, Northwestern UniversityProductivity Council of the SouthwestProductivity Information Center (NTISIProductivity Institute, Arizona State UniversityProductivity Research and Extension ProgramPurdue Productivity CenterQuality of Work Life Center for Central PennsylvaniaQuality of Work Life Program, Wayne State UniversityQuality of Working Life Program, Ohio State UniversityQuality of Working Life Program, University of IllinoisRPI Center for Manufacturing and Technology TransferSouth Florida Productivity CenterTexas Center for Productivity and Quality of Work LifeUtah State Center for Productivity and Quality of Working LifeWork in America Institute, Inc.
Washington, DCHouston, TexasPittsburgh, PAMontgomery, ALNew York, NYWashington, DCLos Angeles. CANorcross, GAEugene, ORAtlanta. GAWashington, DCCambridge. MAHato Ray, Puerto RicoCambridge. MAPhiladelphia, PAChapel Hill, NCChicago. ILCollege Park, MDBoston, MAStillwater, OKUniversity Park, PAWashington, DCEvanston, ILLos Angeles, CAWashington. DCTempe, AZRaleigh. NCWest Lafayette, INMiddletown, PADetroit, MIColumbus, OHChampaign, ILTroy, NYMiami, FLLubbock, TXLogan, UTScarsdale. NY
1.08Vt)
99
1. Technology Brokering and Licensing Activities
Site visits during the course of this study yieldedinformation on industrial and university viewpoints onpatents issues. To further investigate the level of activityand interest in technology brokerage and licensing oncampus, two surveys were conducted. The first dealtwith university patent administration mechanisms andinternal division of income derived from royalty bear-ing patents. Information from this survey is presentedin Table 28.
The other survey sought information on iotal royal-ties received by certain universities in recent years andis discussed below (p. 105).
Increased interest in patent matters is apparentfrom the significant number (20) of those universitiesinvolved in the first survey (38) undergoing patentpolicy revision. Only six universities had current patentpolicies that were more than five years old. Most ofthese revisions are riot only in response to the patentlegislation (Uniform Patent Act) which went into effectJuly 1, 1981, but also reflect an effort at, many uni-versities to encourage invention by increasing therewards to the inventor, and to modify their adminis-trative procedures in handling patents. As federalfunds for research have declined, initiatives haveincreased within the university system to generatetheir own research money, and many universities havepressed forward in capitalizing on their opportunitiesfor patents.
a. Patent rights.
In general, inventions, innovations, discoveriesand improvements made with the use of universityfacilities or services, or during the course of regularlyassigned duties, are the property of the university, and
can be used and controlled as to secure an equitablebenefit to the public, the inventor and the university.
A notable exception to the obligatory assign-ment of rights by the employee to the university is theprocedure followed by the University of Wisconsin.Their patent policy states that the university "does notclaim any interest in employee inventions." Upon re-quest, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation(WARE), a separate not-for-profit corporation servingthe university, will review any invention disclosures ofany university employee or student to determine if itwill accept assignment of the invention. If assignmentis accepted the inventor will receive annually 15% ofany net royalties deriving from licensing arrangements.
Universities, in general, claim no rights to thosepatents which are owned by third parties pursuant tosponsored research agreements, or those resultingfrom independent work or permissible consultingactivities without the use of university facilities.
Government sponsored research terms of theUniform Patent Act are as follows: A university or asmall business has the right to elect to retain title toinventions made in the course of government spon-sored research. Exceptions are made in three instances:
(1) operation of government-owned researchor production facility;
(2) exceptional circumstances determined bythe agency (stringent documentation is required fromthe agency and is submitted to the Controller Generalto curb abuse by the agency);
(3) when necessary to protect the security ofthe government intelligence or counter-intelligenceactivities.
If the university abandons the patent prosecu-tion, all rights revert to the inventor. However, some
Table 28
Patent Administration and Royalty Income Distribution of Selected U.S. Universities
Year ofPolicy Institution Royalty Division
1977 U. Arizona Of net income:Inventor: 50% of1st $10,000;25% over$10,000
1980 U. California Of net income:System Inventor: 50%
UC System: 50%
1977 U. Chicago
100
Deduction by Patent Patent MattersInstitution Management Handled By
Univ. IncomeGoes Towards Comments
PMO
15% for 0/H Internalplus deduc. forcost of patenting& protection ofpatent rights
PMOUPI
1 09
Individual re-sponsible fordiscoveries andinventions
System Boardof Patents
Office of VP forBus. & Finance
Fund for Promo-tion of Research- establ. in eachunit.
1st considera-tion given topromotion ofresearch
Divisionalresearchactivities
When rights relin-quished toinventor, "normalprocess of aca-demic publicationwill be utilized forbenefit of scholarly& gen. public"
Table 28Continued
Patent Administration and Royalty Income Distribution of Selected U.S. Universities
Deduction by PatentYear Institution Royalty Division Institution
Patent MattersManagement Handled By
Univ. IncomeGoes Towards Comments
U. Colorado
Under CornellRev.
Of 60% of netwhich UPI allows:Inventor: 25%"lab 25%"dept. oradmin. unit 25%University PatentRoyaltyFund 25%
Of net income:Inventor: 15%CRF: 85%
1979 U. Delaware Inventors options:1. Inventor 1/3
Approp.adm. unit 1/3Res. Off. 1/3
1979 Duke
2. Inventor-1st$5,000, theninventor 20%Adm. unit40%University40%This divisionholds until netincome isS30k whenterms in Option1 take over
Net:1st $10kInventor 35%" lab 65%
$10-50kInventor 35%"lab 45%Univ. 20%
Above $200kInventor 15%"lab 15%Univ. 70%
1978 Georgia Tech Inventor: 1stS1,000 + 50%of net income
Under HarvardRev.1975
Of net income:1st 550kInventor 35%University 65%
2nd S50kInventor 25%University 75%
Over 5100kInventor 15°oUniversity 85%
Under Johns Hopkins Current: (net)Rev. Inventur 25%1969 Proposed
Inventor 30%
PMOPrimarily UPI
Direct expenses Internal.expenses PMOCRF-$350 fee
Direct expenses Internal+ 15% of direct PMOexpenses tocover overhead
Direct expenses
Direct expenses
Direct expensesof processingpatent
InternalPMO rarelyused
Internal:Office of Con-tract Adm/GeorgiaTech. Res.Institute
Internal
Direct expenses Internal
Office of PatentAdm. sifts dis-closures; Univ.Patent Comm.(10); Chairman-Dean of Studies,Reps from 4campuses; Ex-officio member(incl. PatentAdm.)
CornellResearchFoundation
UniversityCoordinator forResearch
Office of PatentAdministration(estab. 1979)
InstitutionalPatent Commit-tee (incl. memberfrom GTRI)
Committee onPatents andCopyrights
PatentAdministration
See royalty div.;Patent RoyaltyFund goes tores. & education
Research:Preference toorig. unit
General '
Faculty & aca-demic dept. ofinventor for re-search by in-ventor. Next$67,500-1/2 asabove: 1/2 generaluse by inventor'sdept. Remaining:divided betweenfaculty & centraluniversity
110
If univ. relin-quishes rights& inventor de-velops it, anyincome must beshared with univ.(after inventor'sexpenses arededucted), on thebasis that in-ventors's share benot less thanroyalty splitunder univ. fundedinventions.
$250 to inventorfor servicesrendered inproviding tech-nical documenta-tion in filing
101
Table 28Continued
Patent Administration and Royalty Income Distribution of Selected U.S. Universities
Year InstitutionDeduction by
Royalty Division InstitutionPatent Patent MattersManagement Handled By
Univ. IncomeGoes Towards Comments
U. Houston
Under U. IllinoisRev.
Lehigh
Under U. MarylandRev.
Under MITRev.
U. Michigan
1971 MichiganState U.
Cur- U. Northrent Carolina
1976 North CarolinaState
1979 Penn StateUniversity
1977 Princeton
1973 Purdue
102
Of net income:Inventor 50%
Of net income:1st $50kInventor 50%
2nd $50kInventor 35%
Over $100kInventor 20%
Of net income:Inventor 50%University 50%
Inventor 15%
Of gross income:1st $50,000Inventor 35%
2nd $50,000Inventor 25%
Over $100,000Inventor 15%
Of net income:Inventor 20%Orig. Unit 40%VP for Res.Eqpt. Fund4O%
Inventor: 1st$1,000 gross;15% total royal-ties thereafter
Inventor: not lessthan 15% gross.Exact proportionspecified inagreements withPMOs.
PMO
Direct expenses Internal
Any litigation PMOcosts negotiatedwith Res. Corp.
No deduction Internal
Direct expenses InternalPMO
PMO
PMO
Inventor: 15°0 PMO
Of gross income:1st $3,000Inventor 50%
Next $10,000Inventor 25%
Over $13,000Inventor 15%
Of net income:1st $50,000Inventor 50%
Next 50,000Inventor 40%
Over $100,000Inventor 30%
Of net income:Inventor 1/3University 2/3
Direct costs
Direct plusindirect costs
PMO
InternalPMO
Internal
li i
Office of Patents& Copyrights
Faculty PatentCommittee
Univ. PatentCounsel (in officeof VP for Re-search & GradStudies). He isalso Pat. Counselfor Penn. Res.Corp.
UniversityResearch Board
Committee onPatents & Copy-rights, PurdueResearch Found.
Inventor's dept.for research
Trust fund forresearch on eachcampus. In-ventor's schoolor dept. will havepreferentialtreatment.
Royalty incomeminus inventor'sshare equallydivided betweenRes. Corp. &Penn. Res. Corp.
100% to researchfund. Inventor'sfield of activitygiven preferentialtreatment
Penn. Res. Corp.is a non-profitorganizationwhich acts astransmittalagent to Res.Corp.
Table 28Continued
Patent Administration and Royalty Income Distribution of Selected U.S. Universities
Year InstitutionDeduction by
Royalty Division InstitutionPatent Patent MattersManagement Handled By
Univ. IncomeGoes Towards Comments
UnderRev.
Cur-rent
1980
Rens: elaerPolytechnicInstitute
Rice University
University ofRochester
1978 S.U.N.Y.
1980 StanfordUniversity
Cur- Text-, A&Mrent
1981 U. of Texas
Late U. Utah60'sCur-rent
1972 WashingtonUniversity
Cur- University ofrent Washingtonas of1981119691
1975 U. Wisconsin
Under Yale U.Rev.
Of gross income:Inventor 15%
Inventor sharenegotiated caseby case
Of net income:Inventor 50%University 50%
Of gross income:Inventor 40%
Of net income:Inventor 1/3Dept. 1/3University
RoyaltyIncomeFund 1/3
Of net income:Inventor 50%Unit responsiblefor inven. 50%
Of net income:0 -$5, 000Inventor 75%System 25%
Of net income:Inventor 40% offirst $20,000;
35% of next$20.000; 30%thereafter
Of net income:Inventor 50%
(max.)Univ. Balance
Of net income:1st $5,000Inventor 100%
Next $15,000Inventor 50%
Over $20,000Inventor 30%
Of net income:Inventor 15%
Wisc. AlumniRes. Found.85%
Split what PMOallows 50/50 withinventor
InternalPMO
PMO
Direct expenses InternalPMO
Internal
15% of grcss + Internaldirect expenses
15% for admin-istrative costs+ legal fees forpatentprocessing
Costs of patent- Internaling & licensing PMO
Direct Internal UtahRes. Founda-tion
No more than Internal50%
15% service InternalPMO
Internal
InternalPMO
Patent ReviewCommittee
Office of Ad-vanced Studies& Research
NONED Corp.(wholly ownedsub. of Roch. forpatent mgmt.)
TechnologyTransfer Office
Office of Tech.Licensing
Office of PatentAdministration
Patent Office
U.R.F. purchasesservices of direc-tor of UniversityPatent Office tomanage patents
Vice Chancellorfor Research &Patent Coord.Patent AdvisoryCommittee
Patent Office
Vice President &Chancellor, Wisc.Alumni ResearchFound.
Patent ReviewCommittee
112
General Fund
2/3: Inventor'sDept.
1/3: Inventor'scollege for
educ. or res.
SUNY ResearchPrograms
1st to defrayexpenses ofPatent Office,then for researchby unit whereinvention wasmade
Support of re-search & educa-tion (1st priority-operation ofPatent Office
Educational &Researchprograms
Account forResearch
WARF returns15% of incomefrom inventionsand investmentsfor research
Not active re:patents
University PatentOffice may awardup to $1,000 toinventors fortheir aid in devel-oping info. to helppatent prosecu-tion.
Rights rest withinventor, subjectto "shop rights" ifdone with univer-sity funds &/orfacilities.
103
institutions put up barriers, such as requiring a shareof the royalties or publication of findings. Many, how-ever, put no conditions on the release.
b. Patent administration.
In informal discussions with university patentand research administrators, it was found that many ofthe patent policies were under study or revision. Ques-tions such as the following were being addressed byschool officials.
(1) Is the patent policy up to date, or shouldit be revised?
(2) Is the division of royalties between the uni-versity and inventor equitable, and sufficiently encour-aging to the inventor?
(3) Who should retain the rights to thepatent? Should the university relinquish the rights tothe invention and under what circumstances?
(4) At what stage and from what funds shouldthe patent office overhead and other expenses be taken?
(5) Under what office of the university shouldthe patent administration lie, and what administrativeofficials in particular should have final say on a deci-sion involving patents?
(6) Does the university have an adequate in-ternal capability to manage patent development? Ifnot, should it be improved or should the university usethe services of an external patent management organi-zation?
In general, patent royalties to universities frominventions of their faculty members are an increasingpotential source of income. To date there has beensome lack of consistency of handling this source ofrevenue and disposition of the revenue itself. Further-more, with increased fees for domestic patents as wellas the high costs of obtaining foreign patents, theissues and expenses must be considered with care. Inmost universities examined, such detailed debatoamong administration and faculty is being pursued.
Many universities have agreements with externalpatent management organizations (PM0s). These weregenerally viewed with dissatisfaction by many univer-sity administrators and scientists. It was often statedthat these organizations are not sufficiently aggres-sive is seeking out patent and licensing opportunities.Several administrators also stated that they did notbelieve these organizations were receptive to theirneeds. These views can be interpreted as expressionsof the belief that opportunities have been missed. Wenote that we did not conduct a separate survey ofpatent management organizations and their interac-tions with university scientists.
Increasing numbers of universities are developingtheir own internal capabilities for patent management.In our aforementioned survey of 38 universities, 17use internal means exclusively for managing patents,and 7 use both internal means and PMOs (Table 28).
104
Although having internal management capability is avery expensive proposition, it does allow the universityto own patents which would formerly have been assignedto a MO. It is hoped that internal management willprovide an opportunity to get' a return on investmentsufficient to have a significant impact on universityresearch programs.
c. Division of royalty income.
In general, there are two situations in which aninventor who is a university employee can earn royal-ties. The first case is that in which an invention arisesfrom externally funded research, where the overheadis adequate to cover university expenses. Royaltyincome divisions are negotiated as part of each con-tract or grant, and the sponsor's terms are controllingin the matter of limitations on the inventor's share.Some universities reported that they make every effortto have the sponsor follow that division of royaltiesspecified in that university's patent policy. Some con-tracts with companies were found to allow for no pay-ment to the inventor. Under the Uniform Patent Act, apatentable idea arising from government funding, par-tial or total, must include a percentage for the inventor.The terms for division varies with government agencies.
The second case is that in which the inventionarises from research supported by univers4 funds onuniversity time, or using universit'' facilities, and whenthe patent has been executed internally. Here, the divi-sion specified in each university's patent policy is con-trolling. Although there is wide variation among univer-sities in relation to royalty income schedule, our surveyshowed that 15 (7 private and 8 public) out of 38 univer-sities surveyed offer (in varying increments) at least50% of net royalties to the inventors.
Data on the division of royalties by individualuniversities is also given in Table 28.
d. Patent income management.
State and private universities have establishedindependent research foundations for the purpose, inpart, of facilitating the patenting and licensing of uni-versity developed products and processes (e.g., theWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation of the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, the Cornell Research Foundation,Inc., and the California Institute Research Foundationof the California Institute of Technology).
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation isthe most well known example of this type of arrange-ment. It manages income generated from inventionsand investments on behalf of the University of Wiscon-sin, and returns 15% of the total income annually tothe University of Wisconsin for support and administra-tion of research. (Note that the generation of fundsfrom inventions conies from a few very highly success-ful patents.) These funds are primarily used to aidyoung investigators, support teaching assistants, and
113
provide seed money for new research projects andprograms.
e. Levels 01 total income received from patents.
In order to collect data on the level of totalpatent income received by universities during FY-1979and FY-1980, a list of schools thought to receive thelargest amounts of royalty income was developed. Noprior tabulation of such data exists, and therefore,personal judgments were used as a first guide to thisneglected area. Candidates were suggested by patentand research administrators, as well as by officials atthe National Association of College and University Busi-ness Officers and the Society of Patent Administrators.
InfOrmation concerning the annual amount ofincome From royalty bearing inventions was requestedfrom 36 universities, both public and private. Responsesto date number 25, a 69% response rate. These initialresults for 1980 and 1981 are shown in Table 29.
Of the 25 respondents, 3 had not yet talliednick 1981 amounts. Two of these may account for thedecrease in the lowest class from 10 in 1980 to 7 in1981, as their income was well clown toward the lowerend of the range, and is not expected to distort theaggregate sums.
Indicative of a trend is the aggregate amount ineach year: $7,316,915 in FY-1980, and $9,178,276 inf-Y-1981, which represents a 25% increase even with-out completed tallies.
I. Attitudes towards prepublication review andpatent ownership.
Most companies view the interest of universitiesin patents and licensing as healthy. They would rathernegotiate these matters than leave them undecided.Many regard faculty awareness of the importance ofpatenting before publishing a prerequisite to a jointcollaborative research effort. All the aspects of thisissue, however, are not resolved. Every university vis-
ited was concerned with the issue of prepublicationreview rights of the industrial sponsor. Companiesbelieve that they should have the right to review pub-lications coming out of their sponsored research forinadvertent disclosures of company proprietary infor-mation and for potentially patentable ideas. Most sci-entists do not object to this review for patent poten-tial. The debate centers around the appropriate lengthof time for such a review.
Generally, a company feels comfortable with theuniversity owning a patent, particularly if the universityis willing provide an exclusive license for a certaintime period. Many (7 out of 8) of the new university/industry partnership agreements in biotechnologygrant exclusive iicenses to the sponsoring company(see Chapter VII, pp. 43-44). However, companiesdo not always require an exclusive license as a condi-tion for significant commitment to research coopera-tion with a university (e.g., Exxon-MIT, see p. 43).The company participants in most of the cooperativeresearch centers reviewed (90%) did not require exclu-sive licenses in return for their participation. A largenumber of these centers may be characterized asfocusing on research related to process technology(e.g., combustion processes, polymer processing). Inthese areas of research the exclusive license may notbe as important as in areas of research where the out-come may be a new drug or agricultural product. Whileuniversity policies and the mechaniSm of university/industry interaction will affect negotiations concerningpatents and licensing, a company's willingness toaccept the university stance may be related to the tech-nology base and structure of the industry to which thecompany belongs. (See Chapter VIII.)
A few company representatives regarded thisnew interest in patents and licensing as a threatto their own interests. One company reprepentativestated he would not want his company to enter into acooperative research activity with a university that wasactively pursuing patents. He regarded such universi-ties as among his competitors.
Table 29
Frequency TableTotal Patent Royalties Received by Sample of Universities-1980 and 1981'
Frequency
Gross Income 1980 1981
0 S 99.999 10 7
S100,000S199,999 3 4
S200,000-5299.999 3 2
S300,000S399,999 3 0
5400.000-5499.999 0 1
Over $500,000 6 8
TOTALS 25 22'
One major university reports an aggregate total of income from inventions and investments. The part of this attributable to inventions hasnot been separated. and therefore cannot be reflected in this table.The 1981 tallies of 3 univei sities were not yet available.
114105
2. University Connected Research Institutes
The body of organizations under discussion maybest be described as separately incorporated unitsthat serve as legal entities for administering soon-sored research and related programs for their parentuniversities (Table 30). Although the articles of incor-poration confer independent status on them, they arein fact interdependent with, and under varying degreesof control by, their host universities.
Ambiguity of name and purpose makes universityconnected research organizations difficult to identify.Variously called institute, foundation or corporation,each candidate Must be examined carefully to see if itfits the operational definition one has in mind. (Inthis discussion, institute will serve as the genericterm.) Each university prescribes for its institute aspecial mix of activities which typically changes as itevolves.
The university-connected research institute ismost commonly associated with publicly supportedschools (Daniels, et al., 1977). These universitiesmust operate under the restrictions placed upon themby their charters and further constraints imposed bytheir state legislatures. This situation does not providea flexibility of operations attractive to industry spon-sorship of research. Yet, a strong program of spon-sored research is critical to carrying out the aim ofeducational and scientific excellence at the graduatelevel. Thus, major research universities must oftendevise means for flexible operations.
The mechanism of the university-connected re-search institute has been used by a number of publicuniversities for the administration and/or the devel-opment of industry sponsored research proams andthe concept is under active consideration by other uni-versities, spurred in part by the current governmentencouragement of university/industry research inter-action. A general statement of the purposes served byseparation between a public university and a not-for-profit corporation in its service is that the state isresponsible for the basic support of the university,while the institute's funds directly or indirectly help thetax dollar accomplish more by allowing for the provi-sion of services which public monies cannot fund orarc insufficient to fund.
The institute provides a way of minimizing many
106
of the constraints unposed by state government con-trol mechanisms, and thereby allows the university torespond to sponsor requirements for efficient per-formance of research. For example, within the univer-sity, the research process can be impacted adverselyby requirements for competitive bidding for researchequipment by policies relating to the hiring of researchpersonnel, by limitations on travel funds, faculty con-sulting time and faculty salaries, and by possible dis-continuity of funding.
There are also controls within the university onthe content of research projects and development ofresearch results. For example, the institute may takeon programs outside the areas of standard academicprograms, such as those involving security clearance,and enterprises of a commercial nature. Currently, theinstitute is being recognized as a means of facilitatingpatent commercialization through licensing.
Besides minimizing state government impedimentsto research, there is another role that the institute canperform. As the size and volume of research projectsincrease, specialized attention over and above the uni-versity's regular academic and administrative proce-dures is required. The institute can develop the capa-city to handle large, sometimes long-term programs. Itcan also organize multi-disciplinary research teamswhen necessary, and can control which projects grad-uate students work on.
Beyond these functional reasons for an institute isthe potential psychological benefit. The traditionalissues which divide university from industry can betterbe negotiated one step removed from their traditionalbases and, perhaps most important, removed alsofrom the public arena in which a public universityfunctions. One public university in this survey is re-viewing the possibilities of funneling most or all ofits industrial contracts through a university associatedresearch institute. This university hopes that thiswill facilitate the administration of large industriallyfunded projects.
A university-connected research institute can func-tion somewhat like a private contract research insti-tute with these added benefits:
(1) The institu'.e is backed by an educational pro-gram and a fundamental research program reflectingawareness of scientific frontiers.
Table 30
Examples of University-Connected Research Foundations
Established
Purdue Research Foundation 1930
Ohio State University Research Foundation 1936
Indiana University Foundation 1936
Texas A&M Research Foundation 1944
University of Kentucky Research Foundation 1945
Research Foundation of the State University of New York 1951
Research Foundation of the City University of New York 1963
115
(2) It has university faculty available as consul-tants on its projects, and it can also contract with theuniversity to perform basic research of particularinterest.
(3) The institute can draw on the pool Of graduatestudents enrolled at the university, and often the costof doing research in this environment is less than at aprivate contract, research institute.
(4) An intangible, but important factor in com-manding sponsor interest, is the reputation and credi-bility that a great U.S. research university has worldwide.
In summary, it appears that universities with aseparate research and development institute can beparticularly attractive to outside sponsors and maydevelop into being an important butler mechanism inuniversity/industry research interactions.
in 1980, the National Commiss;,m on Researchpublished a report on industry and the university,Developing Coopertitv Research Mechanisms in theNational Interest. A key recommendation states:
"The commission recommends that universi-ties examine their administrative structures andpolicies relevant to cooperative research arrange-ments with industry. Such research arrangementsshould facilitate ,cooperation while protecting theacademic research environment. Universities shouldalso examine their patent policies and be sure thatthey have the staff capable of identifying and pursu-ing patent opportunities."
This can be interpreted as support for the con-cept of the university-connected research institutewhich acts as a buffer in university/industry researchinteractions.
3. Industrial Parks
The industrial park model has been developed atseveral major campuses to improve relationships be-tween research-intensive companies and sponsoringuniversities who rent space for corporate activities.According to one prior study which described thehighly successful Stanford University Industrial Park:
T he results in terms of encouraging facultyconsulting and entrepreneurship, industrial staffenrollments in university courses, and the use ofindustrial scientists as university lecturers are gen-erally considered to be significant stimuli to tech-nology transfer." Baer, 1977).
Interviews at companies in the Stanford UniversityIndustrial Park, and with Stanford University profes-sors, substantiated the results of that study. however,most industrial parks are generally not significantstimuli to technology transfer.
Appendix III presents several examples of univer-sity associated industrial research parks.
Of the 39 universities visited in our field survey,14 universities had owned or associated themselves
tr
with industrial parks. Of these parks, only 4 can becharacterized as successful in terms of stimulatingtechnology transfer. however, even in these cases, thepresence of the park, in and of itself, did not neces-sarily strengthen university/industry research pro-grams. The presence of the park in successful casesdid facilitate technology transfer through providingspace for companies arising out of university researchprograms. In at least three of the more successfulparks, the presence of the park in close proximity tothe university may have helped provide a climate forthe general acceptance of university/industry researchprograms. Those universities associated with parkstended to have stronger programs of universky/indus-try cooperative research. For further discussion ofindustrial parks, see Chapter X, pp. 109-110.
4. Spin-off Companies and University/Industry Research
Companies that spin off from university researchprograms tend to have an initial formal researchassociation with the university which includes sharingof facilities and hiring of graduate students. As thecompanies become more directed towards producinga product, they become more isolated from universityprograms, and at this point have little money to fundthem. Only in the cases where these companies arehighly successful do they return their attention to theuniversity and contribute substantial funds to univer-sity research. In order to ensure that the universityderives an optimum return in these instances, manyare considering the possibility of the university takingequity in the spin-off company in lieu of royalties.(See Chapter X, pp. 110-112). Universities are trying tocalculate which would bring in more to their researchprograms, an original 5% royalty from university patentslicensed to a spin-off company, equity in the company,or reliance on the company's philanthropy and gifts.
Excluding engineering consulting firms, mostuniversity administrators could only recall one tothree spin-off companies coming from university re-search programs. however, three universities said thatthey could point to over 100 spin-off companies, andanother three could point to 25 to 30 such companies.Appendix I l l presents a few examples of spin-off com-panies reviewed in our field study.
There is certainly an untapped potential in provid-ing mechanisms which would facilitate the collabora-tion between the research programs of these new.companies and university research programs. Severaluniversities are currently looking into a variety of pos-sibilities, including programs of technical assistance,providing "incubator space" for the new companies,and mechanisms by which a university can integrateits research into programs of economic development.
116107
CHAPTER X
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CURRENTACTIVITIES AND EFFORTS TOCOORDINATE UNIVERSITY ANDINDUSTRY RESEARCH
This chapter summarizes several recurring themesand debates regarding university/industry coupling. Thematerial presented is based on our observations andinterpretations after our wide range of interviews anda review of the current literature.
A. Opportunities for Growth
Current discussions of university/industry researchinteractions might imply that this idea was discoveredde novo in 1978. Our studies document that there is ahistory of continuing and fruitful interactions. Thepresent emphasis, however, is somewhat different, forreasons indicated in Chapters IV and V.
The enthusiasm with which this subject.was treatedby all who were interviewed, however, indicates thatfocused interest in university/industry coupling is longoverdue. One university president stated his belief thatindustry support of university research is an unexploredmargin for the university in general. Many agree. Butrecently there has been a rising chorus of caution fromboth university and industry representatives statingthat although interest in this subject is long overdue,it can be vastly overestimated in importance. It isnecessary to maintain a sense of perspective aboutuniversity/industry research interactions. Edward E.David, Jr., President of Exxon Re-search and Engineer-ing Company, a strong supporter of university andindustry scientists interacting together in research,has in many recent speeches said that it is impossibleto expect industry to fill any large funding drop by thefederal government (David, 1981).
Companies do intend to draw more direct ties to uni-versities, but resources are limited, and they alreadysupport the university research endeavor throughtaxes. It is important to remember that industry hasto pursue a direction which strengthens its own-long
108
term interests, and the university must pursue a direc-tion based on its function in society. These directionscan intersect but to a limited extent. Only the govern-ment has the resources and network capabilities tomonitor the complex U.S. research system and ensurethat we have a broad technical base. Industry's ap-proach to research is strategic. For example, there arerelatively few technical fields, e.g., computer science,electrical engineering, polymer science, molecularbiology, genetics, chemical engineering, receivingmajor industrial support at universities. Industry'stechnical effort is targeted, similar to the approach ofgovernment mission-oriented agencies. However, thegovernment must support research in the nationalinterest and maintain a technical base that will providefor national security. Thus, the government has a man-date to support broadly based research. While there isroom for growth in university/industry coupling gen-erally, and particularly in fundamental areas, broadbased research support will undoubtedly continue toflow primarily from federal sources.
There are conditions today that may indicatesome degree of change (see Chapter IV and V). Onenew factor is that the number of science-based, tech-nologically-oriented industries has grown. This pro-vides greater opportunity for university/industry coop-eration. As the older, more mature industries see thisoccur, two options can arise:
(1) Actions can be taken to adapt the new tech-nology to the existing business.
(2) Business plans can be based on the potentialof high technology for stimulating new business direc-tions and the role of university/industry interactions instimulating and producing technical change.
While most agree that increased university/indus-try coupling will be beneficial, there is active discus-sion of the effects of this on both institutions. Some ofthese considerations and concerns are discussed inthis chapter. (See Section D.)
117
Despite concerns, many groups (public and pri-vate), in recognition of the economic potential of sci-ence based industries, arc actively seeking to forgenew bridges and linkages between academia and theprivate sector. Many of these activities are regional.
15. Regional Variations and Activities inCooperative University/Industry Ventures.
Regional and state activities continue to featureresearch programs related to their economies andnatural resources. Thus at state universities in thenorthwest (Washington, Oregon) and middle Atlantic(North Carolina) there are excellent forestry productsinstitutes. There are significant textile programs inGeorgia and North Carolina. Petroleum engineering iswell supported at the University of Texas, Austin. TheGreat Plains states (e.g., Wisconsin, Minnesota) havewell supported state programs in food and agricultureand so on.
Currently, an increase can be noted in the tempoof state and regionally supported development activi-ties involving academic and industrial cooperation.States significantly involved in such activities includeArizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, New Jersey,New York, Michigan. They are seeking to take advan-tage of recent advances in the fields of microelec-tronics, genetic engineering and. robotics. These activi-ties are also, to a great extent, in response to concernabout lagging U.S. innovation and productivity, asthese apply to local industrial activity. States in eco-nomically depressed regions, regions where the pre-dominant industrial base is mature (e.g., the steel,heavy machinery, and automotive industries) are par-ticularly interested in the creation of new jobs throughfostering the development of new high technologystart-up companies. In most of these activities, univer-sity administrators and researchers, as well as privatesector representatives, are playing active roles.
North Carolina has provided exceptionally dy-namic leadership over the last decade in fosteringeconomic development through university/industrycoupling. The Science and Technology Board, underthe direction of Governor hunt, has been responsiblefor mapping the state's strategy in these matters,developing the Research Triangle Park, and latelythe development of a microelectronics and biotech-nology center. The State appropriated over $27 mil-lion in 1981 to the microelectronics activities.
Several other states have also established specialgroups to foster regional university/industry coopera-tion and economic development.
One such institution is the Pennsylvania Sci-ence and Engineering Foundation (PSEF) foundedin 1968 with appropriations of $8.2 million to use asseed funds in nurturing Pennsylvania's economicposition through technological innovation. The PSEFis located at Penn State University. During its exist-ence, it has attracted $68.3 million from industry,local governments, and the federal government in
support of applied science and engineering projects(PSEF, undated). PSEF has been responsible for,among other things, the developmen' of a newcapacitor material.
Recently, New York State established a newcnarter for the state's Science and TechnologyFoundation, giving that organization a key role aspromoter of technologically oriented activity. As partof this initiative, the state and foundation haverecently been active in exploring new forms of uni-versity/industry cooperation.
New Jersey is taking substantial initiatives inthis area. They are proposing a program of $8.7 mil-lion to foster university/industry cooperation intechnological innovation.
In Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, specialorganizations (Appendix III) have been establishedto foster regional economic development throughhigh technology development and university/indus-try cooperation.
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S. Steel, CarnegieMellon and the University of Pittsburgh formed acommittee, the Ad-hoc Committee on CooperativeResearch, with objective of establishing cooperativeresearch projects between the participating univer-sities and local industry. The idea for a regionalapproach came from the president at CarnegieMellon. The universities are represented by thedeans of the respective schools of engineering.
The deans put together an inventory of re-search capabilities and current projects. From this,prospective industrial sponsors can determine pos-sible areas for research cooperation. To date thecompanies participating in the program include U.S.Steel, Westinghouse, Alcoa, Gulf and PPG, with cur-rent projects in combustion and coal utilizationresearch. The interactions have developed as indivi-dual contract research programs despite the initialgoal of developing an umbrella grant. Although theinitial goal has not been realized, the committeestill holds this to be a possibility for the future.
In Michigan the technology-based industry com-mittee, in cooperation with the University of Michi-gan, sponsored the Michigan Technology Fair inApril 1981. One of the fair's objectives was to createa climate that encourages the pursuit of high tech-nology. The event showcased advanced industrialtechnology and state-of-the-art scientific researchbeing carried out in Michigan.
Many of the above mentioned activities have thelong term goal of starting or expanding universityresearch parks.
For example, in Madison, Wisconsin for Research(WFR) Inc., a private, not-for-profit joint venture wascreated for the purpose of assuring a permanent basisfor cooperation between academic and economicinterests for the long range benefit of the state, univer-sity and WFR members. Charter members (including16 companies) contributed $2,000 each. The organiza-tional approach is to establish a formal channel orclearing house for information and ideas that will leadto more activity and more contracts between the uni-versity and private industry. It is their hope that thelong range net effect of this activity will be the estab-
118109
lishment of a research park designed to draw hightechnology companies to Wisconsin.
Many other universities (Yale, RPI, Princeton, Uni-versity of Texas, Austin) are currently interested inexpanding existing parks or developing new parks (seeChapter IX, p. 107).
Universities have many reasons for wishing to partic-.ipate in the development of these parks. They include:
(I) An investment that will generate new funds forthe university.
(2) Providing incubator space for spin-off com-panies emerging from university research.
(3) A mechanism for preventing "brain drain" andunderemployment by providing jobs which will requireskills appropriate to a university graduate.
(4) A mechanism by which the university canmaintain the "campus environment" in the surround-ing area.
(5) A mechanism for fostering joint university/industry cooperative research programs.
University participation in the development ofthese parks continues to rise as universities becomeincreasingly interested in capitalizing on their research.
C. The Role of University Research inNew Business Development
There were numerous reports in 1980-81 of newventures emerging from research conducted in univer-sity laboratories, or of new high technology enterprisesenlisting outstanding university professors for theirstaff or their board, or of large corporations giving amajor grant to a university for the conduct of a broadresearch program. These developments have beencompared to the development of Route 128 aroundBoston with ties to the MIT-Harvard complex; thegrowth of electronics in Silicon Valley that began withsome distinguished graduates of Stanford University;and the seemingly unlimited flood of venture capitalinto high-technology companies in the 1960's.
There are many points in common between today'snew business developments and those of the past 25years, but there are also important differences. Thedifferences are fundamental to the relations betweenuniversities and industry that will evolve in the yearsahead.
They are as follows:
(1) The technical base for new business has shiftedin emphasis. Many of the earlier developments were insemiconductors. Today's emphasis is on biotechnol-ogy and data processing. Obviously, new businessesare emerging from a range of technologies, but thetechnical pattern today is different from yesterday.
(21 The geographical pattern is more diffuse.There is widespread sensitivity to the commercialpotential of new technology and an availability of ven-
110
ture capital for exploitation. When the Route 128phenomenon was reviewed in the Charpie Report of20 years ago, it noted the receptiveness of the finan-cial community in such key centers as Boston and SanFrancisco, as compared to other cities. These differ-ences seem to have lessened considerably.
(3) There is far greater maturity in industry todayregarding the processes of industrial research, i.e., forthe integration of R&D into the business planning andoperations of the corporation. The possibility of devel-oping major new business interests from technicaladvances within the corporation or via a small start-up company outside the corporation is now consid-ered a standard business mechanism, not an unrelatedspeculation.
(4) The technologically-based new business devel-opments of 15 to 25 years ago were often geared tomarkets deriving from the needs of military and spaceprograms. Or at least, the technical developmentswere related to those programs. Thus, some R&D sup-port and, perhaps, some procurement might havecome from federal sources during the initial phase of anew venture. Today, this is not as frequently the case,and the new developments must survive under tradi-tional private-sector ground rules almost from thestart, in contrast to the public-sector involvement ofthe past.
(5) Prior to 1970, the university research systemwas in a high-growth period, relatively well-financedfrom the increasing federal budgets for R&D, and fairlystable with regard to overall student enrollment andcost structure. This has changed drastically in the past10 years. While federal R&D support has not declinedin absolute amounts, the cost structure of universitieshas deteriorated generally and thus weakened theirability to offer growth opportunities for research sci-entists based on the traditional income from, andneeds of, the student body. In brief, the university sys-tem requires additional and stable sources of income.
Thus, there is a new set of ingredients for univer-sity-industry relations in new business development.There is a consciousness on the part of corporationsas to the potential for integrating university researchadvances into current business planning, there isan availability of funds from many sources, and thefinancing activities are geared to the private sectoreconomy. Further, the universities are relatively moresophisticated, demonstrably more aggressive, andlooking for new sources of funding.
The traditional mechanism by which universitieshave received income from the commercialization oftheir research output is through patent licensing.There is great variation among universities as to theirpractices regarding the ownership of these patents orthe assignment of rights to the research professor(Table 28).
As long as the numbers of patentable ideas werelimited, the royalty income often insufficient to cover
119
paw nt Cysts, and the university financial affairs inrea!-ik)iulple ha lance, there was insufficient reason forunivvrsi ties to reorganize their patent management
Scattmcd exaples of significant returnsexisted, such as the royalties received by Rutgers fromthQ INal\smail patents on streptomycin. But even thiswas <r Rot from Waksman, since the policy of Rutgerscas patent ownership to stay with the faculty.
Was a chicken-and-egg quality about the)
'rrr art the tire. The income was too modest to jus-tify the iovestmcnt in the sales and market develop-
erit hot might serve to increase the income. Thisshill Waked the activities of third-party brokers, suchas Ole Fuscarch Corporation and, more recently, Uni-versity These groups could provide commer-cial exNrtise and cover the patent costs.
buk-irig the 1970's. universities began to turn theirattoltioli more sharply to the potential of income frompat,: ht licensing. Their financial situation becamewore, the increasing activity of patent brokers
haw aroused the interest of universities in theopptirtiAoilies for greater income. Thus, more univer-sitic-% Megan to assign active patent developmentreNconV)ility to their own employees. What mightstart ors d part-tinle assignment often became a full-ti nu; pr.ition for one or more people in the largerrescilicti universities.
fli growth of these activities' led to a more in-tcrrye interaction between university and industry onthe subject of commercial exploitation of universityresci)reh, An important feature was the increasingpreyene of individuals at universities concerned with°hid init)ct income from research, and who served as ablitic=r tls.veco the traditional faculty values and thoseof tric 41 clustrial world.
IN. increased attention to patents and licensingactivity, -10c1 the increasing importance of royalty income,leo to university considerations to share in the result-inct b1Miliess. Furthermore, the publicity that accom-ImoivAl :iri-ninercial ventures in biotechnology by com-pailles arch as Cetus and Genentech, with the dramaticevi(fcnc: that sizable investments were available fromprivilte wrties, the stock market, and major corpora-tions, quaranteed the attention of universities. Thecoo Inel.cial potential of recent advances in biology
considered to be so substantial that corporatestruclurc5 and financing have been established whilemilCh ot the science and technology is still in the devel-
5tage. This necessitates close relations be-twet; tt)c new companies and the researchers respon-sihlc ht. the advances, who are oftert.members ofuniv'ersity facultY. These same faculty thernbers arealso eskoblishing more formal relations with the newconiNirws as consultants, as officers, or as directors.And in wally cases, the individuals have left the uni-vcr9itieN to Wort: for the new ventures.
This ferment of activity involving university re-seil(ch and faculty, plus the presence of investment
and the potential of future income, has caused the uni-versity to consider new mechanisms by which the uni-versity system itself can become involved directly inthe growth of new business ventures.
University ownership of business is not new. Anymajor university fund or endowment may have stocksin its portfolio. This, of course, is simple investmentwithout involvement. At one period, New York Univer-sity owned the Mueller Spaghetti and Macaroni Com-pany, a rather extreme form of investment, and unrelatedto university functions except as a source of income.
Presently, we are in a period of exploration withregard to the role of universities in new business devel-opment. There is a very considerable effort going intothe expansion of traditional mechanisms for univer-sity/industry research cooperation, and the growth ofnew institutional devices that might lead to even moresatisfactory relations for the generation and transfer ofresearch. There is additionally a new look by universi-ties at the possibility of deriving continuing and sub-stantial income from the ultimate commercial valuesrelated to these arrangements.
One approach is the use of third-party mecha-nisms. This is analogous to the patent broker forlicensing, but now the university would have a partici-pation in this third-party structure. The functions per -formed by the new organizational structure arc:
(1) To create a neutral buffer between the contin-uing faculty activities necessary for the operations of auniversity and the business dealings with the privatesector for commercial development of research,
(2) To provide professional expertise required forthese activities,
(3) To provide continuing income for the univer-sity, and
(4) To offer an effective structure with which in-dustry can communicate and negotiate.
This third-party structure can take many forms. Arecent announcement from California (Time Magazine,September 28, 1981, p. 63), describes the establish-ment of a non-profit Center for Biotechnology Research,with participation by faculty of Stanford and the Univer-sity of California. Commercial development arisingfrom this research will be pursued by a new companycalled Engenics. Funding of the Center will be from pri-vate corporations, and the Center itself will own 30% ofEngenics. The companies will own the remainder.
One can easily conceive of similar structuresbeing established by a group of universities, by a singlemajor university in conjunction with an investmentbank, and any number of public-private combinations.Several universities indicated they were considering anumber of such possibilities, especially those whichwould cause minimum disruption to the educationaland research structure of the United States. This sit-uation should stabilize during the 1980's, and theresult may be more effective conversion mechanisms
120 111
from research to commercialization to the advantageof both university and industry.
Another approach is the investment in or theestablishment of university based research parks asdiscussed in the previous section. A few universitiesarc establishing or assisting in the development ofprograms to provide entrepreneurs (including entre-preneurial faculty) with technical assistance and withhelp in business planning.
It is unclear at this moment exactly what are theoptimum mechanisms for university participation asan equity owner in new business development, and ifthis could be a major new phase of university growth.Other effective approaches may be more suited to theuniversity structure and its role in society.
D. Emerging Concerns
Table 31 lists 15 issues that were brought up atvarious times during our interviews. Although mostwere not mentioned more than 25% of the time byeither company or university representatives, somehave significant implications for present researchsystems. Interviewees varied extensively in the way theycharacterized what they considered to be legitimateconcerns regarding university/industry research inter-action. However, several themes were identified.
In.discussing the development of university/industryresearch interactions, concerns related to matters ofacademic freedori. and research quality were contin-ually articulated. Those conversant with the status ofuniversity/industry connection, or those who had anintimate involvement with a specific issue suggest sev-eral additional concerns. They include: credibility, con-tinuity, and commingling of funds.
Still other concerns were identified after inter-views with those involved in joint programs, study ofthe evolution of many case histories, and discussionswith key individuals. They include: conflict of commit-ment, preservation of the academy, and the impor-tance of exploratory research. The following is a shortsypnosis of particular aspects of concern flowing fromeach of these issues.
I. Academic Freedom
Freedom and flexibility are the rubric of U.S. aca-deme. They are viewed as the cornerstones of the suc-cess of our university system. Those who considerthemselves protectors of academic institutions havesuggested that any changes in the status quo coulddestroy the delicate balance developed to preservethese institutional qualities. Such discourse occurredwhen there was a vast increase in federal funding ofuniversity research in the 1950's, as it does now whena significant increase in industrial sponsorship isexpected.
Indeed, flexibility and the climate of freedom toenquire is essential to the development of new fieldsand new knowledge; they are critical to the vitality ofuniversity research. The concept of academic freedomincludes freedom to explore new subjects, to publishwithout delay or political constraint, and to allocateone's resources and time to what the principal inves-tigator sees as most productive for his research.
The National Commission on Research, in itsreport on industry and the universities, suggested thatthe university might face certain constraints in theseareas through participation in cooperative research
Table 31
Issues Concerning University/Industry Research Interactions Derived fromInterviews with Scientists and Administrators at Institutions
Surveyed in NYU Field Study
Issues Identified
Percent of Institutions SurveyedWhere RepresentativesIdentified These Issues
Universities(n=391
Companies(n=56)
1. Basic vs. applied research 26% 16%
2. Academic freedom: Conflict of interest and/or commitments 23% 0°0
3. Should university take equity in a company? 23% 0°0
4. Importance of key individual (project director, dean, department manager or chairman, etc. 23°0 14%
5. Industry vs. university pay scales 21 °o 2%
6. Government role as intermediary 18°0 110
7. Tax policy/incentives 18% 23 °o
8. Industry grants smaller than government grants 15°o 0%
9. Ability of small firms to compete with large firms for access to university resources 15°0 400
10. Multi-disciplinary nature of cooperative efforts 15°0 5°0
11. Restrictions on public universities 13°0 11°0
12. Peer review 8°o goo
13. Commingling of industry and government funds in support of university research 5°0 0%
14. Credibility of the university 3% 2°0
15. Collective industrial support and anti-trust regulations 0°0 4%
112
121
relationships with industry. They suggested that uni-versities could be influenced on research directionand publication rights trout these relationships, whichserve as inducement for universities to become in-volved in more applied and development-oriented pro-grams. This debate deals with potential outcomes,which have not been evident to date in the expandedactivity for university/industry cooperation.
Such issues are being recognized and discussedby many universities around the country as expecta-tions rise that a greater proportion of their researchwill be supported by industry. Rather than suggestingthat concerns for academic freedom and flexibility beobstacles to changes in the status quo, universitiesdiligently are attempting to develop new guidelines forfaculty involvement with industry that will not compro-mise their flexibility or academic freedom.
2. Conflict of Commitment
Resolving issues related to academic freedom canbe fairly straightforward, but there are also cases wherethere is no clear answer. Situations involving conflictof commitment are examples. Such issues are em-bodied in the following situations:
A principal investigator has a new graduatestudent who is particularly good in a field he knowswill be of interest to a company with which the pro-fessor has a consulting relationship. The professorobtains fellowship support for this student fromthe company. The professor and the company de-vise a program for the student's thesis research,following which the company gives research supportto the professor for this program. Other researchconducted by the professor in a related field is sup-ported by the federal government. The professormaintains his consulting contract with the companyand it is through this arrangement that companyproprietary information is handled. Yet some of thisinformation is relevant to the student's thesis.
In another situation, several researchers at thesame university in the same academic departmentare advisors to different companies, while theirresearch support is from the federal government.
These types of arrangements are not new andhave certainly been handled adequately in the past.But, as the diversity of research support increases,such situations may become exceedingly complex andmore prevalent than in the past. It may not be possibleto ignore the complications of such activities. At thesame time, it does not seem fruitful to simply preventthem.
Several universities have formed ad hoc commit-tees to discuss these activities and in some instancesmonitor them. A few universities have set up guide-lines for dealing with such situations. For many univer-sities, such guidelines are new and therefore not proven.Harvard University's policy divides situations that maypresent conflicts of interest into three categaries:
(1) Activities that are clearly permissible. Theseinclude consulting arrangements that do not detractunduly from university objectives.
(2) Activities that should be discussed with chair-man or vice chairman on extramural activities. Theseinclude situations in which a professor directs studentsinto a research area from which he expects to derivefinancial gain.
(3) Activities which present serious problems.These include:
a. Situations where a faculty member assumesexecutive responsibilities for an outside organizationwhich would create conflicts of loyalty, and
b. Situations where a substantial body of re-search that could, and ordinarily would, be carried onwithin a university is conducted elsewhere to the dis-advantage or the university.
In our opinion, the dialogue preceding establish-ment of useful guidelines may be strengthened byopening up discussions to all parties involved, includ-ing industrial research scientists and managers.
3. Openness of the University
It is our observation that industrial grants or con-tracts, even the very large ones, generally do not causea conflict of commitment or interest, nor do theynecessarily foster an air of secrecy. Some scientistshave always been secretive about their research. Thismay stem from a desire to be absolutely correct or adesire to be the first to discover a breaktia.ough. Wefound no evidence that industry sponsored researchwithin the university system increased this secretivebehavior. When the situation is otherwise, e.g. wherethere are strong incentives for a professor to begin hisown company, or become involved in the operations ofa start-up company with potential high returns, secrecymay be a problem. However, the majority of professorsinvolved in such activities stated they were very carefulabout separating their commercial activities from theiruniversity research.
4. Commingling of Funds
Maintenance of diversified funding sources is crit-ical to the health of university research. But this canlead to complex situations as presented in the abovesection.
Commingling of funds can become a particularlythorny issue when a company has negotiated an exclu-sive licensing arrangement with a university for patentsderiving from the company-supported program. Com-panies can make a good and justified case for an ex-clusive license when they give significant amounts insupport of a research program. Without an option foran exclusive license there is little incentive for a com-pany to take the steps necessary to commercialize aproduct.
122113
Difficulties may arise when the research equip-ment used in an industrially sponsored program hasbeen bought under federal contracts, as is often thec:asc, or if the federal government is still providingpartial support for a university scientist's researchprogram which also receives industrial support. Tofurther complicate matters, another company may besupporting the research program of a colleague withwhom this scientist has collaborated in the past andwith whom he presently shares research equipment.
Sorting out who owns what could also arise in asimpler case where several companies are supportinga generic research center at-a university, while theyhave separate agreements with professors at the center.This can lead to complex questions of proprietary rightsif a patentable discovery results from this work.
5. Objectivity and Credibility
University researchers and administrators areaggressively looking for new ways to fund universityresearch. Among these options being actively consid-ered are programs for commercialization of universityresearch and programs to foster university/industrycooperative research. Both these new thrusts requirethat universities review present policies regardingpatents, licensing, publication, and outside activities offaculty. As the universities alter or modify policies tomeet the needs of new programs for research funding,the academic reputation for impartial analyses may beeroded in the university's quest for funds. Indeed, thiscan present a problem to the university itself for thecredibility that is established by the university's objec-tive stance is a major asset universities have to offeras a third party.
The importance of university objectivity to thoseinterested in the credibility of the outcomes of spon-sored research and the potential for such interactionsto evolve into large programs is suggested in the fol-lowing example:
The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill(UNC) operates the occupational Health SciencesGroup, which is a unique effort of union, companyand university institutions to conduct researchaimed at protecting the health of workers. It origi-nated as a partial condition for settlement of a labormanagement dispute. The labor unions required thatthe rubber companies sponsor research on workerhealth outside of their own companies. They specifi-cally required that the research must be credible.Of the six companies involved, four sponsored re-search at UNC and two at Harvard. The program wasinitiated in 1970.
Prior to this program, UNC had little university/industry interaction which was important to theunions. Because UNC is a public university, it en-gages in no proprietary research.
The initial step taken under the program wasthe collection of worker health data. It is from thisdata that the research program developed. Thecompanies gave advice, but the university designed
114
the program. Proposals for research projects weresubmitted to the union occupational Health Com-mittee for approval. Then contract agreements weresigned with the university. The average funding forthe program was $1 million per year includingoverhead.
The university conducted two-to-three-day sci-entific critiques to discuss the research progress. Inaddition to the Department of Environmental Sci-ence and Engineering, the business school was in-volved in the data gathering aspect of the program.
A new program as a follow-on to the rubbercompany sponsored program is developing with 18phosphate companies located in Florida. This comesat an opportune time for UNC, since the rubber com-panies are phasing out their involvement.
A university must consider several aspects of thisquestion of credibility:
(1) The capability of university scientists to be objec-tive must be preserved through enabling researchersto diversify their funding sources. This is important forindustry and government when they need data andinterpretations in response to law and liability suits;
(2) In an effort to generate their own funds, uni-versities may create situations where their efforts aredirected toward a tangible end rather than maintenanceor creation of a body of knowledge and toward trainingthose who can transfer it to users.
The question is how to devise the appropriaterules and policies for attracting or creating these newsources of income without endangering the universityasset of credibility. Once again, the answer lies in anestimate of balance. There is a certain level of directedresearch, industry or government oriented, in whichuniversities can engage. Each university must evaluatethat level for its own circumstances.
6. Choice of Research Topics and Types ofResearch Activity
Much has been made in the literature of thepossibility of industry "buying" university scientists.In their report on university/industry cooperative re-search relationships, the National Commission on Re-search suggested that increased industrial support ofuniversity research would be an inducement for univer-sities to become involved in more applied and devel-opment oriented programs. They thought that this pos-sibility could lead to some neglect of university basicresearch and teaching programs. We also suggest thatthis is a possibility, but point out that mission-orientedgovernment research which has increased at univer-sities in proportion to government sponsored basicresearch over the last few years poses the same difficul-ties. Industry-sponsored research differs philosophicallyfrom mission-oriented government sponsored researchin that the general rhetoric and economic criteria aredifferent. Commercial utility is the issue, rather thannational security or national interest. however, in eachcase, the university scientist must relate his research
1.23
interests to the missions of the sources of support.This issue is really part of a much larger issue,
namely, the future of the research university (OECD,1981). How a scientist chooses his topics of enquiryand seeks support for them must be put within thecontext of the obligations of the research universityto society. There are different views on what theseobligations are and how to proceed once they arcestablished. The changing role of science and tech-nology in society will most likely affect universityresearch subjects and the proportion of basic to ap-plied research conducted at universities and sourcesof binding for university research. This may have futureimplications for university structure.
Most researchers when asked were uncertain orunable to state what they believed the ideal mix of gov-ernment/federal/state/industry/university support ofresearch should be. In our discussions with companyscientists and administrators, they stressed their beliefthat neither the university nor government should beinvolved in development. Practically all stated thatuniversity scientists should concentrate on basic re-search. This is a clear contradiction of the belief ofmany university scientists that industry desires moreapplied activities at the university.
At this time, we point out once again that there is acontinuous spectrum from basic to applied research,and what is one organization's applied research canbe another's basic research. This was very evident tous in our field study. It is true among universities andindustries, as well as between the two sectors. A vicepresident at a leading eastern university said that atone point he was trying to characterize applied re-search at his university. He went to what he thoughtwould be the most likely place to find it, the derma-tology department. Scientists there were very upsetbecause, in their view, they were conducting researchon extremely fundamental problems. This situation iseven more evident in references to engineering researchversus the physical sciences.
Government funds for non-mission oriented re-search areas are limited. In the past, the Departmentof Defense provided funding for very general researchareas. After the Mansfield Amendment, which requiredthe Department of Defense to restrict support of re-search to those areas directly related to defense, thesegeneral funds were no longer readily available.
We have observed that industry is in fact morelikely than government to contribute unrestrictedfunds for research. These are basic research fundswhich can be used for exploratory research (see p. 67),or as seed money to develop new program areas (seep. 73). Furthermore, in the several cases investigatedof large, long-term contractual arrangements betweena company and a university the programs were primarilymission-oriented, hut, according to the principal inves-tigators of the programs, there was considerable lee-way to explore new research areas, and frequently
unrestricted funds are incorporated into the grant.Thus industrially-sponsored research is not neces-sarily more directed or applied than government spon-sored research.
However, the bulk of direct industrial supportof university research is in the form of smaller, short-term contracts ($50,000-100,000) for directed re-search. This type of interaction does restrict the choiceof research topics, just as do most government re-search contracts. Once again we note a significant por-tion of government sponsored academic research iscontracted and mission-oriented. Yet several govern-ment agencies fund unsolicited proposals, while com-panies generally do not.
7. Exploratory Research and Seed Money
The complexity of today's science often precludesthe randomness with which scientific questioning wasoften identified in the past. Serious researchers todaymay not be able to afford to ask many wide-rangingquestions. Yet, there is still a need for exploratoryresearch.
Many industry scientists, as well as universityscientists, are concerned about present opportunitiesfor exploratory research. At least two large research-based firms have initiated significant programs tofoster exploratory research at universities. Industry'sinterest in giving seed money to support new ideas isnot necessarily new. The significance of these two pro-grams is that the companies sought exploratory re-search in areas they deemed to be important (seeChapter IX, pp. 73-74).
8. Gaps in Communication
A number of professors were interviewed whoreceived little or no industrial support. While they werenot specifically negative towards industrial support,they held the opinion that industry had no interest inwhat they were doing, or that what they were doing wasof no immediate value to industry. Therefore, they hadnot considered seeking industrial support. Further-more, they were unsure how to approach industry. Tosome extent, this perception of the lack of immediaterelevance of their research to industry is correct.Many science-based companies are quite comprehen-sive in their attempts to keep themselves apprised ofresearch related to their interests. Through technol-ogy scanning activities, industry discovers those in theuniversity community doing research of interest tothem. They develop contacts with these individualsand may even ask them to be consultants. Industrywill send recruiters to those campuses they believe aretraining graduates of interest to the company. Theserecruiters will talk with professors and determine whomight be doing research of interest to the company,then bring the information gathered back to the com-pany scientists.
124 115
Despite the extensive networks developed be-tween university and industry, both parties still expressa belief that opportunities arc being missed. Manystated that new collective industrial actions to supportuniversity research, such as the Council for ChemicalResearch, arc a major step to facilitate communication(sec Chapter IX, pp. 81-82). University scientists inparticular were concerned about establishing a perma-nent mechanism to match academic research interestswith companies. Some suggested that there should bean information clearinghouse. Several thought that thetrade associations or professional societies could playa more active role in facilitating communication be-tween the two sectors.
Company scientists were not as concerned withbeing unaware of research opportunities as they werewith being misunderstood. They expressed more fre-quently a concern with a gap in understanding withregard to the attitudes of the professors, rather thana gap in communication per se.
9. Equity
The increasing awareness on the part of universi-ties, that conscious efforts to derive income from uni-versity research may be worth the efforts, has caused
.several universities to consider seriously active owner-ship of some portion of a new business developmentarising from university research.
Equity participation by a university in a new busi-ness development arising from university researchcould in fact provide a source of income that is relatedto university functions. But this raises very seriousquestions concerning the status, treatment and re-cruitment of faculty whose work might lead to suchcommercial exploitation. The efforts required for atypical university faculty to act effectively along theselines arc considerable. Equally disturbing is the pos-sibility that universities would act to inhibit researchpublications pending evaluation of commercial poten-tial. There is a further basis for disruption if the desirefor commercial exploitation ever became a factor inaccepting graduate students. There could conceivablybe limitations on foreign students who could returnto other highly industrialized countries with the lateststate-of-the-art in biology or microelectronics, andthere could be barriers to students sponsored by cor-porations which are competitors of a major sponsorfunding particular areas of research. There couldbe a temptation for universities to take this so seri-ously that they become involved actively in the com-mercial development process itself, and participate indecisions concerning markets, financing, and busi-ness planning.
Considering our discussions with university repre-sentatives, this is very unlikely at the present time. Butthe above concerns have been voiced by both com-pany and university representatives.
116
E. The Significance of Current University/Industry Coupling
Despite the vitality of the university/industry sys-tem, we have no evidence contrary to previous figuresindicating that industry in total provides a very smallpercent of direct funds in support of university activi-ties. Even if you add corporate philanthropic funds des-ignated for research to those given in direct support ofresearch, most universities (80%) receive less than10% of total university R&D expenditures from indus-try (Table 32). There is room for general improvementin cooperative research and some industrial sectorsmay have underutilized the university as a resource(Tables 17 and 15, pp. 50,48).
Dialogue between academia and industry has in-creased and there seems to be greater discussion oftheir common interests and problems as well as theirrespective individual goals. This has apparently ledto a greater frequency of professional contacts be-tween the two sectors. Because of the importance ofprior contacts in the initiation of cooperative researchprograms, (Tables 4 "& 5, p. 19) this opening up ofcommunication channels may be extrer rely importantfor ensuring stable growth of cooperative arlivity betweenuniversity and industry scientists in the future.
In fact, there are extensive connections betweenindustry and academia. But this is not true for allindustries (See Chapter VIII.) Furthermore, althoughthere is a wide spectrum of companies that interactwith universities, there are very few who do so on asignificant scale and a continuing basis (Table 16).Currently, as well as historically, the most active indus-trial group in all forms of university research support,and particularly in cooperative research interaction, isthe chemical industry (Table 17, p. 50. See also ChapterVIII, pp. 54-57.) In order to increase university inter-actions with some industry sectors, programs whichaddress the structirre and/or science base of theindustry must be developed.
It is not clear whether external stimulus is neces-sary for current activity in university/industry couplingto continue or expand. We have seen that some degreeof federal support can be helpful, and has been criticalin many instances. however, the partners themselveshave been the key elements in successful programdevelopment. Government, as a facilitator, can ensurethat there is an appropriate climate for cross-sectornetworking, and may provide circumstances for in-creasing contacts between the two sectors. The signig-cance of the many new university/industry programsmay be that new channels of communication havebeen opened not that they are helping overcome tightfederal fiscal policies.
Decline in federal funding for basic research can-not be fully compensated for by industry. The U.S.research system would be strengthened if universityand industry could mutually agree to cooperate in
125
Table 32
An Estimate of Industrial Support of University Research Expenditures 1980*
University
Total EstimatedCorp. Res.
Est. of Industrial Est. Total Corp. SupportCorporate R&D Support Res. Support Expressed as a
Corporate Voluntary Aid Primarily Incl. Gifts Total Percent of TotalVoluntary to Educ. going Grants & Contracts University R&D University R&D
A;2 to Educ. to Research & Contracts (Col's 2+3) Expenditures Expenditures
(Number in Thousands of Dollars)
Carnegie Mellon University 5,124 382 5,010 5,392 29,308 18.4
University of Arizona 19.796 6,755 5,923 12,678 69,095 18.3
University of Maryland 5,409 3,936 2,263 6,199 39,917 15.5
Colorado School of Mines 2,573 200 497 697 4,510 15.5
Pennsylvania State University 4,056 2,658 7,842 10,500 71,840 14.6
University of Rochester 3,670 192 7,869 8,061 65,845 12.2
University of Southern California 7,178 1,522 7,462 8,984 74,304 12.1
Lehigh University 1,999 8 1,076 1,084 9,413 11.5
University of Illinois 5,246 5,924 3,404 9,328 83,274 11.2
University of Houston 3,493 802 602 1,404 12,628 11.1
Georgia Institute of Te hnology 3,044 55 6,243 6,298 56,653 11.1
University of Michigan 10,409 5,854 6,145 11,999 111,316 10.8
Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology 16,191 6,102 11,402 17,504 163,566 10.7
Louisiana State University 7,015 4,324 1,267 5,591 53,058 10.5
University of Delaware 1,855 976 702 1,678 16,746 10.0
California Institute of Technology 4,992 2,144 1,993 4,137 43,259 9.6
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 4,765 0 1,394 1,394 14,824 9.4
Purdue University 3,651 933 4,756 5,689 61,765 9.2
Case Western Reserve University 4,774 1,822 1,790 3,612 40,688 8.9
Harvard University 16,137 3,192 3;995E 7,187 100,901E 7.1
University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill 2,771 1,028 1,370 2,398 38,924 6.2
Colorado State University 3,604 23 2,505 2,528 40,678 6.2
Clemson University 980 0 1,126 1,126 18,366 6.1
Rice 2,497 20 467 487 8,029 6.1
University of Minnesota 7,083 2,472 4,352 6,824 119,065 5.7
Stanford University 3,034 3,215 6,249 113,120 5.5
University of Texas, Austin 6,355 2,416 1,237 3,653 78,621 4.6
University of Wisconsin 6,080 3,658 2,615 6,273 138,227 4.5
Duke University 5,222 856 779 1,635 39.066 4.2
Princeton 3,051 669 423 1,092 27,821 3.9
University of California,Los Angeles (UCLA) 6,461 3,119 NA 3,119 88,934 3.5
Yale 4,600 1,160 582 1,742 71,446 2.4
University of Chicago 5,653 579 402 981 58,436 1.7
University of California, San Diego 4,765 NA NA 14,824
John Hopkins University 3,657 NA NA - 253,204 -University of Washington NA NA 3,830 111,858
126 117
Table 32Continued
An Estimate of Industrial Support of University Research Expenditures 1980*
University
CorporateVoluntary
Aid to Educ.
Est. ofCorporate
Voluntary Aidto Educ. going
to Research
IndustrialR&D Support
PrimarilyGrants
& Contracts
Est. Total Corp.Res. Support
Incl. Gifts& Contracts(Col's 2+3
Total EstimatedCorp. Res.
SupportExpressed as a
Total Percent of TotalUniversity R&D University R&DExpenditures Expenditures
(Number in Thousands of Dollars)
Washington University NA NA 1,029 59,379
North Carolina State University NA NA 1,800 42,725
University of Utah NA NA 851 31,175
SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
NSF: Academic Science R&D Funds FY 1980. Table B-16CFAE 1980-1981. Voluntary Support of EducationCFAE data tapes and discussions with CFAE representatives
Excluding capital gifts
the feasibility and developmental potential of basicconcepts.
Academic science and engineering, in fact, is nota productive force (see Chapter II), it is a pursuit forunderstanding, and as .such calls for exploration ofa wide variety of alternatives. The productive forcerelates to the mechanisms of screening these alterna-tives after their characteristics have been better revealed.Industry, in some sense cannot be expected to fundbroadly-based exploration, but it is of great value toindustry to be able to tap into this exploration. Indus-
118
try can and should be able to fund the screening andtesting of alternatives.
It is our judgment that there are no insurmount-able barriers to university/industry cooperation. Butthe issues must be addressed carefully and non-negotiable items (freedom to publish for universitiesand proprietary information for industry) must be fullyunderstood. The interests of each party must beplaced on the table immediately. Understanding theuseful boundaries of these interactions is critical tosuccessful outcomes.
227
CHAPTER XI
THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRYRESEARCH COOPERATION
This study was intended to provide informationrattler than recommendations. Nevertheless, our sur-vey led us to identify a number of subjects whichappear to form the principal areas for discussion,action and change in the years ahead. The emergenceof these topicssome we would call call opportunities,others concerns or issuesdoes indeed constitute amajor development in the broadening research re-lationships between university and industry.
In this section, we attempt to set down the natureof these subjects from the collective perspective of theinformed observer with knowledge of both universityand industry objectives and needs. Our primary con-cern is with the optimum role of university/industrycooperation in our society and the factors which affectthis.
A. Changes in Government Funding
There are a number of key relationships betweengovernment funding of university research and/ortraining, and research cooperation between universityand industry. The simplest, of course, is that a declinein government funding for a particular area, or even aperceived decline, can be a powerful stimulus for ini-tiating university actions to attract industry attention.
Lower government funding across the board willreinforce the pressures for university/industry coop-eration, and will increase the role of the private sectorin attracting research efforts to particular areas and inguiding career patterns for graduates. Such responseswill presumably extend the role of the university in itscontributions to society and to economic growth.
These contributions, however, require a minimumstable base of university research capabilitiesfaculty,facilities and graduate students. To a large degree, thegovernment has provided support for this base andthe broad spectrum of science, basic and applied, thatis necessary for the long term national interest; in-
deed, no realistic expectation exists (David, 1981) thatindustry can support that base by replacing govern-ment funds.
Even in areas of science where the private sectorcan reasonably be expected to support a larger pro-portion of the research cost, the government will mostprobably continue to provide for the underlying tech-nical infrastructure of university research capabilities.Industrys willingness to strengthen university researchcannot be interpreted as being a commitment to pro-vide for the basic university structure. In fact, if govern-ment funding drops too drastically, the present systemfor university/industry cooperation itself would verylikely be jeopardized.
What must be the minimum research base atuniversities, and what is the appropriate mix of fund-ing sources? The approximate current level of $6 bil-lion annually in total R&D conducted at universities,with about $300 million funded by industry, may notbe sacrosanct in either absolute amounts or as aproportion of the national R&D expenditures. Never-theless, even if industry funding were to rise to, say,$600 million annually, the effectiveness of that sup-port to achieve scientific progress and graduate train-ing would still require a substantial base of universityresearch. But there must be some level below whichthere would be serious damage to the long-rangestability and productivity of the research enterprise.
In summary, industry funding itself is based uponthe existence of a stable university research com-munity, and this in turn depends today on a substan-tial level of support from the federal government. Theprecise level of that support is arguable, but a con-sensus as to an approximate range of this support,and the mechanisms by whigh it is provided, appearsessential to the strength of university research in gen-eral, and to the encouragement of university/industrycooperation.
There is a second issue. Even if research fundingis not cut, it is likely that there will be substantial shiftsin government funding so that a larger proportion of
128 119
these funds will come from mission-oriented agencies,for example, the Department of Defense. Such shiftscan be large enough to affect the direction of univer-sity research for many years to come. These changescan affect future university/industry research coopera-tion both directly,and indirectly by influencing thecareer choices of graduate students.
Finally, as a third issue, there is the effect ofdecreased government support upon other programs,specifically student aid and fellowships. Althoughlargely beyond the scope of this study, it can beobserved that, just as industry support is based upona stable university research community, there is anobvious dependence of that research community upona financially sound total university system. Further-more, cooperative research arrangements are oftenattractive because the university has a highly talented,relatively inexpensive graduate student work forceupon which to draw (Chapter VII, pp. 34-36). The sta-bility of the total system is clearly a fundamentalconcern for future industry/university relations.
B. Commercialization of University Research
There is an increasing sensitivity on the part ofuniversitiesfaculty and administrationto the op-portunity for obtaining income from the commerciali-zation of university research. Universities have evol,..eda moderate source of income over the years fromlicensing of patents based upon this research (seeChapter IX, pp. 104-105). Expansion of these activitiesat many research oriented universities has taken placein recent years and may be leading to increased in-come (Table 29, p. 105).
A significant development lies in considerationsrelated to some form of university equity participationin new ventures derived from university research. Suchdemands are producing debate within the universitysystem itself concerning its structure, objectives, andvalue systems (see Chapter X, pp. 110-112).
Concern about finances creates a steady pressurefor universities to move towards activities providingnew sources of income through commere;alization ofuniversity research. The changes in government fund-ing increase this pressure. Additional stimulus comesfrom the concern for attracting and holding faculty infinancially lucrative fields such as biotechnology andcomputer sciences, and in the search for new mech-anisms to permit this. Further impetus comes fromthe several dramatic examples of new ventures in thefield of molecular biotechnology, which have attractedlarge amounts of financing from corporations andinvestors.
The debate within the university centers on howthe university can obtain added income from partici-pation in commercial ventures while maintaining itsintegrity and basic values. Serious questions arise con-cerning research priorities, criteria for selection offaculty, selection of graduate students based upon crit-
120
eria related to ultimate commercial interests, effectof secrecy in research on community interaction andinformation dissemination, and the possibly damag-ing effect on university/industry lations of universityequity participation in new ventures.
There is presently a sense of experimentationconcerning mechanisms for a university role in newbusiness development from licensing through equity.An integral aspect of this experimentation is thegrowth in research institutes or other structural enti-ties in which commercial linkages can be pursuedwithout disrupting the university structure (see Chap-ters IX and X, pp. 106-107 and 110-113). Whatever theoutcome of this experimental period, the future uni-versity approach to commercializing its research willset an important boundary condition for cooperationwith industry.
C. Instrumentation and Research Facilities
The condition of the physical infrastructure ofuniversity research is both a cause and effect of risingresearch costs. Modern research depends upon ad-vanced instrumentation, so that the capital cost perresearcher is increasing. Yet the budget limitations ofthe university research system has led many researchadministrators to hold back on modernization inorder to maintain their research staff.
The strengthening of this physical infrastructureis a critical issue today, and will remain so. It affectsboth the training and .research objectives which aresought by industry in its relationship with universities.The adequacy of university research facilities can serveto stimulate or discourage industry cooperation.
These circumstances give rise to the complex issueof how a university should allocate a fixed amount ofresearch resources. The steady increase in full-timeequivalent professional personnel engaged in R&Dactivities at universities since the mid-1970's (cf, sci-enCe Indicators, 1978) has been coupled with thegrowing concerns about the obsolescence of researchfacilities and equipment valued at over $10,000. A casecan be made that research "productivity" at universi-ties could have been increased by spending moremoney on instrumentation and using fewer researchpersonnel. Yet, if actions had been taken along theselines, they would then conflict with two other factors:
(1) The principal research personnel at universi-ties are generally teaching faculty members. Therefore,changes in research personnel will affect the univer-sity educational structure as well,
(2) Administrative constraints and regulations onthe allocation of funds may not leave the universityfree to apportion them in order to obtain the optimumdistribution between research personnel and facilities.
These issues suggest several topics for considera-tion.
129
(1) Identifying means to earmark funds for re-search facilities and instrumentation.
(2) Determining ways to provide funds to selectedresearch institutions lor the maintenance and opera-tion of instrumentation. Constraints on the allocationof the resources for instrumentation and facilitieshighlights the need for the creation of rational priori-ties of investment among the many research areas,and adequate assessment of the desired level of uni-versity research capabilities relative to specific indus-trial sectors.
(3) Identifying the appropriate mechanisms forencouraging shared instrumentation.
An example of the difficulty of finding up-to-dateinstrumentation in universities is in the field of micro-electronics. Research facilities in the private sector arefar superior to the general level of those at most uni-versities. Implicit in this situation is that the universi-ties cannot be Rill partners to industry in this rapidlydeveloping industry where the U.S. must fight to keepits competitive edge. Furthermore, students will not betrained on state-of-the-art instrumentation, nor will theuniversity be able to maintain appropriate cadres offaculty willing to forego lucrative industrial positions.
Two mechanisms to improve the university's abil-ity to function in microelectronic technology involvingindustry are operating, and may serve as examples forother fields. One is a more conscious effort by bothuniversity and industry to identify equipment withinindustrial laboratories that can be given to universi-ties. There are difficulties with this approach, however,and this will still not equal the most advanced indus-trial facilities, but can be a marked improvement overexisting university capabilities (see Chapter IX, pp. 68-69).A second mechanism is the effort to concentrate activi-ties requiring specialized research instruments andfacilities at research centers connected with universi-ties (see Chapter VIII, pp. 58-60).
D. Changing Requirements for Technical Personnel
We are in a period of extreme personnel short-ages in particular areas, and anticipate continuing andemerging shortages in others. Simultaneously, there ispoor demand and underemployment in some tech-nical disciplines. This situation defines several issuesrelated to the nature and extent of university/indus-try cooperation.
The work of this study has already emphasizedthat the primary objective of industry in its interac-tions with the university system is the production ofnew graduates (Chapter VII, p. 34). Current and antic-ipated shortages may serve to focus this objectivemore sharply.
The demand for technical personnel has beencyclical in the past, with peaks in World War II andfrom the late 1950's to 1970, followed by sharp dropsafter the Korean War and in the early 1970's. And
1
individual fields of science and technology have hadtheir own ups-and-downs relative to other fields, ap-pearing almost as short-term perturbations within thegeneral cycle of supply and demand. Some fields ofbiology, e.g., dentistry, are in little demand today whilegeneticists are in critically short supply. Particle physi-cists do riot have the employment opportunities opento solid state physicists.
It is necessary to determine which aspects of thetechnical personnel situation are transient and which,if any, represent a long-term problem. The solutions tothe problem depend on this analysis.
Industrial demand for technical personnel ap-pears to be affecting the traditional university struc-ture in two ways:
(1) Fewer doctoral candidates: graduates in com-puter sciences with bachelor's or master's degrees aregoing directly to industrial careers, with a smaller pro-portion than expected going on to a doctorate. Thisdiminishes the pool of those pursuing advanced re-search and/or those available as future faculty.
(2) Drain of advanced university personnel: inboth computer sciences and genetics (as well as someengineering disciplines), both faculty and new doctoralgraduates are turning to industrial positions. Thisdrain to industry raises critical questions about theresources available for training needed future grad-uates and maintaining the desired research base atuniversities.
The problems are well-identified today, which is afirst step towards solution. It is a healthy sign thatthey are being raised in as many articles and talks byindustrial representatives as by university presidents.Such concerns will be a principal focus for university/industry relations for the foreseeable future. They willcall for constructive experimentation, some of which isalready taking place.
Concern for graduates has already influenced therules for funding distribution of the new Council forChemical Research" university/industry collabora-tion being formed by the chemical industry. The orig-inal intent was for industry to commit annual funds onthe order of $30 million for support of basic researchin an NSF style, that is, in response to research pro-poSals from universities. The most recent proposal fordistribution calls for the allocation of funds to majorresearch-oriented universities in proportion to thenumber of masters and doctoral level graduates pro-duced (Chapter IX, p. 82). One cause for this shift isthe concern that the organization should not undulyinfluence the direction of university-based research, butthe shift is also a recognition of the growing problemof turning out needed graduates.
Another approach is the recently announced pro-gram of the Exxon Corporation to provide $15 milliontowards augmenting the salaries of junior faculty andproviding student fellowships in particular depart-ments of selected universities. The objective is pre-
130121
sumably to decrease the gap between university andindustry salaries to a more acceptable level, not toeliminate it, in order to encourage faculty careers in
critical areas.We have noted in this study a desire for increas-
ing use of such mechanisms as the loan of industrypersonnel to universities (Chapter IX, pp. 85-87). Use
of junior faculty in summer programs within industry,or in consulting, are other methods being pursuedas much to provide additional income as for fosteringthe specific research involved.
Direct approaches, such as industry providingsupplemental money and manpower to universities,may be expected to expand in the near future. If theproblem continues, however, different structural ap-proaches will be necessary. For example, Dr. Omenn11981) has suggested that the creation of universityassociated centers may allow engineering schools tohire "clinical" faculty similar to the medical schoolswho are allowed to continue their "practice" (e.g.con-tract work). Presumably, this could provide an opportu-nity for professionals to sustain high salaries whilealso teaching, and for students to have access to thelatest industrial knowledge.
E. Control of the Export of Technology
This is a sensitive issue with broad ramifications,most of them well beyond the scope of this study. Yet the
issues touch at the heart of university/industry inter-actions, namely, graduate education and research.
There is a continuing concern with the overt trans-fer, as well as the inadvertent leakage, of advancedtechnology having military significance to potentialadversaries. The issues are:
(1) how to separate technology of military impor-tance from technology of commercial importance,particularly when there is considerable overlap, and
(2) flow to decide when a strategic military advan-
tage can be maintained and/or improved by secrecyand compartmentalization as against free access thatwill expedite advances by the entire research estab-lishment of the U.S. and friendly nations, as well asunfriendly ones.
Some of the most advanced research in micro-electronics is being pursued at university researchcenters such as Cornell's submicron facility, MIT, andStanford. There are significant percentages of foreigngraduate students in these centers and in other ad-vanced research programs. Any attempts to control,and hence to restrict, these graduate students wouldobviously impede such research. Further, foreign grad-
uate students constitute an important percentage ofthe Wrings by the microelectronics industry, whichhas been complaining of acute shortages.
It is clear that extension of export controls tograduate schools would have adverSe impact on re-search and on the production of graduate students. A
122
broad definition of military concern would impair theability of many industries to hire qualified graduates.There would be far more serious consequences ifstudent access were limited based upon concern overthe U.S. international competitive status, not only inelectronic products but in biotechnology or any othertechnically-based industry.
This is not the place to analyze the basis for anyrestraints on graduate students, or to demonstratecause-and-effect relationships leading to technicalsuperiority in either military or commercial fields.There is much emotion and insufficient understarld-ing. It does, however, appear obvious that much ofour advance in university research today is dependenton foreign graduate students,and that these studentsare in turn providing a necessary resource for U.S.industry. Any serious disruption of this process willbe an equally serious obstacle to university/industrycooperation.
F. Collective Industrial Activities
We have referred to the concerns faced by univer-sities, and hence by industry, with regard to shifts and/or declines in government funding, inadequacy ofresearch instrumentation, and loss of faculty in criticalareas. Amcing the possible approaches to easing thesedifficulties, although not a complete solution, is steadilyincreasing collective industrial activity in support ofresearch.
This collective activity is peculiarly American, quitedifferent from the activity of European trade associa-tions. While almost every U.S. industry has a tradeassociation, only a modest number support research(Chapter IX, pp. 95-98). They operate typically throughsmall grants to universities and other research institu-tions out of a total budget on the order of severalmillions of dollars. Only a very few industries collec-tively support research laboratories, such as the Tex-tile Research Institute at Princeton. Of course, clustersof individual companies have combined to supportresearch institutes or centers (see Chapter IX, p. 82).
In recent years, there have been a number of init-iatives by different industries to act collectively for thesupport of research on a much greater scale. The larg-est of these is the Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI), started in 1973 with a 1980 operating budget of$217 million. Next largest is the Gas Research Institute(GRI), initiated in 1976. Its 1980 budget of $84 millionis planned to increase to $140 million by 1983, primarilyto complete particular development programs beingcancelled by the Department of Energy. These twoorganizations represent the electric and gas utilityindustries respectively. (See Chapter VIII, p. 52).
In the earlier discussion of changing require-ments for technical personnel, we mentioned the cur-rent effort within the chemical industry to establish aCouncil for Chemical Research.
131
Another recent initiative has been taken by theSemiconductor Industry Association (SIA). A com-mittee of the SIA k coordinating an industry-widecommitment to provide about $25 million annuallyfor support of university-based R&D. The money isintended to cover a spectrum from scientific studiesto process research. Most, perhaps all, of its fundswill go to support a few of the university researchcenters emphasizing some aspect of microelectronics,a substantial number of which are now in existence,with others apparently being planned over the nextfew years.
A different version of these collective efforts ini-tiated by industry is the industry- oriented institute ini-tiated by the university which is supported by severalcompanies from different industries (see Chapter IX,p. 82).
There are several issues related to these collectiveindustry actions. First, the clear intent is to use col-lective action to supplement, not replace, support ofuniversity research by the individual companies. flowbest to do this, and how to maintain ties between theindividual companies and the appropriate universitypersonnel are subjects for continuing attention. In anyevent, it. could provide an increase of total industryfunding of university research of perhaps 30-50% ofthe funds now provided by individual corporations.
The second issue is what role the governmentmight play as different industries collectively increasetheir own support of the science and engineeringrelevant to their needs. If the trend continues for col-lective industry action to identify and support relevantneeds in a mission-oriented field, much of the justifica-tion for support of the mission-oriented research bythe federal government would seem to diminish. Thegovernment might then intensify its support of thestrong general infrastructure of basic science andtechnology. (Fusfeld, Langlois and Nelson, 1981).
The third issue centers on the fact that collectiveindustry actions will inevitably strengthen particularareas of basic science and engineering, and very prob-ably particular departments and universities. Industryis free to concentrate its spending on the most appro-priate institutions in its fields of interest withoutpolitical pressures. If sufficiently concentrated, suchfunding will have the same impact as the defense-related research of the 1960's when, for example, thevery specific development of Materials Research Cen-ters supported by the Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (ARM) of the Department of Defense helped toproduce the strong university centers of that sciencetoday. The 'several centers that the SemiconductorIndustry Association may choose to support in micro-electronics will very likely be the leading centers inthis field. Further, the programs they pursue may welladvance more rapidly than others in the field of micro-electronics.
The overriding issue, as we consider these newmechanisms which increase industry support of uni-versity research, is how to insure that these addednew efforts provide balance and new inputs into ourtechnical base. The total level of industry support forthe foreseeable future will be such that increased uni-versity/industry cooperation will certainly bring abouttechnical change in selected areas. The federal govern-ment through its convening and information gatheringcapabilities may furnish avenues for sustaining an ap-propriate balance.
G. Non-University Training
There appears to be increasing activity in initiat-ing or expanding programs intended to provide someform of organized advanced education that do notinvolve the participation of a university. We are notconsidering a routine program for new industrial em-ployees to become adept with a particular facility, or ageneral internship to become acquainted with com-pany or research operations. Neither are we consider-ing courses given under university control at an indus-trial site.
We refer in this section to those courses orga-nized within industry, trade associations, or profes-sional societies which are intended to advance thetechnical background of individuals. These can fallinto a number of categories, including the following:
(1) A particular subject that would add specificknowledge in a new field for current employees, e.g.fiber optics.
(2) A formal set of courses that would permitexisting technical employees to keep abreast of newadvances in their own field, or provide the basis forconverting to a new field.
(3) A formal set of courses for new employeesthat would bring them current with the theoretical andexperimental state of the art in industry, assuming thiswas more advanced than their previous universitytraining as, perhaps, in computer sciences.
(4) A formai degree-granting program run by acompany or industry for either current employees whowish to advance themselves, or potential new employeesrequired by the company or industry. For example,the General Motors Institute is certified by the State ofMichigan to grant bachelor degrees. More recently, theWang Computer Company established the Wang Insti-tute, with the intention of granting advanced degrees.
The first two categories have been common overthe years. They address questions about obsolescenceof individuals or the decline in relevance of technicalfields. While these problems are often solved with thecooperation of nearby universities, they may indeedbe organized by a company or industrial organizationin order to tailor the material to the knowledge avail-able within that company or organization.
132123
G. The second two categories, however may take onmore significance in terms of the ability of universitiesto deliver services in rapidly advancing high technol-ogy industry fields. 'fo some extent, they address thequestions of personnel shortages in these fields, ofloss of faculty that could teach these subjects in auniversity, and of the university lagging behind indus-try in the use of the most advanced research facilitiesin actual knowledge. If the problems engendering theapparent growth in industrial training programs (seeChapter lx, pp. 93-95), are short-term, the issue andthe mechanisms will disappear or at least level off tofind a modest place in our technical structure. If theproblems remain, or (Neil if the mechanisms remainat a high level as a continuing feature of technicaltraining, then a new set of questions arise for theuniversity, and for the university/industry cooperation.
There arc clearly opportunities for training out-side the university structure that can complement theuniversity's role. Occasionally, industry is at the van-guard in d, veloping exploratory or innovative teachingprograms that can point the way to new initiatives forthe university. The growth of such external programsshould at least stimulate both analysis and introspec-tion by universities in examining their optimum rolein society generally, and with regard to industry inparticular.
H. Internal Structure of Universities
The primary and unique function of the univer-sity is to provide students with a broad range ofdegree-granting disciplines and curricula. A principaladditional function, particularly within the graduateschools. is the pursuit of research. In the graduateschools, the interdependence of these two universityobjectives, education and research is critical.
Although industry interacts with universities forthe same objectives and with the same order of priori-ties, its own structure and organizational approach toresearch is different than that of a university (seeChapter VI, pp. 26-31). One can reasonably expect thatsome organizational structure within the university isoptimum for the objective of encouraging and improv-ing the effectiveness of such interactions. It seemsequally reasonable to expect that this would not be thesame structure which is optimum for the traditionalinternal operations of the university. The issue raisedas a factor in future university/industry cooperation iswhether and how to modify the university structure tomaintain the strength and integrity of its basic func-tions while attempting to meet changing external con-ditions and internal pressures.
There are many structural aspects to a university.Among the more important are:
( I) Grouping of scholars by disciplines, with aca-demic administrators responsible for traditional dis-crete schools.
124
(2) Appointments bestowed by departments.(3) Tenure granted by faculty within a depart-
ment, generally tied to teaching obligations and tuitionincome.
These elements have evolved with the growth ofthe modern university. They are at the heart of thefreedom and objectivity of scholarly research, theyencourage and strengthen individual research andthey should tend to produce a conservative financialbase and create barriers to fads in either training orresearch.
Unfortunately, they also form disincentives tointerdisciplinary research, which focuses on a missionor objective that may call for coordination of contribu-tions by many disciplines. Yet that is precisely theessence of industrial research. Industry relates itstechnical needs to business planning in terms of pro-ducts and processes, and sets technical priorities interms of properties and specifications, not scientificdisciplines.
This is hardly a fatal defect. But it is a factor, an"impedance mismatch," that detracts from maximiz-ing university/industry cooperation. This constraintworks in two ways. First, the university scientist doesnot sec the overall problem facing industry. The indus-trial research manager must decompose the broadobjective or problem into its scientific components, sothat the component matches the research interest ofthe academic researcher. Thus, the university researchermay miss the opportunity to contribute to a broaderissue than that within his immediate specialty. Thewhole may in fact be greater than the sum of its parts,and the university researcher may not be exposed tothis broader picture.
Second, from a highly pragmatic viewpoint, indus-try can assign value more easily to a mission or objec-tive than to a research component. Increased fundingmight be available more readily if the university systemcould approach industry on this basis. This would nothave to take the form of shifting from basic to appliedresearch. It would, however, change the emphasis fromthe independent scientist doing undirected basicresearch to greater emphasis on scientists coop-erating in what we would term directed basic research.
This brings us back to our initial remarks openingthis section as to how far the university structure canor should be modified. Obviously, the university sys-tem is not in existence to provide the best possiblematch for industry needs. If it does not maintain itsstrength and freedom for independent scholarly re-search, then it has lost its uniqueness. The issuebefore the university is to be aware of the interdis-ciplinary approach inherent in industrial research andexplore its own flexibility to meet this.
This exploration is evident in the creation of re-search centers and institutes to form a type of matrixstructure at some universities. Where these institutesare within a well-defined department or school, they
tend to lack the broadest attributes of a mission-oriented structure. Where they are free of this con-straint, there tend to he strains between those per-sonnel on research appointments to the institute andthe traditional department appointments. These are,in short, problems to be resolved.
This last item relates to the question of tenureappointments and criteria. While there has been steadygrowth in university personnel engaged in R&D sincethe early 1970's, these do not normally representcareer opportunities unless tied to teaching programs.This is a critical structural question for the universi-ties, particularly in areas of shortages of teaching per-sonnel. If industry were to make substantial fundsavailable for research in particular areas, but the uni-versities could not make tenure-track appointments,there would probably be little change in the researchcapabilities of the universities.
I. Conduct of Large R&D Programs
One mechanism for university/industry coopera-tion is their mutual participation in large R&D pro-grams. In the past, these have arisen in the publicsector, with such examples as the Manhattan Projector the Apollo Program. It is conceivable that otherlarge programs can arise more closely related to pri-vate sector plans, but possessing substantial publicinterest. These might include activities in the energyfield, e.g., synthetic fuels, or a major cooperativeeffort in robotics.
Whatever the subject matter, opportunities canarise where many institutions must work togethertoward a planned. set of objectives. These programswill very likely require that some efforts be devoted tobasic research, although these will, by definition, be inthe realm of "directed basic research." Thus, in theearly developments in ato is energy, it became essen-tial to know more about the effects of radiation onsolids, about the theory of diffusion processes, aboutmetal flow processes at high rates of deformation, andso on. The common element was that these advancesin basic knowledge were important to the fundingagency and to a wide spectrum of the technical com-munity, not simply to the researcher.
The urgency of war, or the broad acceptance ofsociety's commitment to land a man on the moon,were sufficient to overcome the disincentives of theuniversity departmental system with regard to twooperational characteristics:
(1) The university accepted, through an adminis-trative officer or senior faculty member, responsibilityfor program management for a "package" that encom-passed different units within the university, and insome instances units external to the university.
(2) University research programs were geared toobjectives that meshed with those of a broader system.
There is presumably no reason why such involve-ment by universities in future large-scale research pro-grams directed toward industrial interests could notoccur. However, it is very likely that new prograi-nswould be initiated and managed by industry. The mixof government funds and private funds would dependon the program.
Such programs would fall in between a public sec-tor program such as Apollo and a major effort by asingle large corporation. There would be some form ofconsortium or cooperative effort, and there could bean important role for university research. The newinitiatives in collective industry programs (e.g., SIA,CCR) could be the forerunners of such programs.
The issues here relate partly to the structure ofthe university, partly to the philosophical approach.The university research participants would be part of a"team," and objectives would be worked out coopera-tively in the best sense of a broad attack on a scientificproblem.
The willingness and the ability of a university toparticipate in large research programs could be animportant factor for future university/industry coop-eration. Even more, it could be a mechanism for theuniversity to contribute substantially to major systemsfor technical change in our economy. But it will surelyrequire the type of adaptations within universitiescalled for in the Manhattan Project. Finding a realisticniche for that approach in the university structure canbe an important challenge.
J. Sources of Technical Change
A fundamental issue to consider is the role of uni-versity research in bringing about technical change inour society, and the related question of the contribu-tion of university basic research to the flow of basicresearch from all sources. A realistic appraisal offuture university/industry cooperation must be basedupon an understanding of the importance of universityresearch to current industry operations, near termplans, and longer range interests.
Technical change takes place over a broad andrelatively continuous spectrum. We normally describethis "from left to right" in terms of basic research,applied research, development, design, testing, and onthrough the manufacture of products, installation ofprocesses, or delivery of services. This is convenientfor the purposes of description, but should not betaken as the necessary, or even the most common,chronological order or cause-and-effect relationship.The stimulus for basic research and for new scientificconcepts often arises from problems encountered inpractical uses of technology (Fusfeld, 1976). Further,development of advanced instrumentation may be anecessary stimulus to such research.
One general truism, however, is that technicalactivities at universities focus on basic research, whilethose in industry focus on applied research and devel-
134 125
opment. Nevertheless, there is actually a distributionof activities in each sector, though obviously skewed.And this skewed distribution becomes an interestingfactor in university/industry relations. Specifically, thefact that universities engage in many applied researchactivities, and that industry does pursue some basicresearch programs, must be understood to avoid anover-simplified view of the functions pursued by eachsector, and hence of the factors underlying futureuniversity/industry interactions.
The university uniqueness and internal rewardsystem derive from its basic research activities. Yetthere are necessary peripheral efforts that involveinstrument development, preparation of computersoftware and, in the engineering schools, processdesign and pilot plant operations. Thus, the universitycan indeed present a broader interface for coopera-tion with industry if it so desires. We expect and hopethat the present spectrum of university objectives willhe evident in a multitude of approaches. Universitiescan package more interdisciplinary programs shouldthat decision be made compatible with their internalstructure, and some may choose to present a widerarray of services, provided this would riot distort theuniversity function. Industry would respond positivelyto the increased points of contact according to indi-vidual company objectives, provided these were pre-sented in addition to, riot in place of, university statusin basic research.
Perhaps a more significant feature resides in theconduct of some basic research activities by industry.This must be viewed in the context that major indus-trial firms conduct those technical activities necessaryto support present business interests and provide abasis for planned growth. Where such activities callfor some allocation of resources to basic research,this is done. The point is that industry tends toward aself-sufficient balance, allocating all resources in someappropriate proportion to each other, including tech-nical activity, and including within that basic research,where appropriate.
Thus, to carry out any current business plan, acorporation does not need outside basic research,such as might be performed at a university, although itdoes need well-trained, capable university graduates. Ifit needed such research activity, if the corporation'scurrent business plan depended on it, then such activitywould he pursued internally or, when economic, exter-nally at the initiation of the company. Our studies showthat the latter case accounts for a very small F ropor-lion of industry-funded research at universiti:!s.
However, corporations will normally want tJ :.avebasic research pursued at universities, and are moreand more willing to support this activity. But it is ab,lo-lutely critical in the evolution of university/industry inter-actions for universities to appreciate this distinction.
Technical change is introduced into economic use
126
by industry. For the most part, this is accomplishedthrough a purposeful industric.i research structure.This research structure is immersed in a sea of sci-ence and technology with which it maintains closecontact, and from which it extracts new concepts andnecessary technical data. A very important contribu-tion to this "sea" is the university. But the total inputcomes from all universities, U.S. and foreign; all un-classified outputs of government laboratories, U.S. andforeign; and all published or publicly available scienceand technology from private corporations, public andforeign.
Given this complex and dynamic system, the uni-versity is in the position of contributing basic researchthat is both essential yet diffuse. It maintains the ad-vance and quality of the scientific base, and possessescollectively the highest probability for stimulatingwholly new directions. But these values raise the levelof our technical "sea" to the potential benefit of allwho draw upon it, hence minimizing its competitivevalue to a single corporation.
The future paths for university/industry coopera-,on will depend on the way that each university and.
corporation perceives the essential role of the univer-sity. hence, it can be expected that many varieties ofinteraction will persist and develop. The preceding dis-cussion, perhaps more philosophical than called for inthis study, was intended to prepare the background fora somewhat obvious, but often misunderstood, con-clusion.
There is considerable opportunity for universitiesto work more closely with industry in research, to movefrom a position where the university satisfies wants towhere it satisfies needs. We speak in the short termsense, since a long term need may be considered onlya short term want. In brief, the university can developmore of a partnership relation, adding greater imme-diate value to its technica: activities. The compromise,of course, is fairly evident. As the university movescloser to a partnership w;th industry, more resourcescan become available, but the university inevitablyrelinquishes some of its unique capabilities for unre-stricted exploratory research and freedom of action.
There are no absolutes, and the issue:; becomeOne of degree and common sense. There is little free-(! lm in the absence of resources. Thus, each university
!ist work out the degree or partnership to achieveadequate linkages and resources. Too close a partner -.;.rip with industry can be bad for long term growth,but too little can prevent the university from providingits optimum contribution.
The primary requirement, therefore, is not somuch increased partnership, but increased_ under-standing of each other's role. That is the ultimate basisfor a healthy strengthening et university/industry co-operation.
135
REFERENCES
Alien, Thomas J., Managing the flow of Technology:Technology Transfer and the Dissemination ofTechnological Information Within the R&D Organi-zation, MIT Press, 1977.
Baer, Walter S., "University Relationships with OtherR&D Performers," P 5780, Santa Monica, California:Rand Corporation, January 1977.
Berlowitz, Laurence, Zdanis, Richard A, Vaughn, John C.,"Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities,"Science, 211 (1981), pp. 1013-1018.
Brandt, Norman J., Financial Statistics of Institutions ofHigher Education: Fiscal Year 1978, State Data,Washington, D.C.: National Center for EducationStatistics.
Brodsky, N., Kaufman, It G., and Tooker, J. D., Univer-sity Industry Cooperation: A Preliminary Analysisof Existing Mechanisms and their Relationship tothe Innovation Process. New York: NYU Center forScience & Technology Policy, July 1979. (UnderNational Bureau of Standards Order Number NB79NAA/A8898).
Bromley, Allan D., "The Other Frontiers of Science,"Science,215 (1982), pp. 1035-1044.
Brown, Alfred E., "The Industry/University Interface inAmerica Today." Paper presented at The AmericanSociety for Metals, Materials and Processes Con-gress, Cleveland, Ohio, October 28-30, 1980.
Business Week, "R&D Scoreboard," July 6, 1981, pp.60-75; July 7, 1980, pp. 47-70; July 7, 1979, pp. 47-70; anfl July 3, 1978, pp. 58-77.
Cantwell, Katherine M., "University-Industry ResearchRelationships at the Stanford Synchrotron Radia-ion Laboratory." A report submitted to the NationalScience Board, July 1980.
Chemical and Engineering News, "Facts and Figuresfor Chemical R&D," July 27, 1981, pp. 47-71.
f 4
Cooperative Automotive Research program, "Techni-cal Framework: Research Area Working Groups," inCongressional Record, Senate, November 18, 1980,pp. S12813-S12834.
Council for Financial Aid to Education, Inc., The Case-book, New York: C.F.A.E., 1970, 1972, 1974, 1978,1980.
Council for Financial Aid to Education, Inc., The Surveyof Voluntary Support of Education, 1974-75, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80, C.F.P. E., 1975, 1977, 1978,1980.
Daniels, Raymond D., Martin. Ralph C., Eisenberg, Law-rence, Lewallen, Jay M., Wright, Ronald A., UniversityConnected Research Foundations: Characterizationand Analysis, Norman, Oklahoma: University ofOklahoma, 1977.
David, Edward E., Jr., "Science Futures: The IndustrialConnection," Science, March 2, 1979.
David Edward E., Jr., "Industrial Research in America:Challenge of New Synthesis," Science, Vol. 209(July 4, 1980), pp. 133-139.
David, Edward E., Jr., "A New Splice of Life: The Re-engineering of Industry-University Relationships inResearch," Keynote Address at the Annual Meetingof the Council for Chemical Research, Rochester,New York, November 2, 1981.
Declercq, Guido V., "Technology Transfer from Cam-pus to Industry," International Journal of Institu-tional Management in Higher Education, 3 (October,1979), pp. 237-252.
Engineering Education, "Engineering College Researchand Graduate Study," issues of March 1980 andMarch 1981.
Evenson, Robert, "Agriculture." in: R. R. Nelson, ed., Gov-ernment and Technical Progress, A Cross IndustryAnalysis. New York: Pergamon Press, 1982.
136 127
Fusfeld, H. I., "New Approaches to Support and Work-ing Relationships." Special "Industry/UniversityR&D" issue of Research Management, 19, May 1976.
Fusfeld, Herbert I., Lang lois, Richard N., and Nelson,Richard R., The Changing Tide, New York: NYU Cen-ter for Science and Technology Policy, GradtiateSchool of Business Administration, November 1981.
Grabowski, Henry, and Vernon, John, "The Pharmaceu-tical Industry," in: R. R. Nelson, ed., Government andTechnical Progress, A Cross Indust: y Analysis. NewYork, Pergamon Press, 1982.
hazewindus, Nico, The U.S. Microelectronics industry,New York: Pergamon Press, 1982.
Hippel, Eric von, The Role of the Initial User in theIndustrial Goods Innovation Process, NSF, July 1978.
Johnson, P. S., Cooperation Research in Industry, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. 232 pp.
Industrial Research Institute/Research Corporation,"Cooperative Technology Program: Evaluation ofNine Candidate Areas for Industry Participation andSupport," Revised Version, December 16, 1979.
Large, Arlen J., "A 'Monument' Industry Innovation LawCrumbles," The Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1981,p. 34.
Libsch, J. F., "The Role of the Small, High TechnologyUniversity." Special "Industry/University R&D" issueof Research Management, 19, May 1976.
Mansfield, Edwin, "Basic Research and ProductivityIncrease in Manufacturing." American EconomicReview, 70 (December 1980), pp. 863-873.
Mansfield, Edwin, et al., Research and Innovation inthe Modern Corporation. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.
Magee, Mary Ellen, "The Relationship of Federal Sup-port of Basic Research in Universities to IndustrialInnovation and 7roductivity." Washington, D.C.: Li-brary of Congress, Congressional Research Service,August 24, 1979.
Nason, Howard K., and Steger, Joseph A., Support ofBasic Research by Industry. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Science Foundation, 1978. (Prepared for NSF/STIA/SRS under Grant NSF C-76-21517.)
National Commission on Research, Industry and theUniversities: Developing Cooperative Research Re-lationships in the National Interest, August, 1980.
National Trade and Professional Associations of theUnited States and Canada, and Labor Unions, Wash-ington, D.C.: Columbia Books, Inc., 1981.
Nelson, Richard R., ed., Government and TechnicalProgress, A Cross-Industry Analysis, New York:Pergamon Press, 1982.
128
Omenn, Gilbert S., "University/Industry Research Link-ages: Arrangements between Faculty Members andtheir Universities," Presentation to AAAS Symposiumon Impact of Commercial Genetic Engineering onUniversities and Non-Profit Institutions, Washington,D.C., January 6, 1982.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD), The Future of University Research,OECD, Paris, 1981.
Pavitt, K., and Walker, W., "Government Policies TowardIndustrial Innovation: A Review," Research Policy,vol. 5, no. 1, January, 1976.
Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Foundation(PSEF), "Putting Technology to Work," undated pam-phlet, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Picardi, Shirley Mae, "Survey of MIT Industrial LiaisonProgram Member Companies Located in the U.S.and Canada," MIT, MS Thesis, 1981.
Prager, D. J., and Omenn, G. S., "Research, Innovation,and University-Industry Linkages," Science, vol. 20.7,January 25, 1980, pp. 379-384.
Quigley, John, "Residential Construction," in: R. R. Nelson,ed., Government and Technical Progress, A CrossIndustry Analysis New York: Pergamon-Press, 1982.
Rabkin, Y. M., and Lafitte- houssat, J. J., "CooperativeResearch in the Petroleum Industry," Scientometrics,1 (Nov. 4, 1979), pp. 327-338.
Research Management, "Perspectives," March, 1981,p. 2.
Roberts, Edward B., d Peters, Donald 11., "Commer-cial Innovations from University Faculty," ResearchManagement May 1982, pp. 24-30.
Rogers, Everett M., Eveland, J. D., and Bean, Alden S.,"Extending the Agricultural Extension Model," Stan-ford University, Institute for Communication Re-earch, September, 1976. (U.S. Department of Com-merce, NTIS PB-285119.)
Shapero, Albert, University-Industry Interactions: Recur-ring Expectations, Unwarranted Assumptions andFeasible Policies. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Uni-versity, July 31, 1979. (Prepared for NSF/ST1A/PRAunder PO-SP-79-0991.)
Shapley, Willis H., Teich, Albert H., Breslow, Gail J., andKidd, Charles V., Research and Development, AAASReport, Washington, 1980.
Smith, Bruce L. R., and Karlesky, Joseph, J., The Stateof Academic Science: The Universities in the Nation'sResearch Effort, New York: Change Magazine Press,1977.
137
Thackray, Arnold, "University-Industry Connectionsand Chemical Research: an historical Perspective."A report submitted to the National Science Board,1982.
Teich, Albert 1-1., Lambright, W. henry, and Shelanski,Vivien B. "The Role of National Laboratories inUniversity-Industry Relationships", a report to theNational Science Board, September 1981.
Teich, Judith L., "Inventory of University-Industry Re-search Support Agreements in Biomedical Scienceand Technology," A report prepared for the NationalInstitutes of health, 1982.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "Cooperative GenericTechnology Program Procedures," Federal Register,vol. 45, no. 159, August 14, 1980, pp. 54028- 54031.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of CooperativeTechnology, "Cooperative Technology Program: Keyto Industrial Innovation," Revised Draft, January 24,1980.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "1981 U.S. IndustrialOutlook for 200 Industries with Projections for 1985,"Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1981.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation andSoiar Applications, The DOE Industrial Conserva-tion Program: A Partnership in Saving Energy,Washington, D.C., undated.
United States. National Science Foundation, Five-yearOutlook on Science and Technology-1981, Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.
United States. National Science Foundation, 1980Industrial Program Grantee Conference Proceed-ings, edited by David E. Douglas, Industrial Researchand Extension Center, University of Arkansas,' LittleRock, Arkansas, 72203.
United States. National Science Foundation, NationalPatterns of R&D Resources: Funds and Personnelin the United States, 1953-1979, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.
United States. National Science Foundation. Proceed-ings of a Conference on Academic and IndustrialBasic Research, Princeton University, November1960. (NSF 61-39.)
United States. National Science Board, Science Indi-cators-1980, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1981.
United States. National Science Foundation, Scientists,Engineers, and Technicians in Private Industry:1978-80. (Special report, NSF 80-320.)
U.S. Senate, "National Technology Innovation Act of1979," 96th Congress, Second Session, Report No.96-781, May 15, 1980.
Vetter, B. M., "Supply and Demand for Scientists andEngineers," Washington, D.C.: Scientific ManpowerCommission, 1977.
Zerkel, Fred 11., "White house Shapes Strategic Ap-proach to R&D," Chemical and Engineering News,March 20, 1972, p. 24.
138 129
APPENDIX I
List of the ninety-six institutions visited in this study(universities, companies and others).
University Sample
Public
Great Lakes Area
Purdue UniversityUniversity of IllinoisUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Wisconsin
Southeastern
Georgia Institute of Technology
Private
Case Western ReserveUniversity of Chicago
Southwest & South Central
Louisiana State UniversityUniversity of Texas (Austin)University of HoustonColorado State UniversityColorado School of Mines
University of DelawareUniversity of MarylandPennsylvania State UniversityClemson Universityr:orth Carolina State U.(Raleigh)University of North Carolina(Chapel Hill)
University of MinnesotaUniversity of Washington
University of ArizonaUniversity of California
(San Diego)UCLAUniversity of Utah
130
Middle Atlantic
Northeastern
Washington University (St. Louis)Rice University
Johns Hopkins UniversityLehigh UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityDuke UniversityPrinceton University
University of RochesterRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteHarvard UniversityMITYale University
Northwest & Great Plains
California & the West
139
Stanford UniversityUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Institute of Technology
Aerospace
United TechnologiesLockheedBoeingFairchild Industries
Appliances
Singer
Automotive (cars, trucks)
General Motors
Automotive(parts, equipment)
TRW
Building Materials
Johns ManvilleIdeal Bask Industries
Chemicals
MonsantoE. 1. Dupont de Nemours
& Co.UOP Inc.Dow ChemicalDiamond Shamrock Corp.Allied Chemicals
Conglomerates
Rockwell International
Containers
American Can
Drugs
Burroughs WellcomeAlza Corp.Merck Sharpe & DohmeUpjohn
Electrical
General ElectricWestinghouse Electric
Industrial Sample
Electronics
Tracor, Inc.AmpexVarian Associates
Food, Beverages
General Mills, Inc.
Fuel
ExxonShellS01-110
AMOCO
Information Processing:(computers, peripherals)
Hewlett-PackardHoneywellControl Data CorporationIBM
Information Processing:(office equipment)
XeroxBell LaboratoriesFisher Scientific
Instruments (measuringdevices, controls)
FoxboroPerkin Elmer
Leisure Time Products
Eastman Kodak Co.
Machinery(farm construction)
American Hoist & Derrick
Machinery (machine tools,industrial, mining)
Cincinnati Milacron
140
Metals, Mining
Aluminum Co. of America
MiscellaneousManufacturing
Borg Warner Corp.3M CompanyCeramatec
Oil Service Supply
Dresser IndustriesHughes
Paper
Crown Zellerbach
Personal & Home CareProducts
Procter & Gamble
Semiconductors
National Advanced SystemsIntelSi2netics (Philips North
America)
Steel
U. S. Steel
Telecommunications
Communications SatelliteGeneral Telephone &
Electronic Corporation
Textiles
J. P. Stevens
Tires, Rubber
General Tire and Rubber Co.
Tobacco
American Brands
131
Research Contract Business
Mathematical SciencesNorthwest
Genetic Engineering Co.
Genex
132
Additional Site Visits
Software & ComputerGraph Ics
Evans and Sutherland
Technical Services
Terratek
141
Research Institutes
Electric Power ResearchInstitute
Scripps Clinic and ResearchFoundation
Carnegie Mellon ResearchInstitute
Government Agencies
Office of Naval ResearchNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of health
APPENDIX II
PROTOCOLS FOR SITE VISITS
The following are examples of the types of questionsasked during our interviews of administrators and sci-entists at companies and universities surveyed in thisstudy.
NSF Study: University/Industry Research InteractionsProtocol for University Site Visit
Our objective is talk to key individuals involved in university/industry research interactions. We are interested intalking to those people responsible for initiating such interactions and those conducting research in the programsgenerated. Therefore, our visits should include discussions with appropriate administrators and heads as well asdirectors of and participants in joint university/industry programs.
General Questions
1. a. What do you perceive to be the problems and/or benefits that would result from university/industryresearch programs?
b. Which of these barriers is the most difficult to overcome and which of the benefits is the most important inencouraging university/industry research interaction?
2. Do you prefer to participate in a federally sponsored program, an industry sponsored program, or an industryand government sponsored program?
3. a. Would you like to see an increase in joint university/industry programs?b. What is the ideal mix of industry and government support of university research?
4. Do you compute overhead in an industry sponsored program in the same manner as you compute it for agovernment sponsored program?
5. Describe the most outstanding type of interaction your institution (or you) has had with industry. (Considerthefollowing in describing the program: initiation, structure, goods and outcomes)
Questions for directors of university/industry research programs and participants in such programs
1. Describe the sequence of events which lead to the establishment of the program.
a. Did the program begin because of industry or university initiatives?
b. Did the government play any role in the initiation of the program?
c. Who specifically was responsible for starting the program?
d. What was his/her (their) position in the participating institution(s) and how much time did it take to estab-lish the program?
e. To what extent did previous cooperative activities (e.g., consulting, personnel exchanges) affect the initia-tion of this program?
f. Now were participants (both individual and institutional) selected?g. What effect did the proximity of the companies involved have on the establishment of the program?
h. What processes were involved in establishing the program? Consider the following in describing the evolu-tion of the program: formation of advisory committee, delineating patent rights, new facility construction,geography, travel time and cost, prior relationships, needs and benefits, barriers and constraints.
i. What were the most important factors and critical incidents in bringing about this cooperation and in pro-viding for its continuation?
How long has the program been in existence?
142 133
2. What were the specific objectives/goals when the program was established; were they achieved?
3. How is the program structured and administered?
a. What are the specific arrangements for staffing and administration?
b. What is the program's relationship to the university administrative system?
c. What is the research management structure?
d. What is the number of decision-making levels?
e. What are the roles of each partner in decision-making relevant to the determination of the project's budget,staffing, changes in goals, etc.?
4. What were the resource commitments arranged between partners?
a. What are the funding commitments?
b. Who is involved in the program and what is the mix of faculty, students, research scientists, and administrators?
5. What were the problems/barriers and benefits/needs which governed the establishment of this program?
6. What policies served as incentives or disincentives for your participation in this program?
7. how much time do you spend on the program?
8. What rewards did you expect to receive as a result of your participation on this program? What rewards did
you actually receive?
9. What do you see as the outcome(s) of these joint ventures?
Questions directed toward administrators
1. a. In what type of university/industry research interactions c.,e6 your university (department) engage?
b. What is your reason for participating in this type of interim Ion?
2. a. In what types of university/industry research programs do you prefer to participate?
b. What is the reason for your preference?
3. Which types of interactions do you think are most beneficial to Lie university, to the company, to the depart-ment, to the individual participants involved?
4. What are the policies and practices of the university (your der- olent) that serve as incentives or disincen-tives to establishing joint university/industry research progi. ,s?
5. a. What are the formal and informal channels of cetnr, IL. ,ication between your university (department) andindustry in the vicinity of the university (and U.S. industry i41 general)?
b. What effect does location have on your establishing or maintaining channels of communication?
c. Does the character of industry in the vicinity of your university affect the research that goes on at the university.?
134 143
NSF Study: University/Industry Research InteractionsProtocol for Industry Site Visit
Our objective is to talk to key individuals involved in university/industry research interactions. We are interested intalking to those people responsible for initiating such interactions and those conducting research in the programsgenerated. Therefore, our visits should include discussions with appropriate administrators and division heads as
well as directors of and participants in joint university/industry programs.
General Questions
1. a. What do you perceive to be the problems and/or benefits that would result from university/industryresearch programs?
b. Which of these barriers is the most difficult to overcome and which of the benefits is the most important inencouraging university/industry research interaction.
2. Do you prefer to give money to a university research program sponsored solely by your company, sponsoredby several companies, or sponsored by industry and government?
3. a. Would you like to see an increase in joint university/industry programs?
b. What is the ideal mix of industry and government support of university research?
4. Describe an outstanding research interaction your company has had with a university. (Consider the followingin describing the program: initiation, structure, goods, and outcomes.)
Questions directed toward administrators
1. a. In what type of university/industry research interactions does your industry engage?
b. What is your reason for participating in this type of interaction?
2. a. In what types of university/industry research programs do you prefer to participate?
b. What is the reason for your preference?
3. Which types of interactions do you think are most beneficial to your company, to the individual participantsinvolved.?
4. What are the policies and practices of your company that serve as incentives or disincentives to estab-lishing joint university/industry research programs?
5. a. are the formna and informa: channels of communication between your company and universities inthe vicinity of your zempany (and U. S. universities in general)?
b. What effect does locat:on have on your establishing or maintaining channels of communication?
Questions for directors of univosity/Industry research programs and participants in such programs
1. Describe the sc,-.Aucicc ur events to the establishment of the program.
a. Did the program begin because of industry or university initiatives?
b. Did the government play any role in the initiation of the program?
c. Who specifically was responsible for starting the program?
d. What was his/her (their) position in the participating institution(s) and how much time did it take toestablish the program?
e. To what extent did previous cooperative activities (e.g., consulting, personnel exchanges) affect the initia-
tion of this program?
f. flow were participants (both individual and institutional) selected.?
144 135
g. What effect did the proximity of the universities involved have on the establishment of the program?
h. What processes were involved in establishing the program? Consider the following in describing the evolu-tion of the program: formation of advisory committee, delineating patent rights, new facility construction,geography, travel time and cost, prior relationships needs and benefits, barriers and constraints.
i. What were the most important factors and critical incidents in bringing about this cooperation and in pro-viding for its continuation?
Mow long has the program been in existence?
2. What were the specific objectives/goals when the program was established; were they achieved?
3. 1-low is the program structured and administered?
a. What are the specific arrangements for staffing and administration?
b. What is the program's relationship to the company's management structure?
c. What is the research management structure?
d. What is the number of decision-making levels?
e. What are the roles of each partner in decision-making relevant to the determination of the project's budget,staffing changes in goals, etc?
4. What were the resource commitments arranged between partners?
a. What are the funding commitments?
b. Who is involved in the program and what is the mix of faculty, students, research scientists, and administrators?
5. What were the problems/barriers and benefits/needs which governed the establishment of this program?
6. What policies served as incentives or disincentives for your participation in this program?
7. 1-low much time do you spend on the program?
8. What rewards did you expect to receive as a result of your participation on this program? What rewards didyou actually receive?
9. What do you see as the outcome(s) of these joint ventures?
136
145
APPENDIX III
SAMPLE MATRIX
The following matrix is a sampling of university/industry research interactionsdocumented at the institutions visited in this study. It is not meant to be anexhaustive list of university/industry research interactions, but does contain mostof the significant research interactions of these institutions with companies.(See end of Appendix for footnotes)
R&D Public/Rank Private University
NORTHEASTERN
Industry Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
23 Private University ofRochester
126 Private RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute
Exxon, SOHIO,GE, Northeast EnergeticsUtilities
Laboratory for Laser
Xerox, GleasonWard, GM, Boeing,Kodak (& others)
Abbott, AlliedChemical, Owens-Illinois, Xerox,TRW (20companies)
General lonexCorporation
PADL Program
Institute of Optics
Additions to TandemAccelerator Facilityat U. of Rochesterfor Ultra SensitiveParticle Ident.
Xerox Computer Science
Miles, Cullers,Bayer, Dow
Drug Co.,Chemical Co.,ConsumerProduct Co.,Conglomerates
United Tech-nologies, GE,GM, Boeing,Norton, Kodak,CincinnatiMilacron, Fair-child Republic
IBM, Evans &Sutherland,Hewlett-Packard,Prime Computer(& 20 cos.)
IBM (& 8 cos.)
Raster Tech., Inc.Testamatic Corp.& others
Industrial Park
Bacillus SubtilusFermentation
Optics IndustrialAssociates Program
Physics, Aero-space, Electrical& ChemicalEngineering
Mechanical &Electrical Engi-neering (CAD)
OpticalEngineering
Physics
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Medicine
OpticalEngineering
Center for Manu- Engineeringfacturing Productivity
Center for Inter-active graphics
Center forMicroelectronics
Industrial Park
8 Private Harvard Monsanto Harvard Monsanto
ComputerScience,Engineering
EngineeringScience (VLSI)
Multidisciplinary
Life Sciences
146
Government-industryfunded cooperativeresearch laboratory(jointly used facility)
Ind/Gov't fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grants)
Industrial fundedcooperative researchcenter, contract re-search & industrialaffiliates (focused)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Equipment discount
Industrial park
Industry funded U/Icooperative research(contract-grants)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industry funded U/Icooperative researchcenter
Government/Industry funded U/Icooperative researchcenter
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
Industrial Park
Partnership(contract)
11 years
8 years
53 years
Time Limited
2 years*
7 years
New
9 years
5 years
2 years
3 years
New
New
6 years
137
NortheasternCont.
R&DRank
Public/Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Seagram & Sons
Mutual ResearchCorporation
Hoechst
DuPont
1 Private MIT
Bayer
10 Companies
30 Companies
50 outsideorganizations
25 Companies
19 Companiesusers & vendors)
Allied ChemicalCorp.
IBM
Perkin-ElmerCorp.
138
Alcoholism Program
Biogen
Diffusion FlameEnergy Transfers
Molecular BiologyLaboratory
Harvard School ofPublic HealthIndustrial Asso-ciates Program
DuPont-HarvardAgreement
MIT IndustrialVisiting Committees.
Bayer Professor-ships
Laboratory forManufacturingProductivity
MIT ChemicalSciences/IndustrialForum
Engineering intern-ship program
Undergraduateresearch opport.program
Cooperative program
Center for the HealthEffects of Fossil FuelUtilization
National MagnetLaboratory
Center for EnergyPolicy Research
Center for Informa-tion SystemsResearch
Theoretical Studiesof Polydiacetylenes& Polyacetylenes
Instrumentation ofan X-ray Beam Lineat Nat'l. SynchrotronLight Source,Brookhaven
Laser-GeneratedEtching of Semi-conductor Surfaces
Medicine
Molecular Biology
Chemistry
Medicine
EnvironmentalHealth
MolecularGenetics
Multidisciplinary
Chemicalengineering
Multidisciplinary
Chemistry
Engineering
Multidisciplinary
Electricalengineering,Computer science
Environmentalscience &Toxicology
Physics &Engineering
Social Science
ComputerScience
Materials science
MaterialsScience
Chemistry
147
Grant
Spin-off co.
Government fundedcooperative research
Partnership(contract)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Partnership(contract)
Membership onAdvisory or Gov-erning Boards
Endowed chair
Research consortia
SeminarsInformaldiscussion
Education-traininginternship
U/I Cooperativetraining program
research internship(Summer employment)
Gov't/Industryfunded cooperativeU/I research center(grants-contracts)
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contract/subcontract)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
1 year
3 years
Time limited1 year*
New-timelimited(10 years)
1 year
New
Ongoing
5 years
4 years
Recent
3 years
12 years
Ongoing
2 years
20 years
5 years
7 years
Time Limited
2 years'
Time Limited
1 year
Time Limited
1 year
NortheasternCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
24 Private YaleUniversity
ExxonCorporation
Pratt & Whitney
General Electric
ElectronicsIndustries
Rolls Royce
Bolt, Beranek &Newman. Inc.
Exxon
ITT, GM, Xerox(12 cos.(
Corn puterControl Corp.,Hertra Inc.
265 companies
EPRI, GRI
A.D. Little, GE,Union Carbide
Texaco
Flow General
Many Companies
WhiteheadFoundation
Miles Laboratory
Texaco
AVCO EverettResearchLaboratory
Effect of Bulk Lqd.vs. Gas Phase onSelectivity in theFischer-Tropsch Syn.
Powder Metallurgy
CeramicTransparencies
Microelectronics
Energy
Military science
Exxon-MIT
MIT Polymer Proc-essing Program
Innovation CenterMIT
MIT IndustrialLiaison Program
Energy Laboratory
MIT School ofChemical Engi-neering Prac.`ices
Career DevelopmentTerm Chair
Biotechnology
MIT TechnologySquare
MIT-WhiteheadInstitute
Institute ofPreclinicalPharmacology
Yale/Texaco
Theoretical Investi-gation of ElectronImpact ExcitationProcesses
Chemicalengineering
Materialsscience
Materialsscience
Engineering
Engineering
Math,Engineering
CombustionEnergy
Engineering,Chemistry,Matls. Sci.
Engineering
Multidisciplinary
Engineering,Science Policy
ChemicalEngineering
ChemicalEngineering
Biology
Multidisciplinary
DevelopmentalMolecularBiology
Medicine
ChemicalEngineering
Physics
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icoop. res. (contract)
Industry-governmentfunded cooperativeresearch center
Government-industryfunded cooperativeresearch (contract)
Gov't funded coop.res. (contract)
Partnership(contract)
148
Government &industry fundedcooperativeresearch center
Innovation Center
Industrial associates(general)
University basedlaboratory servingindustrial needs,trade assoc. support,(contracts)
Industrial extension
Endowed Chair(partial)
Ind. funded coop.res. (contract)
Industrial Park
Industry/Foundationfunded researchinstitute
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(facility sharing)
Institutionalconsulting
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Time Limited
1 year
4 years
4 years
New
4 years
2 years
1 yearTime limited(10 years)
8 years
8 years
34 years
10 years
64 years
11/2 years
New5 years
19 years
New
1 year
Time Ltd.2 yrs.(ended)
Time Limited
1 year
139
NortheasternCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Celanese
Olin Corporation,City ofNew Haven
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
Composition andSynthesis ofEnzymes
Yale Associates
Science
Biochemistry,MolecularBiology
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
Program Name Discipline
Partnership(contract)
Industrial associates(campus-wideprogram)
Industrial Park
Mechanism ofInteraction
3 years
New
New
No. of YearsIn Existence'
105 Public University ofDelaware
15 Private JohnsHopkins
140
Oil & ChemicalCos. (Approx.20-23 cos.)
GE, DuPont,Hercules, Ford,Corning (Approx.13 cos.)
Chevron & OtherCos. (Approx. 7)
InformationSer -ce Co.
IBM
DuPont
13 Cos.
Intel
Wyeth Labsdu Pont
Sohio, DuPont,Stauffer
Biospherics
Bristol Myers
Siemens, GE,Picker. Pfizer,Phillips
Institute of ScrapIron & Steel
Center for CatalyticScience &Technology
Center for Com-posite Materials
Institute for EnergyConversion
Computer AidedDesign Laboratory
DistributedComputing
UNIDEI Foundation
Symposia
Ocean EngineeringLiaison Program
Fellowships
Chemistry
Chemistry
Venture Program
Center for Oncology
Radiology Program
1. \
CInter for MiateriaLi-Research
.149
ChemicalEngineering
MechanicalEngineering
Photovoltaics
ComputerScience andEngineering
ElectricalEngineering
Multidisciplinary
Chemistry
Oceanography &Engineering
ComputerScience, Microprocesses
Chemistry
ChemicalEngineering
Env. Science,Biology, Eng.
Basic medicalsciences
Radiology-ComputerSciences
Muit/disciplinary
U/I cooperativeresearch centerIndustrial affiliates
U/I cooperativeresearch centerIndustrial affiliates
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contract)
Equipment gift
Industrial fundedcooperative research(contract)
EndowmentFoundation
SymposiaConference
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Undergraduatefellowships
Equipment gift (massspectdophotometer
Persdnnel'Excbange
NonprofitOrganization
Unrestricted gift
Equipment donation
'-University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contract)
31/2 years
7 years
9 years
NewProgram
Time limited2-3 years(ending)
32 years
Time limitedRecent
New
New
2 years
1 year
2 years
5 yearsTime limited
3-5 years
.-1 year
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence*
Exxon Researchand Engineering
Applied ResearchLaboratory
Chemical Sys.Lab.
Oil & ChemicalCo. Exxon,Union Carbide
Fairchild
Burroughs-Wellcome
A. Benzone
46 Public University of FairchildMaryland Industries
Genex BethesdaResearch Labs(BRL)
Many
Koppers Co.
PhysicalSciences Inc.
du Pont
CDC
16 Public Pennsylvania Various smallState U. compan;es
AICHE
Bechtel, othercos.
GE, BethlehemSteel
Many
Systematic Develop. Chemistryof New OrganicConductors
Defense
Education
BiotechnologyInstitute
Fairchild Projects
Mathematics, FLMechanics
Biochemistry
Biology, Eng.Medicine(cross-discp.)
Grants
Burroughs-Wellcome OncologyProf. of Oncology
Interferon
Fairchild ScholarsProgram
Certificate Programin Appl. MolecularBiology
SciComplex
Chemicals, WoodPreservatives
Collision-InducedEmission and LightScattering in HighPressure, HighTemperature Gases
Manufacture ofInterferon
Computer SystemDesign &Manufacture
Basic Med.Science
Government funded Time LimitedU/I cooperative 1 yearresearch (grant)
Government funded 4 yearscooperative research(contract)
Government funded 3 yearscooperative research(contract)
Technology transfer Newcenter
Endowed Chair
Contract
Elec. & Communi- Industry fundedcations, Engineering cooperative training
program
Industry/University Newcooperative trainingprogram
Molec. Bio.,Biochemistry,Bioengrg.
Biotechnology& Electronics
Microbiology,Biology,Chemistry
ChemicalEngineering
Biochemistry-genetics
ComputerScience
Penn. Tech. Asst. AllProgram (PENNIAP)
Data Book Project ChemicalEngineering
Fellowships Engineering
Material Research MaterialsLaboratory Science
Office for Indus.Research andInnovation
All
Ceramics Liaison MaterialsProgram Science,
Engineering
Geology Liaison GeologyProgram
150
Time limitedNew
'30 years
Time limited(5 years)
3 years
Industry Park
Government fundedcooperative research(contract)
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
Industry fundedcooperative research(contract)
Industry/universitycooperative trainingprogramequipmenttransfer
Extension servicestechnology transfer
Personal Interaction-publication
Fellowship
1 year
5 years
Time limited1 year
Time limited(2 years)
New
16 years
10 years
New
Industry/university 20 yearscooperative researchcenter
Innovation center 1 year
Industrial Affiliates New(focused)
Industrial Affiliates New(focused)
141
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
)30 Private Lehigh
142
GE
U.S. Steel(& 15-20 Co.)
4-5 companies
Air Products,Bethlehem Steel,Leeds, DuPont,AFCO, Northrop,American Stand-ard, Instrument &Control (approx.20 cos.)
Electrical Eng.Industrial Affiliate
Metallurgy Ind.Coop. Program
Coal CooperativeProgram
Center for Surface &Coatings Research
Energy ResearchCenter
Materials ScienceResearch Center
ElectricalEngineering
Metallurgy inCollege of Earth& Min. Science
Several Deptsin College ofEarth & Min.Science
Chemical Eng.Chemistry,Metallurgy
Engineering,Science
Metallurgy,MaterialsEngineering
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
New
10 years
2 years
10 years
3 year
19 years
BiotechnologyCenter
Institute of MetalForming (IMF)
Chem. & CivilEngineering,Chemistry,Biology
MetallurgyMaterialsEngineering
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
Industrial affiliates(focused)
1 year
11 years
National Printing Color Associates Chemistry Collective industrial 35 yearsInk Trade assoc. Chemical support (grants)
Engineering
General Electric Heat Transfer in Civil & Government funded Time limitedRotating & Curved Mechanical cooperative research 1 yearDucts Engineering (grant)
Bethlehem Steel Materials Science Materials Industrial affiliates 18 years
(& approx. 20cos.)
Science (focused)
20 companies Computer Asso-ciates Program
Computer Industrial affiliates(focused)
6-7 years
(CAP)
Energy Product & Energy Liaison Multidisciplinary Industrial affiliates 3-4 yearsEquip. Manufac-turers, Energy
Program (ELP) (focused)
Users (Approx.20 cos.)
20 Companies Emulsion Polymer Metallurgy, Mat. Industrial affiliates 5 yearsInstitute Liaison Science, Chem. (focused)Program Eng., Chemistry
Thermo-Fluid Mech & Chem Industrial affiliates 3 yearsLiaison Program Engineering (focused)
4-5 Companies Center for Surfaceand CoatingsLiaison Program
Metallurgy,Chemistry,Chem. Eng.
University/industrycooperative researchcente..
10 years
Biochem Liaison Biochemistry Industrial affilLtes 2-3 yearsProgram (focused)
5 companies Freezing Coal Multidicniplinary Government-Industry- New
Program University Cemtract(Res. Consortium)
15 1
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
64 Privrte CarnegieMellon
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofIntera' on
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Also the U.of Pittsburgh)
91 Public ClemsonUniversity
FairchildFoundation
Exxon, Xerox,Alcoa, Ford,Westinghoule
Westinghouse
Engineering Fellow-ship Program
P ocessing ResearchInstitute
Robotics Institute
Mobay Chemical; Mobay Professor
Alcoa CMU-Alcu_.Exchange
Oil Co
EIA (smallsynfuel co.)
Gulf Research
U.S. Steel, Alcoa,PP&G, Westing-house, Gulf
Many
Westinghouse
IBM
Digital EquipmentCorp.
Xerox
Many
Koppers (& 3Cons. Eng. firms)
Poultry Assoc.,Tobacco Co.,Food & FoodPkg., Grain Co.
Westvaco
AmericanHoechst, Caterpil-lar. Alcoa Fdn.,Duke Power,John Dee) Co.
J.P. Stevens
DiamondShamrock
Catalysis Lab
EnvironmentalEngrg.
Civil Engineering
Ad Huc Committeeon Coop. Research
Carnegie MellonInstitute
Investigation ofElectrical Breakdownin Vacuum
Statistical Design ofIntegrated Circuits
Facility Development& artificial Intel.Knowledge Repre-sentation
Personal ComputingProgram
Center forEntrepreneurialDevelopment
Cooperative MastersDegree Prog.
AgricultureExtension
Nitrogen FixationProgram
Mechanical andManufacturingSystems Design
Textile Science
Biologically activefactors
Solid StatePhys. & Engrg
ProcessEngineering
ComputerScierce
Chemistry
Chem. Engrg.
Chem. Eng.
Env. Eng.
Civ. Eng.
Combustion &Coal Utilization
Multidisciplinary
ElectricalEngineering
Electricalcomputer &systems eng.
ComputerScience
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Civil Enjilleering
Agriculture
Forestry
MechanicalEngineering
Engineering
Microbiology
152
Fellowsh/EndowedChairs/Equipment/Facility
Govt. funded U/Icoop. res. (grant)
Industry/universitycooperative researchcenter
Endowed Chair
Personnelexchange
Equipment
Contract
Grant PersonnelExchange
Contract Research
Contract ResearchInstitute
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresea, ch (grant)
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
Equipment discounts
Personnel exchange& equipment donation
Innovation center
Personnel Exchange
Extension Services
Industry funded U/1cooperative researco;contract)
Institutionalconsulting
Gifts and Industryfunded cooperativeresearch
5 years
10 years
2 years
5 years'
Time limited3-5 yrs.(ended(
Time Limited(5 years)
Time limitedrecent
Time limitedrecent
1 year
68 years
Time Limited
1 year
Time Limited
1 year'
Time Limited
5 years'
Time Limited5 years'
8 years
New
6i years'
Time Limited
1 year
3 years
29 years
Industry funded Time Limitedcoop. res.-contract New
143
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
144
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
DuPont
Trade Assoc.
HookerChemicals,USDA, TextileMills
Renky Co.
DEC
6 Companies
American Soy-bean Assoc.,Sparry & NewHolland
45 Public North Carolina SeveralState U.l Raleigh )
Chemical WasteContamination
Woven Fabric Center
Flame RetardantProgram, ETIPProgr.
Irrigation Program
Computer GraphicsResearch Program
Clemson Park
Computer controlledgrain combine
Research TrianglePark
Furniture Mfg. (6) Furniture R&DApplications Inst.
Neuman Acoustic LaboratoryMachine Co.
Sun Oil, TexasGulf, OwensCorning, MoistureControls Systems(& others)
Pullman-Woodex, ERSDIBM, Handcore,Mid State Tile
Minerals ResearchLaboratory
Many
Many
Many
GE
B.F. Gcodrich
Research TriangleInstitute
TUCC
Triangle U.Recombinant DNACo.
MicroelectronicsCenter of N.C.
Transport andRelaxation in GlassyPolymers
DEC, IBM, Lock- Graphicsheed, DanielFluor
52 Public University of GENorth Carolina[Chapel Hill)
DuPont
Lithium Corp.of America
MicroelectronicsCenter of NorthCarolina
Chemistry
Lithium IronConductor
Diamond Sham- Summer Researchrock, GTE Labs Fell'iwships
Forestry
Textiles
Textiles
Agricul. Eng.(irrigation)
Elec. & Comp.Engineering
Multidisciplinary
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Engineering
Mechanical &AerospaceEngineering
Engineering
Engineering
Multidisciplinary
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Engineering &Comp. Science
ChemicalEngineering
ComputerScience
Engineering &ComputerScience
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
1.5.3
Gov't.-Industryfunded coop. res
University basedinstitutes servingindustrial needs
Research consortia
Equipment loan
Equipment grant
Industrial park
Equipment loan
Industrial park
Govt. funded U/Icoop. res. center
Government-industryfunded research(contracts)
Government-industryfunded researchCenter
Industrial extension
Research institute(contract)
Research institute
Development Co.
State-govt. fundedU/I coop. research
Govt. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Industry fundedcooperative research
State-govt. fundedU/Icooperativeresearch
Gift
State-govt. fundedU/I coop. research
Fellowship
Time Limited1 year
New
Time limited8 years*(ended)
Time Limited(3 years)
1 year
16 years
Recent(1 -2 years)
22 years
8 years
11 years
10 years
25 years
21 years
16 years
New
1 year
Time Limited1 year
Time limitedNew
1 year
Severalyears
Time limited1 year
Recent
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
44 Private Duke
65 Private Princeton U.
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Rubber Co.,Phosphate Co.Wkers. Unions
IBM
Many
Many
Many
GE
Many
A.D. Little
FMC
Many
Many
Many
FMC, MobilChemistry, Dow,Bayer
Shell Inter-national, Ocean-eering
Data General
Weyerilauserl& others)
GE, Burroughs-Wellcome
Local Companies
Monsanto
Burlington, J.P.Stevens (& othertextilecompanies(
Bell Labs
Occupational HealthSciences Group
Computer Graphics
Research TrianglePark
Research TriangleInstitute
TUCC
Triangle U.RecombinantDNA Co.
MicroelectronicsCenter of NorthCarolina
Industrial Associates
DUMAT
Post-doctoralChemistry Program
Research TrianglePark
Research TriangleInstitute
TUCC
Triangle U.RecombinantDNA Co.
Chemical ScreeningProgram
Man under seaactivities
Computer science,engineering
Mercury Fund
Power ElectronicsProgram
Health Care Systems
Physico-ChemicalStudies of Rodlike& Semi-flexibleChain Polymers
Textile ResearchInstitute
Fiber Optics
EnvironmentalHealth Sciences
ComputerSciences
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Engineering &ComputerScience
Engineering
All
Chemistry
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
ComputerScience
Multidisciplinary
Chemistry
Biomedicalsciences
ElectricalEngineering
Medicine,Public Health
ElectricalEngineering
Medicine
MaterialsScience
ChemicalEngineering
ElectricalEngineering
154
Industry fundedcooperative research
Unrestricted gift
Industrial park
Research institute(contract)
Research institute
Development Co.
State-govt. fundedcooperative research
Industrial associates
Private Non-ProfitLicensing Co. (PMO)
Personnel exchange
Industrial park
Research institute(contract)
Research institute
Development Co.
Industry fundedcoop. res. (contr.)
Govt.-industry fundedU/I coop. res.(contract]
Unrestricted gift
Unrestricted funds
Equipment gift &Fellowship
For Profit Corp.
Government fundedcooperative research(grant)
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter-cooperative U/Itraining program
Industry funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
11 years
Time limitednew
22 years
21 years
16 years
New
1 year
1 year
1 year
Time limited2-3 years
22 years
21 years
16 years
New
1 year
2 years
Time limitedrecent
Ongoing5 years
New
10 years
Time Limited
2 years
40 years
'Time Limited11 yearsiended)
145
Middle AtlanticCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
United Tech. EnergyResearch Center
PrudentialInsurance Co.
Dow, Amoco
Amoco. Tenneco,Conoco, GM,Ford, others
Mobil
PrudentialInsurance &others
GrummanAircraft, otheraerospace Cos.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
Solar Energy
Engineeringresearch
Center for Energy
Several line items
Princeton ForrestalCenter
Aerospace Program
Engineeringcombustion
Energy &EnvironmentalScience
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Multidisciplinary
Mechanical &AerospaceEngineering
SOUTHEASTERN
Program Name Discipline
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
Grant
Grants
Gifts
Industry fundedcoop. res. (grant)
Industrial park
Facility sharing;contracts
Mechanism ofInteraction
3 years
21/2 years
Time limited
Time limited
Time Limited(5 yrs], 1 yr
6 years
3 years
No. of YearsIn Existence'
38 Public Georgia Tech. Small Companies EngineeringExperiment Station
Many Fracture & Fatiguein Metals
Textile EngineeringJ.P. Stevens (&Approx. 60 otherCos.) GeorgiaTextile Mfg.Association
Many
Prime, IBM, HP,DEC, Ungerman,Bass, Network,Loftec
Professional Co.
Many
Many
Many
Georgia Power
Whirlpool
IBM
146
Corporate LiaisonPrograms
Partnership Program
Technology ParkAtlantaUniversityof Georgia Res. Park
Georgia TechResearch Institute
Advanced Tech-nology Develop-ment Program(ATDPI
Video InstructionProgram
Professorship
Professorship
Professorship
Engineering
ChemicalEngineering
Engineering(Textile)
Multidisciplinary
InformationComputerSciences
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Electric Power
MechanicalEngineering
ComputerScience
155
Industrial Extension 50 yearsService
Industrial Affiliates New(focused)
Industry funded (U/Icooperative research(equipment donation)
Industrial Associates(general)
Equipment donation
Industrial Park
Time Limitedbut Eng.Dept. inExistence40 years
New
18 years
20 years
Nonprofit Organization 40-50 years
Innovation Program New(Technical AssistanceProgram)
Continuing Education
Professorship(partially endowed)
Professorship(partially endowed)
Professorship(partially endowed)
1 year (new)
New
New
Time Limited(5 years)
GREAT LAKES AREA
R&DRank
Public/Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
29
12
Public Purdue U.
Public University ofIllinois
CDC
12 Companies
AbbottLaboratories
BGS System. Inc.
Hughes Aircraft
Many
U.S. Steel, InlandSteel Honeywell,Shipboard Con-trol Systems
Caterpillar,J. Deere,Intl. Harvester
Corning GlassWorks,Weyerhauser
5 companies
NASA, USDA,NSF, ReyesPaper Co. (8.Other Paper &Oil Cos.)
NIH, NCI, IndianaElks andCompanies
Many
6 Food & PaperCos.
TexasInstruments
DuPont
CAD/CAM ResearchProject
Herrick Labs
Structure & Functionof BacillusThuringiensis
Operational Analysisof Queueing Phen.
Kinetics of PhaseTransitions
Industrial AffiliateProgram
Industrial AffiliateProgram
Industrial AffiliateProgram
Purdue ResearchFoundation
Industrial AssociateProgram
PLAC-Purdue Labfor Applic. ofIndus. Control
Fellowships inCAD/CAM
Fellowships inEngineering
Computer IntegratedDesign, Manufac-turing & Automa-tion Center(CIDMAC)
LARS-Laboratoryfor AppliedRemote Sensing
Cancer ResearchCenter
"Peoples Exchange"
LORRE-Laboratoryof Renewable Re-sources Engineering
Collaboration inField EffectTransistors
School of ChemicalResearch
ComputerScience
Mech. Eng. &Agriculture
Biochemistry
Computer sci.& engrg.
Materials Science
ComputerScience
Chemistry
MaterialsEngineering
Multidisciplinary
ElectricalEngineering
ComputerScience
ComputerScience &Hydraulics
EngineeringChem Engrg.
ComputerScience,Mechanical &ElectricalEngineering
ElectricalEngineering.Agriculture,Geosciences
Medicine
Multidisciplinary
Chem., Agric.,Biochemistry.food sci.)
Chem. Engrg,
ElectricalEngineering
Chemistry,ChemicalEngineering
Indus. funded coop.research (contract)
Industry fundedcooperative researchcenter
Govt. funded U/Icoop. research(grant)
Govt. funded U/Icoop. res. (grant)
Govt. funded U/Icoop. res. (grant)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Park
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
U/I CooperativeResearch Center
Fellowship
Fellowship
U/I CooperativeResearch Center
University-basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contract)
Equipment sharing
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contracts)
Industry fundedcooperative research(grant)
University-basedinstitute servingindustrial needsUnrestricted gifts
Time limited3 years
23 years
Time Limited1 year
Time Limited1 year
Time limited2 years'
1 year
New
1 year
50 years
2 years
10 years'
1 year
3 years
1 year
16 years'
5 years
Recent
3 years
Time Limited3 years
51 years
147
156
Great Lakes AreaCont.
R8D Public/Rank Private University
7 Public University ofMichigan
148
Industry Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Rockwell Avalanche Photo- Electrical Government funded Time LimitedInternational diodes Using
Quarternary Alloysfor Fiber Optical
Engineering U/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
1 year'
Comm. Sys.
Martin Marietta Formation & Reac- Civil & Government funded Time Limitedtivity of Tricalcium Mechanical U/I cooperative 1 year'Silicate & Dicalcium Engineering research (grant)Silicate
Effects Electromagnetics Engineering Govt. funded U/I 6 yearsTechnology Inc. Natural Resonances coop. res. (contract)
Power Industry Electromagnetics Electrical Industrial Affiliates 3 yearsPropagations andCommunications
Engineering (focused,
Affiliates Prog.
Chemistry Industrial Chemistry Industrial Affiliates NewAssociates (focused)
IBM, GE, Hitachi,Hughes, Honey-well, Texas, Inst.
Physical ElectronicsIndustrial Affiliates(PEAP)
ElectricalEngineering
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
13 years
(& approx. 50other co.)
Caterpillar, John Fracture Control Multidisciplinary Research consortia 8-10 yearsDeere, GM, ProgramInternationalHarvester 10 co.j
4-5 Power Com- Industrial Power Electrical Inoustrial Affiliates 2-3 yearspanies Program Engineering (focused;
Dow Chemical Cooperative Chemistry Research contract PendingResearch
CDC Computer Based Computer U/I Cooperative 21 yearsEducation Research Science Research CenterLaboratory (CERL1 (contracts)
Coal Industries Strip miningreformation
Agriculture,Civil Eng., Env.
Research Consortia 2 years
Studies
IBM, American Research Board Agriculture Gifts RecentCan, Amoco. Program EngineeringArgo Starch, ScienceStandard CorningProducts
IBM, Alcoa, United Electrical Materials Ceramic Research Contract 6 yearsTechnologies Program Engineering
Local Companies Allerton Park Multidisciplinary Research Park 35 years(gifts)
American Iron & Engineering Engineering Contracts-4 projects RecentSteel Institute, Research projectsTrade Assoc.
Owens Illinois,IBM
Plasma DisplayBand
ComputerScience
Contract, Licenses 14 years
GM, Ford, Intl. Highway Safety Engineering University based 10-12 yearsHarvester, Good-rich, Dunlop.
Research Institute institute servingindustrial needs
Motor VehicleMfg. Assn.
157
Great Lakes AreaCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Dow Chemical (MERRA) Michigan Engineering Research consortia 6 yearsCo., Env. Energy & ResourceResearch Instituteof Michigan,
Research Association
Michigan Con-solidated Gas,Detroit Edison,others
Upjohn Pharmacology Center Pharmacology(medicine)
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
11 years
Allied Soybean Senescence Plant science Contract grant Time limited2 years
Upjohn Studies & Appl. of Chemical Govt. funded U/I Time limitedIn-Situ Extractionin Fermentation
Engineering cooperative research(grant)
1 year*
Processes
Ford Motor Molecular Con- Materials Science Government funded Time limitedCompany formation of Polymers
by Small-AngleU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
1 year*
Neutron Scattering
Prudential Life,IBM, GM, Detroit
OrganizationalBehavior Program
Social Science University basedinstitute serving
30 years
Edison, Nabisco,Merrill Lynch,
(Institute fcrSocial Science)
industrial needs
W.W. MutualInsurance, UnitedParcel Post
UOP Wolverine II Project Chemical Contract, gift Time limitedengineering consulting 2 years old
(ended)
GM, Ford,Eaton Corp.
Metal Cutting Engineering Industrial affiliates(focused)
3 years
DeVilbiss,Cincinnati
Robotics IndustrialAffiliates
Engineering,Computer
Industrial affiliates(focused)
New
Milacron Science
6 Companies Micro-electronics Electrical & Industrial affiliates 6 monthsliaison program computer
engineering(focused)
Bendix, Bechtel,Park David
Michigan Tech-nology Council
Multidisciplinary Technology transfer,Industrial Dvlpmnt.
2-3 years
Ford Phoenix Nuclear Energy Research facility . 22-23 years(research reactor)
Consumer Power,Detroit Edison
Extension Courses Engineering Industry fundedcooperative training
Recent
(multi-client contract)
Many Institute of Science& Technology
Multidisciplinary University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
22 years
20 Companies Macro-molecularResearch Center
Chemistry,Chemicalengineering
Industrial Affiliates(focused))
8 years
Division of Research Multidisciplinary Technology transfer 19 years'& Development Adm.
industrial Devel-opment Div.
Multidisciplinary Innovation Center(Technology transt.)
New
Bendix Bendix Update Business Engi-neering, Comp.
Continuing Education 3 years
Science
158 149
Great Lakes AreaCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence*
Bendix, GM,Ford, BurroughsWellcome
Michigan GasAssociation
30 companies
Consumer PowerIndiana Electric
13 Companies
BurroughsWellcome
EPRI
CDC
IBM
TRW
BurroughsWellcome
BurroughsWellcome,Hoffman-LaRoche, Phar-maceuticalManuf. Assoc.Foundation
DuPont
AmericanSoybean Assoc.
SRDC, Syncom,Hewlett-PackardIBM, TRW, TexasInstruments,Eaton
Bell Labs, Sandia
2 Public University ofWisconsin
Local Companies
Many
Many
Many
Food ProducingCo.
150
Videoprogram
Gas ResearchProgram
Electronic Warfare Engineering
Engineering Continuing Education
Chemical Eng. Fellowship
Great LakesPrograms
Greater Ann ArborResearch Park
Fellowship Program
Steam GenerationModeling
TeChnotech
Equipment Loans
Chemistry internship
Personnel Exchange
Training Grants/Fellowships
SupplementalFellowships
Soybean Research
TIP Committee
Fellowships
WARF
University/industryresearch program(UIR)
Industrial Park
Wisconsin forResearch
WisconsinFoundation
EnvironmentalScience
Research Consortia
Contracts
Multidisciplinary Industrial park-started by gov't anduniversity
Pharmacology Fellowship
Nuclear ContractEngineering
Computer Technology transferScience
Computer GiftScience
Chemistry Internship
Medicine Personnel ExchangePersonal contact
Medicine, Training grants/Pharmacology Fellowships
Chemistry
Plant Science
Engineering
Engineering
All
All
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Non-ProfitOrganization
Wisconsin Alumni Non-ProfitAssociation Organization
Food Research AgricultureInstitute
159
Fellowships
Contracts
Equipment grants
Fellowships
Nort/Profit Corpora-tion Licensing (PMO)
Technology transfer,Liaison program
Industrial Park
Industrial Develop-ment Org.
Research foundation
Alumni Foundation
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Recent
75 years
Time limited15 yrs(ended i
10 years*
21 years
Recent
3 years'
Recent
Time Limitedrecent
Recent
Recent
On-going2 years
Recent
Recent
3 years
On-going(20 years)
54 years
19 years
New
1 year
36 years
120 years
15 years
Great Lakes AreaCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Trade Assoc.
TexasInstruments
Many
Agrigenetics,Cetus
Foundryindustries
20 companies
54 Private Case Western PhilipsReserve Petroleum, 3M
Dow, Celanese,Goodrich, Ten-nessee Eastman,IBM, DiamondShamrock, Borg-Warner, Shell,Sherwood Ander-son (12 cos.)
35 Companies
Many
Gould, Inr.
SOHIO
Swine ProducersResearch Institute
Electronics
Engineering Experi-ment Station
Tactile SensoryResearch Consortia(robotics)
Materials Science
Microelectronics
Polymer Science
Rheology
Genetic EngineeringProgram
CAD/CAM Program
Wisconsin ElectricMachines & PowerElectronics Consor-tium (WEMPEC)
Polymer IndustrialAffiliates
Control of IndustrialSystemsSystemsControl
Case Institute ofTechnology
Formation & Controlof Compacted CastIron
Case Chemical Eng.Industrial Affl.
Industrial Council
PetroleumLaboratory
Laboratory equip-ment fund
Agriculture
Engineering
Engineering
Computer Sci.Mech. Engrg.
Materials Science
ElectricalEngineering,Computer Sci.Engineering
ChemicalEngineering
Mechanical &Civil Engrg.
Molecular Biology
EngineeringMech. & Ind.
Engineering,ElectricalEngineering
Macromolecularsciences
Mechanical,Electrical, &ChemicalEngineering
Engineering &Science
Metallurgy
ChemicalEngineering
IndustrialEconomics
Chemistry,ChemicalEngineering
Academicscience &engineering
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Govt. funded coop.research (contract)
Extension services
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Personnel Exchange
Industrial assoc.consortium (focused)
(Focused) IAPconsortium
Focused industrialliaison
Focused industrialliaison
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Government fundedcooperative research(grant)
Industrial affiliates Recent(focused)
Industrial affiliates Recent(focused)
Equipment donation New
Recent
3 years
77 years
21/2 years
1 year
1/2 year
1/2 year
1/2 year
1 year
2 years
21/2 years
17 years
27 years
12 years
Time Limited1 year
Unrestricted gifts 3 years
160151
Great Lakes AreaCont.
R&D Public/Rank Pr ivate University Industry
DICAR
Dow, Celanese,Hydron Labs,B.F. Goodrich
Many
Many
19 Private University of Oil Co.Chicago
Oil Cu.
Hughes
Many
Sohio
ARCO
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
Analytic instrumen-tation facility
Energy ResearchProgram
Center for AppliedPolymer Research
Case Associates &Case Investors
University CircleResearch Center
Energy-MineralResources AnalysisGroup
Atlas Project
Development of NewHigh-ResolutionScanning Ion Micro-probe
Industrial RelationsConference
Physical SciencesGrant
Professorship
Chemistry
ChemicalEngineering
Macromolecularsciences,Chemistry,Chem. Eng.
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Physics,Science
Geophysics
Physics
Multidisciplinary
Jointly operatedfacility-equipmentsharing
Not-for-profitcorporation
No of YearsIn Existence'
7-8 years
4 yea;
Government funded NewU/I cooperativeresearch center
Industrial Liaison
Industrial Park
Government-industryfunded cooperativeresearch (grants)
Government-Industryfunded cooperativeresearch (grants)
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
Conference
Physical Sciences General gift
not yet determined Grant
NORTHWEST AND GREAT PLAINS
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
10 years'
15 years
3-5 years'
3-5 years'
3 years
Time limitedRecent
Recent
Recent
No. of YearsIn Existence'
4 Public University of Honeywell,Minnesota Sperry. 3M, CDC
land others)
General Mills,Pillsbury (& otherfood cos.(
Iron Ore Co. andEngineeringContractor Co.
Engineering Cdn-suiting Firms(e.g., EBASCO(
Many
Chemical Co.
Many
Company con-nected gift
152
Center for Micro-electronics andInformation Sciences(MEIS)
Agricultural Experi-ment Station
Mineral ResourcesResearch Center(MRRC)
St. Anthony FallsHydraulicsLaboratories
Institute ofTechnology
Chemistry
Leukemia ResearchProgram
Applied MathInstitute
Chemistry,ComputerScience,Elec. Eng.
Agriculture
Civil and MineralEngineering
Engineering-Hydraulics
Engineering &Science
Chemistry
Medicine
Mathematics
161
Research Consortia
Contract, Affiliatesand FellowshipExtension Services
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Industrial Liaison(Partners Program)
Unrestricted gift(grants-in-aid)
Corporate FoundationGift
1 year
96 years
58 years
43 years
2 years
Ongoing,recent gifts
OngoingProg., 10 yrs.Recent gift
Endowed Chair New
Northwest 3 GreatPlainsCont.
R&D ,:,'ublic/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Many
LOL, Pillsbury,Carlisle. GeneralMills
Many
General Mills,Pillsbury (& otherfood cos.)
Several Cos.
Local bioengi-neering firm
5 Public University of Intel, DEC,Washington Honeywell,
Boeing, Tektronix,John Flake Mfg.,Microtel
Physio-Control
Weyerhauser,Crown Zellerbach(28-30 paper cos.)
Math SciencesNorthwest
10 PetroleumCos.
25 Co.
Boeing
Weyerhauser
Polar ResearchLab
10-15 Cos.
Nnwlett Packard,..el, Fairchild,
Texas Inst.,Physio-Control,Boeing, Honeywell,Tektronix
Minnesota Well-spring (MinnesotaInc.)
Endowed Chairs
MinnesotaFourdation
Food, Science andNutrition Department
Institute of Agricul-ture, Forestry &Home Economics
Electrical Engineer-ing IndustrialAffiliates
Dwight Institute ofGenetics
Regional NorthwestVLSI DesignConsortium
Center forBioengineering
Forestry Program(Nutrition)
Controlled FusionProgram
Ocean MarginDrilling Program
Washington Pulp &Paper Foundation
Wind Tunnel Facility
Optimal Mgmt. ofChum Salmon Basedupon Estuarine &Nearshore CarryingCapacity for Out-migrating Juvenilesin Hood Canal
Arctic Environment
Chemical Engineer-ing industrialAffiliates
Electrical Engineer-ing AffiliatesProgram
Multidisciplinary
Food Science
Non-ProfitInstitute
Agriculture
Agriculture
ElectricalEngineering
Genetics
ComputerScience
Engineering &Medicine
Forestry
Math, PhysicsEngineering
Oceanography
Forestry
Engineering
Biological andEcologicalApplications
Environmental
ChemicalEngineering
ElectricalEngineering
162
Tech. Transfer, Ind.Development Org.
Endowed Chairs
Research Foundation
University baseddepartment servingindustrial needs
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Consulting
Research Consortia &Personnel Exchange
Ind/Gov't. FundedU/I coop. research(grants-royalties)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(jointly used researchfacilities)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(contract)
Research Consortia(government, univer-sity, industry)
Research Consortia(ed. oriented]
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(contract)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
New
New
19 years
9 years
7 years
New
New
1 year
7 years
15 years
Time Limited2 years'
New (discon-tinued)
14 years
2-3 years
Time Limited1 year
5 years
5 years
2 years
153
Northwest & GreatPlainsCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University
Sample Matrix
Industry Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
R&D Public/Rank Private University
29 Cos. Industrial Affiliates
5 Cos.
Dom. Sea Farms,Inc. (subsidiary ofCampbell Soups,Inc.)
Industry
Computer ScienceCorporate LiaisonProgram
Mechanicalengineering
Civil engineeringliaison program
Department ofOceanographyLiaison Program
Marine Net PenCulture of Salmon
Engineering
ComputerScience
Mechanicalengineering
Civil engineering
Oceanography
Fisheriesgenetics
CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST
Program Name Discipline
Industrial Affiliates
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Government-Industryfunded cooperativeresearch (contracts-grants)
Mechanism ofInteraction
5 year
6 months
New
New
New
3-5 years
No. of YearsIn Existence'
6 Private Stanford U. Hewlett Packard,Xerox, Varian,Syntex, Alza,EPRI, etc.
Many
3 Drug Cos.
HP, Xerox, BellLabs, IBM, Intel,Fairchild
Oil Co.
118 Co. (incl. HP,IBM, Lockheed,Sandia, Liver-more Labs)
Lockheed Missiesand Space Co.
John Deere &Company
RCA
IBM
Systems Control
154
Stanford UniversityIndustrial Park
Industrial Affiliates
MonoclonalAntibodies
Many
Many (23) e.g.,biochem. elec.eng.
Immunology
Center for Integrated Engineering/Systems Comp. Science
Endowed Chair
Video program
Multiplexed Holo-graphic Reconstruc.Methods for 3-Dim.Structures
Investigation ofMultiaxial Fatigue
Fundamental Studiesof Cements
Discrete EventMethods for Com-puter SystemStimulation
Intelligent Systemfor Analysis ofAcoustic Signals
ChemicalEngineering
Engineering
Elec. Eng., Comp.Science
Civil & Mech.Engineering
Materials Science
Math and Com-puter Science
Math and Com-puter Science
163
Industrial Park 30 years
Industrial Affiliates 30 years(20 focused programs) to new
Industry funded U/Icooperative research(contract)
Industry funded U/Icooperative researchcenter
Endowed Chair
Continuing Education
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
New
1 year
New
13 years
Time Limited1 year'
Time Limitedl year
Time Limited1 year'
Time Limited1 year'
Time Limited1 year'
Calif. & The WestCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence*
25 Private University ofSouthernCalifornia
Xerox
Nielsen Engineer.ing and Research,Inc.
Honeywell, GE,Elec. Boat (G.D.),Hughes ChannelProducts (withPenn St.)
Hercules
Koppers, Mead,GF, Elf Technol-ogies, Bendix,Maclaren Power& Paper
Ar;o, Dow,Chevron, Occi-dental, PPG, Shell,UOP
Hughes Aircraft
TRW
EPRI, Power Cos.
14 Co.-TRW, GE.Union, PG&E,Exxon, Starkist,S. Cal Edison,L.A. Dept. ofWater & Power
Theory of Coop.Phenomena inSuperfluid Systems
Fluid Mechanics
Transducerceramics
Materials science
Engineering
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't. funded U/Iccop. res. ( cuntract)
Materials Science, Gov't. funded U/IPhysics, Elec. Eng., cooperative researchChemistry (contract)
Revers. Oxygen ChemistryElectrode: Collab.Search for NewCatalysts & Phys.Textures
Center for Biotech.Research
HydrocarbonResearch Institute
VLSI ComputingStructures
U/I CouplingProgram
Power EngineeringProgram
Inst. for Marine &Coastal Studies
L.A. Veritas Seismic Geosignal Process-Prcsrs., ing ProgramMcAdams, USGS,Exxon, CitiesService, Getty,Geo-x-Systems,Ltd., Roux,O'Connor Assoc.Inc., Amoco, Shell,Chevron, Teledyne
OMARK (Mfg.,Co.), Alcoa,Exxon
DynamicsTechnology Inc.
Dr. L. KrokoLaboratories,Texas Instruments
GE, Compshare,Dynamic ScienceInc.
Center fo- LaserStudies
Particle Motion inTurbulent BoundaryLayer
Gallium ArsenideMicro-Tunnel Diodes
PharmokineticComp. Modeling fordrug delivery
MolecularBiology
Chemistry
Elec. & Comp.Engineering
Elec. Eng.
Elec. Eng.
Biological &EnvironmentalSciences
ElectricalEngineering
Applied Physics
Civil andMechanicalEngineering
ElectricalEngineering
Medicine
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
U/I non-profitcooperative researchcenter
Time Limited1 year
'Time Limited
Time Lir ..i5 years
Time Limited2 years'
Nev.
U/I coop res. center/ 4-5 yearsInd. liaison (focused)contracts
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Contracts
U/I Coop. researchcenter/Industrialaffiliates program
Industry fundedcooperative research/Industrial Associates(focused
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contracts)
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Equipmentdevelopment
164
Time limited1 year
On-going73 years
5 years
2 years
7 years
Time Limited1 year*
3 years(expired)
8 years
155
Calif. & The WestCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence*
56 Private CaliforniaInstitute ofTechnology
13 Public UCLA
156
Oil co., insuranceco., banks, aero-space co., drugco., informationprocessing co..(appro.. 60 cos.)
Many
TexasInstruments
Inf. processingcos., (IBM, Intel,Xerox, HP, Bur-roughs, Fairchild,DEC, Motorola,Sperry. Univac)
57-60 Cos.
Hercules
Union CarbideCorp.
IBM, Intel, Bur-roughs, DEC
Center for FuturesResearch
School of Engineer-ing, IndustrialAssociates
Impurities in DeviceType Semi-conductors
Silicon StructuresProgram
Social Science
Engineering
ElectricalEngir,3ering
ComputerScience
Industrial Associates Multidisciplinary
Rev. Oxyg. ElectrodeCollab. Search forNew Catalysts andPhys. Textures
Flow and HeatTransfer in GranularMedia
Design of SiliconStructures
Hughes Research ElectronicsLabs
Chemical Cos.
American Petro-leum Institute
Merck
DuPont
Ford, Exxon,Tenneco, Chevron
Chevron
Xerox. HewlettPackard
Lockheed,Hughes, NorthAmerican Rock-well, Northrop
Aerospace & oilcos. (approx. 29)
Hughes Aircraft
Catalysis Program
Project 6Study ofthe composition ofpetroleum
Vesicle Formation
Genetic Engineering
ENERGY Project
Chemical Engineer-ing in Energy Science
Chip Fabricationand Design
CAD
Industrial associates
Highly NonlinearPhenomena &Physics ofConfinemt.
Chemistry
Civil andMechanicalEngineering
Math and Comp.Science
Engineering
Chemistry, Chem.Eng.
Chemistry
Chemistry
Genetics
Multidisciplinary
ChemicalEngineering
.omputerScience
Engineering &Appl.Comp, Science
Engineering
Physics
1 65
U/I coop. researchcenter/industrialliaison (focused)
Industrial associates(fucused)
Government fundedcooperative research(grant)
Research ConsL, tia
I dustrial Associates,General
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant)
Government/univer.funded cooperativeresearch (grant)
Government fundedcooperative research(grant)
Government fundedcooperative research(grant)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Grants (graduateresearch)
Grant
Grant
Unrestricted gift
Professorship
Research Consortium
Industry funded U/Icooperative research(Equip. donation andstudent support)
Industrial Assocs.(focused)
Gov't. funded U/Iresearch cooperation(grant)
10 years
5-1' years
5 years
2 years
34 years
Time Limited2 years
Time Limited1 year
Time Limited2 years*
3 years
New
40 years
Time Ltd.2 yrs (ended)
1 year
3-4 years
1 year
Time limited2 years
11/2 years
4 years
Time limited2 years'
Calif. & The WestCont.
R&DRank
Public/P; ;vale University Industry Program Name
Drug co. Crump Institute forMedical Engineering
Tobacco Indus-tries, Trade
C cer Research
Assoc.-Councilfor TobaccoResearch
3 Public UCSD Chemical cos. Industrial Advisoi(Shell, Chevron) Committee
Oil co., biomed-ical co., pharma-ceuticals, miningco.. power co.
Scripps IndustrialAsso3iates
(approx. 12-16cos.)
Oil cos. (many) Chancellor'sAssociates
Amatek-Straza Upper Ocean FrontalCorp. Studies
43 Public University ofUtah
Ceramatek,Tetratec
Utah Research Park
Many UURI ResearchInstitute
Many (approx. 17cos.)
Solution MiningProgram
Boeing. Univac,Genl. Inst. Bur-roughs (apprnx.
Technical LiaisonProgram
7 cos.(
Kennecott,AMAX, Exxon,City Services,F'ammond Mining,Bethlehem Steel,Chevron, Allis-
Computer controlleprocessing fcmining
Chalmers, Rex-nord, Koppers(approx. 10 cos.)
Brunnel Life Utah InnovationSystems Weath-ercasters (newcos.)
Center
Genl. Inst., Boeing,Burroughs-
MicroelectronicsLab
Wellcome
Chevron Energy Program
32 Public University of Diamond Sham- Plant SciencesArizona rock, Philips Office of Arid Land
Petroleum. etc. Studies
Coca Cola, Disney,Kraft, FH Prince
Environmenta.Research Laboratory(Shrimp Project)
Many Division of IndustryCooperation
DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Medicine,BiomedicalEngineering
Medicine
Chemistry
OceanographyEngineering
Multidisciplinary
Physics,Electronics,Oceanography
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
EngineerirrMining andMinerals
Ccllege ofEngineering
Mines, Minerals
Multidisciplinary
ElectricalEngineering
Coil. Engrg. Coil.Mines & MineralStds.
Biology. PlantScience
BiologyEnv.
Science andEngineering
1.66
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Grants
Gifts
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Industrial Associates(general)
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(contract)
Industrial Park
Contract researchinstitute
Conference
1 year
Ongoing-Recent
4 years
14 years
New
4 years
16 years
9 years
Time limited-recent
Industrial Associates 1 year
Government/industry 1 yearfunded U/I Cooperativeresearch Multiclientcontract
Innovation Center
Contracts
Gift
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(Contract to center)
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contracts)
Not for profitwithin foundation
21/2 years
Recent
New-1 year
2 years
13 years
New
157
Calif. & The WestCont.
R&DRank
Public/Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
12 Cos. Engineering Ind. ElectricalAffiliate Engineering
2 Cos. Optical Science OpticsIndustrial Affl.
G.D. Searle, West Seed Development Plant Science,Plant Sciences Program Agriculture
New Business
Motorola
R&D Pubiic/Rank Private University Industry
Tumbleweed Project Plant Sciences
Correlation of Elec.Active Defects inSilicon Wafers withStructural inhomo-geneities in As-GrownCrystals
Materials Science
SOUTHWEST AND SOUTH CENTRAL
Program Name Discipline
Industrial Affiliate(focused)
Industrial Affiliate(focused I
Industry fundedcooperative research(Multiclient Contract)
University basedinstitutes servingindustrial needs(Tech. Transfer(
Gov't. funded U/Icooperative research(grant(
Mechanism ofInteraction
21/2-3 years
2 years
1 year
2 years
Time Limited1 year
No. of YearsIn Existence'
33 Public LouisianaStateUniversity
158
Oil Companies Applied Carbonate Geology(19) Research Programs
American Sugar Audubon Sugar EngineeringCane League
Lumber &Minerals Co.
Exxon, Shell,Chevron, Mobil
Institute
Remote Sensing andImage ProcessingLaboratory
Engineering
Chemistry Industrial ChemistryAffiliates
Computer Aided ComputerDesign Science
Digital Electronics ElectricalEngineering
Control Processors Engineering
Environment, Energy Geology,Oceanography
Communications,Remote Sensing
Local Chemical Siva Building& Oil Co.
Chemtech
West Payne
Synmet
Petroleum Eng.Blowout TrainingSchool
Oceanography,Engineering
Business,Engineering
Chemistry.Env. Science
Chemistry,Env. Health
OrganicChemistry
PetroleumEngineering
16?
Industrial affiliate(focused)
University-basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Government fundedcooperative research(contracts)
Government fundedcooperative research(contract)
Gift
Spin-off Co.
Spin-off Co.
Spin-off Co.
4 years
5 years
2-4 years
New
New
New
New
2-5 years
5 years
Time Limited3-5 years
25-30 years
5-10 years
3-5 years
Government/Industry Newfunded coop. training,internships, gifts fromindustry
Southwest & SouthCentralCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
Tenneco, Gulf,Superior Oil
Oil Co. (& others)
17 Public University of Construction Co.,Texas (Austin) Oil Co., API
123 Public University ofHouston
Mobil, AmericanSmelting Co. (&approx. 30 othergas & oil cos.)
Bristol Meyers, EliLilly, HoffmanLaRoche, John-son & Johnson
TexasInstruments
Rousseau
Tracor, Inc.
Bendix Corp.with University
of NorthCarolina)
Oil Cos. (15-20)
Association ofAmerican Rail-roads, GM, Ford,Federal RailroadAdministration,EPRI
50-100Companies
Many
93 companies
Many
Oil Co. I& others)
Texas Atomic Re-search Founda-tion (& otherenergy cos.)
Gulf, Exxon,Mobil (& approx.40 other oil &gas co.)
McDonnell-Douglas and others
Geology Training GeologyProgram
Joint Oceanographic GeologyInstitute
Engineering Civil Petroleum
Marine SciencesInstitute
Drug DynamicsInstitute
Computer ScienceProgram
Chemistry
Military Science
Military(Surveillance)
Enhanced OilRecovery
Center forElectromechanics
Structural Engineer-ing Laboratory
Geothermal Program
Bureau of Engineer-ing Research
Mining Program
Senior designprogram
Gulf UniversitiesResearch Consortia
Fusion ResearchCenter
Seismic AcousticLaboratory
Energy Laboratory
Oceanography &Oceanengineering
uiune Phar-maceuticals
Computerscience
Chemistry
Math,Engineering
Mathematics
ChemicalEngineering
Engineering
Civil Engineering
Engineering
EngineeringMulti-disc.
Earth SciencePetroleumEngineering
Nuclear Eng.,Mat'Is. Sci.,Biomed. Sci..Mechanics
Energy & Environ-mental Science
Engineering &Applied Science
Geology, Engi-neering. Com-puter Science
Engineering(Solar ). Coal& Synfuels
Fellowships
Research Consortia
Contract (Industryand government)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs
Gift
Professorship
Government fundedcooperative research(contract)
Government fundedcooperative research(contract)
Industrial Affiliates(focused)
Government-industryfunded cooperativeresearch center(contracts)
Seminar
Gifts & Governmentfunding
Technology transferResearch Adminis.
Industry fundedcooperative research
53
2 years
15 years
8 years
New
New
2 years
3 years
9 years
8 years
Time Limited-recent
New
71 years
New
Training and education Newinternship SeniorDesign Projects
Resear!.:h Consortia 16 years
Gc :arilinent-Industry Newfunded cooperativeresearch (gifts)
Industry fundedcooperative res.,Personnel exchange &Industrial affiliates
University basedinstitute servingindustrial needs(contracts )
168
4 years
10 years
159
Southwest & SouthCentralCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry Program Name Discipline
Mechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
39 Public ColoradoStateUniversity
191 Public ColoradoSchool ofMines
160
Gulf, Exxon,Maxwell House
Shell
Hewlett-Packard,Kodak
Chrysler, GM,American Motors,Ford
Many
Many
Many
Ideal Basic Indus.
Ed Lilly, AmericanCyanimid,Upjohn, CibaGeigy, Merck
Boeing, Bechtel,Sandia, McDon-nell-Douglas,Johns Manville
Trade Assoc. (&others) Exxon.Libbey-Owens,Ford, GRI, EPRI,AMEX Foundation
Local Cos.
Steel Companies,e.g., ARCO Steel
WR Grace. ARC,Rocky MountainEngineering
Coors Engineer-ing, JohnsManville
Johns Manville,Gas ProcessingAssoc.. PhillipsPetroleum
Mobil Oil
U.S. Steel
Center for PublicPolicy
Ability of men andwomen to handleoffshore oil drilling
Graduate AssistantFellowships
Auto EmissionsControl Laboratory
CSU AlumniFoundation
CSU Foundation
CSU ResearchFoundation (csuRF)
Cement Dust Project(Feedlot research)
Feedlot research
Wind EngineeringProgram (Part ofFluid Dynamics &Diffusion Lab.)
Wind EngineeringResearch Council
Industrial Park
Steel CooperativeProgram
Energy & MaterialsField Institute
Welding Institute
Research on NaturalGas Hydrates
Synfuels Research
Oil Shale Institute
Earth MechanicsInstitute
Social Science
Social Science
Multidisciplinary
EnvironmentalScience
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Animal Science,Agriculture
Agriculture
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
Multidisciplinary
Engineering
Mineraleconomics
Metallurgicalengineering
Chemical andPetroleum Refin-ing Eng.
Chemistry,Geochemistry
ChemicalEngineering,Chemistry
Mining,Engineering
169
Consulting/GiftAccount
1 year
Contract New
Grantcampus wide
Research Consortium New
Time limited-new
Non-ProfitOrganization
Non-ProfitOrganization
Technology brokerage
Contract
Contract
University basedlaboratory servingindustrial needs(contracts)
Technology transfer,Advisory group.Consortial assoc.
Industrial Park
Personnel exchange& U/I cooperativetraining program
Workshop-Technologyt..ansfer
Government fundedU/I cooperativer '.search (grant -contract)
Contracts, grants, &personnel exchange
Contract
University basedindustry servingindustrial needs
8 years
9 years
40 years
Time Limited2 years(ended)
Time limited2 years'
16 years
11 years
22 years
6 years
3 years
9 years
2 years
Time Limited2''2 years
New
Contribution of 7 yearsequipment
Southwest & SouthCentralCont.
R&D Public/Rank Private University Industry
28 Private WashingtonUniversity
146 Private RiceUniversity
Program Name DisciplineMechanism ofInteraction
No. of YearsIn Existence'
24 Cos.
Hewlett-Packard,IBM. Caterpillar &others
PhillipsPetroleum
Monsanto. (..1E,Air Products, ACFIndustries, DuPont
DEC. BBN, Picker
Local cos.
No Companies
Delmar
MonsantoCompany
CentralMicrowave
Charles Evans& Assoc.
McDonnellDouglas
AmericanHospital Supply
Mallinckrodt
Varian, GeorgiaPacific
Exxon. C' I&local JstonCo. I
McDonnellDouglas. NASA
c',,ar ounaa-tion, 6 individuals)
21 Companies
HoustonCompanies
Exploratory Re- Geophysicssearch Laboratory
Earth & Mechanics Geophysics.Liaison Program Engineering
Continuing Ed. Engineering
Fellowship Program Engineering
Materials Science MaterialsLaboratory (DARPA EngineeringCoupling Program )
Biomedical Engi- Biomedicalneering and Ccm- engineering,puter Science Computer
Science
Washington Univ. EngineeringTechnology Assoc.(WUTA)
Industrial Park
Development ofPhosphite SelectiveIon Exchanger
Relaxation Studieson Glassy Polymers
Electronics
Electronics
Endowed Chair
Developed artificialheart value
Hybridoma Research
Chemistry
REDDI
Multidisciplinary.
Engineering
Materials science
Electricalengineering
Electricalengineering
Genetics
Civil & Mech-anical Engineer-ing. MaterialsScience
Medicine
:,I!emistry
Engineering
Mass Spec. to dete,:t ',7Ipace ehysicsH2O vapor on moon,F.,..ht power ;finiteprojact
Rice CorporateAssociation
Rice Cltiter for Coramunity Design &ResearchDesig
Social sciences,Ar:;hitecturalengineering,
Incorporation and-Geophysics Fund
Industrial affiliates(focused)
Short courses
Fellowship
U/I Cooperativeresearch laboratoryindustrial liaison
University basedprogram servingindustrial needs
2 years
New
7 years
1-2 years
14 years
21 years
For Profit Corporation- 1 yearInstitutional Consulting
Industrial Park
Industry fundedcooperative research(contract)
Government fundedU/I cooperativeresearch (grant)
Government funded 3U/I cooperaliveresearch (contract)
Government funded ."1, years
U/I cooperativeresearch (contract)
Endowed chair New
17 years
Time Limited3-5 years'
' mited
U/I cooperativeresearch ContractsPersonal interaction
Partnershi) contract Time Limitedars)
Equipment gifts New
Non -pro' Corp. 1 year(InstitutionalConsulting)
Contract 2 years
Industrial associates 30 years'general)
Non-profit corpc-ation 9 years(contract research I
ApproximatelyGovernment funded cooperative research frequently n cludes rn..).:Thing funds or contributions in timefrom industry.
170 161
STATE COLLEGE SCIENCE AID ENGINEERING FACULTY: COLLABORA FIVE
LINKS WITH PRIVATE BUSTESS AND INDUSTRYIN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES
by
frank A. DarknellCalifornia State University at Sacramento
and
Edith Campbell Darknell
_171 163
CONTENTS
164
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 165
II. STATE COLLEGES: ORIGINS, GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION 166
III. CALIFORNIA: A SURVEY OF FIVE CAMPUSES 170
A. The Science and Engineering Survey-CSUC 170
B. The Question of Ph.D. Quality 170
C. Interpreting Survey Responses 171
D. Academic Fields 172
E. Sponsoring Agencies 172
IV. CALIFORNIA: FUNDING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OFSTATE COLLEGE RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 174
A. I nterca mpus Variation: Further Data from the SurVey 174
B. Grants and Contracts: Expenditures and Awards According to Campus Records 174
C. Formal Structures: The Campus Foundations 176
D. Visible Structures: Centers, Institutes and Laboratories 177
E. Private Professional Practice 178.
F. I ndust. Supporters of R&D at the Surveyed Campuses 179G. An Intriguing Anomaly in the Data on Industrial Funding 180
V. CALIFORNIA: SOME EXAMPLES OF CAMPUSINDUSTRY INTERACTION 181
A. Student Participation 181
B. Gifts, "Taking in Washing", and "Making Do" 182
C. Inventions and Innovations 183
D. Faculty Accessibility 184
E. Private vs. On-Campus Work: an Exemplary Campus 185
F. Spin-Offancl Program Development: An Exemplary Case 186
G. Fundamental and/or Applied Research on a ConsultingBasis 187
VI. OTHER STATES: A LIMITED SURVEY 188
A. Trenton State College, NewJersey 188
B. College of William and Mary, Virginia 189
C. State University College at Buffalo, NewYork 189
D. University ofToledo, Ohio 189
E. Southwestern Louisiana University, Louisiana 189
VII. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 191
A. The Mechanical heart Valve R&D Process seen as a Developmental Model 191
B. R&D as an Unintended Consequence of the State College Function 192
172
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared in response to a requestfrom the National Science Board for information onscience and engineering faculty at state colleges andtheir links with local and other industry. The paperfollows a more limited presentation by the principalinvestigator at the Symposium on "Successful Modelsof UniversityIndustry Collaboration on Research" atthe annual meeting of the American Association forthe Advancement of Science at Toronto in January,1981. That report discussed California state colleges;it has been expanded here to include data from a surveyof science and engineering faculty at five campuses ofthat statewide system, known officially as the CaliforniaState University and Colleges (CSUC). That survey was
carried out by the principal investigator two years ago;and it has been supplemented here with interviews atseveral other CSUC facilities in the summer of 1981,and by information received from a number of otherstate colleges throughout the country.
Chapter II presents a short history of the devel-opment of state colleges in Ainerican mass highereducation; Chapter III analyzes some research andconsulting data from a recent questionnaire survey ofscience and engineering faculty at five state colleges inCalifornia; Chapter IV discusses the organizationalaspects of such state college-based research anddevelopment activity. Chapter V provides concretecases of R&D linking state college faculty and privateindustry in California, and Chapter VI presents addi-tional cases from around the country. Chapter VII pro-vides concluding comments.
173165
CHAPTER II
STATE COLLEGES: ORIGINS, GROWTHAND TRANSFORMATION
While the process of industrialization did notoriginate in the United States, mass higher educationin the context of an industrial society certainly did.,further, it can be argued that this expansion of highereducation was initiated within the pace-setting state ofCalifornia.' If so, it is appropriate that the original datawhich gave rise to this present report comes from astudy of faculty at the mass-oriented California StateUniversity and Colleges (CSUC) system.
State colleges have an apple-pie ubiquity withinthe American scene. Their familiar presence through-out the land follows from the fact that many began asnormal schools in the 19th century, training teachersto provide mass public education through local schooldistricts. Later, as teachers' colleges and colleges ofeducation, they broadened their offerings in responseto growing deinand for postsecondary education, ulti-mately evolving into state colleges. Today they areto be found in all fifty states; their distribution variesfor reasons of history and state educational policy but,in general, there are more in the large and populousstates.
The state colleges comprise a "second-tier" of thehigher education hierarchy: more than 300 non-elite,public, four-year colleges and universities described byDunha m2 as "colleges of the forgotten Americans".These must be clearly differentiated from the "first-tier," approximately 200 elite-oriented public and pri-vate institutions which grant doctoral degrees andwhich are known as "research universities" (or "doc-toral universities"). By this time many, if not most, of
'Frank A. Darkne II. The Carnegie Philanthropy and Private Cor-porate Influence on Higher Education." pp. 385-411 in Robert F.Arnow. ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Founda-tions at Home and Abroad (Boston: O.K. Hall & Co., 1980).
Alden Dunham, Colleges of the Forgotten Americans: A Pro-file of State Colleges and Regional Universities New York: McGraw7Hi li Book Company, 1969):
166
the second-tier campuses thrive upgraded their titles toinclude the word "university," even though they do notin most cases grant doctoral degrees or grant too fewto fit the doctoral category in the Carnegie Classi-fication (see below).
While most of the cases presented in the followingchapters involve California state colleges (the older"state college" designation will be used from hereon in the text for sake of simplicity), Table 1 showshow state colleges stand in terms of the numbers ofstudents enrolled relative to other public and pri-vate facilitiesincluding public two-year communitycolleges. The table is excerpted from 1976 data pub-lished by the Carnegie Council for Policy Studies(CCPSI-IE) and displays the student enrollments of thevarious sectors of American higher education (statecolleges correspond roughly to what CCPSI1E cate-gorized as "Public, Comprehensive Universities and
Table 1
Enrollments in Institutions of Higher Education byType of Institution and Control, United States,
1976-r-in Thousands*
Public Private Total %Public %Total
DoctorateInstitution 2,389.0 673.4 3,624.4 78.0% 27.4%
ComprehensiveUniversity or
College 2,372.6 796.9 3,169.5 74.9% 28.4%
Liberal ArtsCollege 19.5 511.7 531.3 3.7% 4.8%
Two-yearInstitution 3,825.2 152.2 3,978.0 96.2% 35.6%
Other 150.3 429.8 3.8%
TOTAL 8.750.3 2,414.4 11,164.6 78.4% 100.0%
'Source: Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education'
1-able I excerpted from Table 2 (page xii) in A Classification ofIn.stilutions of Higher Education (Revised Edition). A Report of theCarnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley.California, 1976.
174
Colleges"). It can be seen that, in terms of 1976 enroll-ments, the state colleges ( "Comprehensive Universi-ties and Colleges, -Public") enrolled about as manystudents as the public doctoral institutions. Enroll-ments have since increased more rapidly in the statecollege sector and these now constitute the largestfour-year enrollment sector.
Turning next to recent national comparisons offaculties in terms of the numbers and proportionsof faculty with doctoral degrees in science or engineer-ing, Table 2 provides comparative data over time. Inthis case, the state colleges are represented by the"public, master's and bachelor's institutions" in dataprovided by the National Science Foundation.
Table 2
Fulltime Scientists and Engineers with DoctoralDegrees: Faculty and Others, at Public
Universities and Colleges Classifiedby Highest Degree Granted,
January, 1976 and 1981*
Total Doctoral Doctoral Master's andDegrees Institutions Bachelor's Institutions
1976 86,049 (100.0%) 65,753 (76.41 %( 20,296 (23.59%)1981 96,2211100.0%1 75,713 (78.68%) 20,508 (21.31%)
Source: N.S.F./S.R.S.'
It can be seen that although state colleges havebeen enrolling increasing numbers of students, at thesame time they have not recently been increasing thenumbers or their share of science and engineeringfaculty with doctoral degreescompared with theresearch and doctoral universities. Between 1976 and1981 the number of science and engineering facultyemployed at state colleges has increased from 20,296to 20,508, but this has represented a percentage dropwhen institutions limited to bachelor's and master'sdegrees are compared with the doctoral campuses.Data presented in Table 3 demonstrates the overallincrease in doctoral faculty at California state collegesbefore the mid-seventies. But returning to the figuresin Table 2, the obvious imbalance of total science andengineering doctoral faculty between the doctoral andresearch universities and the state colleges is moreeasily comprehended when the relative teaching loadscarried by teaching faculty in the two kinds of institu-tions are noted. State college faculty members, in general,teach about twice as many hours; and, therefore, couldbe said to be used more "productively" as teachersthan are doctoral and research university faculty. Further-more, because state colleges are not designated norfunded as research institutions, they do not hire largenumbers of non-teaching scientists and engineeringscientists as do major research universities.
'Excerpted nom special data run for National Science Founda-tion ISRS). October. 1981.
Table 3
Number and Percent of Fulltime Faculty: U.S. HigherEducation, Selected Public Universities,**
California State (Colleges) University*
California StateUniversity and
Colleges
N
AnnualGrowth
Rate
Selected Public All HigherUniversities" Education
AnnualGrowth
N Rate
AnnualGrowth
N Rate
1961/62 4,341 11.3% 8,921 10.1% 162,000 13.2%1965/66 6,410 11.3% 12,545 10.2% 248,000 10.4%1969/70 10,235 14.9% 16,435 7.8% 350,000 10.4%1973/74 11,074 2.0% 19,000 3.9% 389,000 2.8%1977/78 11,296 0.10/0 18.400 -0.1% 449,000 3.8%
Source: National Academy of Science5Universities of California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Washing-
ton, and Wisconsin
Since the end of World War II, state colleges havedeveloped in the context of several factors which haveinfluenced the demand for higher education, collegeenrollments, and the overall structure of Americanpostsecondary education. Beginning with the Service-men's Resettlement Act of 1944, the various G.I. billsbrought a dramatic spread of opportunity and subse-quent mass demand for higher education among theAmerican population. The large numbers of ex-service-men and women who chose to go to college surprisedeven the original sponsors of the 1944 Act.6 Many ofthese veterans were drawn from families that did notcustomarily send children to college; thus,the G.I. billshad a significant "seeding" effect in stimulating furthercollege attendance in the 1950's and early 1960'samong lower middle and working class families. Therole of the Vietnam War in the middle and late 1960'swas even more complex; college enrollments werestimulated not only by veterans' benefits, but also bythe interaction between the military draft and collegedraft deferments.
Such increases in the participation rate presentone dimension in the demographic analysis of collegeenrollments; another involves simply an increase inthe traditional college-age cohort. The "baby boom"the children born in the high birthrate period from thelate 1940's through the 1950'scomprised what edu-,. ators foresaw as a coming tidal wave of demand. Its
'Excerpted from Table 1 (page 131 of Research Excellence,ugh the Year 2000: The Importance of Maintaining a Flow of
raculty into Academic Research. A Report with Recommenda-tions the Committee on Continuity in Academic Research Per-formam.e, Commission on Human Resources, National ResearchCouncil. hz,tional Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979.
6Keith W. Olson, The G.!. Bill: The Veterans and the Colleges(Lexington. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1974), p. 27:David D. Henry, Challenges Past, Challenges Present: An Analysisof American Higher Education Since 1930 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), Chapter 4.
175 167
threat often produced near panic among planners andgovernment officials.'
All these factors called for an increase in numberSof university 'ind college places and in their accessi-bility to students throughout the country. This meantthe development of entirely new institutions, and even-tually systems of institutions to meet the expandingdemand. California, where approximately twenty juniorcolleges and a handful of state colleges had existedsince the 1920's, was the first to move toward system-atic statewide expansion after World War II. By the late1950's, California had become an industrial region ofgreat potential growth. Industrial developmentinaerospace, electronics and related industrieswasstimulated first by war production in the 1940's, andlater in the mid-fifties by the unexpected achievementsof the U.S.S.R. in space technology. Sputnik land sub-sequent Soviet accomplishMents came as a profoundshock to American complacency about advanced sci-entific development. When it became startlingly clearthat the Russians were leading in the "space race,"there was nationwide demand for the immediate up-grading of "human capital" in the form of more highlyeducated and fully trained personnel to meet thenew threat. In California, cheap higher educationand advanced technical training became a widely-sup-ported solution to industry's post-Sputnik needs formasses of technicians, experts and administrators.8
This difficult political, fiscal and educational situa-tion was stabilized, if not fully resolved, in the early1960's by the establishment of a California Master Planfor Higher Education by the legislature. The DonahoeAct (1960) set up a stratified system providing for ahierarchy of three "segments" which were further "dif-ferentiated by function"." These were: (a) an elite doc-toral and research university system of "world class"campuses: the nine campuses of the University of Cali-fornia at Berkeley, Los Angeles, and seven additionallocations, lb) a less than doctoral and less than eliterange of facilities for mostly four-year students at whatultimately came to be 19 state colleges scattered thelength of the state, and (c) two-year "community" col-leges formerly junior colleges), ultimately 100 ormore thein providing academic transfer or terminalvocational training and education at the local leveleverywhere in the state.
Ot particular interest here is the fact that the Uni-versity of California by monopolizing the doctoral
dent). Chaltencie.s Pdt, Challenge.~ Present. Chapter 7.Barlow and l'cler Shapiro. An End to Silence: The San
isco .~lair Student plin,ententin the '61)s New York: liobbs-lei till. Inc.. 19711. Chapter 1; T.W. Schultz. investment in Duman
apit.11; American Economic Kepietv 51 (March 1961). 1-17; Gary S.lie( I et Human Capital: .1 Theoretical and Ifttwirical Analysis withsprri,d tirtetrour to Edo( alto,, New York: Columbia UniversityTress. 1964).
'F. K. ',s1cConitell, T. C. aloft, and fl. It. Scmans. A liestudy cif the'11.1 ()I nid in Ilif/her Education (Sacramento: (allifornia
State Depattment of Education. 1955).
168
degree under the plan, continued to attract the greatershare of federal funds, which was the planners' intent.This together with"the heavier teaching load for fac-ulty at the state colleges (100% greater), meant thatserious academic research was not expected to bedone there. In many ways, the California master planbecame a kind of model for sit/I:lady rationalized andstratified systems of mass hi<_;he!' education in other,states and was promoted as such by the Carnegie Cor-poration of New York)0
An indication of the somewhat uneven but rapidexpansion of mass higher education in the U.S.A. at thetime, and the comparative growth of the Californiastate colleges together with a number of selectedmajor public research universities, is availaole in datapublished by the National Academy of Sciences. Thedata give a picture of the post-Sputnik expansion (after1957) at several levels in the nation's system of masshigher education (Table 3).
By 1970, the end of the first decade of the opera-tion of the master plan for higher education in Cali-fornia, some questioning of the original concept wasbeginning to occur, especially with regard to the roleof state college faculty. Prior to the 1960's a fewPh.D.'s had found their way into the state colleges, butthey were usually a minority among the Ed.D.'s remain-ing from teachers' college days. Indeed from the per-spective of the Ph.D. graduate school, state collegesappeared as an academic Siberia where candidateswho failed to finish dissertations were consigned. Bythe mid-sixties, however, Ph.D.'s began to appear ingreater numberspartly in response to the move bystate colleges to redirect their curriculum away froman emphasis en teacher training toward the traditionalundergraduate departments of the liberal arts college.This move was encouraged by prevalent critiques ofteacher education" and, in California, legislationrequiring that prospective teachers acquire a "subject-matter" major rather than concentrate on educationmethods),
New and expanded doctoral programs at thenation's research universities, responding to the pre-viously mentioned "Sputnik demand" for skilled andspecialized experts as well as for "fully qualified"faculty at the many new or upgraded universities andcolleges throughout the country, ultimately saturated
1"T. K. McConnell, A Creneutl Pattern lot A/n(7km/ Public HigherEducalion (New York: McGraw -dill Book Company, 19621.
"James 13. Conant, .Shaping Educational Policy (New York:McGraw -(fill Book Company. 1964). pp. 88-96.
'=The Licensing of Certificated Personnel Law, commonly knownat the time as the fisher Bill, was passed in 1961. Sec James B.Conant, The Education of American Teachers New York McGraw-!! ill Book Company, 19631, pp. 24-25; Conant, Shaping EducationalPolicy, pp. 88-96; Roy Simpson, 'The Development of New Cre-dential Requirements" California Schools 33 (August 19621, 265-288; and Flank 1.4cock, -Academic Majors lot Elementin SchoolTeachers: lice ent California Legislation.- Ilawaul Educational fie-Viet!, 32 (Sluing 19621. 188-199.
1 76
the market for science and engineering Ph.D.'s. Asearly as 1967, graduate schools at the expanded re-search t iniversities were being warned against produc-ing too many IV the early 1970's over-pro-duction of Ph.D.'s matched over-production of goodsin other industries, which along with increasing infla-tion, was felt throughout the nation's ref- ch univer-sities and ultimately through all of higher .ducation.
The new abundance of Ph.D.'s expanded the poolof academic talent available to all universities includingthe state colleges in California and elsewhere, especiallyin the sciences and engineerim the result, in part, ofmass layoffs in the aerospace and electronics indus-tries following the successful moon landing. Table 4shows the increase in the proportion of doctoral rela-tive to master's degrees among faculty respondents inall disciplines at two- and four-year colleges and uni-versities covered by the Carnegie National Surveys ofligher rducation in 1969 and 1975.
Table 5, next, shows that during approximatelythe same period the state colleges of California addedsubstantially to their doctoral faculty during this periodof -Ph.D. surplus." Table 6 focuses on the five Cali-forn;a state colleges which were the locations of a stir-
Table 4
Percent of Faculty Respondents Reporting Doctoraland Master's Degrees, Carnegie National Surveys
of Higher Education (Criterion Sampled,1969 and 1975*
1969 1975
Doctoral 50.3 58.7Master's 35.6 30.0
Sour ce Carnegie Commission /Council National Surveys of HigherEducation. 1969 and 1975"
Table 5
Percent of All Faculty with Doctoral Degrees,California State Colleges, 1967/68 and 1979/80*
1967/68 1979/80
52 2 71.8
Source: California State University and Colleges and CaliforniaPostsecondary Education Commission"
Allan `I.. 1'11.1). 1.aldn Hai kei iiIcttslc(na\11111 licarh cloinpam, 19761.'fait in I feat /leis ani1..titailents: Aspects 01 Atneril an
tfyhrr 1:(1u, a1i0n (9cOtav,Ilill book Company. 1975),pu. C1Iiot Fulton. and Partin Trop. ref ThliCd/Ko 'pi)/ I: 1,0-3 t'aincgic council National c)1 tfighr00n ,Iict held;: (*cwt., 101 in I ficiltel 1:chiration. Univrsity
qii(oid 1(178, p.
('aliloinia stack. Lathi.fisit\ Collogcs, Division ol InstitteHim.); R)scal) it ',1.1tistital Absbac t to .1zdy 1977 Long IScac'11).1'47;11 p. :SUh- ( rw,tsc«mthiry klucillion Commission.
i)iqcst 8( itioc laniento: 1981 p. 213. (The stattncidc'cleric(' to as CSUC.i
Table 6
Percent of All Science and Engineering Faculty withPh.D., Five CSUC Campuses, 1966/67 and _1976/77*
1966/67 1976/77
Sciences 79.6 (329) 91.7 (590)Engineering 33.8 (65) 67.0 (106)
Source: CSUC college catalogs from the five campuses used in theSurvey'°
vey discussed in following chapters, and demonstratesthat these campuses in the key ten-year period be-tween the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies were ableto "top-or the significant majorities that Ph.D.'s com-prised in science departments (biological sciences,mathematics and statistics, physics, chemistry andgeology) and significantly raise the proportion of engi-neering faculty with Ph.D.'s. The increase in absolutenumbers of scientists and engineers, both with andwithout doctoral degrees, at the five colleges duringthis historic period of expansion is also visible in thenumbers in parentheses.
As the number of Ph.D.'s in the state collegesincreased, it was felt by some that faculty of this typeinevitably threatened to distract the second-tier insti-tutions from the purely teaching function envisionedunder the stratified model of the master plan. Theirdoctoral preparationand, in many cases, their workexperiencehad promoted the value of research;relegated to a setting exclusively devoted to teaching,they often became restless. In his Carnegie Commis-sion profile of the state colleges in 1969, Dunhampredicted the conflict in which Ph.D. faculty at statecolleges would inevitibly find themselves:
A Ph.D. at a state coll=ge will always compare hisstatus witty that J! ,1 colleague at the state universityand will sce14. to (k; :he same kind of things and wantto receive the saw' kind of rewards."
Looking at the situation from the point of view ofhighly educated and trained personnel, i.e. the Ph.D.'sin all-teaching institutions, such a conflict might beseen instead as breeding resignation and denial ofresearch, part of a process referred to elsewhere as"rustication."'"
This report, however, focuses on some state col-lege science and engineering faculty who have respon:ledto their situations more positively by forging new linksof service with their surrounding communities.
college catalogs tor the year 1966'67. Included: SanDiego State College; California State College, Fullerton; FresnoState College: Chico State College; and Humboldt State College.For 1971i 77 year catalogs: San Diego Stith! University; CaliforniaState University. Fullerton: California State University, Fresno; Cali-lornia State University, Chico: and Humboldt State University.
i'Dtinham. Colleges 01 (lie rotnotten Amen( AnS, p. 164.'''11 ants A. Dot knell, Nass higher Education and the Distribution
of tic ientilic Inquiry: all Essay in the Sociology ol Rustication" (paperPresented .6 meetings c)I the American Sociological Association.San rtancisco. September 19781.
177 169
CHAPTER III
CALIFORNIA: A SURVEY OFFIVE CAMPUSES
The following three chapters focus on links be-tween California state college science and engineer-ing faculty and industry. The present chapter presentspertinent survey data from an on-going study of Cali-fornia state college faculty in the same fields. ChapterIV in turn will discuss the organizational context inwhith state college faculty and industry interact inCalifornia; and Chapter V will present in greater detailsonic specific cases.
A. The Science and Engineering SurveyCSUC
The Science and Engineering Study, from whichtne data that follows is drawn, was designed to gatherinkmnation on the prevalence of research and consult-ing activity among science and engineering faculty atteaching-oriented institutions. A pilot study at Cali-fornia State University, Sacramento (formerly Sacra-mento State College) in I978-was followed in 1979 bya mail survey of five of campuses in the CaliforniaState University and -lieges (CSUC) system: SanDiego State; Californi- State, Fullerton; CaliforniaState, Fresno; California State, Chico; and HumboldtState in Arcata. The five were chosen from the nineteenCSUC campuses according to criteria allowing for pro-ductive comparison, including location, age of cam-pus, and faculty publication rate (as determined byrecent citations).'
The survey achieved an average response rate ofabout 65(!,, with a low of 54% (Fresno) and a high of69(') (Fullerton and Humboldt). Some questions werenot always answered-- possibly because for some ofthe laculty the topic treated was sensitiveand, sonic-
1 his e began in 1978 with a pilot stud, . -Ilia Statetfitel sit v sac rdmento, sponsored by the Natic 1/4.--jeas_c Founda-
tion, nut was followed in 1979 by a survey of five other campusesof Me CSIA: system. supported in part by faculty research fundsfrom the C.SUS Foundation.
170
times apparently because busy respondents acciden-tally turned two pages of the staple-bound question-naire at a time. In general, there were higher returnsfrom senior faculty and faculty with doctoral degrees.
B. The Question of Ph.D. Quality
Measures of the quality of graduate schools andtheir programs included in the survey analysis do notprovide direct information on the standing of eachPh.D. within his or her graduating class, but they doprovide a distribution of respondents on the basis ofthe standing of the graduate schools they came fromand particularly of the programs that produced them.
As shown in Table 7, about 88% of the surveyrespondents with the Ph.D. report having degrees fromgraduate schools classified by the Carnegie Council as"Research Universities I or II."2 The Carnegie classifica-tion reflects certain objective measures such as thefact that institutions in these categories absorb thelargest amounts of federal funds and turn out the larg-
Table 7
Percent of Science and Engineering FacultyRespondents at Five CSUC Campuses with Ph.D.
Degrees from Graduate Schools Ranked byCarnegie Classification
Carnegie Classification Percent of Ph D. Faculty
Research University IResearch University II
Doctoral University IDoctoral University IIComprehensive Universities and CollegesSpecial and Foreign
735
8.6.2.7
2.2
88.2
99.9 (N=4171
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1CLINsification of insrittrtions of Higher if:dm:idiom rev. ed. (Berkeley:19761.
178
L!st numbers of l'h.D.'s in a year. However, we also haveMole direct measure of quality: an attempt to rate
Actual doctoral programs within their various fields.Ibis is the set of ratings published by the AmericanCouncil on Education (ACE) in 1970, based on reputa-tional rankings by experts from the various disciplines.'
fable ti shows that approximately 51% of the Cali-lot trio state college respondents obtained degrees atinstitutions in the highest of the ACE categories; andthat altogether, about three-quarters of the respond-ents %%ere from American graduate programs whichwe iirporiant enough to be included in the ACE-
);rarn.'
Table 8
Percent of Science and Engineering FacultyRespondents at Five CSUC Campuses
with Ph.D. Degrees from GraduatePrograms Ranked by ACE Rating
ACE Rating Percent of Ph.D. Faculty
.1 0 5 0 !highest category! 50.82 5 - 2 9 15.6
2 0 - 2.4 11.5School program not listed 8.6No rating lor field 11.5Foreign 1.9
99.9 IN =4171
C. Interpreting Survey Responses
With regard to the interpretation of survey mate-t ial below, rlertain caveats are in order. Although thediscussion that follows attempts to distinguish be-tween "research" and "consulting" activity, it may wellbe that consulting, advising and researchespeciallyapplied researchare linked in the minds of at leastsome respondents to the point of being interchange-able. The key questionnaire items were as follows:
Q. OK !hive you, as an individual, provided profes-sional services in your field off campus,sin has advisory, consulting or educational,ervics sin«. coming to your campus?
Do you regularly receive income from pro-lessional work such as consulting or extrateaching of I campus in addition to yoursolary from CSLICr'
Q.1), 1,
h !meth Ir. ftoos. ..nr1 liar les .1..Andersen, A lt,itinfr ri/,11,1,,Iiinglon. Aniclic,in Council on ['Alm:Mimi,
17ol,i(ICII« I tilt' tcc ltli till:11t (11 laculty from major grad-
uate s hook state c ()lieges is to be found tut John A. Muff() ant,lolm K. Robinson. rn I\ Sc ieno. Core« l'atterns ol Itcrent (irartu-,nes !rpm 1.r.,irling Itesearr lini%rsitics-. Institutional fiescarc Ir()Ili( ( 1(.laticl !.+1,111' 1,11kersity. ()mimeo).
Q. 98. 1;,) you presently have a research or designproject in progress?
Q. 99. If yes, is it funded?
For many faculty, consulting stands for a broadand diverse category of professional activities: it caninclude everything from brief on-the-spot judgementsfollowed by advice over the telephone; to specialcourses frequently arranged for external client com-panies or government agencies; to extensive researchdirected at problems brought by clients who standready to pay for solutions. At the same time, researchmay be linked with design, especially for engineeringfaculty, who tend to undertake applied research lead-ing to both the advancement of knowledge and thedevelopment of devices ("hardware") or methods(software").
Put another way, because of the applied nature ofmany opportunities open to state college faculty forengaging in non-leaching professional work, it is prob-ably advisable to avoid too strict an interpretation ofthe following data on "researchers" as opposed to-consultants." With this in mind then, both the "re-search" question and the "professional services" ques-tion (which will be called "consulting" here for con-venience) may best be seen as representing a singlecontinuum of activity for both science and engineer-ing faculty. (For illustrations of the manner in whichdistinctions between research and consulting tend tobe blurred, see cases cited in Chapters V and VI. Fora particularly cogent example of "pure" research car-ried out within the framework of a paid consulting con-tract, see the case of the ornithologist at CaliforniaState Polytechnic, Pomona in Chapter V).
One other caveat: the "consulting" question asksif the faculty member has provided services "sincecoming to your campus," allowing respondents toconsider all past activities. The "research" question,on the other hand, asks only about projects currentlyin progress. Thus, it might be expected that affirma-tive consulting responses would be somewhat inflatedcompared to those for research. The questionswhich were riot designed with this present reportin mindwere intended to reflect certain differencesin the two activities: consulting is frequently an inter-mittent activity where recognized expertise is drawnupon in response to a specific need, whereas researchis often considered as part of a continuing programor "career", involving an expectation of cumulativeresults.
Now turning to the survey data, Table 9 shows that80.1% of the survey respondents reported they hadprovided consulting services off -campus, and 73.9%reported having research in progress. While thesefigures indicate a high level of activity, fewer respond-ents report regular income from off-campus work(34.4%) or funding for current research (27.5%).
Table 10 shows that 93.5% of the respondentsreported themselves as currently active or as having
17.9 171
been active professionally beyond their teaching duties.In other words they reported doing research, consult-incr, or both. I I( )WeVer, (MCI' faculty reported having!UMW(' resent -ch underway, having done paid consult-iu,t, or both.
Table 9
Percent of Faculty* Ever Providing ProfessionalServices Off-Campus ("Consultants") or Having a
Research or Design Project in Progress("Researchers") and Percent of Faculty with Regular
Consulting Income ("Paid Consultants") or withFunding for Research ("Funded Researchers")
Consultants
80.1 14171
Paid Co .1 /tants
34.3 14191
Researchers
73.9 1418)
Funded Researchers
27.5 (414)
'Faculty" in tnis and subsequent tables refers to all science andengineering faculty respondents. Parentheses in all tables containbase N's.
Table 10
Percent of Faculty engaged in Research, Consultingor Both, and Receiving Income or Funding
for these Activities
Faculty doing Research, Consulting, or Both 95.3% (404)Faculty doing Funded Research,
Paid Consulting, or Both 46.6% (400)
D. Academic Fields
Tables 1 1 and 12 show the distribution of consult-ing and research activity and associated income orfunding by academic field. The tables highlight somestriking differences between fields. A lower percentageof mathematics and statistics faculty report involve-ment in non-teaching professional activity than dothose in other fields, although they are more likely tobe engaged in providing consulting services than toHave a research project underway. This suggests thatstate college mathematics and statistics faculty havecompi.catively little opportunity to engage in "pure"scientific work wh:,_11, particularly in this field, requireslarge blocks of uninterrupted "thought" time. Much ofthe off-campus consulting service that is done isstatistical in nature.
Compared to other fields, a higher percentage offaculty in engineering, and other applied sciences(forestry, fisheries, etc.) report consulting activity, aswell as regular income from this source. This reflectsthe mutually reinforcing relationship between teach-ing and outside practice in these fields where outsideproblems are routinely brought into the classroomsometimes leading to class-developed solutions. Stu-
172
dents often prefer to draw their term projects from the"real world"' rather than working with simulated labor-atory exercises. Thus faculty with Off-campus obliga-tions can involve willing students in practical projectsthat come their way. This cannot be saidat least tothe same extentabout undergraduate teaching inthe basic or pure sciences. here, outside practice ismore likely to be regarded as "moonlighting"a per-sonal activity largely separated from the classroom.
Another factor in professional activity off -campusis the occupational history of faculty concerned. In theCalifornia state colleges under study, previously estab-lished ties between private industry and engineeringfaculty are not uncommon. Personal interviews at sev-eral campuses have confirmed that the massive layoffsin the California aerospace industry in the late 1960's,mentioned in Chapter II, did release a considerablenumber of engineering and scientific personnel topositions in higher education which was rapidly ex-panding at the time.
E. Sponsoring Agencies
Table 13 gives some indiction of the extent of fac-ulty involvement with differing sponsoring agencies intheir non-teaching professional activities. Respond-ents with regular consulting income or funding for cur-rent research were asked to rate the importance ofvarious off-campus agencies for their own researchand consulting activities.
For both groups government agencies (local, stateand federal) were most important, followed by indus-trial organizations. Of the three major types of organi-zations, military agencies were rated least important.(It is, of course, possible that some defense-relatedresearch and consulting work may be perceived byrespondents as government or industrial activity.)
Table 11
Percent of Faculty Providing Consulting Services orHaving Research in Progress, by Academic Field
Eng./Appl.Biol. Sci. Phys. Sci. Math./Stat. Sci.
Consultants .... 80.811301 76.5 (1361 72.5 (69) 93.9 (821
Researchers ... 84.4 (128) 80.4 (138) 58.8 (68) 59.5(84)
Table 12
Percent of Faculty with Regular Consulting Incomeor Funding for Research, by Academic Field
Eng./Appl.Biol. Sci. Phys. Sci. Math./Stat. Sci.
PaidConsultants . 29.511321 31.3 (134) 25.4 (711 54.9 (82)
FundedResearchers . 32.8 (128) 30.1 (1361 10.4 (671 28.9 (831
Table 13
Percent of Faculty with Regular Consulting Income or Funding forResearch Rating Importance of Sponsoring Agencies
Major Sponsoring
Paid Consultants Funded Researchers
Importance
Agencies Higher Mixed Lower (NI
Importance
Higher Mixed Lower (NI
Government 77.2 11.8 9.5 11361 89.2 5.4 2.7 (111)
Industrial 58.6 14.6 19.0 11371 37.5 17.3 33.6 (1041
Military 9.6 7.9 56.1 (1141 4.3 8.5 56.3 194)
Table 14 shows the "higher importance"'made by these same faculty grouped by academicfield. Industrial organizations are more often ratedimportant or very important by faculty with reularconsulting income than by those with funding for cur-1 era Ucscdrch. This follows from the fact that whileresearch funds arc usually obtained from governmentagencies, consulting income is more likely to emanatefrom several types of organizations.
Of faculty receiving regular consulting income,those in mathematics and statistics, and engineering,
tend to rate government and industrial organizationsas equally important. The percent of these mathematicsand statistics faculty rating either type of organizationas important is relatively low; this may reflect the gen-erally lower salience of non-teaching professionalactivity among state college faculty in this field. Thepercentage of engineering faculty who rate industrialsupport as important or very important is greater thanthose in all other fields; this might be expected tofollow from the connection between engineering teach-ing and practice mentioned previously.
Table 14
Percent of Faculty with Regular Consulting Income or Funding for Research Giving HigherImportance Rating to Government or Industrial Sponsors, by Academic Field
Biol. Sci. Phys. Sci. Math./Stat. Eng./Appl. Sci.
Govt. Ind. Govt. Ind. Govt. Ind. Govt. Ind.
Paid Consultants 83.8 47.2 84.6 65.0 44.4 41.2 78.6 75.0
1371 1361 (391 1401 1181 117) 142) 1441
Funded Researchers 92.9 27.5 89.8 45.9 91.3 52.3
(421 1401 1391 1371 1 71 ( 61 1231 1211
'No of cases too small for percentaging.
181 173
CHAPTER IV
CALIFORNIA: FUNDING AND ORGANIZA-TIONAL STRUCTURE OF STATE COLLEGERESEARCH AND CONSULTING
After presenting further data from the faculty survey,this chapter offers documentary evidence on non-teach-ing activities in the form of official figures. These aredollar amounts of current research and consultingactivity of faculty as recorded by the research officesor "foundations" at seven of the 19 campuses of theCSUC system. The chapter also discusses some of theformal and informal structures through which thesekinds of activities take place.
A. Inter-Campus Variation: FurtherData from the Survey
The impact of differing campus environments onscience and engineering faculty consulting and researchis suggested in Tables 15 and 16. Faculty at San Diegoand Fullerton report both types of non-teaching activityfairly equally. At other locations, consulting is reportedmore frequently than research in progress. Theserelationships shift somewhat for income-producingconsulting and funded research.
The highest percentages for both income fromconsulting (45.3%) and funding for current research146.1%) are reported by faculty at Fullerton, followedby those at Humboldt, with 4L2% and 31.7% respec-tively. San Diego, which by some official measures tobe disCussed below, tends to lead these state collegesin California in research and consulting activity, never-theless ranks third here. This discrepancy may reflectthe somewhat higher survey response rateapproxi-mately 69%for Fullerton and Humboldt than for SanDiego where about 64% responded, or a number ofother contextual factors. Those include unique oppor-tunities to do off-campus work at some campuses,and/ or the possible tendency of faculty to report moreof their outside work done through 7 campus researchfoundation than done as private practice. Yet other
174
18.2
Table 15
Percent of Faculty Providing Consulting Services orHaving Research in Progress, by Campus
San Diego Fullerton Fresno Chico Humboldt
Consultants 78.6 1131) 80.0175) 89.1,157) 73.5 168) 83.3184)Researchers . 78.5 1135) 82.9 (761 66.1 (56) 58.2 (67) 75.9 (83)
factors might include differing mixes of engineers andscience facu'ty relative to local opportunities for extra-mural work, etc.
Fresno add Chico faculty report the lowest per-centajes of regular consulting income or currentresearch fur ling. The contrastat these and otherolder campusesbetween all reported activity andfur isled o: income-producing activity may partly reflecta tradition stemming from normal school days thatlocal faculty should render voluntary "communityservice based on their expertise. More detailed dis-cussion of the differences between campuses withregard to their emphasis on research and consultingactivity, and their relationship with surrounding com-munities, follows.
13. Grants and Contracts: Expenditures andAwards According to' Campus Records
Several sources provide reports on the extent r.research, development and consulting by faculty at
Table 16
Percent of Faculty with Regular Consulting Incomeor Funding for Research, by Campus
San Diego Fullerton Fresno Chico Humboldt
Paid ConsultantsFunded
Researchers ..
31.3 (1341
28.811321
45.3 (751
46.11761
25.0
19.6
1561
1561
28,4
6.0
(671
167)
41.2
31.7
(85)
1821
American universities and colleges', but there is con-siderable variability and limited comparability in avail-abl data. Pot example, the National Science Pounda-1 ion sm v(vs do( total and non-doctoral universitiesand colleges regarding research and developmentt R&D) activity., While the data from this survey wouldhe especially pertinent here, it is not available for allctilIC campuses under discussion.
The CSLIC system does publish data on all grantsand (MiniCtS illcilrnen and expended through researchoffices and foundations at its 19 campuses.' fromwhich some infOrmation on research and consultingactikitv can he drawn. The campuses discussed hereare: California State, Sacramento, site of the 1978pilot study, and the five campuses surveyed in 1979:
San Diego, Fullerton, Fresno, Chico, and Humboldt.In addition, we have added two campuses where sci-ence and engineering faculty might be expected to beheavily involved in research and consulting activity withprivate industry either formally or informally-5.7nJose State and California State Polyt _tchnic at Pomo;(P brief description of each campus be found if;S3ction F below.)
Table 17 ranks the campuses according to thepercent of expenditures from all grants and contractsreceived for R&D purposes. San Diego State and SanJose State arc the clear leaders in R&D expenditures,with both showing similar dollar amounts. But whileSan Jose's more than $2.4 mink, in R&D representsnearly half of all external money 4 '-)y that campus,
Table 17
Total Dollars and Relative Percentages of R&D and Industrial R&D Expenditures.at Eight CSUC Campuses: Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1980
Rank' Campus
A
Total Extramural
C D
Total R&D % R&D of TotalExpenditures Expenditures Expenditures
TotalIndustrial R&DExpenditures
lutrl: R&Dtxpendi: :res
1 i San Jose S 5,420,243 52,422,137 44.7 $502,346 2L; 7
12! Humboldt 1,431.228 446,735 31.2 60,000(est.1' 13.'1-
I 31 Fresno 1,741.366 364,925 21.0 178,50'Y 48.9
i4; San Diego 12.087.805 2,4 8,974 20.2 363.050 14.9
15, Chico 2.971,481 499,360 16.8 27,500 5.'5
,6! Fullerton 3,467,260 533,007 15.4 51.942 9.7
7' Pomona 1,053,050 102.391 9.7 11,001 10.7
8 Sacramento 3,813,508 243,327 6.4 1,788 .7
Source. CSUC'
Ranked according to percent R&D of all expenditures (Column Cl.Local estimate: all industrial grants and contracts were under $10,000 and not reported individually.Most of Fresno's industrial R&D came from one two-year Environmental Impact Study grant from Pacific. aid Electri:: note that
Fresno's total R&D is considerably lower than that of Chico's which is similar in size, indicating a comparativ, love' Di R&D activity.
Column A Total dollar amount of all foundation expenditures (i.e., external monies spent ic. clrch, training and other educatio o projects).
Column B Total dollar amount of all expenditures for R&D.Column C: Percent R&D of total expenditures (B /AI.Column D: Total dollar amount of expenditures for R&D from private industry soireesColumn E Percent industrial R&D of total R&D expenditures (D/B).
'roe ()Mei data on consulting activity at elite and non-elite uni-silk-, "AT Oliver Fulton and Martin l'row, -Research Activity in
American blether Education." pp. 39-83 in 'Frew, Teachos and .Stu-dents; Martin Fri Aspects 01 Americim Higher Educdtion 1969-197.5 il;e:.1;cley: Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Iligher Edu-cation, 1977i. p. .lames 0. Narver and Carl V. Patton, 'The Cor-!elates nt Consultation: American Academics in The Real World,Higher Education 5 (1976), 319-335: Carl V. Patton, -Consulting byFac ulty Members," Academe 66 (May 1980), 181-185: and Carlos E.Kimthosch and David D. Palmer "Academic Role Performance andOiftinitatkmal Environment," Proceedings of the 1979 11:1:1f Engi-neering i'hindgement Conference. A less formal study of state col-lege taculty R&D activity is reported in: American Association ofState Colleges and Universities, background (June 19811, 1-6.
.,National Science Foundation, Academic Science: R&D runds,riscal 11',u 1979 (Washington, D.C.: 19811.
"CSUC, 16- porting Activity in Research, Workshops, institutes,and other Special Educationil I Projects for l'isc,51 Year Ended./IMt 39, 1980 11.0ng beach: 19801.
'Ibid.
the similar amount spent by San Diego represents justover one-fifth of its total grant and contract expendi-tures. It appears, then, that R&D activities at San Joseconstitute a more important role among externally-sponsored programs than at San Diego. San Jose alsohas the largei:t dollar amount of industrial R&D (i.e.,grants and contracts from private industry), and leaving aside the temporary anomaly presented by FresnoState (sec note to Table 17) the highest percentageof industrial to all R&D expenditures (20.7%).
San Jose State's location at the southern end ofthe industrial concentration known as "Silicon Valley,"south of San Francisco, with its many opportunities forresearch and consulting by scientists and engineersespecially electrical and electronics engineers andphysicists of various kindsclearly must be expectedto influence faculty activity. Also nearby is Ames Re-
183 175
search Center operated by the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration INASAt, throupi .vhich SanJose la( ultv (1111(1111v have .15 contracts (FY 1980-81).
Data from other campuses indicate varying degreesof R&D activity linked to local industry: Humboldt,located near extensive lumber and fishing industries;Fullerton, with a wide range of medium- and high-tech-nolocw industries nearby; and Fresno and Chico, locatedhi communities where agriculture is the primary Indus-ti.v. (Section f' of this chapter lists specific grants andcontracts at each campus included in Table 17.)
Pomona, one of the two state polytechnics, appearssf hingcly inactive in terms of formal R&D expendi-tures. Yet a campus visit in June, 1981, made clearthat considerable research and consulting activity wasoccurring, off campus. including work at the Jet Propul-
m Laboratory in nearby Pasadena. In addition, there,ippeared to be a lively interest in further developmentof pus-based research. Table 18 (Awards) indi-cates a noticeable increase in R&D at Pomona: thissuggests Mai lacnIty there may he bringing more oftheir non-teachinq professionai work on campus, per-haps as criticism of faculty "moonlighting'' declines.(See further discussion of this point below, under "Pri-volc Professional Practice.")
research, are implemented through a brief Requestfor Proposal (RFP) process and thus are excludedfrom prior awards listings. Clearly, a comprehensivestudy of R&D awards and expenditures would equirean analysis of trends over several years and a closerexamination of each founc;ation's records.
C. Formal Structures: the .ampus Foundations
The state college rcsearch founCations are aux-iliary non-profit organizations established on eachcampus to handle extramural funds. Theii appearancein the 1950's also marked the arrival of research-oriented Ph.D. faculty on the state college campuses.While rules governing the operation of auxiliary organi-zations published in 1953 did not even mention re-search grants, by 1959 new rules had bCcn formulatedto allow faculty to receive research grants and con-tracts, make arrangements for compensa,ed release-time, and so on.'l At the present time, virtually allcampus R&D money is funneled through the researchfoundatio»s.
Generally, the role of the foundations has heenrelatively passive. While some ha,e, actively ,assisted inlocating sources of grants and ci witri.,r.:ts, by ani' large
Table 18
Total Dollars and Relative Percentages of R&D and Industrial R&D Awards,at Eight CSUC Campuses: Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1980
Rank- Campus
A
Total Awards Total R&D Awards
C
R&D ofTata! Awards
Total IndustrialR&D Awards
% Industrial ofTc.till R &L' Awnrds
1' San dose S 7,232,589 S3,729,226 51.6 5511.39' 13 7
San Diego . 14,717,797 4.890.826 33.2 377,635_ ..
Humboldt 1,521,451 466,850 30.7 60.000 (est.)' 1,.e'Fullerton 3.640.597 770,103 21.2 91,068 11.8
Fresno 1,888,027 317,324 16.8 96.743' 30.5
16; Pomona 1,487,920 205,731 13:8 85,980 ^1.8
171 Chico 3,573,116 383,601 10.7 27,451 7.2
i8. :;),)ento 4,211,315 301,003 7.1 14,820 4.9
Source. CSL,C."
Ranked according to percent R&D of all awards iColumn C).See note to Table 17.See note to Table 17.
C *Jr-nil A: Total dollar amount of all foundation awards li.e., external monies announced) for research, training, and other educational projects.
Coumn B: Total dollar amount of all awards for R&D.Column C Percent R&D of total awards (B/A).Column D: rota' dollar amount cf awards for R&D from private industry sources.Column E: Percent industrial R&D of total R&D awards ID /BI.
"rule awards" data shown in Table 18 should beregarded cautiously. Unlike the data on expenditures,these figures are relatively incomplete or unreliablebecause (a) not all awards are necessarily spent thefollowing year. ib) not all money to be spent the fol-lowing year is necessarily announced by the fiscal yearcutoff date, and (c) many contracts, especially in applied
'I bid.
176
they have emphasized providing technical assistanceand clerical support in the submission of grant appli-cations and responses to contract MT's, In the view ofsonic facultythe foundations have concentrated toomuch on the fiscal and regulatory compliance aspectsof grant and contract activity, a purely bureaucraticfunction.
184
In any casc, the separation betwee:i the founda-tions and the regular academic structure has probably,helped to in( 1,41%(' 11.1V,i01) hliNeCn {acuity and loun-dation stall. Adding to th strain is the perception ofsome research-interested faculty that "overhead" orcharges lor indirect costs (the percentage of grant or«intra( t kolue charged by the louhuationt arc execs-si% e, especially on larger grants and contracts. Some-times lac tilt\ agitate to get some of tnis money backlor small -seed" grants to help establish research'mole( ts, stipends tot graduate research assistants,and so Oil.
At two) ol the eight campuses discussed here, thiskind of c onflict appears to have resulted in a separa-timi of the application and administration functions.At San Jose State an,! Calitornia State, Fullerton, theloitedat ions handle only tr.e fiscal or bookkeeping
sponsihilities ot grant at contract administration,while the applic at ion (unction is handled by a separateisear( It oilic e located xdthin the regular administra-tive stunt Ilse and headei bya former faculty memberwith a den um:shale(' 'track record" for getting his ownlundiag. At Loth cii:;ipi(sesperhaps because theyhaw (prate:I contid, ,Te: in the more visible research
and engineering faculty seem rela-tik Content with this dual arrangement.
Ott tin' .(her hand, on several campuses whereapplk ac:on and fiscal functions are combined in
the ( ampus foundation, science and engineering lac-tt.ne .set up various kinds of research centers.
flick intention is, among other things, to gain greater(i((-( ampus visibility lor their special skills and abilitiesthan can be achieved operating through the kninda-liun Alon.t with the emergence of these struc-tue's there are, frequently, intensified demands for alat gel 1011111 (1 overhead money to help meet researchcosts of various kinds.
It sh,n11(1 be made clear, however, that dissatis-faction with the present structure of campus founda-tions does not appear to be uniform at all campuses.i::ted. The figures for expenditures and awards pre-sented above suggest that on sonic campusesSanDiego, for examplethere could well be considerablesmpport kir the single dual-function research founda-tion. With a total dollar amotint of expenditures andawards amounting to about twice as large as that ofits nearest competitor, the San Diego foundationmight be expected to be able to marshal considerablesupport for things as they are. At San Diego overheadmoney from external grants supports a number ofactivities apart from research, but it also helps pay forthe participation by that campus in several 'Joint-l'h.D." programs with campuses of the University ofCaliforniathe only way in which slate colleges inCalifornia are allowed to participate in doctoral pro-grams under the Master Plan described above. Pos-sibly the departments privileged to advance candidatesin this program (chemistry, for one) would have more
Of a stake in supporting existing foundation arrange-ments than might chemistry departments on othercampuses.
D. Visible Structures: Centers, Institutesand Laboratories
A common forth of organized research and con-sulting unit on CSUC campuses is the department- orinterdepartmcnt-based center or institute. An exampleis the Cellular Molecular Biology Institute at Pomona,recently established with the aid of a $20,000 campusfoundation grant (derived from overhead from outsidegrants).
The institute supports pilot investigative researchby !acuity and students who are interested in molec-ular biological techniques, in the schools of Sci-ence and Agriculture.,
The scope of the institute's activity may encompasspotentially commercial applications in the field ofapplied molecular biology. It is worth noting that suchresearch units may still be viewed as departures fromthe traditional (caching mission of the state college.The director of the Institute justified it in the contextof an instructionally-oriented campus:
I think, in order to be a scientist and to be respon-sible for education of the scientists oltomorrow youhate to keep up with your work, talk to other scien-tists, actually get into the lab, do the research, andfind out all the new techniques."
At Sacramento, the Applied Research and DesignCenter was formed in the School of Engineering
to secure and execute research conductedby faculty and students of its departments and spe-cial programs."
The Center is intended to foster collaborative effortsbetween campus scientists and engineers and thosein government and industry. Its work is directed to-wards a general market for creative applied science;it draws upon a pool of 53 full-time engineering andcomputer science faculty to work on projects such asdesigning an industrial solar heating system or ana-lyzing foreign material on cable used to power lightrail vehicles. The Center has proposed using overheadfrom grants for graduate student stipends (although itis apparently the case that the campus foundation hasstrongly resisted the release of more overhead moniesfor student support).
On the San Diego Slate campus there is an inter-esting example of a large multi-focus research unit.Based in a single department, the recently organized
,California l'olytechnic State liniversity. Pomona News and I'llb-lications 1May 5, 19811, I). I.
I). 2."('alilorniet State University, Sacraniiito. Sc hunt ol Engineering
The ,l/iI)(f 1://c Iliaciraniento: 19791, P. 3.
185 177
Applied Physics Research Laboratory consists of five1,11)S. Its primary function
. i, It) supok u.sedu h. dekelopment and consult-ing set\ i( l1 in lill ill)I/hill .1( 4111 vs industtial dndq))ketnInnt otganizations.i"
appears to have attracted interest from inclus-ti i,ii limis in the area. The Acoustics MeasurementslabotatoiN, has gained contracts with General AtomicsCorporation: the nog tear Radiation Lab, with In CO1'-1)01,10011 AtOilliCS: and the Electro-OpticalMeasurements Lab, with Teledyne-Ryan Corporation,General Atomics National Semiconductor, and Life-guard Signals and Science Applications, Inc. The ThinHim Laboratory is a newly developed facility whichoilers a hinge of capabilities related to thin-film fabri-cation and processing. An important application ofthis field lies in photovoltaics (solar cells). The ImagePi o( fssing Laboratory is schednied to open in mid-1'182: at that time ". . both digital and optical image
SCrVi( CS Will be available"),
L. Private Professional Practice
One of the difficulties in assessing the extent of0H-campus professional activity at California state col-leges is that an undetermined amount of consultationis arranged privately by individual faculty members. Inthe course of this investigation, several academic 0,:7-( ills responsible for on-campus research suggestedthat tvoi k done privately by their science and engineer-ing 'awl business school) faculty greatly exceeded the\olume of work done through the dc.- :grated researchof grant-processing office on campus.
Such private practice may range from an informalone-to-one relationship with a client to a group prac-tice carried on with other campus colleagues." Be-.cause such arrangements arc not linked to any cam-pus (Mice, they arc not subject to official recording orsupervision, ormore important, perhapsoverheadhinges of any kind. In addition, faculty may work
through the three-month summer or shorter winterand spring recesses without formally notifying anycampus officer. This kind of arrangement is, of course,11111C11 more likely to involve work for private compa-nies than for government agencies which typically donot contract Jrectly with individuals where larger dollaramounts Are involved.
A Mil determination of the extent of such privatepractice in the state colleges would require studybe\ ond the scope of this report. It has beena sensitivesubject; formal (ISM systemwide policy states thattat idly cannot earn from outside work more than 25%over their regular income and in past years, criticism
iticq,, st.th tni3rsib, Department of l'hysics, The Applied!'brisk, h 1.,(botalom (San Diego: PALI, p.1.
p. i.`ln.c1 and l'atton. The Correlates of Consultation.- p. 522.
stT'. Additional Linployment l'olicy of the California State'fliei sib and Collette," ['SA 79-50 ILong ficacfr: aunt: 14, 19791.
178
from the legislature and the board of trustees hasbeen directed at faculty who they fear take tin-e orenergy away from teaching to earn extra consultingincome or do research. At the same timf:!, therebasbeen a common expectation that faculty 0/ill involvethemselves in "community service" in .eir area ofexpertise (an element that enters into promotion f al-uations)."
In any case, a degree of legitimacy has recentlybeen cast upon private consulting by the establish-ment in 1978 within the CSUC system of a TechnicalAssistance Program (TAP) in energy conservation andtechnology. The TAP was organized in response to de-mands for active assistance from various groups,following a series of extension lectures.
'the availability of CSUC campuses throughout thestate, and the fact that they were already involved inthe energy picture, obligated them to also provideprofessional assistance to this segment of the pop-
Using funds from private utilities and the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, the TAP published a Slate Directory ofEnergy Consulting Service((' which proffered the ser-vices of 150 CSUC scientists, social scientists and eng-ineers. The introduction to the Directory notes:
As independent consultants (faculty) may or maynot charge for their services, as they see fit."'
Evidence of official approval of the Directory came withits introduction by the CSUC Chancellor:
Chancellor Dtunke said each of the campuses hasfaculty with expertise in energy fields who with(undergraduate) and graduate students can provideconsulting help to citizens, public agencies and bus-inesses.'"
Thus it appears that CSUC faculty are sanctioned,and even encouraged, to undertake extrarunr-11 or pri-vate practice. There is, unfortunaLely, no way of me is-tiring the success of the Technical Assistance Progra-just because any requests for ,:ssistance go r'ectly toindividual faculty and no official records are IY-.pt. Butthe significance of this program for our discussionhere is the apparent license it has given CSUC facultyto operate "on the side."
"Catiloolia Slate University. Sacramento, Academic PersonnelPolicies and Procedures (Applicable lot the 1977-78 AcademicYear), )Sacramento: 19781, p. /3. Arguments which contradict com-mon criticisms of faculty r msulting :Lint v. PattonUnit'. of Illinois) "Vacuity Consulting: Boon or Banc to Science Re-
search'?" I n.d.): James D. Narver and Carl V. Patton, "The Productivityof American Ac.fidemic 7onsultants," (mot.): and Carl V. Patton, "Con-sulting by faculty Mcnit ts."
Cleve Turner tt:, tithed V. Cliocosie, -The Statewidt'. EnergyComtism-bunt: A California Concept," .hatt of College ScienceTeaching Ilelmitiry 19811, 28-240.
('CSUC, Statewide Vrertv, ..:Tonsortium, Stale Directory of EnergyConsulting .Sernices (19801.
I Ibid.t"-Duinke Reveals Enet co' I 'lin." ('.511.5 Hornet, April 18, 1978. p. 1.
86
I'. Industrial Supporters of R&D at theSur% eyed CatlIplIZieS
I Ilk Se( fit)11 eat 11 campus discussed inthis !quirt. pi hate industrial sources of current grantsand contracts, and the dollar amounts involved-at cot ding to official campus sources. It should not beinterpreted comprehensive report; the intent istattlet to gke the reader a sense of the scope of workbeing done. the figures are drawn from two sources:the annual report of activities enclitic; June. 30, 1980,sun t tat ;zinc; the activity of campus foundationsig which
the dollar amounts of both awards and expendi-tia es during the fiscal year; plus, a variety of officiallocal le( olds and news releases obtained dining per-sonal iisils to sonic campuses.
Ih(1() state: One or the largest of all CS(IC. campuses,,0111 Hem k 251)(10 lull-time equivalent students (FTE), andnine 111,111 (tilt) 11111 lime itl(Ailt. It is located in a large citywith a mak)r base and several large aerospace and11'c hnnits !HU',
lintsn Arnards(ExPeIldi-
tines)
1.1( ti is Fr)1 1(eseatc 11 Institute .... $196.349 ($248.4931\\ ottrks.,10.1-( I\ de ( onsultants and
sail Diego ( Ids and tile( bit it\ -0- ( 32,4971I or ((heed ( (moil lot
'slot inc lieseau h 50,000 i 2(1,3171
Dandle Noillwoist Labotatoties 137,000 i 82,000)ciriteialAtontirs 14,000 I-0-1(writ ial l)\narriir s Coma,/ 12,000 1-0-)\ I li.'\( Inc . 4,405Reseaic 11( ntpokiti()n '7,0001(escai II( ot potation 15,400( ti luiitt,tucadosocicily 1,212
I An ''instant college," foundedaltet sputnik in 1958. with about 15-1(3,000 current I'll:
I rrei 7()() laculty. Located in the rapidly' grmvirigsoutheastern sec tot of the Los Angeles Ille(1,110O0liS, the,,11111)11,, is ( lose tO .1 \%itle 1,111(1(7 of MC(1111111- and hiSt11-te(11-milttqc
Flans ilu'ards
sr it'll«. I.Assoc iation $28,358( ( ()mottle! Sstems 26,() 1 Cr
southern( alitomia Edison Co 10, 26IeietIc)ni\ItII 592liescau It (iorporatir 1 I.25)liesearr It Col potation 1.00lieseatr It Cot potation 5,000liesriair I1 Cotporation 12,00011«odurol Labs, Inc 3,000Mc Donnell-Dotictla,,Astronautics 14,()0()l(r)(1,3mill International (1,000
Roc ',well International 6.000Rand Mc Nall( Inc . 2,000
ILkpetuli-Our.$)
1$21,()33)( 20,783)
(-0-)
Califor tn.: State P011itechrlic, Pomona: Originally an actr`ic:til-tnl,tt sc hoot with well-known (-ente for the study ol horses,it rmphasizes (incliner...ling and applied programs. 1.Vith about
tim 1,1( tivitp in Kru'arrh.
12,000 FIE and 550 (till-time faculty, it graduates approxi-mately 450 engineers at the bachelor's level and 50 at themaster's, per year. l'oniona is located in the northeast cornerof Los Angeles County, in one of the most rapidly industrial-izing parts of California.
I"it ?MS
(EXIN't1C/I-trues)
(ias Vroducet s Association $ 39,980 (5 069)Lockheed Aircraft Corporation 12,000 5,0661Southern California Edison Co. 27,000Southern California Edison Co. 81,000Organon Corporation 2,300Oak-furl Racing Assdciation 300,000
California State, Fresno: One of the original normal schools,with about 13-14,000 current FIE and under 6(x) full-timefaculty. It is located in a small but substantial city about 200miles north of Los Angeles. which is Olen referred to as the"capital- of the agri-business-dominated San Joaquin Valley.
Pirrns
P: tcilic Gas and Electric'
AtiNtras
$-0- ($112,986)
(Expendi-tures)
Southern California Edison Co. 40,000 ( 40,000)Lilly Research Labs 15,750 ( 14,340)Lilly Research Labs 11,175 1 11,175)
San Jose State: San Jose, with 22,000 FTE and fewer than1000 lull-time !acuity, is located at the southern end of theSanta Clara rot- "Silicon") Valley, while Stanford Universitymarks the northern end. Although San Jose's R&D recordsshow a lot of activity in electronics and aerospace, much ofthis is funded by the federal government, through NASA'sAmes Research Center. Most of the items listed below arelinked to the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, a state col-lege facility operated by San Jose for all the northern cam-puses. It is clear font conversations on the campus thatmuc h of the consulting in the Silicon Valley by San JoseState faculty is done privately.
(irms lures)
Kaiser Refractories $ 41,437 ($ 11,068)Kaiser Relractories -0- ( 26,691)C11211 Inc. 274,832 ( 188,248)C112M Inc. 35,000 I 50,2931Ocean Mineral Co. 122,202 ( 105,049)Standard Oil Co., Indiana' 27,921 1 20,970)
California Slate, Sacramento: Located in the capital city,Sacramento has an 1:TE of about 15,000 and approximately800 full-time faculty. lVhile the total number of all grantsand contracts is larger than at many campuses, there arerelatively few of the R&D type. Again, most of that kind ofwork goes on under the cover of private consulting. Only oneRent in the foundations' annual report can be classified asprivate R&D-a contract lrom a local Procter and ()ambleplant for $14,820, of which $1,788 was reported expendedin fiscal 1979-80.
California State, Chico: One of the original normal schools,it is set in ranch and fruit-farming country, about 100 milesnorth of Sacramento. Apart from various services that sup-port agt iculture there is little industry of any kind: the itemsfrom the private sector listed below confirm this. As will beSeen in the next chapter, the Chico Computer ScienceDepartment has a great deal of interaction with the com-puter industry in the San Francisco bay area. but again, thismoves through private consulting channels.
18179
Flints11:Aperuli-
1waufs tut('.)
lii( 1: (111)k% 1111 $17,400 1$-0-1Almond )(miokvee-.1 ltoamd 10,051 110,051)
Ilimerq --0 ( 17.449)
Humboldt Stat At Arcata on the far northwestern coast,los h 11w Otecton border. It is the smallest campus of the
eight kith about 8.000.1.-TI: and fewer than 500 full-time lac:-Allhoutth more isolated than Chico, the campus is sur-
mound.ed lateral and state laboratories and experimentstations serving time area's lumber and fishing industries.hits science and engineering faculty, especially the applied
Imiolonic .11 and physical scientists in the widely known School',animal Resources. have many opportunities to provide
inmutal services. Mit 11umboldt presents one more casemost of the work fur private industry is done off-
ampus. lite foundation there reports processing only hall adoien or so small grants from commercial or industrialsour( es last year, each worth less than $10,000, for a total
almommt $00,000. llowever, the foundation director indicatedthat many far ulty in fields related to area industries weredoing private «msulting.)
0. An Intriguinci, Anomaly in the Data onIndustrial Funding
Additional light on the dollar value of off-campusprivate consulting is revealed in two sets of figurestenoning on the value of Industrial R&D expendituresat certain campuses. The first set deals with expendi-tures of private industrial funds through campus re-sarch foundations and is presented in Table 17. Thesecond source of figures is Engineering Education, apublication of the American Association of Engineer-ing Education of Washington, D.C., which surveys thenation's engineering schools each year.
The Vngineering Education survey, covering thecar 1979- 1980, drew replies on amounts of R&Dfunding from only two of the California state collegeslooked at here: San Jose State and California State,Sacramento. Table 19 contrasts the CSUC officialfigures on private in,..astrial expenditures with themore limited, but still comparable, data from theLnciineerinri Mutation survey. It will be noted that thetwo sets of figures for San Jose State are compatible.Sat' Jose State Engineering School reports expendi-tures from private business or industrial sourceswhich, as might be expected, amount to less than thatofficially reported for engineering and natural and phys-ical science departments together. The figures for Cali-fornia State, Sacramento present an anomaly and,nossibi; a clue to how much off-campus work is clone
180 188
there and at other campuses. According to the Engi-neering Education survey, the engineering faculty atCalifornia State, Sacramento, reported spending about900% (i.e., more than 90 times) the amount of dollarsfront private business than was channelled throughthe campus research foundation! Discussion with theSacramento engineering dean confirms the differencein, and the reason behind, the figures. According tohim, he decided to Gather data directly from his facultyfor Engineering Education's annual questionnairerather than simply submit figures available in existingcampus records. He 'explained further that his ques-tionnaire was meant only to elicit information oncampus-related R&D. however, whatever the reasons,faculty reported on private work as well.
While this comparison may be somewhat tenuous,it is nevertheless suggestiveeven indicativeof whatmight lie behind the official records of R&D activity ofstate college (and perhaps other kinds of) faculty. Itcertainly lends credence to the comments of variousdeans and vice-presidents at San Jose, Pomona andother places who suggested that work done as privatepractice off-campus by their faculties might well over-shadow what is being done through campus adminis-trative facilities. In the next chapter some projects ofboth kinds will be discussed in more detail.
Table 19
Private Industrial R&D Funds Expended by AllScience and Engineering Departments Reported by
CSUC, Year ending 6/30/80, and EngineeringDepartments Reported by Engineering Education,
Year 1979-1980
CSUC Science & EngineeringEngineering Depts. EducationOfficial Foundation Engineering Schools
Reports, Year Ending Survey Covering6/30/80' 1979 -80"
San Jose State $502,346California State
Sacramento S 1,788
$300,000
$133,000
CSUC: Reporting Activity in R, :,,arch etc. ...Nov. 1980 (Derived)."Engineering Education. March 1981.2°
2"Enfiincerinq Education, March 1981, Vol. 71, No. 6, p. 426. AndC.SUC Repo/Nun Activitm in iiesearch, ltiorkshops, insfititie.s, and()Mrs .Spry d,rl Eduration,11 l'rqje( lot ti.u,tl e.0 hule(1.1une 30,HMO (1.onct Beach: 19801.
CHAPTER V
CALIFORNIA: SOME EXAMPLES OFCAMPUS-INDUSTRY INTERACTION
This chapter presents some specific examplesof productive interaction between industry and statecollege science and engineering faculty. Brodsky, et
have developed a classification of university-industry interaction which subsumes most linkingactivities under two general categories: (1) collabora-tive research mechanisms, including actual problem-oriented joint R&D activity, and (2) knowledge transfermechanisms involving continuing education, co-opera-tive education, innovation centers and consulting. Inthe case of "consulting," no distinction seems to bemade regarding the formal "on-campus" and "off-campus" kinds of activity. As some of the examplesbelow illustrate, elements of both types of mechanisms,plus on- and off-campus work, can often be jointlyinvolved in any one case. Further, the range and typesof interaction vary widely within disciplines and betweencampuses. Nevertheless, some characteristic featuresor patterns may be discerned; and our discussion willrevolve around these.
A. Student Participation
One of the most directand potentially most pro-ductiveconnections between the campus and privateindustry revolves around engineering students whomust complete senior or master's projects focused onproblems encountered in engineering practice. Tradi-tionally, state college engineering projects have beenoriented toward immediate vocational interests ratherthan post-graduate research careers; as a result, suchprojects often lead to subsequent employment. Thus
I Neal H. Brodsky, Harold Ci. Kaufman, and John D. 'Tooker,I Iniversity, hultistrp Cooperation: A Preliminary Analysis of ExistingMechanisms and Their Relationship to the Innovation Process (NewYork: Cr-actuate School of Public Administration, New York University,1980).
the availability of industry -based projects ensures thatstudents are directed toward private industry, whileparticular firms are provided with personnel conversantwith theii. specific technical needs. At a more abstractlevel, this process underscores the role of state col-leges in providing industry with technically trainedpersonnel. Useem2 notes the importance of San JoseState in the industrial development of the Silicon Valley:
San Jose State University supplies more engineerswith bachelor's degrees to area firms than any otherschool. Long overshadowed by the engineeringschool of its eminent neighbor, Stanford, it enrollsapproximately 4000 students in engineering.... Aleading industry figure called the school the "un-sung hero of the Valley" for turning out so manygraduates. About 14 percent of the University'sundergraduates . . are enrolled in engineering, atypical percentage for a large state university.
Senior and master's projects are supervised byfaculty, but in addition, they are often overseen by ajoint committee of faculty and industry or agency tech-nical personnel. In .the case of state college master'sstudents, many are already full-time employees in theirvarious fields; and their thesis projects are often tailoredto technical problems confronting their employers.
At California State, Sacramento, a civil engineeringprofessor uses' the master's project to organize aseminar for dropouts from the graduate program;most of these were fully involved in jobs and had givenup the idea of finishing their degrees. They met once aweek and were encouraged to develop work-relatedprojects. According to one of members, then an engi-neer at a chemical company:
The thesis topic that I hadthe school just didn'thave the equipment for me to do itand I sort ofabandoned it and was going to give it up.
211scem, Eli/abeth (Boston State College), "Education and HighTechnology Industry: The Case of Silicon ValleySummary ofResearch Eindings," August 1981.
183 181
llc %tt )ilict sonic %wt.!. on deep injection wells at',II I Malt' la), thesis all using (ice')
in11 1 (km alcaas lar disposingd Ill RI I CI I .t M, V.1 t
C Co m pa ny-a large one with branches through-out the «nnitnapproved the project and CVC/1 securedtire --AAA ic es of all 011t.SidC C.011Silltant for the student's1:iojer t committee. Lstimated cost of the research tothe company was about a quarter of a million dollars,well beyond the support available from the Sacra-mento campus alone.
Inter estingly enough, a' few years later the chem-ir al company found itself in trouble with environ-mental authorities at several levels of government forallegedly having contaminated groundwater in thevicinity of its property by dumping wastes in unlinedsurtar c ponds. (Whether this occurred prior or subs-equent to the engineer's work on injection disposalis ((nclear.i but in the meantime, the engineerwithmaster's degree completedis working for the com-pany in a 11C1): Capacity: he is now responsible for itsemironmental control system.
Also at Sacramento, another civil engineering pro-fessor is working with students to. test an undergroundpipe developed by ARMCO Steel for drainage andsewage systems. ARMCO, a national firm which pro-duces highway and drainage. fixtures, among otherthings, requested assistance in testing the pipe whichis made of cement and encased in an ABS plastic coat-ing. The professor has put several engineering seniorand master's students to work rn the project in thecampus testing lab. The students are not only gettingtheir necessary graduation projects or theses out ofthe work, but several have found themselves in a posi-tion to negotiate for jobs with the company which hasbranches across the country.
IS. Gifts, "Taking in Washing" and "Making Do"
It is ,r miumonplace among state college scienceand engineering faculty that their relatively expensiveprograms have been chronically underfunded in a sys-tem designed to provide low-cost mass instruction to anon-elite and numerous clientele. These financialstraits grown increasingly severe as fiscal pressuresmount on state budgets, have led to some singular, ifpredictable, dependencies on industry. A dean at SanDiego noted that the most recent engineeringbuilding on campus was built in 1962, with all itsequipment and instrumentation based on vacuumtubes. Accordingly: "We've had to put a lot of emphasisoir scrounging newer equipment, especially from com-panies around town."
Ile noted further that one of the salaried tech-nicians who had good connections with area firms tine:proved so successful in soliciting gifts of equipmentthat he was presently detailed to work half-time culti-
182
vating his contacts and "begging." The campus researchfoundations are, of course, able to receive such dona-tions and provide tax-deduction documentation forthe donors. The most recent gift of this kind at SanDiego provided a much needed laboratory refrigeratorfor a biochemistry lab. Similarly when the physicsdepartment at San Diego found itself in need of onekilometer of optical fiber for experimental work, fivelocal firms were asked if they could spare some. Allfive could, and did; and a total of five kilometersarrived at the physics building.
Interviews at Cal Poly, Pomona, revealed that facultythere also rely on a campus lab technician to keep thefacilities more up-to-date than they otherwise wouldbe. With informal ties to a number of firms wh,-..Je hehad been employed, he is able to locate ano solicitgifts of surplus equipment. And a San Jose State news-letter reported in 1980 that a physics department tech-nician had
. . .recently completed modifying a $150,000 low-energy electron scanning microscope donated tothe Physics Department by IBM's General ProductsDivision in San Jose.3
According to department faculty, the microscope hadbecome "outmoded for IBM's current needs" butremained an extremely valuable teaching tool. Useemreports some disagreement among campus officialsabout the value of donated equipment;'' nevertheless,such donations appear to be an important source ofcorporate support for campus science programs.
Apart irons the cbvious tax deductions there mayin some cases be other benefits accruing to donorcompanies. At Sacramento where Hewlett-Packard hasrecently established a plant, the state college hasreceived a late-model HP 000 minicomputer withgraphics capability. A key reason is to familiarizestudents not only with HP systems in particular, butalso with something close to state-of-We-art systemsin general. State goverr :aent budget officials are un-convinced that state college students need late-modelsystems "to earn on"a view regarded as appallinglyinappropttge in a fielc that makes its current equip-ment obsolete every. few years. Hence, the computercompanies are compelled to provide this kind ofassistance if they want to hire graduates familiar withcontemporary equipment.
And of course, other benefits can arise from plac-ing state-of-tin -art instrumentation on state collegecampuses. for example, Sacramento computer sci-ence faculty and siudents are working to adapt aprogrammuch used in structural engineering, butpreviously workable only on much larger systemstothe HP minicomputer. This adaptation, if successful,will presumably enhance the HP 1000's usefulness
190
10,,c f)i(iest 1'1.11(11 24, 191101.
11(P.udlion Inclw,lt," I. 24.
and its sales potential. Such innovation clearly trans-lates into industrial productivity at several levels.
(wine? test 0)1 ( ()ping with the relative povertyaftli( ling sc ienc e and engineet ing labs and equipmentis lt'Portcd by Cal Poly. There, although enough moneylido been found to purchase and install an electronInk r-A opt' lac 11th, 11111(15 >o operate and maintain itto.-re not forthc:oming. According to c;unpus officials,the department responsible at Pomona is activelyscekititt contract work from some of the many firmsIWO! bV to help pay such overhead costs.
Finally like most institutions of higher education,C.,rli or nia state colleges must often restrict their activi-ties in the face of scarce resources. For oceanographyre-ear( h at San Diego State, restricting the scope ofthe program has ultimately brought it closer to indus-tty. While their oceanographers operate from a jointeseal di site at the Scripps facility at La Jolla with
!nor e !WIWI initily funded teams, they are restricted intheir 1,111(tt of research problems. Because the cruise( apabilit of their small research vessel does not allowthem to do deep-sea work, they have specialized innear shore and estuary studies. As a result they havebecome proficient in applied aquaculture, specificallythe studs of commercial production problems assoc-iated t\ith lobsters, rock scallops and similar marketableinshore species. This brings them in contact with riotonly the private industrial sector, but also the variousgot ern ment agencies providing support services tothe aquacultural industry; this, of course, puts the SanDiego State program in a position to receive fundingfrom both sources.
C. Inventions and Innovations
One of the factors in the ability of state collegescience and engineering programs to attract financialsupport from private industry lies in the inventive orinnovative capacity of the faculty. ("Invention" is usedhere to !titan the creation of a new device or method;innovation" to mean the introduction of a new or
previous intention into practical use.) The examplesthat kollow are not offered as an exhaustive inventory,but rather as illustrations of the creativity that mayoccur in this setting.
1. The Teacup Solids SeparatOr
A !Sacramento engineering professor specializingin water supply and wastewater drainage systems hasbeen intolved in projects linking him and the engi-neering school with government agencies and privatethins for almost twenty years. Recently, he has beenworking with an off-campus colleague who has in-vented a device called a Teacup Solids Separatorwhich separates solid debris from storm wastewaterand sewage. The colleague Irequently teaches part-time in the engineering school, a typical arrangementinvolving practicing engineers in the teaching pro-
gram. Working together, the private engineer (whosefirm specializes in water treatment problems), thefaculty member, and studentsgraduate and undergraduate have tailored models of the separator tospecific: industrial situations. At present, they arc test-ing a more sophisticated, larger-scale applicationdesigned to remove solids from domestic and stormrunoff wastewaters at the main sewage treatment plantin the city of Sacramento. This project is being moni-tored by potential usersboth public and privateand by private firms interested in manufacturing andinstalling such systems on a commercial basis.
2. The Stratified Charge
Also at Sacramento, a mechanical engineering pro-fessor and his students have developed a feasible add-on device for automobile engine combustion chambersthat allows much more efficient gasoline consumptionand a reduction of air-polluting emissions to very iowlevels. The original invention is that of an off -campusengineer, now retired; and the device is said to operatethrough a process similar to that used in some Japanesecars which have performed well on efficiency and emis-sions tests. One of the advantages of the system devel-oped at the Sacramento campus is that it is retrofit-table to existing automobiles; it has been successfullyinstdikd in two American cars for testing and demon-stration purposes. A contract with a state governmentagency to rett ofit a test group of state vehicles is cur-rently pending.
3. Computer Enhancements
A number of computer manufacturing firms in the"Silicon Valley" south of San Francisco, have had whatofficials of one termed a long and productive relation-ship with Chico State College (now CSU, Chico), locatedabout 200 miles northeast of the Bay Area. Such rela-tionships apparently stem from the 1960's migrationof scientists and engineers from the aerospace indus-try to Chico and other California state colleges wherethey began setting up computer science programs.Many brought with them continuing connections withformer colleagues remaining in the aerospace andelectronics industries. The development of state col-lege computer science programs has been particularlyimportant to the computer companies in Californiawhich are dependent on educational programs of thiskind to provide a continuous supply of trained tech-nical and sales personnel at all levels. The computerindustry is extremely competitive, if not piratical, interms of skilled labor; rapid turnover of qualified tech-nical and sales staff is an ongoing fact of life.
One of the first computer science departments inthe California state college system was established atChico, and it remains one of the largest. The industry'slink with that campus, howeVer, has been strengthenedby other bonds. A faculty member and master's stu-
191 183
dent, working there in the early 1970's with a popularmodel of one company's minicoputehmade changesat the firmware level which company engineers haddoubted were possible. As a result of this experimenta-tion, the capacity of that particular model and systemwas increased by a factor of 28. rurthermorc, thechanges were easily retrofitted; and as a consequence,the manufacturer moved into a stronger market posi-tion for that size and kind of instrument. Over the yearssince, the grateful firm has sent a steady stream ofdonated equipment and company scientists to theChico campus to supplement the faculty's work withstudents.
At Sari Diego State, an electrical engineering pro-f;2ssor acts as a consultant to a small local firm speci-alizing in design and fabrication of microprocessor-equipped instrumentation for physics research labora-tories. This relationship originated when the companyc,dled the campus for trouble-shooting assistance ona particular microprocessor cie.,;.gt which the facultynreber repo:-tedly "went out and fixed in one lay."
The lirm is one of a numbe: of small companiesaround San Diego that build specialized digital equip-ment using pre-manufactured integrated circuit chipsas "building blocks." When the campus engineer wascalled, they had been trying tc build an instrumentaround a standard microprocessor chip. because theproblem was resolved quickly, they were able to pre-sent an important demonstrati.,n at an out-of-townmarketing show the following week. According to theengineer, he has now been retained by the company toassist in the development of an 'her special instru-ment to be built around another ;:hip.
At Cal Poly, Pomona, a biological sciences pro-fessor has "spunor a small private company to pro-mote and sell a specific computer software he hasdeveloped. Ills system allows a group of experts whowork together to pool their knowledge in a jointlyusable data base, enabling one of them to reactquickly to a given problem. So far, the market for thesystem seems to be small practi...ag ; Alps such asmedical, scientific and legal firms.
4. 1:nergy Applications
As might be expected, the energy field is the focusof much contemporary R&D activity, The State Direc-tory of Energy Consulting Services, mentioned inChapter-IV5, indicates a substantial degree of energyexpertise among state college science and engineer-ing faculty on virtually every campus within the system.
At both San Diego and San Jose, faculty are help-ing to develop plans for co-generation plants to recycleenergy that would otherwise be wasted. On the lattercampus, engineering faculty were involved in the con-ceptual design of the healing system for the new
( -,r( tilottl%itir Consi)ithini, !State Ditectorti.
184
campus library, a combination of solar and co-generatedheat. At San Diego, a physics professor has devel-oped a special type of solar heat collector capable ofproducing high temperatures suitable for steam powergeneration.
At Sacramento a mechanical engineering pro-fessor is involved with government and industry in a"gasification" project intended to convert city woodwaste (from tree clippings and other sources) into gasfor possible use by the campus. Once a prototype hasbeen perfected, the converters will be manufactured bya local firm.
Also at Sacramento, another professor of civilengineering has invented and holds patents for a dry-cast concrete, the properties of which include rapidset-up, superior strength, machinability and polish-ability. This last property has attracted the interest ofinternationally known sculptors who have used theconcrete in public locations at several places through-out the world. lie has also designed and developedinstrumentation for measuring stress on the shells ofunderground transit tunnels and other subsurfacestructures as part of a method of building more cost-efficient subsurface structures.
5. Physics Applications
This section has stressed the work of engineeringfaculty, probably because the emphasis on design inengineering leads naturally to new devices or systems.But faculty within the basic sciences may also developnew products or methods which have industrial appli-cation. For instance, a San Diego physics professorhas developed a method to "lock" lasers together sothat they oscillate in step, preventing laser frequenciesfrom drifting apart. Another member of the samedepartment has developed a new way to conduct satel-lite surveys of land and mineral deposits (includinghydrocarbons). This process has military, as well asindustrial, application.
D. Faculty Accessibility
Both private and campus-based collaborativeactivities between statc college faculty and local indus-try usually develop out of referrals from scientists andengineers who are familiar with one another, but whowork in different settings. But the simple presence ina community of a state college, and its pool of facultyexpertise, apparently attracts inquiries from peoplewith serious scientific concerns but who lack access toprofessional advice. Office staff of science and engi-neering departments at these institutions report fre-quent telephone calls requesting expert advice on abroad range of topics. lany faculty informantspar-ticularly those in basic .3ciences like physicsreportthat initial contacts with smaller and newly-formingbusinesses seeking scientific assistance for the first
19)4,
time have often been made this way. For instance, phy-sicists at the Sacramento campUs provided key adviceon laser technology in response to a request from theowner of a small optics firm (14 employees) manufac-turing special photographic filters. In another case, theoff-campus promoters of a highly-rated, new type ofhigh fidelity speaker contacted Sacramento physicsand mathematics faculty for controlled testing assist-ance, using a special test chamber available in thephysics lab. Both the optical filter and the speakerarc now being manufactured in Sacramento, and mar-keted throughout the world.
E. Private vs. On-Campus Work:an Exemplary Campus
We have already mentioned above that while facultyroutinely conduct a good deal of R&D activity in their-opacity as private consultants, the actual extent of
such activity is unknown. Nowhere is this more apparenttiro t at San Jose State whichbecause it is particularlyacti' in terms of R&Dwe will focus on briefly here.
'I discussion of Table 17, above, indicated thatin con..1,!rison to the other campuses studied, SanJose had the highest official percentage of R&D expendi-tures from all sources, as well as R&D money fromindustry. The largest single source of San Jose's on-campus R&D contracts is the Ames Research Center,a NASA facility operated at nearby Moffatt Field. Thework with Ames began in the 1960's, with a psychologistinterested in the performance of human auditory func-tions under space travel conditions; in FY 1980/81,faculty and student research assisti.nts were at workon 45 contracts there. Funding at the Ames Center is,of course, largely federal; but the Center does serve totie together local industrial electronics and aerospaceresearch, as researchers from private firms in thevicinity also get NASA contracts through it.
But the industrial R&D contracts channeled throughthe San Jose Research Office do not, for the most part,originate with Silicon Valley firms. Faculty work withthe relatively new, high-technology firms in this areais usually carried out independently, and not officiallyrecorded on campus. The following case illustrates afairly widespread pattern where expertise developed inthe course of campus-based sponsored research issubsequently used in private consulting practice.
A mechanical engineering professor participatedin a study of the ignition and combustion processesof a number of materials used in aircraft and spacevehicles. The study required test burns under manyconditions, and resulted in the publication of reportssufficient to establish the San Jose engineer as anauthority on certain kinds of fires and their control.Subsequently as an associate of a firm of.scientificspecialists, he has worked as a private consultant onrelated problems such as subway transit fires andresulting generation and control of lethal gas, andanaerobic explosions aboard ships in dry dock. lie
declined an offer from a world-famous oil well firecontrol firm, explaining:
I didn't want to be on call to jump on a Lear jet onfive minutes notice and find myself stuck out in theNorth Sea in the middle of winter.
As for the matter of faculty and graduate stu-dents who have become involved in companies "spun -off' from the campus to develop and produce newprocesses and products over the years, San Joseresearch officials say they have lost track of most ofthem because the pattern has been repeated so often.In a recent telephone conversation, a campus deancited one faculty member who had just launched a newcompany with a process for dealing with nuclear waste;another, who with others had just patented an auto-mated system for environmental control; -and anotherwho, having successfully floated a company with off -campus backing on the basis of an advanced methodfor reworking micro-chips, had unfortunately just re-signed to devote his full time to the venture.
Most of the industrial' R&D that is channeledthrough the campus revolves around the oceano-graphic and marine biological research station atMoss Landing, about an hour's drive from San Jose onthe Pacific Coast. This station is operated by San Josefor a consortium of six northern CSUC campuses:Unlike its San Diego counterpart, the San Jose facility.has a deep-sea research vessel. (It is on a, long termloan from Oregon State University which obtained anewer and more versatile ship with the help of theNational Science Foundation.) Further, the researchstation is located not only at the end of an estuary"teeming with fish and fowl", but also within a fewmiles of a narrow deep-sea canyon 'which comes inclose to shore.
Moss Landing has become an important researchfacility, supplying data for marine industries from fish-eries to mining and oil exploration. One way in whichthe research ship's operations are supported is throughits temporary. lease to private firms with commercialR&D projects offshore: All in all, Moss Landing appear sto be one of San Jose State's primary attractors ofindustrial R&D money.
In its purely educational role San Jose State, par-ticularly its engineering school, as Useem suggestsabove, is closely linked to local industry which includesbranches and head offices of nationally known firms.On the engineering school's Engineering AdvisoryCouncil, which attempts to develop and maintain tiesbetween campus and industry in the San Jose Stateservice area, are executives from Bechtel Corpora-tion of San Francisco, General ElectricSan Jose,Hewlett-PackardPalo Alto, IBMSan Jose, Intel Cor-porationSanta Clara, Lockheed Missiles-and SpaceCompanySunnyvale, Owens-Coming Fiberglass Cor-porationSanta Clara, Quadrex CorporationCamp-bell and World AirwaysOakland.
193185
F. Spin-Off and Program Development:an Exemplary Case
A striking example of the way in which interactioncan be mutually beneficial to indusi,,y and campus isprovided by the medically and commercially success-ful prosthetic heart valve developed during the 1960'sat what was then called Sacramento State College.Campus scientists were brought into the heart valvefield by the death of a popular engineering dean whohad suffered from heart valve disease and had under-gone surgical emplacement of an early form of artifi-cial valve in 1962. With a personal interest at stake, hehad organized a .campus conference on the biologicaland engineering aspects of heart valve development;but died before conferenee could meet. The mech-anical engineering professor who subsequently chairedthe conference, as well as other science and engineer-ing faculty, were drawn into a preliminary investigationof the problems involved.
At about the same time, an established medicalspecialist in artificial heart valves moved his federallyfunded project from an eastern hospital to the privateSutter hospital and Medical Foundation in Sacramento.Before long the hospital research team was in contactwith the state college heart valve study group. As ourengineering informant explained:
They were interested in us. They needed the engi-neering help. They had started already (but) theyhad 110 way of making valves. They had no engineersto work with.
The earliest valves were hand-made from a singleslab of metal in the campus engineering design shop.Lateer they were made by a skilled technician-machinistemployed by the engineering school (in his spare timeat home). All through this period, senior and master'sstudents enrolled in a developing biomedical engi-neering program were at work on problems associatedwith valve design. Through the early 1960's a succes-sion of valves were made for experimental implanta-tion by heart specialists at hospitals throughout theUnited States.
By the middle of the decade the design was stabi-lized, and the valve's acceptance brouGht internationalinterest. Because the handicraft method of manufac-ture could no longer meet the demand, the professorsand physicians explored the idea of an entrep ,neurialventure to manufacture the valves with the help of alocal machine shop. The business project fell throughhowever, when, as the mechanical engineer noted:"The doctors wanted to be doctors and we wanted tobe teachers." The fact that the device was subsequentlymanufactured and distributed throughout the world(approximately 24,000 implantations) by the CutterLaboratories of Berkeley, California, came as some-what of a surprise to the state college faculty involved.
186194
It should be noted that an important factor in thesuccess of the heart valve project at Sacramento wasthe special nature of the nonprofit, private medicalresearch foundation at Sutter hospital. The SutterFoundation is a low-pressure operation which func-tions to permit physicians at the hospital to do research,as well as practice medicine. It presents a contrastwith a typical university medical school hospital interms of the amount and pace of research work car-ried on. Because they carry a typical medical-practicepatient load, the Sutter physicians have less time fortheir research; and this fact, apparently, has made fora workable relationship with state college faculty whoare similarly encumbered with high teaching loads. Amechanical engineer associated with Sutter hospitalfrom the start, put it this way:
The fact that they were doctors first, and researcherssecond, made things fit perfectly with our problemsas full-time college teachers. If they had been full-time med school research doctors, we couldn't havekept up with them!
Eventually, a fully accredited biomedical engineer-ing
z:
program leading to a master's degree was devel-oped out of the continuing relationship between SutterHospital and the state college in Sacramento. Since itsinception, the program has graduated specialists whohave gone into at least three lines of activity. Somehave become supervisors of biomedical technologyprograms at hospitals and health facilities, includingmedical. schools. Others, like their teachers, havebecome involved in R&D for biomedical technologyfirms; while a third group have formed their owninnovative R&D ventures.
For example, a recently formed biomedical tech-nology division at Aerojet-General, an aerospace in-dustry firm with a plant a few miles from the campus,has recruited staff from graduates of the biomed pro-gram. Aerojet is developing a "heart assist" device foruse during surgery. Personnel are continuously movingbetween the plant and the state college campus, withpeople from the company participating both as studentsand part-time faculty.
The biomed graduates who have become involvedin new spin-off R&D firms have frequently combinedtheir talents with those of their former teachers fromthe Sacramento campus. These combined efforts haveresulted in the development of a number of innovativeproducts and business ventures of varying degreesand kinds of success. Three selected examples follow:
The Electronic Blood Analyzer: Sevew' biomed pro-gram graduates and a faculty r, mber have developeda blood analyzer which is being manufactured andmarketed by the independent firm they formed todevelop and distribute it.
The Ultrasonic Diagnostic Instrument: A similar spin-off firm developed the instrument, but was bought outby the General Electric Company which added thedevice to its newly formed medical products division.G.E. did not transfer its new holdings away, incidentally,but acquired manufacturing space in the Sacramentoarea; thus, links with the state college biomedicalengineering program have been maintained.
The Ventilator Project: Another group, including someof the original heart valve team, developed a breathingassistance device for operating room use. Unfortu-nately, it was not ready for the market soon enough,and the venture failed. Two competitive biomedicaltechnology firms were able to get similar ventilatorsapproved and into production, saturating a ratherspecialized market.
Because of the unique opportunity it provides forobserving the development over time of a programinvolving campus and industry, we will comment furtheron the biomedical engineering case at Sacramento(see Chapter VII).
G. Fundamental and/or Applied Researchon a Consulting Basis
The mix of research, even fundamental or "pure"research often involved in the consulting work done byfaculty of state colleges for private industry, is well-illustrated by the ornithologist from the biology depart-ment at Cal Poly, Pomona, who is studying patterns ofbird migration through mountain passes under a grantfrom a public utility company. Because little is knownabout the varieties and behavior of migrating birdsthrough the southern Sierras where turbulent windsare prevalent, his findings will undoubtedly make acontribution to ornithological science. The utility com-pany,which retained this faculty expert as a consultant,is considering the setting up of "wind farms" involvingthe construction of high efficiency wind-driven turbinesIn these same passes. For the company, knowledge ofthe daytime and nocturnal movement of migratingbirds is an important piece of practical data whichwill be considered as a factor in their future plans fotthe wind farm.
The next chapter will provide a brief look at reportsof R&D-based interaction between state colleges andprivate industry from other parts of the United States.
195-187
OTHER STATES: A LIMITED SURVEY
Information about faculty research and consultingat state colleges outside California is sketchy, but notunavailable. A formal study of the subject is underwayin New Jersey; Leonard Rubin, of Montclair State Col-lege, is studying natural, physical and social sciencefaculty at the six campuses of the New Jersey state col-lege system. Although the data are still being analyzed,Professor Rubin has provided some figures on facultyconsulting from preliminary tabulations based onmore than 200 personal interviews. Table 20 showsthat 69.3% of the respondents reported providingconsulting services.,
Table 20
Percent of New Jersey State College Science andSocial Science Faculty Providing
Consulting Services
Consulting Not Consulting Total
69.3% (138) 30.7% (61) 100% (199)
In addition, 12.4% of the respondents /reportedthey were currently involved in consulting for indus-trial clients, while 24.4% reported working for industryat some time. While we have no figures yet on paid asopposed to voluntary work, it can probably be safelyassumed that most industrial consulting involves fees.
The American Association of State Colleges andUniversities (AASCU), made up of more than 340"second-tier" institutionssimilar to CSUC institu-tionsfrom every state and territory, recently surveyedits members. The survey was informal and voluntary; itrequested members to provide data on examples of
'Data from a study of science and social science faculty at NewJersey state colleges still in progress. Conducted by ProfessorLeonard Rubin of the Department of Sociology at Montclair StateCollege. Upper Montclair , New Jersey. Supported by the NationalScience foundation.
188 1 96
CHAPTER VI
current involvement with business and industry. Theresults, although not suited to quantitative analysis,nevertheless were of interest for our purposes here. Areport published in June, 1981,2 claims that the datareturned indicate ".. . an increasing number of 'part-nerships' between higher education and business andindustry" among Association member institutions.Further, the fact that
... the relationships are spreading well beybnd theboundaries of the traditional university researchcenters is a key factor in broadening the country'seconomic base.°
The report concluded that state colleges appear to betaking on new responsibilities as academic resourceproviders in "entrepreneurial pockets" around theUnited States. The accounts that follow are drawn fromthe AASCU survey report, augmented in some cases byfollow-up contacts with campus officials.
A. Trenton State College, New Jersey
A Trenton State College biologist and a number ofundergraduate and graduate students have been work-ing on a project supported by the National ScienceFoundation designed to develop a local aquacultureindustry, utilizing heated water discharged from powerplant cooling towers. It began in the late 1970's, andbrought Trenton State into a cooperative arrangementwith Rutgers (the State University), the New JerseyState Department of Agriculture, Long Island OysterFarms, Inc., and Seabrook Farms, Inc., all under thegeneral leadership of a principal investigator from thePublic Service Electric and Gas Company of Newark.
Project members are attempting to raise rainbowtrout and freshwater shrimp in the heated water pumpedfrom a power plant situated on the Delaware River.Special ponds and raceways haye been built and stocked
2American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Back-ground (June 1981), p. 1.
3Ibid.
with fingerlings and shrimp larvae supplied by privatefirms; additional stocks to be introduced are stripedbass, American eel, and possibly others. An attempt isalso being made to raise different kinds of stock dur-ing different seasons of the year, when the overalltemperature varies. Trenton State is responsible foron-site field experiments, while Rutgers has charge ofthe laboratory work.
B. College of William and Mary, Virginia
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science at thestate-supported College of William and Mary is coop-erating with the campus law school on a research proj-ect investigating the legal status of title to underwaterproperties. Sub-aqueous lands and title to them are ofinterest to developers, governments and conserva-tionists, not to mention the energy industry. Accordingto a release from the college public affairs office,"Virginia is among the seacoast states that suffer fromuncertainty of title to wetlands." The project is beingfunded by a $100,000 grant from Continental FinancialServices, which is described as a "diversified financialcompany."
C. State University College at Buffalo, New York
The state college in Buffalo is the site of the GreatLakes Laboratory. The Laboratory is intended to servebusiness, industry and government in environmentalprojects. For instance after a study of local industrialwaste-disposal problems, state college faculty asso-ciated with the Laboratory recommended a waste-blending process whereby Bethlehem Steel Corpora-tion would convey its waste pickling liquors to theBuffalo sewer authority which, in turn, would use it toremove phosphorous from water during the sewagetreatment process.
Other assignments taken by the Laboratory haveinvolved research and development concerning a pro-posed coal transfer facility for the harbor, and a proj-ect in which scrap tires donated by Dunlop Tire Com-pany were used for "landscape revetments" againsterosion along the Great Lakes coastline in westernNew York State.
Also at Buffalo State, the Energy Advising Systemfor Industry (EAST) unit, funded by a $36,000 grantfrom the state energy office, was expected to completeby the end of the year 80 energy audits of businesseswith 500 or fewer employees in the college servicearea. The public affairs office reports that "more than25 western New York firms that have acted on energySaving recommendations were spending an average of$20,000 less a year." One firm, a paper company, issaid to have cut its fuel bills by $600 a month.
D. University of Toledo, Ohio
Toledo was founded as a private institution in1872, but was later absorbed into the Ohio system of
state colleges. This campus is involved in research onhigh-sulfur coal, which is plentiful in parts of Ohio.Thus, a faculty member in the chemistry departmenthas received $40,000 from the Ohio Coal ResearchLaboratories Association to develop a system forremoving the sulfur. In addition, the geology depart-n lent recently received over $100,000 for coal researchin the form of grants, contracts and equipment giftsfrom private industry and government.
The Eitel Institute for Silicate Research at Toledois a regional center for basic and applied research onsilicate and similar substances, and has a roster ofmore than two dozen scientists from the departmentsof biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Facultyfrom other institutions in the state are also affiliatedwith the Institute, and attempts are reportedly beingmade to widen the membership to include qualifiedscientists in industry. Generally, the Institute seeks to"carry on research activity for businesses and indus-tries which do not maintain an internal research capa-city." One example currently underway is a projectto develop further "production use of industrial by-products now considered waste material." This projectis supported by grants of more than $30,000, abouthalf of it from N-Viro of Ohio, a subsidiary of a localconcrete supply firm which developed, in consultationwith EISR, an interest in using cement-kiln dust andcoal fire fly-ash as substitutes for lime in the makingof cement.
Other Toledo faculty working with local privateindustry include a mechanical engineering professorwith $14,000 from Champion Spark Plug Company fora study of "The 'Apparent Octane' Rating of HydrogenEnhanced Combustion in a Low-Burn Engine"; an elec-trical engineer with $74,379 from Toledo Edison Com-pany for a "Computer-Aided Analysis of ElectricalDistribution Systems"; and a chemistry professor with$1,327 from Dow Corning Corporation to study "VaporPressures and Fluxes of Dow Corning Compound".
E. Southwestern Louisiana University
This campus, situated in an active industrial areanear the Gulf of Mexico, reports a number of specialarrangements for campus-industry cooperation involv-ing local and out-of-state firms. The Center for Green-house Research, covering both vegetables and orna-mental plants, has been set up with state governmentfunds following appeals to the state by the LouisianaGreenhouse Owners Association. Another smallerproject in the Department of Horticulture is sponsoredby the nearby Mcllhenny Company which processes awell-known hot tabasco sauce sold throughout theworld. This project involves development of a high-yield, easily harvested tabasco pepper. Southwestern'sagriculture faculty a:so regularly perform tests onpesticides for Mobile Chemicals and Union Carbide,both of which have plants in the nearby oil-producingand refining areas.
197189
One of the larger projects at Southwestern is a$192,000 sub-contract from Dow Chemical Companyfor physical and chemical analysis of brine brought upfrom a new geo-pressuicd geothermal well being drillednear New Iberia, Louisiana. The analysis will be doneon campus laboratory equipment. This project is partof a more complex undertaking originally funded bythe U.S. Departrient of Energy.
rina!ly, in a manner similar tobut considerablylarger in scope and scale than similar projects onseveral California campuses described in Chapter VSouthwestern computer scientists are attempting toimprove the operational capability of a well-knownminicomputer. Texas Instruments, Inc., has grantedthe Southwestern Computer Science Department atotal of about half-a-million dollars in funds and equip-ment, the latter consisting of three TI 990/10 modelminicomputers with peripherals. Faculty and studentsarc running this state-of-the-art equipment to devise anew operating system and related software for thethree minicomputers which would "... (regulate) the
190198
resources of the computers. as they work in tandemto optimize their performance."
It is apparent that the institutions discussed herethe second-tier public state colleges that belong to theAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universi-ties-7,form a kind of continuum in terms of theirrelationships with industry. Clearly, some appear tohave developed well-established programs with a widerange of scientific expertise available to clients in theprivate sector; others responding to the survey but notdescribed here appear to be in the early stages of cul-tivating such relationships, and are beginning withmodest projects.
Overall, however, nationwide data on these kindsof institutions and their collaboration with industry isfragmentary. Neither the scope nor the depth of suchactivity is readily visible for science policy plannersinterested in including it in estimates of the nation'sscientific resources. Obviously, this is a situation thatcould benefit from investigation beyond the limitedscope of this report.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
This report on interaction between science andengineering faculty at state colleges and science-oriented industry in California and elsewhere in thecountry tells us some things and alerts us to othersthat would benefit from further research. Our findingssuggest a considerable amount of research and devel-opment and consulting activity carried on by faculty atCalifornia and other American state colleges. These wehave described collectively as constituting a "second-tier" of public higher education. Many of these institu-tions were formerly teachers' colleges; most now belongto the American Association of State Colleges and Uni-versities (AASCU), and are generally established andmaintained by state governments to teach the massesof non-elite students seeking a full four-year collegeeducation. All of them have filled out their facultieswith Ph.D.'s from the surpluses in all fields whichbecame available in the late '60's and early '70's.
Our findings suggest that a sizeable portion of theR&D and/or consulting by science and engineeringfaculty at state colleges is linked with the private indus-trial, sector. Industrial R&D involved faculty in all sci-ence disciplines studied in our California surveythegreater share of it reported in engineering, with itsemphasis on problem solving and design work. How-ever, the increasing importance of natural and phy-sical science inputs into high technology is likely tostrengthen the links between industry and sciencefaculty as well.
While the data on interaction of science and engi-neering faculty with industry at state colleges outsideCalifornia is fragmentary here, nevertheless it suggeststhat the California activity is not peculiar or uniquewhen compared with similar campuses throughout thecountry.
A. The Mechanical Heart Valve R&D ProcessSeen as a Developmental Model
When examined in its various aspects and stages,case of the mechanical heart valve at Californiathe
State, Sacramento, cited above in Chapter V, can be<viewed as a model of how initially modest and sporadift"attempts to do consulting and joint R&D work can setoff a chain of developments with benefits for faculty,students, campus, private industry, and ultimatelyitmight be said in this casefor the public at large.In other words, it was an unpredictable and seren-dipitous twenty-year off-campus cooperation betweenengineering and biological science faculty from thestate college, medical practitioners working pal Rimein a loCal private, non-profit medical.facility and, ulti-mately, a large medical products firm serving a worldmarket. More recently, the initial activity has been fol-lowed by the emergence of small, innovative firms spun-off from the state college. Altogether, it offers an illus-tration and a method by which R&D talent in fringeareas of higher education in America isand might beadditionallyconserved & utilized.
The pattern or model presented by this R&D andits ultimate products, programs and spin-offs, may beseen as having gone through a number of sequentialsteps during its two decades of development:
Stage 1: Faculty involvement in off -campus R&D on theheart valve takes place on 'a private consulting basis.This followed naturally from the fact that, for the firsthalf-dozen or so years after the California State Col-leges System was set up in 1961, there were no formalfacilities for dealing with research grants. "Educationaland training grants" had been received, but not re-search funds.
Stage II: Faculty feedback from off-campus work enrichesthe campus educational program which is manifestedin establishment of a master's program hi biomedicalengineering.
Stage III: Placement of biomedical engineering grad-uates of new program in medical facilities and in firmsestablished in medical technology. Formation of inno-vative spin-off firms involving both graduates and facultyof new program.
199191
Stage IV: The continuing interaction between spin-offfirms, established medical technology firms, and thestate college program by means of continuous inter-change of students and part- and full-time faculty, result-ing in enrichment of both academic program and privateindustrial sector.
Thus, a "successful" sequence or model processof this kindif it could be duplicated in similar set-tingswould involve off -campus consulting and R&D,and both informal and formal enrichment of the campusprogram, while spawning technological innovation forindustry.
B. R&D as an Unintended Consequence of theState College Function
Overall, the research done so far at various statecolleges in the Ca ,fornia State University and Collegessystem suggests a tendency for science and,particularly,engineering faculty with doctoral level expertise to seekoutor be sought out bypeople in business, the pro-fessions and industries that happen to need their par-ticular services. This seems to happen largely becauseof the simple presence, the accessibiliiy and availabilityof clusters of experts at state college campuses, ofwhich there are about 350 widely dispersed through-out the country. While the nature of some academicspecialties may encourage certain faculty to offerprivate consulting services or organize small businessventures regardless of their location (e.g., softwarecreation), for the most part we can surmise that facultyactivity in industry is closely related to opportunitiesat hand. In other words, at any given campus the amountand kinds of private consulting i3 likelX to depend onthe amount and kinds of industrial activity in the localservice area of the college) (Certainly more in-depth
investigation is needed for a better estimate of what,where and how Much R&D work is done as part of pri-vate consulting practice. The questions to be askedwould focus upon--among other thingsquantitativeand qualitative differences between campus basedR&D and faculty private practice, Needless to say, thereare difficulties in studying such activity, not the least ofwhich might be faculty reluctance to discuss extraearnings.)
On the other hand, as the value of non-teachingprofessional work for these kinds of campuses be-comes more clearly recognized, more grants and con-tracts from industry may come to be formally proc-essed through campus research offices. Under sucharrangements, overhead charges would revert to thecampus, while faculty could be compensated by areduction in teaching loadwhich, commonly set'at12 hours with little or no laboratory or teaching assist-ance, is considered heavy in academic circles. Para-doxically, administrators may be more sanguine aboutsuch arrangements than faculty. One professor at SanDiego complained that overhead charges of his campusfoundation were so high as to discourage local industryfrom even approaching the campus in an official way (acontention denied by state college foundation officialsand also by others in a position to make compari-sons). Obviously as long as this kind of work remainsa source of extra income, some faculty will continueto provide consulting services to private industry "on-the side."2
But there is more to it than just that. As we haveseen above, involvement in consulting or R&D canclearly have stimulating effects for faculty and campusas well, in terms of continuing professional develop-ment, updating of knowledge and experience, andenrichment of science and engineering programs forstudents.
'British polyteChiiithith cornpfKe the second Ucr of higlicr_education in the United Kingdom after the universities, not only pro- --T---"--7Arrintore.sting comparative view of some of the problems asso-vide an interesting analogy tc state colleges but also demonstrate dated with "consultzifier-in-Britechnics, is provided in Con-well - developed modes of relationship with the private (and public)industrial sector. In a separate report submitted to the chancellor ofthe California State University, we have described the "consultancycompanies' utilized by a number of British polytechnics to facilitatelinkages with business and government (including foreign businessand governmentsl. The report includes discussion of one of themore unusual forms of integration with extramural agencies, the"technopark" of London's South Bank Polytechnic, which is situatedin a single building in a crowded urban factory and warehouse dis-trict, and operates on the model of a medical "teaching hospital"administering to the needs of nearby industry and commerce.
192
sultancy Practise in Polytechnics: A Commentary (London: COM-mittee of Directors of Polytechnics, 1980). British polytechnics grewout of mergers between technical colleges and teachers' traininginstitutionS rather than out of teacher training facilities alone, as wasusually the case in America. Consequently, polytechnics absorbedfrom their technical college roots a long tradition of facultya'ssocia-iion with business and industry. For this reason, perhaps the Britishsecond-tier institutions seem more integrated into business, indus-try and governmental spheres of activity than do American statecolleges, which have usually been,linked solely to stat educationalestablishments.
20Q
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS AND CHMICAL RESEARCH:AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
by
Arnold Thackray
Department of History and Sociology of ScienceUniversity of Pennsylvania
201 193
Preface
Over the years an American system of university-industry connections has grown up thatis without parallel in ithe developed world for its strength, diversity and vitality. The system isthe result of no conscious plan. Its variegated structure flows from the slow patterning of amyriad of individual, institutional and corporate responses to perceived needs, opportunitiesand problems. The system is thus an historical phenomenon of considerable complexity. Ithas deep roots in our national culturein America's pluralism, in the service ethic of highereducation, and in the pervasiveness of business values in the nation's life.
The American system of university-industry connections bears powerfully on the conductof scientific research. Efforts to modify that system in order to improve the translation of basicresearch, into industrial innovation are now the subject of much proper concern. These effortswill proceed better if they are informed by a knowledge of the variety of the historical forcesand the human achievements that underlie the present system. With that thought in mindthis essay addresses one central casethat of the connections of academic chemistry andchemical engineering with the chemical industry.
The method used is that of historical analysis. The prolegomena sets the stage in its firstsection, by pointing to the dual nature of chemistry and by sketching certain salient aspectsof the American chemical discipline a century ago. In a second section, the point is made thatgrowth has been the dominating motif in every aspect of chemistry over the past one hundredyears. Certain indicators of absolute growth are presented, and the phenomenon of a relativedecline concealed within it is alluded to. The prolegomena ends with a discussion of somemicro-indicators which reflect the texture of university-industry connections, and which thusprovide a bridge to the main body of the paper. That main body provides a narrative history ofthe chosen subject, in five sections covering the period from 1890 to 1980. No conclusionis offered, for the purpose of this paper is not to provide any explicit moral. Instead, the aimis to display the depth, variety, and tenacity of those forces which have beenand areshap-ing the American system of university-industry connections.
202195
196
For their assistance in the preparation of this essay I would like to thankLisa Robinson, James E. Capshew and Simon Baatz. Robert F. Bud, I'. ThomasCarroll, and Jeffrey L. Sturchio contributed equally with me to the work fromwhich the data used in this essay was drawn. That data will be published byD. Reidel (Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, Mass) as Robert F. Bud et. al, Chem-istry in America, 1876-1976.
2Q3.
CONTENTS
Page
I. PROLEGOMENA 199
A. The historical Roots ofTwentieth Century Chemistry 199
1. The dual nature of chemical science 1992. Three early American adepts 2003. Ph.Ds and the research ethos 200
B. The Overall Pattern of Growth 201
1. Chemistry as occupation and profession 2012. The supply of credentialled chemists 2023. Academic employment 2044. Chemists in industry 2055. Research laboratories and research workers 2066. ACS Presidents: micro-indicators 207
II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM 210
A. Division of Labor in a Growing Market, 1890-1920 210
1. The establishment of research universities 2102. The land-grant model 2113. Chemical engineering and industrial chemistry 2124. The first growth of industrial research 2135. The idea of contract research 2146. Individual philanthropy and basic research 215
B. Consolidating the System, 1920-1940 216
1. Independent research institutes 2162. Industrial research laboratories as a genre 2173. Corporate and institutionalized philanthropy 2194. The academic use of industrial opportunity 2215. National enterprise and private control 223
C. The Influence ofWar 224
1. World War I and the return to normalcy 2242. Science and government in World War II 2253. The new social contract 226
2,04197
198
D. The Era of Growing Federal Support, 1950-1965 2271. The expansion of academe 2272. NSF, N111 and basic research 2283. Industrial research 2294. Research associations and technological research institutes 2305. Old themes and new variations 231
E. A New Consolidation, 1965-1980 2321. Academic steady state 2322. The federal government as bearer of externalities 2323. Old and new forms ofacademic-industrial interaction 2334. Unstable equilibrium 233
2 0,3
Chapter I
PROLEGOMENA
A. The Historical Roots of TwentiethCentury Chemistry
1. The dual nature of chemical science
Chemistry has always been pursued for its prac-tical utility as well as for its intellectual fascination.
From at least the late-eighteenth century, spokes-men and practitioners have understood that chemicalknowledge offers a key to agricultural improvementand industrial advance. Since the second half of thenineteenth century, the promise has been steadily ful-tilled. Synthetic dyestuffs, artifical fertilizers, food addi-tives, and wholly "man-made" industrial and house-hold products have been familiar results of chemicalscience for over half a century.' The employment of,and provisions for the education of, 'chemists andchemical engineers have grown correspondingly andare a marked feature of the modern era, especiallyin the United States.
Another aspect of chemistry's utility lies in its linksto medicine. Since the Renaissance at least, the heal-ing power of chemical remedies has made theoreticalknowledge of the science a necessary item in the train-ing of the physician. When Joseph Priestley, the renowneddiscoverer of oxygen, emigrated from Britain to theUnited States in 1794, he was quickly offered a pro-fessorship of chemistry in the nation's first medical
'Maurice Crosland, "The Development of Chemistry in the Eight-eenth Century," Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century,1963, 24, 369-441; Archibald & Nan L. Clow, The Chemical Revolu-tion: A Contribution to Social Technology (Batchworth, London,1952); Alexander Findlay, A Hundred Years of Chemistry, 3rd ed.(G. Duckworth, London, 1965); Williams Haynes, This Chemkal Age:The Miracle of Man-Made Materials, 2nd ed. (A. A. Knopf, New York1942).
school.2 Many of today's great centers of chemicalresearch have sprung from the root of chemistry iniatrochemistry and pharmacy, as have the recenttriumphs of biochemistry and molecular biology, andthe present hope for spectaCular developments in bio-engineering and related fields.
Chemistry has also long been an important ele-ment in natural philosophythe alchemist soughtgold not only for its material wealth and its medicalimportance as an incorruptible or sign of immorta1ityhe also sought to make gold because the ability to doso would symbolize his intellectual and spiritual unitywith, nature?
The chemical discipline has thus been one of var-iety and complexity from its earliest beginnings. Thediscipline encompasses:
craft or utilitarian knowledge, as in the agricul-tural and industrial arts.
vocational or professional training, as in themedical field.
abstract or conceptual understanding, as inbasic research.
Education, employment, knowledge advancement andacademic style all reflect this variety and complexity inchemistry. The mixture of the intellectual with theutilitarian has made chemistry a subject well-suited toflourish in the United States, especially in the twentiethcentury as American universities and industries havetaken on a particular national style.
2Edgar F. Smith, Priestley in America: 1794-1804 (P. Blakiston'sSon & Co., Philadelphia, i920); Allen G. Debus The ChemicalPhilosophy: Paraceisian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth andSeventeenth Centuries, 2 vols. (Science History Publications, NewYork, 1977).
°F. Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemists, Pounders of ModernChemistry (H. Schuman, New York, 1949).
206199
2.. Three early American adepts
The emergence in America of major industries, ofresearch universities, and of close linkages betweenthe two, is a development of the past one hundredyears. however intimations of what lay ahead may beseen in the way that American chemists of the laternineteenth century filled many roles at the same time.A glimpse of the careers of three Presidents of theAmerican Chemical Society gives a sense of prevailingrealities a century ago.
James Curtis Booth (ACS Pres. 1883-85) mightbe characterized as the first professional consultingchemist in the United States. The firm he founded inPhiladelphia survives to this day. In addition to analyzingores, minerals, fertilizers, sugar and other materials,Booth took out manufacturing patents. tie ran his ownschool of practical chemistry, in which around 50 youngmen eventually served apprenticeships, and he heldprofessorships successively in the Franklin Institute,the Central high School, and the University of Pennsyl-vania. At one time he directed the Geological Survey ofDelaware. he was "melter and refiner" of the U.S. Mintfor almost forty years, and he edited a standard Ency-clopedia of Chemistry of his day.4
Samuel W. Johnson (ACS Pres. 1878) was appointedto the faculty of the Sheffield Scientific School of YaleUniversity in 1855, despite his lack of earned academicdegrees. Johnson remained at Yale for over forty years,adding to his professorship the roles of chemist to theConnecticut State Agricultural Society and director ofthe pioneering Connecticut Agricultural ExperimentStation. he was a leading chemical consultant in legalcases, and he wrote a best-seller on How Crops Growthat was translated into German, Italian, Japanese,Russian and Swedish.5
Most protean of all was Charles F. Chandler (ACSPres. 1881, 1889) who played major roles as industrialchemist, educator, editor, organizer and public serv-ant. Chandler was simultaneously Dean of the Schoolof Mines and head of the Chemistry Departmentat Columbia, professor in New York's College of Phy-sicians and Surgeons and President of the Collegeof Pharmacy. His great influence as a teacher wasreinforced by his major roles in several learned socie-ties. he was President of the New York City Board ofHealth for a decade from 1873. At the same time hewas editor and publisher of the American Chemistand one of the leading industrial chemists of his day.He provided expert testimony in numerous patent liti-gations. his technical range included sugar, petro-
',Biographical information on Booth (1810-1888) may be foundin the Dictionary of American Biography (cited hereafter as DAB),1929, 2, 447-448.
Johnson (1830-1909): DAB, 1933, 10, 120-121. For an extendedaccount of Johnson's work see Margaret W. Rossiter, The Emergenceof Agricultural Science: Justus Liebig and the Americans, 1840-1880 (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1975), chapters 8-9.
200
f
leum, illuminating gas, electrochemistry and the com-mercial analysis Minerals.of waters and In the earlydays of the petroleum industry e was the foremostconsultant in America. The Socie of Chemical Indus-try awarded him , its Perkin Medal' in 1920, in recogni-tion of his contributions to applied chemistry.6
The careers' of these three men display .how aca-demic, agricultural, industrial, and medical themeswere intertwined in American chemistry in its' infantdays. Booth, Chandler and JohnSua all received theiradvanced training in German universities. howevernone was able to replicate his foreign concentrationon research when he returned to America. Instead theircareers show how under the conditions of a' sparsely-settled continent with new needs and nov!lopportuni-ties, European academic knowledge way, transmutedinto the mixed styles of American chemistry.
3. Ph.Ds and the research ethos
The Ph.D degree first became recognized as a cer-tificate of competence in chemical ,research in Germanyin the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Themajor credit lieS with Justus von Liebig, a leader in thedevelopment of quantitative organic analysis. Liebigwas appointed extraordinary professor at Giessen in1824. his main source of studer. 's and income derivedinitially from his additional post as licensor in phar-macy for the, state of Hesse-Darmstadt however Liebigquickly built up a reputation in organic analysis, andbegan to attract a following of students fired with11/2enthusiasm for chemical research. From the mid-1830s his German audience was increasingly supple-
_mented by students from Britain, France, Russia andthe United States (Samuel W. Johnson, for instance,studied under Liebig in 1854).7
Liebig's success is of great interest, for it illus-trates not only the links between chemistry and amedical vocation (pharmacy), but also between re-search reputation and international influence. hissuccess in attracting and training students was also a'key to the industrial employment of Ph.Ds. That ern;ployment was itself initially a "supply-side" phenom-enon, and as such, indicative of the ways in which uni-versity life is unpredictable and possessed of its owndynamics.
Already by the early 1840s, doctors of philosophywere emerging from Liebig's laboratory, faster than theGerman academic world could absorb them. Onefavored pupilA. W. von Hofmannmoved to Englandin 1845 to become a professor in London's new (andprecarious) Royal College of Chemistry, financed byagriculturists and manufacturers. A decade later oneof hofmann's young pupilsW. H. Perkindiscovered
'Chandler (1836-1925): DAB, 1929, 3, 611-613.'See J. B. Morrell, "The Chemist Breeders: The Research Schools
of Liebig and Thomas Thomson," Ambix, 1972, 19 1-47.
207
the first of the aniline dyestuffs and the synthetic dye-stuffs industry was born.8 Much of the ;cotton andWoo leW market for dyestuffs was in England. It wasthere that the first developments took place. howeverthe center of gravity of the synthetic dyestuffs industrysoon moved back to the German states.
Thanks to Liebigand those professors in otherGerman universities who competitively emulated himthe supply of Ph.D chemists far exceeded academic, orany other, demand. Researchers in organic chemistryhad a powerful motive to find new employment fortheir trained talents. Some German dyestuffs manu-facturers began to employ the occasional chemist,'usually without deriving any enduring benefits fromthe association. Four things served to change thisstate of affairs and to produce what proved to be afundamental social invention, the industrial researchlaboratory. First, theoretical knowledge of organiccompounds progresssed rapidly in the 1860s and 70s;second, the changes in patent law and market struc-ture consequent upon the unification of the Germanstates in 1871 placed a premium upon continuousinnovations in such a fashion-conscious field as dye-stuffs, as markets became large and publics remainedfickle; third, the growing size of dyestuffs companiesallowed a greater division of labor; and fourth, pro-longed trial-and-error attempts to find successful waysto harness the supply of Ph.Ds and their esotericknowledge to industrial goals finally began to yieldsuccess. By the 1890s German chemical companieswere committed to the idea. of industrial research,undertaken by trained chemists. employed in newpurpose-built laboratories.9
While German Ph.Ds in organic chemistry foundtentative, then secure, employment in industrial lab-oratories in Germany in the .1880s and 90s, thingswere far different for American Ph.Ds returning to theUnited States. Those Americans who journeyed toGiessen and other German centers faced a lonely, up-hill battle as they sought to establish German-styleresearch in American academic institutions. The ideaof science as Wissenschaft, as pure moral truth unfold-ing through never-ceasing research, was not easilygrafted onto the traditions of the American college.Instead the first German-trained American Ph.Ds inchemistry found their most natural opportunity inthose service-oriented areas that related to privateand entrepreneurial enterprise (as Chandler did) or toagricultural chemistry and to experiment stations (as
"See Gerrylynn Kuszen Roberts, The Royal College of Chemis-try ( 1845- 1853): A Social History of Chemistry in Early VictorianEngland (Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Johns Hopkins University,1973); and Perkin CentenaryLondon: 100 Years of Synthetic Dye-stuffs (Pcrgamon Press, London, 1958).
"John J. Beer, The Emergence of the German Dye Industry (Uni-versity of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1959); George Meyer-Thurow, "Indus-trialization of Invention: A Case Study from German Chemical Indus-try," iris, 1982, 73, 363-381.
did Johnson). Only slowly, in the 1880s, did the idea ofresearch as a natural, indeed central, academic activitybegin to penetrate the country's older institutions ofhigher education. The example of Johns Hopkins (f.1876), where chemistry was by far the largest scientificdiscipline from the very earliest days, was one strongencouragement. By the 1890s, the stage was set for ascience that would respond toand, on_createAmerican opportunities, with forms appro-priate to America in the industrial era.
B. The Overall Pattern of Growth
In order to appreciate the rhythms and the partic-ularities of the way connections between universitiesand industry have developed, it will be helpful if wefirst sketch some of the long-run trends in chemicalindustry and in academic chemistry in the UnitedStates. Those trends have mainly to do with growththat extraordinary growth which has characterizedAmerican science, American industry and Americanlife in the past one hundred years. It is in terms of thisenduring trend of growth that we may best understandhow elements in the academic-industrial system havefirst been invented to cope with new conditions, thenrapidly copied and diffused as the system grew. At thesame time, absolute growth has concealed inside itselfa second set of trends, those of relative decline. Chem-istry is not as important within academe as it once was,nor are the traditional chemical industries able to setthe pace as they once did. Strategies for linking aca-demic with industrial concerns have necessarily altered,and fortune has favored those able to sense and toarticulate the changing opportunities.
The over-arching context has been set by the longrun trends in chemistry as occupation and profession;in the supply of credentialled chemists; in academicemployment; in jobs in chemical industry, and in thegrowth of special niches in industrial research. A nat-ural point of entry is with chemistry considered bothas an occupation and a profession.19
1. Chemistry as occupation and profession
The available data reveal the dramatic growth inchemistry as an occupation over the last century.Figure 1 indicates that chemists in the labor force haveincreased more than a hundredfold over the period,starting at under 1,000 in 1870 and exceeding 100;000by 1970. The graph gives a strong visual sense of theexplosion of the chemical enterprise in one century's
"'The analysis in the following section relies heavily upon thestatistics and discussion presented in Robert F. Bud, P. ThomasCarroll, Jeffrey L Sturchio,. & Arnold Thackray, Chemistry in Amer-ica, 1876-1976: An Historical Application of Science indicators(Report to the National Science Foundation. Department of Historyand Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,1978. Publication in book form by D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Holland isscheduled for 1984).
208 201
FIGURE 1. Gompertz Trend in the Number otChemists, 14370-1970.
NUMBER OF CHEMISTS(thousands)110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
01870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
YEAR
SOURCE: Bud at al., Chemistry in America
time. A shift of this magnitude cannot but transformthe very nature of the undertaking, influencing suchthings as patterns of organization and communica-tion within chemistry.
The same conclusion follows from a comparativelook at chemistry in relation to the rest of the U.S.labor force. Figure 2 shows the time series of chemistsper 10,000 workers. The enduring trend is one inwhich chemists represent an increasing fraction of thelabor force. But the rate of that increase is slowing,and past performance suggests a saturation around15 chemists per 10,000 workers.
One final aspect of chemistry as occupation andprofession deserves mention. It is instructive to con-sider the growth of chemistry as an occupationa!grouping in the wider context of what the Census calls''professional; technical, and kindred workers." Thiscategory includes accountants, engineers, and a con-siderable range of occupations comparable in skills tochemists. Figure 3 shows the number of chemists per1,000 "professional, technical, and kindred workers."The steadily increasing importance of the chemist forthe 80 years before 1950 is as dramatic as the sub-sequent quarter-century decline.
202
2. The supply of credentialled chemists
The United States is an increasingly academicnation. It is important to remember this when discussingthe place of the sciences in American society. Chem -.istry has partaken of this education boom. For mostof the past hundred years chemistry has been a steaCily-growing academic activity (see Figures 4 and 5). At thesame time chemistry has also suffered a sustainedrelative decline within academe and, more recently, anabsolute decline in terms of degrees granted.
In 1890 some 600 baccalaureate degrees wereconferred in chemistry; by 1910 the number was2,100; by 1930 it was 4,400 and by 1950, 12,300.Since that time the number of degrees conferred hasremained steady, or even declined a little. The pat-tern of rapid, absolute growth thus lasted for almostthree quarters of a century (1880-1950). Growth onthe doctorate level has been even more rapid, andmore enduring. Thirty doctorates in chemistry wereconferred in 1890; 80 in 1910; 330 in 1930; 970 in1950; and 2,200 in 1970, since when the number ofFh.Ds has also declined somewhat.
FIGURE 2. Chemists per Ten ThousandWorking Population, 1C70-1970.
CHEMISTS PER 10,000WORKING POPULATION
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
01870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
YEAR
2o_g
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1950 1960 1970
While exponential increases characterize the Amer-ican academic system, there are dangers in being trans-fixed byAlre dramatic phenomenon of absolute growth.In the case of chemistry, .absolute growth overlays asecond phenomenonthat of relative decline. In termsof its significance as a baccalaureate subject, chemis-try has been subject to an enduring trend of relativedecline for over half a century. In that time undergrad-uate chemistry degrees decreased in relative standingby an order of magnitudefrom one in ten baccalau-reates conferred to one in a hundred. A similar moremodern trend is apparent on the doctoral level. Asrecently as 1940, chemistry departments conferredalmost one fifth of all earned doctorates. By the early1970s the proportion had declined to about one-fifteenth. (see Figure 6).
These relative declines were not caused by the-rise of new chemistry-related disciplines: Adding thecomparatively miniscule figures for biochemistry exacer-.bates the relative decline of chemistry on the doctorallevel, and has no noticeable impact upon the trend
FIGURE 3. Chemists per ThousandProfessional, Technica], andKindred Workers, 1870-1970.
CHEMISTS PER 1,000PROFESSIONALS16
15
14
13
12
11
-10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
01870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
YEAR
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1970
FIGURE 4. Trends in Bachelors DegreesConferred in Selected Fields,1890-1978.
NUMBER OF DEGREES CONFERRED(thousands)1000
100
10
0.11890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR
Legend:
All Fields
Natural Sciences
Chemistry
Trend (exponential) -
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry In America
in bachelors degrees. Including chemical-materialsengineering degrees (i.e., degrees in chemical engi-neering, metallurgical engineering, materials engi-neering, and ceramic engineering) alters the, fractionof degrees attributable to chemistry, but it does notchange the trend. The relative decline in degrees con-ferred is real, whether chemistry is broadly or narrowlydefined.
This decline is not unique to chemistry, but char-acterizes the natural sciences as a whOle. The endur-ing trend of relative decline of the natural sciencesis as important to any adequate analysis as the morefamiliar concept of the absolute exponential growth ofthose sciences. Chemistry simply provides the mostextreme example of a more widespread phenomenon.In this it pays the penalty of the pioneer that comesfrom its early dominant role among the academic sci-ences. On the one hand, growth has been the endur-ing context in which chemistry has functioned asacademic discipline. That growth has had, and contin-
210203
ues to have, important consequerices with respect toscientists' expectations concerning available resourcesand proper procedures. In its early stages growth wassustained by direct, vocational linkage between highereducation in chemistry and employment in the chem-ical profession. On the other hand, the same growthhas concealed decline in the visibility of chemistrywithin higher education.
3. Academic employment
It is hard to obtain reliable historical informationon the number of chemists in academic employment.Those concerned with counting academics have notseen fit to collect statistics upon academic chemists.For example, the Bureau of Census persisted until1970 in lumping academic chemists in the heteroge-neous group known as "college presidents, professors,and instructors." Only recently has it disaggregatedthis category by discipline for the 1970 returns andretroactively deVeloped comparative data for the 1960census.
FIGURE 5. Trends in Doctorate DegreesConferred in Selected Fields,1890-1978.
NUMBER OF DEGREES CONFERRED(thousands)
(60)
10
0.1
0.01
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR
Legend:
MI Fields
Natural Sciences
Chemistry
Trend (exponential)
0 0 0
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
204
FIGURE 6. Chemistry as Percentage of AllDegree Conferrals, by Level,1890.1978.
PERCENT10
8
6
4
2
0
PERCENT30
20
10
01890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR
A. BACHELORS
I I I
B. DOCTORATE
..".4" 1'4'**,0.o:ere "._
I I I I I I I I
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry In America
The disparities among the additional estimateshighlight the softness of the data and the continuingambiguities of terms like "faculty"and "college teach-er." The disparities also provide an envelope for theemployment of chemists in academe. From an esti-mated hundred or so in the 1870s, academic chemistshave grown steadily until they now number in theneighborhood of 10,000 (see Figure 7). The century-long growth rate is 4.3 per cent per year. This rate ofincrease exceeds the 3.3 per cent per year rate ofgrowth in the number of chemistry bachelors degreesconferred but it falls short of the 5.3 per cent annualrate of growth for chemistry doctorate conferrals. In allprobability, there are today more chemistry facultymembers per undergraduate student majoring inchemistryaind fewer per graduate studentthan ahundred years ago.
The exponential increase ;11 the absolute numberof academic chemists is not so impressive as at firstappears. Chemistry faculty have constituted between 1and 2 percent of all teaching personnel at Americancolleges and universities during the past century. Thedata show a decline over the century but, given ambi-
t
211
guides in the estimates, it is not dear what to make ofthis trend. The employment of chemists in Americanhigher education certainly does not show the precipi-tous relative decline that surfaced when degree con-ferrals were examined. Comparisons on the level ofchemistry as profession also attest to the stayingpower of the academic side of chemical employment:The number of chemistry faculty in America, expressedas a fraction of the number of members of the Ameri-can Chemical Society, has remained roughly constant(see Figure 8). Since World War I faculty have equalledbetween 5 and J.0 per cent of ACS membership. Not allchemistry faculty have been ACS members, but therelationship between the size of the profession and thenumber of those charged with the training of newentrants to the profession has been stable.
4. Chemists in industry
Throughout the twentieth century, the majority ofAmerican chemists and chemical engineers have worked
FIGURE 7. Faculty in Higher Education:All Subjects and Chemistry,1870-1978.
NUMt3ER OF FACULTY(thousands)(900)
100
10
1
0.11870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 19501960 1970 1980
YEAR
:Legend:All Subjects
Chemistry Faculty.Excluding Junior College
.Chemistry Faculty,
Graduate Departments Only
All Chemistry Teaching Stalf
All Chemists in Academe
= Trend (exponential)
0 0 0
I I I I
SOURCE: Bud at al., Chemistry in America
r it
FIGURE 8. Ratio f Chemistry Faculty to ACSMemb rship, 1876-1979.
RATIO1
1.21
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1880 1890I
90 191
00 1910 190 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980it
01870
EAR
11_SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
in industry. However considerable difficulties attach toany attempt to cc#istruct \ indicators of that employ-ment. It is not just "chemicals and allied products"
iindustnes or the ,chemicbl process industries thathave hired chemists. Other manufacturing and even
1non-manufacturing industries have called upon their,- 1services. In 1950,1-or inaarce, two hundred chemists
were employed by American railroads, one hundred bymedical and dental laboratories, and two hundred inengineering and architectural services. There were even96 members of the Associatkon of Official Racing Chem-ists, who analyzed the urine and saliva of thdrough-breds to guard against the unauthorized use of drugs.
ConSiderable ambiguities thus attach to any.at-tempt to pecify the work in which chemists have been.engaged. There are no cler points of demarcationbetween research, development, and routine analysis,nor betwen research and i.idministration; nor is itpossible to differentiate sharply between industrialchemistry and chemical engineering. These reserva-tions should be borne in mind when looking at Figure 9,which displays the employment of chemists in Ameri-can industry and shows an increase from roughly 12,700persons in 1917 to over 93,000 in 1970. (Census andBureau of Labor Statistics estimates of all chemistsin the labor forcenot just chemists in industryare
212 205
strategy. Research would provide new products' tocompete with European imports, and produce patents
FIGURE 9. Rough Estimates of the Number of,to protect the ground thus gained. Research labora-
\
Chemists in industry, 1917-1970.Tories were first used in the electrical and chemicalindustries. The nascent industrial research movement
NUMBER OF CHEMISTS gained impetus from the wartime experience of coop-(tlipusands) erative effort, and science be.came inextricably linked
with industry during the boom years of Coolidge pros-
130 LEGENDperity. The cumulative trend in the formation of lab-
Total Chemists in the Labor --- oratories from 1890 to 1940 is illustrated in Figure la120
Force (Census estimates)
total Chemists in the Labor4,. , which represents a 59 per cent sample of companies
I Force ;BLS estrmates1 reporting laboratory activity to the National Research110 Chemists in Alt Industries ?I Council in 1940.
Chemists in the Chemical100 Process Industries 4, Industry-by-industry comparisons of the propor-
.Chemists in the Chemicals and .4, don of chemists among company research workers
90 Allied Products Industries A A .. arc not readily available. However aggregate data pro-80 .....01. vide information on the disciplinary breakdown of sci-. entiFts engaged in industrial research. Between 192170 ... AA and 1950, the increase in industrial researchers (9.660
.4). per cent per annum) was more than four times that of
.. all employees in U.S. manufacturing (2.3 per cent per50 - .0 :
annum). Figure 11 presents information on the em-.e. .
40' 40C16446. ployment of chemists in American industrial research.°. 4,-
30 .. . AAAA
ie.....40 ,e.
20 0 AA
A10
A.,A1
0 1 l I I I 1 I 1 1
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970YEAR
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
FIGURE 10. Cumulative Number of IndustrialResearch Laboratories Formed,1890.1940.
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OFLABORATORIES FORMED(hundreds)14
13
12
also provided for comparative purrses). The paucityof information prior to 1950 is apparent. So too is the iilong-term importance of industrial mployment to the 10
American chemical community. Ac rding to Bureauof Labor Statistics estimates, indus4 was the primary 9
sector of employment for American hemists from at 8
least 1950 to 1970, providing jobs f r more than 70)Cr; cent of the chemical community aver that period. 7
Evidence from earlier surveys suggesis that this dis- 6
tribution of chemists has prevailed since
\
World War I.
5. Research laboratories and research workers 4
\The institutionalization of research in, industry has
been one of the most striking features of the social his-tory of twentieth century American science and tech- 2
nology. The establishment of corporate r search lab-oratories began around the turn of the centuy. Adoptinga utilitarian rhetoric which resonated strongly with theProgressive era's faith in sociai progress through sci-ence, scientists appealed successfully to the captainsof an expanding industrial community, who perceivedcontinuous innovation as a new weapon in corporate
5
3
206
01890
213
1900 1910 1920
YEAR
SOURCE: .Bud of al., Chemistry in America
1930 1940
FIGURE 11. Chemists, Physicists, andEngineers in Industrial Research,1921-1960.
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS(ten thousands)24
Legend:
Chemists emPhysicists
Engineers
1930 1940
YEAR
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1950 1960
from 1921 to 1960 (with physicists and engineers In-cluded for comparative purposes). During this period,the number of chemists in industrial research labora-tories increased elevenfold, from about 3,800 to 43,000.Making no adjustment for the 11 per cent decline atthe beginning of the Depression, this represents adoubling every 11 years. By comparison, the totalnumber of chemists reported by the Census grewmore slowly, from about 28,000 in 1920 to 77,000 in1950. This is equivalent to a doubling every 21 years.The relatively rapid shift in the,deployment of chemiststransformed the contours of the chemical community,and industrial research gained in prominence.
6. ACS Presidents: micro-indicators .
Large aggregates and long run trends can concealthe influence of partictilar individuals and institutions.At the same time individuals and institutions reflect,even while affecting, aggregates and trends. Thus shiftsin the educational background of American ChemicalSociety presidents over time display vividly the declineof German hegemony in the advanced training ofAmerican chemists. Before 1896, six out of ten ACS
presidents spent time in German universities, whileanother three out of ten came to chemistry via medicaltraining. By the torn of the century (1896-1905), ACSpresidents were already as likely to have been trainedin the United States as in Germany, and the proportionof American chemistry Ph.Ds among ACS presidentsincreased steadily thereafter (as shown in Figure 12).
Analysis of the institutional locations of ACS pres-idents during their tenure of office yields severalinteresting observations (Figure 13). First, academicchemists were the dominant group among ACS presidents, exerting an influence disproportionate to theirsize as a sector of the American chemical community.Second, although four of the first 25 individuals tobecome ACS president were employed by the federalor state governments when elected, no governmentchemist has been elected to the presidency of the Amer-ican Chemical Society since 1906. Finally, chemistsfrom the industrial sector were a major group amongACS presidents during the Society's first decade, but(except for a group of four industrially-connected pres-idents in the decade from 1926 to 1935) did not re-gain their position until after World War II.
In the first few decades of the Society's existence,its presidents were employed in widely-varied pursuits.After the turn of the century, occupational backgroundsof ACS presidents became less diersified, a changerelated to the routinization of careers within the chem-ical community at large. Edgar Fahs Smith (Presidentin 1895, 1921, 1922), Ira Remsen (1902), and Marston T.Bogert (1907, 1908)Chandler's successor at Colum-biaare three archetypal academic chemists of thisperiod, just as Willis R. Whitney (1909) and William H.Nichols (1918, 1919) exemplify newly-available careersin industrial research and corporate' chemical enter-prise." This shift was accompanied by a general declinein the importance of state or federal government posi-tions as a route to the ACS elite, along with the long-term displacement of "chemist-entrepreneurs" andconsulting chemists among ACS presidents, in favor ofexecutives of chemical and other industrial corporations.
In a situation familiar to students of social strati-fication, !high elites in science are maintained byselective, processes of recruitment, socialization andallocation of resources.12 Thus it is not surprising to findACS presidents linked by social ties similar to thosefound among other groups in the aristocracy of AmeH-
'On the ACS and its presidents, see Herman Skolnik & Kenneth M.Reese, eds., A Century of Chemistry: The Role of Chemists and theAmerican Chemical Society (American Chemical Society, Washing-ton, D.C.. 1976) and, for individuals. Wyndham Miles, ed.. AmericanChemists and Chemical Engineers (American Chemical Society,Washington, D.C., 1976).
',See Harriet Zuckerman, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates In theUnited States (Free Press, New York, 1977), esp. chapter 8.
214 207
FIGURE 12. Educational Backgrounds of American Chemical Society Presidents; by Decade, 1876.1981.
PER CENT OF TOTALFOR DECADE100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
_
European training
MD
PhD
;
..
.
..
4
V
411
1 .
I
, .
i:.:.:,..
'4.
,
,,
IT,
ft
1
1.'
t.
.:
.
, ,
..
,
American-...
. Americanlpi Il Other
..,
1876 1886 1896
SOURCE: Bud et aL, Chemistry in America
1906 1916 1926 1936
YEAR DECADE BEGAN
can science, such as members of the National Academyof Sciences or Nobel laureates. The most striking caseof such ties among a group of ACS presidents involvesthose chemists who obtained their training during thedepartment chairmanships of T. W. Richards (1914)and Arthur B. Lamb (1933) at Harvard, and RogerAdams (1935) at Illinois (Figure 14). This "Harvard-Illinois axis" has accounted for approximately onein four ACS presidents elected since Theodore W.Richard's term of office in 1914. Illinois is even moreimportant than the figure shows, since Karl A. Folkers(1962) obtained his baccalaureate there and Charles C.Price (1965) was on the faculty in the era of Adams'chairmanship.
As the example of Price suggests; many ACS presi--dents were colleagues of other members ofthe ACS highelite in particulachemistry departments or industriallaboratories. For instance, Penn's chemistry faculty inthe late 1870s and '80s included F. A. Genth (1888),E. F. Smith (1895, 1921, 1922) and George Barker
208
I I I
1946 1956 1966 1976
(1891), while Willis R. Whitney (1909), A. A. Noyes(1904) and James F. Norris (1925, 1926) were col-leagues at MIT in the 1890s. After Whitney's move tothe General Electric Research Laboratory in 1900, herecruited Irving Langmuir (1929) to the research staff.,L. V. Redman (1932), Edward Weidlein (1937) and LeoBaekeland (1924) provide another example of col-leagueship ties in industrial chemistry. Redman andWeidlein were two of the earliest recipients of indus-trial fellowships at the Mellon Institute for IndustrialResearch in 1913. Weidlein remained at the Institute,eventually assuming the directorship, but Redman leftin 1914 to set up Redmanol Chemical Products. Thisentrepreneurial venture in marketing phenolic resinssoon brought Redman into competition with Baeke-land's General Bakelite Company, which manufacturedsimilar plastics. After considerable litigation the twocompanies were merged into the Bakelite Corporationin 1922.
Micro-indicators of this kind hint at the subtle
215
FIGURE 13. Institutional Locations of American Chemical Society Presidents, 1876.1981.
PER CENT OF TOTALFOR DECADE100
Government
Academe only
Industry (corporate employees)
Industry (entrepreneurs)
1876 1886 1896
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1906 1916 1926 1936
YEAR DECADE BEGAN
FIGURE 14. The "Harvard-Illinois Axis"among American ChemicalSociety Presidents.
Richards (1914)HARVARD
Lamb (1933)HARVARD
Adams (1935)ILLINOIS
Wh:imore (1938),NORT/IWESTERN
Daniels (1953)WISCONSIN
Tishler (1972)
Price (1965)
Volwiler (1950)
Marvel (1945)
Elder (1960)
Rassweiler (1958)
Brode (1969)
Riegel (1970)
Friedman (1974)
Sparks (1966)
Overberger (1967) ,
Bailey (1975)
Stacy (1979)
SOURCE: Bud at al,Chemistry in America
Cope (1961)
Folkers (1962)
D'Iannl (1980)
1946 1956 1966 1976.
complexities of the American system of industry-uni-versity connections. These complexities are best dis-played in terms of a narrative account of the develop-ment of that system.
216209
CHAPTER II
THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM
A. Division of Labor in a Growing.Market, 1890-1920
1. The establishment of research universities
The decades before VVorld War I saw a surge in col-lege enrollments. Demand for undergraduate coursesin chemistry was particularly strong. On the one hand,the move to increase the standards of the leadingmedical schools meant a new emphasis on collegiatepre-medical courses. On the other hand, Americanindustrial enterprise in basic and inorganic chemicalsfostered a demand for college graduates with chemicalknowledge and skills in chemical analysis. Bachelorsdegrees conferred in chemistry rose from 630 in 1890to 2,570 in 1914.'
In chemistry as in other subjects, graduate train-ing, faculty research and the entrenchment of depart-mental organization accompanied this growth. Whiletotal enrollment in all subjects at Harvard Universitydoubled (from 2,270 to 4;120) between 1890 and1910, enrollment in its graduate school increasedmore than threefold (130 to 440), while the number ofnon-professional teachers and research fellows grewalmost fourfold (110 to 420).2 Other major universitiesfollowed a similar pattern. University opportunities for,and supply of, research were thus powerfully influencedby demographic phenomena internal to academe.Chemists committed to research responded by build-ing programs with an emphasis on basic science, inaccord with their German heritage.
In the period up to 1900, chemistry was respon-sible for almost 20% of all doctorates awarded in theUnited States. The subject was correspondingly impor-tant in defining the style of the research university.
'Statistics taken from Bud et al., Chemistry in America, p. 282.2ttenryJarnes, Charles W. Eliot (1-loughton-MiMin, Boston, 1930),
vol 2, Appendices C and D.
210
John Hopkins, begun with a merchant's fortune in1876, was the recognized pioneer of this new styleof university, committed to academic excellence andthe national and international reputation of its faculty.At Johns Hopkins, chemistry was the leading disciplinein terms of Ph.Ds awarded, taking 19.5% of the totalin the period to 1900 (see Figure 15). Ira Remsen (Ph.DGottingen 1870; ACS Pres. 1902) took the opportunityhis situation afforded; he personally trained 107 Ph.D
217
FIGURE 15. Subjects of DoctoralDissertations at Johns HopkinsUniversity before 1900.
OTHERPHYSICALSCIENCES
6.8
-ALLSCIENCES
48.2
LANGUAGE andLITERATURE,
GENERAL14.6
\ NOTE: Diagram represents 514 PhDs.Numbers Indicate percentages.
\SOURCE: Bud at at., Chemistry in America
chemists in the years before World War I; in the sameera 97 of the 130 Hopkins doctors in organic chem-istry (75%1 went directly into college teaching. In 48privIte and 17 state institutions Hopkins chemistsrose to senior appointments, many as full professorsand department chairman (9 became Deans, and 3college presidents). Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, andMIT were among the major institutions with Hopkinsappointees while liberal arts colleges were repre-sented by Lafayette, Pomona, Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore,Antioch, Amherst and Oberlin among others.'
Four private universities in the East (Hopkins, Yale,Harvard and Pennsylvania) produced over 75% of alldoctorates in chemistry, before 1900 (see Figure 16).These four institutions were correspondingly impor-tant in setting a style of research. Bequests from mer-chants and industrialists were vital to the financialprosperity of these institutions, and to their depart-ments of chemistry. 1-owever, there was no direct linkbetween Ph.D production and industrial needs. In-stead these early departments found a focus in basicresearch, and in training teachers for other schools.
FIGURE 16. Institutions Granting Doctoratesin Chemistry before 1900.
YALE14.3
(251 PhDs, 19 schools)
JOHNS HOPKINS39.8
HARVARD11.2
PENNSYLVANIA10.4
COLUMBIA6.8
Note: Top five schools are shaded.Numbers indicate percentages.
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
OTHERS17.5
`On Remsen (1846-1927) see Dictionary of Scientific Biography(cited hereafter as DSB), 1975, 11, 370-371. Statistics taken fromBud et al., Chemistry in America, pp. 167-170; and D. S. Tarbell,Ann T. Tarbell. & R. M. Joyce, The Students of Ira Remsen and RogerAdams," Isis, 1980, 71, 620-626. Se: also Owen Hannaway,The German Model of Chemical Education in America: Ira Remsen
at Johns Hopkins (1876-1913)," Ambix, 1976, 23, 145-164.
The industrially-relevant knowledge of the leaders ofthe first American research schools was drawn on inoccasional consulting Work, in accord with the promis-cuous character of American chemistry. But the mainacademic-industrial connection lay in the teaching ofthose undergraduate chemists who on graduationwould enter directly into industrial employment.
This early, Eastern, private model of researchfocused on the production of Ph.Ds able to pursueacademic investigations while also teaching those lessadvanced chemists who would go into routine (mainlyanalytical) work in industry. What it did not do was toproduce Ph.D-holding researchers qualified and prop-erly disposed to make their careers in industry. Thatdevelopment was pioneered in the quite different butcharacteristically American context of the land-grantcollege.
2. The land-grant model
Transmuting private fortunes into a ademic andcivic virtue was a special talent of the Eastern, privateuniversities. However the pluralism of American academemeant that those universities enjoyed no monopoly inscientific life. Indeed an alternative, modelmoreclosely in accord with the promiscuous reality of Amer-ican chemistry, if not with the academic ambitions ofGerman-trained scholarswas available in the land-grant colleges, especially in the Midwest. That modelwas one of public service, and of close attention to thecitizensespecially the farmersof the state.
For instance at the University of Illinois, ArthurPalmer (chairman 1893-1904) specialized in analysesof the purity of municipal water supplies and, in 1895,succeeded in having the State Legislature estab-lish a permanent State Water Survey, to be housedin the chemistry department and run by him. Palmer'scolleague, Samuel W. Parr (ACS Pres. 1928) made hisnational reputation as an industrial chemist in thisanalytic "service" tradition. He developed novel meansfor testing bituminous Illinois coal and his Parr calor-imeterand the Parr Instru-ment Companymadehim rich and famous.4 Utility of this kind did not gounnoticed and, between 1872 and 1915, the Illinoischemistry "faculty and staff" increased from one to 62.In part this increase was fed by the growth ,n everypart of the university, and by the need to teach chem-istry to varied undergraduate audiences (total under-graduaLe enrollment in chemistry went from 70 to2150 over the period). But the increase was alsoaccompanied by a dramatic rise in graduate study.Illinois awarded its first Ph.D in 1903 to W. M. Dehn(who joined the faculty of the University of Washing-
'Parr (1857-1931): DAB, 1934, 14, 252-253; Palmer (1861-1904): Who Was Who in America (cited hereafter as WM), 1942,1,931.
218211
ton); by 1915 Illinois had 75 graduate students.5Even though the university and the chemistry
department had strong service orientations, the earlyPh.Ds from Illinois tended to find employment inhigher education itself. Stlidents from Eastern institu-tions might command the leading academic positions,but there were many new and bouyantly-expandingMidwestern schools in which local Ph.Ds could findemployment. Of 25 Illinois PhDs from 1911-15, overhalf took academic positions.6 Despite this characteristictendency of academe to feed on itself during a periodof growth, chemists in the universities were aware ofthe-growing stature and possibilities of chemicalindustry, and of the need of that industry for men withnew sorts of chemical skills. Yet a demand that waspresent in theory did not easily materialize in practice.It was one thing for industry to employ the skills inquantitative and qualitative analysis of baccalaureatechemists. It was something else again to find thestudents and the employers who together would justifyan explicit concentration of Ph.D-holding chemistsdevoted to research in industrial chemistry, or appliedchemistry, or the newly-invented subject of chemicalengineering.
3. Chemical engineering and industrial chemistry
Courses in agricultural chemistry had long beenfamiliar in nineteenth century America. Applied or indus-trial chemistry seemed a natural corollary, as industrydeveloped. However such courses had a checkeredcareer in the.,years before World War I, as did chem-ical engineering. !f industrial chemiStry too oftenseemed a collection of recipes, devoid of intellectualcontent, chemical engineering faced the problem thatit was a hybrid discipline lacking unequivocal supportfrom either chemists or traditional engineers.
Illinois, for instance, inaugurated a separate depart-ment of applied chemistry to teach a "course in ap-plied chemistry with engineering subjects" in 1894,and thereby justified an increase from one to two pro-fessors of chemistry within the institution. The newdepartment was returned to its home in chemistry, in1904. At Pennsylvania, a four year program was inaug-urated in the chemistry department, with chemical engi-neering as one division, in 1893. However the engi-neering division did not flourishperhaps becausethe two Pennsylvania professors with developed inter-ests in the Philadelphia area's extensive chemical
'.S. IV. Parr, "Historical Sketch of the Chemistry Department,"pp. 16-29 in University of Illinois, Department of Chemistry, Circularof Information of the Department of Chemistry: History, Equipment,Plembers of the Faculty, Students and Announcemeri of Coursesfor the Year 191 5 -1917, University of Illinois Bulletin, 21 February1916, vol. 13.
"For information on the Illinois chemistry department, here andbelow, see P. Thomas Carroll, Perspectives on Academic Chemistryin America, 1876-1976: Diversification, Growth, and Change (Un-published PI.) dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982).
212
industry both resigned from the university in favor ofindustrial and consulting careers, about this time (oneof the two, Samuel P. Sadtler, went on to becomefounding President of the American Institute of Chem-ical Engineers, in 1908.7
It was at MITneither a straightforward land-grantuniversity nor a straightforward private institutionthat chemical engineering took firmest root. A cur-riculum, in chemical engineering was first offered in1888-89, and consisted of courses in applied chem-istry, industrial chemistry, and mechanical engineer-ing. During the 1890s the MIT faculty was strengthenedby the addition of over half-a-dozen young German-trained chemists, including William H. Walker, William D.Coolidge, Willis R. Whitney and Warren K. Lewis. Thepopularity of MIT baccalaureates in chemical engineer-ing grew slowly at first, but by 1916 the subject hadfar outstripped "pure" chemistry in its appeal (Table 1).
Table 1
Baccalaureates awarded in chemistry and chemicalengineering at MIT by five-year periods, 1885-1934
Years S.B.s. in chemistryS.B.s. in chemical
engineering
1885-1889 38 --1890 -1894 50 311895-1899 98 491900-1904 78 511905-1909 82 651910-1914 50 1321915-1919 63 1871920-1924 52 4191925-1929 81 2381930-1934 71 240
SOURCE: Servos, "Industrial Relations," p. 538.
The links between chemical theory, engineeringknowledge and industrial practice were given furtherstrength when, in 1916,-William H. Walker and hisyounger colleague Warren K. Lewis established theSchool of Chemical Engineering Practice on the urgingof Arthur D. Little. This cooperative extension programsent faculty and students to selected industrial plantsfor. part of the year, and gave MIT chemical engineersaccess to costly facilities. The School was funded with$300,000 from George Eastman, and was a notablesuccess that came to be widely emulated. Also impor-tant in the economy of academic-industrial interac-tions as pioneered at MIT was the Research Labora-
7J. W. Westwater, "The Beginnings of Chemical Engineering Edu-cation in the USA," pp. 141152 in History of Chemical Engineering,William F. Furter, ed. (Ames ir.an Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.,1980); A. Norman hixson & Alan L. Myers, "Four Score and SevenYears- of Chemical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania,"in A Century of ChemiCal Engineering, edited by William F. Furter(Plenum Press, New York, 1982), pp. 127-138. Sadtler (1847-1923):DAB, 1935, 16, 285-286.
219
tory of Applied Chemistry that Walker set up, in 1908.The hope was to apply scientific knowledge systemati-cally, and to provide contract research facilities forindustrialists reluctant to embark on staffing their ownlaboratories.
This willingness to be of service had its direct andindirect rewards. By 1921 the Research Laboratory ofApplied Chemistry had handled almost $200,000 inmundane contracts of one kind and another. Moreinteresting is the fact that Eastman and two otherscions of chemical business (T. Coleman, and Pierre S.,du Pont) so approved of the way the institution wasresponsive to business sensibilities that together theygave MIT over $11 million in building and endowmentfunds between 1911 and 1921.8
4. The first growth of Industrial research
The chemical and chemical process industriesbegan to experiment with research in this era. Com-panies such as General Chemical (1900), Dow (1900),Du Pont (1902), Standard Oil of Indiana (1906), Good-year (1909), Eastman Kodak (1912), and AmericanCyanamid (1912) were among the early pioneers ofcentral research and development laboratories. Aswith the German dyestuffs industry, progress wastentative and the future of the enterprise uncertain.
The employment of chemists was not limited tochemical companies, and the case of Willis R. Whitneyand the General Electric Company is instructive.
On 15 December 1900 Whitney, then an assistantprofessor of chemistry at MIT, began devoting twodays a week to research at General Electric's largestmanufacturing works at Schenectady, New York. Hisemployment was prompted by GE's sense that Germaninventions, and activities by their American rival West-inghouse, threatened GE's dominance in the electriclighting business. Whitney took to his work at GE andsoon resigned his MIT position to become full-timedirector of the fledgling research laboratory (a positionhe held, with great success, until 1932), though heknew full well "that the company is not primarily aphilanthropic asylum for indigent chemists." He recruitedan able staff, including William D. Coolidge from theMIT physical chemistry laboratory (in 1905) and IrvingLangmuir who, in 1909, was disappointed in his hopesfor the chairmanship of the chemistry department atStevens Institute of Technology.
Whitney, Coolidge and Langmuir together fore-shadowed much about the course of industrial researchin certain very large companies, and in the strong con-
"This account draws heavily on John W. Servos, "The IndustrialRelations of Science: Chemistry at MIT, 1900-1939," Isis, 1980, 71,531-549 which contains an extended discussion of the factors in-volved in the rise and decline of contract research during the period.Walker (1869. 1934): WWW, 1942, 1, 1291; Lewis (1882-1975): WWW, '-1976, 6, 246; Little (1863. 1935): DAB, 1944, 21, 500-501.
nections of that research with academic work. All threeheld (German) Ph.Ds and all three had multiple aca-demic contacts, and prior academic careers. Coolidge'swork on inventing and perfecting a process for makingtungsten wire for use in incandeScent lamps resultedin a 1913 patent that was fundamental to GE's con-tinued prosperity. Whitney. and Langmuir in their turnswere Presidents of the American Chemical Society(1909 and 1929), and Langmuir's work in surfacechemistry led to the award of the Nobel prize in 1932.9The example set by Whitney at GE was strongly toinfluence C.E.K. Mees, himself another leader in indus-trial research and director of the Eastman Kodak lab-oratory from 1912 to 1956, and also to inspire CharlesF. Kettering, General Motors research director for aperiod of twenty-seven years. On another level it isinteresting to note how the Harvard graduate studentand chemist James B. Conant was to retain a lastingmemory of a 1913 lecture by Whitney extolling theopportunities for scientists in industry.")
The eventual strong success and widespread in-fluence of the GE laboratory should not obscure howtentative was its role and its future in the early days.While major innovation, and associated patents, wasone obvious goal, that goal was not reached quickly,easily or often. A second main line of usefulness in-stead emerged in minor improvements of productsand processes, and in building an essentially defen-sive network of patents to ensure continuing dominancein traditional techniques and market areas.
The pattern was similar at Du Pont. In the latenineteenth century laboratories for routine testing andanalysis grew and'prospered along with the company'snew dynamite works and its older black powder facility.Small clusters of academically-trained chemists beganto be employed in these laboratories in the 1890s:Oscar Jackson, superintendent of the Repauno dyna-mite works-a graduate of Harvard and a student ofAdolph von Baeyer in Munich-was the key figure inthis development. The plant laboratories were mainlyoccupied with routine testing, but responding to theproblems of clients, elucidating the value of patentsoffered to Du Pont, and development work of variouskinds also began to be important.
In 1902 Du Pont took the formal step of differen-tiating chemical research from production responsi-bilities, and the Eastern Laboratory was inauguratedwith ail explicitly advisory role within the company.However the Eastern Laboratory was close to the dyna-mite works, and its staff included several chemists with
"George Wise, "A New Role for Professional Scientists in Indus-try: Industrial Research at General Electric, 1900-1916," Technologyand Culture, 1980, 21, 408-429. Whitney (1868-1958): DAB, 1980,26, 694-695; Langmuir (1881-1957): DSB, 1973, 8, 22-25; Coolidge(1873-1975): WWW, 1976, 6, 89.
1"Mees (1882-1960): DAB, 1980, 26, 441-443; Kettering (1876-1958): DAB, 1980, 26, 332-333.
220 213
extensive plant experience. One of them was the lab-oratory's Director, Charles Lee Reese (ACS Pres. 1934;AlChE Pres. 1924, 1 9 2 5 ) . Reese was a graduate of theUniversity of Virginia, who took his Ph.D under Robert
._Bunsen at Heidelberg in 1886. Uncertain about hisacademic future, Reese left his position in the JohnsHopkins chemistry department in 1900, in favor of anindustrial career. Under Reese,and in accord with tradi-tion,process improvements and waste product recoverywere the two main concerns of the early Eastern Lab-oratory, as Du Pont management sought to rationalizethe company. In 1903 a new Development Departmentwas formed, which included an Experiment Station. Afurther reorganization in 1911 consolidated the Experi-ment Station and the Eastern Laboratory into a Chem-ical Department with Reese at its .head, and a staff of120. Process development and problems with productsstill formed the staple of this enlarged central staff,but attention began to turn to new products as thecompany adopted a conscious strategy of diversifica-tion away from explosives. New uses for nitrocellulosewas one obvious concern: in 1913 97 %, of Du Pont'sbusiness was in explosives, but over one third of allresearch expenditures went to seeking new productsin nitrocellulose chemistry. A second concern was toimprove the products of certain existing companieslike the artificial leather of the Fabrikoid Company andthe celluloid of the Arlington Company, acquired in 1915.
By 1917, the importance of research and innova-tion to Du Pont was unarguable. In a move pregnantwith implications for the future, Du Pont then becamethe first chemical company to recognize the industrialvalue of advanced academic knowledge through ap-pointment of a Ph.D to its Board of Directors, in theperson of Reese. Reese of course had a German doc-toratean interesting footnote on a year most oftenremembered for the outbreak of war between Americaand Germany.)'
5. The idea of contract research
Obviously, few companies were of the size of Gen-eral Electric, Eastman Kodak or Du Pont. however aca-demic chemists were familiar with consulting andindustrial problems, and as the example of William 11.Walker at MIT indicates, some at least were anxious totap industry as a source of funds and as an employerof their growing number of Ph.Ds.
Another such individual was Robert K. Duncan,who after a mixed career in teaching and journalismbecame professor of industrial chemistry at the Uni-
"For information on Du Pont, here and below, see Jeffrey L.Sturchio, Chemists and Industry in Modern America( Studies in the.Historical Application of Science Indicators (Unpublished Ph.Ddissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1981), pp. 125-138. Reese1862-1940): DAf3, 1958, 22, 550-551.
214
versity of Kansas in 1906. There he pioneered the ideaof having students undertake specific pieces of workpaid for by companies interested in the results. Thefirst industrial fellowship was supported by a launder-ing company in Boston (and led, eventually, to thefoundation of the American Institute of Laundering).Duncan was able to interest Andrew W. and Richard B.Mellon in his ideas. The Mellons encouraged Duncanto set up a department of industrial research at theUniversity of Pittsburgh, in 1910. Three years later thedepartment became an institute named after the Mellonfamily, who commissioned a building and undertookto support the venture for five years: by 1915 the Insti-tute employed 23 fellows. Though nominally a part ofthe University of Pittsburgh, the Mellon Institute oper-ated in an independent way. The Institute pioneeredmany contract research procedures, notably the lim-ited-tenure fellowship through which a new Ph.D mightwork on a specific problem for a particular company.The power of this technique for harnessing academicknowledge to industrial concerns was soon apparent;by 1936 annual fellowship donations had reached$1M, with a total of $11M contributed over the pre-ceding quarter- century. And by the Institute's fiftiethanniversary in 1963 some 229 Mellon fellows hadgone on to management positions in industry, includ-ing 16 presidents of companies.12
Though the Mellon Institute was not formally lim-ited to chemical concerns, the majority of its earlyfellows and of its research problems lay in the fieldof chemistry. One especially dramatic example of theInstitute's effect may be seen in the work of GeorgeCurme.
Curme, one of four Ph.D graduates of the Univer-sity of Chicago in 1913, undertook postdoctoral workin Germany. He- considered his prospects of findingacademic employMent to be bleak and, in 1914, ac-cepted the Prestolite fellowship at the Mellon Institute.His initial task was to find a cheaper source of acetylenethan calcium carbide (Prestolite made the lamps forbicycles and cars). The train of research thus initiatedled to the discovery that by using organic liquids inexothermic reactions he could produce not only ace-tylene but ethylene. By 1920 he was convinced of thepossibility that, starting with petroleum, it would bepossible to create an organic chemical industry ofalmost unlimited proportions, based on ethylene, ace-tylene and their by-products. his sponsorby nowcombined as the Union Carbide and Carbon Corpora-
'2Duncan (1868-1914): DAB, 1930, 5, 511-512. For a sketchof the Institute by its director from 1921.56, see Edward R. Weidlein,"A Thumbnail History of Mellon Institute," pp. 19.25 in Science andHuman Progress: Addresses at the Celebration of the Fiftieth Anni-versary of Mellon Institute, H. P. Klug, ed. (Mellon Institute, Pitts-burgh, 1964). Figures are taken from Edward R. Weidlein & William A.Hamor, Glances at Industrial Research During Walks and Talks inMellott Institute (Reinhold, New York, 1936), p. 30.
2 2
tionagreed, and over the next three decades Curmeplayed a primary role in the development of petroche-micals, including the manufacture of such products asbottled gas (propane) for domestic use, Prestone anti-freeze, and synthetic rubber. tie was eventually tobecome vice-president for research of the Union Car-bide Company (1951)."
. Equally striking was the work of L. V. Redman (ACSPres. 1932) who accepted one of the original industrialfellowships under Duncan at Kansas in 1910. Redmantransferred to the Mellon Institute in 1913, continuinghis work on phenol-aldehyde condensation resins ofthe type recently d.scovered by Leo Baekeland (ACSPres. 1924; AlChE Pres. 1912}. The hope of Redman'ssponsors was a superior furniture polish. However, bythe time of its 1922 merger with Baekeland's com-peting company, the Redmanol Chemical ProductsCompany was already producing a wide range ofphenolic resins with uses in such things as aircraftpropellors and automobile ignition systems. Redmanbecame Director of Research for the Bakelite Corpora-tion, and presided over the rapid early growth of theplastic industry.14
The Mellon Institute exemplifies a developing pat-tern: it relied on the vision of an academic entre-preneur familiar with industrial problems; it profitedfrom the philanthropy of a family whose fortune camefrom chemically-linked endeavors; it had loose butreal connections with an academic institution; and itsmembers saw no great barriers between academicknowledge and manufacturing concerns; or betweencareers in industry and activity in learned societies.
These last characteristics were also true of ArthurD. Little (ACS Pres. 1912, 1913; AlChE Pres. 1919), whostudied chemistry at MIT in the early 1880s, but whodid not stay to graduate. Instead, Little went to workin the paper-pulping industry, took out patents, andprospered as a consulting chemist. In 1900 he formeda partnership with William H. Walker of MIT. Walkerwithdrew in 1905 because the demands on his timewere too great. However Little continued to prosper(and began to be an influential adviser at MIT). By1909, "Arthur D. Little Inc., Chemists, Engineers, andManagers" was a thriving organization undertaking re-search on contracts for profit. Extensive new buildings,with well-equipped laboratories and library were openedin 1917. Little's experience, his enthusiasm and hisentrepreneurial genius prompted many other develop-ments in industrial research, and a variety of linksbetween academe and industry. Forinstance, Walker'sResearch Laboratory of Applied Chemistry at MIT owedmuch to Little's example and advice, as did the forma-
"Augustus B. Kinzel, "George Oliver Curme, Jr. (1888-1976),"National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs, 1980, 52,120-137.
',Redman (1880-1946): Miles, American Chemists, pp.' 400-401; Baekeiand (1863. 1944): D5B, 1970, 1, 385.
,,'.:
Z. --
tion of the firSt central laboratory at the GeneralMotors Corporation."
The successes of Little's organization and of theMellon Institute prompted numerous imitators. In1916, for example, the University of Washington orga-nized a Bureau of Industrial Research to which theindustries of that state were encouraged to bring theirproblems. In the following year the University of Okla-homa established a special Industrial Research De-partment concerned with oil, gas and gasoline, and in1918 Julius Stieglitz (ACS Pres. 1917) at the Universityof Chicago "invited industrial fellowships the expensesof which were to be met by manufacturing companies",while promising chemical courses shaped to bringabout closer cooperation between scientists and busi-nessmen.16
6. Individual philanthropy and basic research
As the examples of the Mellons, the Du Fonts andGeorge Eastman suggest, creators and inheritors ofthe giant fortunes that were coming into being on thebasis of such chemically-oriented industries as oil(Rockefeller), steel (Carnegie), explosives (Du Pont)and phOtography (Eastman) were not slow to endorsescientific research on a wide and inclusive basis.
Such endorsement might take the form of buildingsor capital resources for a particular style of activity (theMellon Institute) or for a particular academic institu-tion (MIT). It also encompassed the endowment ofwhole institutes devoted to basic research outside thetraditional university setting (the Carnegie Institution),and a slow groping toward the idea of operating foun-dations willing to fund particular programs of researchin diverse institutions (Rockefeller).'?
On the eve of American entry into World War !, acertain division of labor was thus apparent within aconfused and tentative situation. Universities and col-leges were educating increasing numbers of chemists,and developing strengths in pure research. A growingtrickle of Ph.Ds was finding its way into industrialresearch. Most of that researchwhether conductedwithin the companies or subcontracted to the MellonInstitute, the MIT Research Laboratory of AppliedChemistry, or similar organizationswas aimed atimmediate problems, and funded on a lowly level.Where massive philanthropy existedas with the DuFonts or Andrew Mellon or John D. Rockefelleritstrongly influenced academic behavior, but its aims
"Williams Haynes, ed., American Chemical Industry, vol. 6 (VanNostrand, New York, 1949), p. 250. See also Haynes, "Arthur D.Little," pp. 1192.1201 in Great Chemists, Eduard Farber, ed. (Inter-science, New York/LOndon, 1961).
161-laynes, American Chemical Industry, vol. 3 (1945), pp. 392-394. On Stieglitz (1867-1937): DA:3, 1958, 22, 630-631.
170n foundations in general see Eduard CT-Lindeman, Wealthand Culture (Harcourt' Brace and Co., New York, 1936)i and RobertH. Bremner, American Philanthropy (University of Chicago Frets,Chicago, 1960), chapters 7=10.
222215
were broadly cultural rather than narrowly economic.however universities and industry were already closelylinked on many levels from the employment of bac-calaureate students to the practice of industrial con-sulting by professors, and from the work of businessmenas trustees and benefactors of academic institutionsto the existence of important common ground be-tween academe and industry in the American Chem-ical Society, the American Institute of Chemical Engi-neers and other comparable organizations.
B. Consolidating the System, 1920-1940
World War I was sometimes called "the chemistswar." In the United States the Chemical Warfare Senfice.was the result of an extraordinary mobilization. Itsranks included many talented individuals who werelater to serve together in other common causesindividuals like Roger Adams, James B. Conant, ArthurD. Little and Warren K. Lewis.
The war affected American chemistry and chemi-cal industry in various ways. It made vivid the inde-pendence of American universities from German aca-demic domination, that was already apparent by 1910.It created contexts in which academics and industrialistsforged new personal relationships as they worked oncommon problems. It made explicit and urgent theneed to replace the German sources of many indus-trial and fine chemicals. More than that, the subse-quent defeat of Germany, and the seizure of Germanpatents, opened the way to an effloresence of dom-estic chemical manufacturers, under an appropriatetariff policy. 18
Chemical industry and academic chemistry bothboomed in the Coolidge years. The further growth ofhigher education led to the development and routini-zation of many of those patterns of academic-industrialinteraction that were already apparent in 1915. Indus-trial research laboratories grew in number, scale andsuccess; new, independent research institutes cameinto existence; and foundation and company supportof academic research became familiar and widespread.The years of the Depression took the edge off someof these developments. At the same time Depressionrealities fostered the desire of leading chemical spokes-men to rationalize and improve the system, and to fillin some "missing pieces." Though federal and stategovernments were becoming important as partners inthe evolving system, academic and industrial leaderswere agreed on seeing them as junior partners whoserole it was Co serve corporate interests, for the publicgood. If the aim was to consolidate a national system,
"Daniel P. Jones, The Role of Chemists in War Gas Research inthellnited States during World War I (Unpublished Ph.D dissertation,University of Arisconsin, Madison, 1969); Haynes, American Chemi-cal Industry, vol. 2 (1945).
216
it was also agreed that the system properly belongedunder private control.
1. Independent research institutes
In the period between the wars the Mellon. Insti-tute became wholly independent. Under its own boardof trustees it continued its focus; on individual fellow-ships and on contract research in -chemistry. Even inthe difficult year of 1933 it had some 85 fellows atwork. Chemistry was also a continuing mainstay of theArthur D. Little organization, where much attention, wasdevoted to' the new field of petrochemicals. Twenty-seven research chemists and seven analytical chem-ists formed the core of its endeavors in 1933.19 Thelinks of Little's enterprise to MIT were further strength-ened by his will (1935) which stipulated that the profitsfrom a controlling interest in Arthur D. Little Inc. wereto-go to MIT, where he had been a Member of the Corpora-tion for over twenty years.
The Mellon and Little institutions were both inolder industrial areas, as was the Battelle MemorialInstitute, founded in 1929 as a memorial to the heirof the Columbus Iron and Steel Works in Ohio. An en-dowment of almost $4M was devoted to "education inconnection, with the encouragement of creative andresearch work, and the making of discoveries andinventions in connection with the metallurgy of coal,iron, steel, zinc and their allied industries." These termsshow how common was the acceptance of an equationbetween education, research, and industrial progress.In practice the Battelle Memorial Institute pioneeredcontracts for research on short-term problems, thatresearch being undertaken by staff teams assembledfrom requisite disciplines, among which chemistry andmetallurgy were the most prominent. Another researchinstitute of this kind was the Armour Research Founda-tion of Chicago, founded in 1936 by several facultymembers of Chicago's Armour (later, Illinois) Instituteof Technology.20 Also of interest is the Institute ofPaper Chemistry, which was organized in 1929 in closeassociation with Lawrence College in Appleton, Wis-consin. Support came from graduated dues levied on"member companies" to support a small faculty cornmittci to interdisciplinary research and to the teach-ing of students already possessed of a bachelors degreein chemistry or chemical engineering.21
"Clarence J. West and Callie Hull, comps., "Industrial ResearchLaboratories of the United States," Bulletin of the National ResearchCouncil, 1933, August, 91, pp. 115, 123.
20An excellent source concerning independent research institutes is Richard L. Lesher, Independent Research Institutes andIndustrial Application of Aerospa6e Research (Unpublished Ph.Ddissertation, Indiana University, 1963), chapter 3. For a more gen-eral overview see Hprold Orlans, The Nonprofit Research Institute(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972,- quotation from page 33.
21Roy P. Whitney and Harry T. Cullinam Jr., "The Graduate Pro-gram at the Institute of Paper Chemistty," Chemical EngineeringEducation, 1978, 12, 56-59.
--223
2. Industrial research laboratories as a genre
During the twenties both the number of compa-nies maintaining research laboratories and the num-ber of people employed in industrial research tripled.The increase in industrial researchers is dramaticwhen considered against the 28 per cent increase inall persons employed in U.S. manufacturing between1921 and the onset of the Depression. The rate ofgrowth of industrial research laboratories slowed dur-ing the early 1930s, but the number of research work-ers still doubled during each of the next twoAmong those engaged in industrial research, chemistswere the predominant group durin, the interwar years.As Table 2 also shows, one of every three persons inindustrial research in 1921 was a chemist. By the late1920s, as a variety of industries jumped on the re-search bandwagon; the proportion of chemists droppedslightly, to one in four. But chemists maintained theircentral position throughout the 1930s and 1940s.
By the late 1920s over half of the industrial lab-oratories reporting to the National Research Councilwere located in the chemical process industries.. Be-tween' 1927 and, 1938 the proportion Of all researchpersonnel employed in this group increased from 41.0.to 52.2 per cent. Within the chemical process indus-tries, companies in chemicals and allied products,petroleum, primary metals, and rubber employed thelargest research staffs, accounting for nearly 85 percent of the research workers in the group by the late1930s. The chemicals and allied products industryhad more researchers than any other industry in thelate 1920s and 1930s; employing one in five researchworkers (see Table 3). Figures 17 and 18 presentdetailed employment information for three compo-nents of the chemical process industriesindustrialchemicals (the largest subgroup of chemicals andallied products), petroleum, and rubber. These figures
reveal the expanding opportunities for chemists andother scientists.
In industrial chemicals and rubber, research wasdirected mainly toward the improvement of manufac;Wring processes and the exploration of new applicationsfor products. In petroleum, breakthroughs in catalyticcracking and polymerization technology, along withearly movement into the field of synthetic organicchemicals, help to explain the growth in the 1920s and1930s of both the number of laboratories and thenumber of researchers in the industry. Research work-ers in the petroleum industry increased from a fewhundred in the 1920s to more than 5,000 in 1938,accounting for one in nine industrial research person-nel and placing the industry second only to chemicalsand allied products in the extent of its research activity.22
Much of the growth after the late 1920s can beattributed to -the expansion of existing laboratories,especially in industrial chemicals. For example, between1928 and 1938 the number of research workers em-ployed at Dow-Chemical increased from about 100 tomore than 500; at Du Pont, from about 850 to over2,500 persons. Once again, the particular case of DuPont reveals the shifting 'style of industrial research asa genre, away from an occasional concern with productinnovation toward a strategy of fundamental researchas a deliberately-employed weapon (though testingand development work remained central to the chem-ist's role in the research laboratory, as throughoutindustry).
By the early 1920s, Du Pont was producing pyralinplastics, paints and related chemicals, fabrikoid, anddyestuffs in addition to its traditional array of military,industrial, and sporting explosives. Coordination ofactivity in industries as diverse as heavy chemicals,
Table 2
2,13ud et al., Chemistry In America, pp. 130-133.
Industrial Research Personnel, by Selected Field, 1921-1950
Research personnelYear Corporate units
surveyed
Total Physicists Engineers
Chemists
NumberAs percentage
of total
111 (21 131 (4) (51 (61
1921 568 11,500 150 1,898 3.830 33.31927 926 18,982 437 3,018 5.163 27.21931 1.520 32,830 689 6.993 8,470 25.81933 1,462 27,567 414 5,541 7,526 27.31938 1,722 44,292 1,550 10,276 12.623 28.51940 2,210 70,033 2,031 14.9r7 15,687 22.41946 2,443 133,515 2,660 21,095 15.81950 2,795 165,032 2,969 35,601 23,159 14.0
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America.
224 217
FIGURE 17. Number of Companies MaintainingResearch Laboratories in SelectedIndustrial Groups, 1920-1938.
:NUMBER OF COMPANIES60
50
40
30
20
10
01920
Legend:
Industrial Chemicals *---6Petroleum and
Petroleum Products .---Rubber Products
1930
YEAR
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1940
organic dyestuffs, and paiMts proved difficult. In 1921 adecentralized, multi-divisional structure was adopted(a solution' that has since come to characterize themodern business corporation). Research organizationwas remodelled accordingly, with each division havingits own technical staff concerned with short and long-run problems related to the division's product line. Anew Central Chemical Department coordinated thegrowing number of research laboratories, control lab-oratories, and technical services to manufacturingplants, while also undertaking work on subjects notconnected with existing Du Pont products and processes.
In 1927 the Central Chemical Department alonehad a staff of 850 people and a budget of $2.2M. Itwas at this juncture that its new head, C.M.A. Stine(AlChE Pres. 1947), successfully argued that "appliedresearch is facing a shortage of its principal raw mater-ials" in new ideas. Du Pont had already pioneered themarketing of rayon (1920), Duco lacquers (1923), syn-thetic ammonia (1924) and cellophane (1927). How-ever the policy of capitalizing on the technology acquiredfrom other companies or inventors seemed too lim-ited: Du Pont should perform its own fundamental
218
225
FIGURE 18. Research Personnel in SelectedIndustrial Groups, 1920-1938.
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS(thousands)6
5
4
3
2
01920
Legend:
Industrial Chemicals 40---Petroleum and
Petroleum Products --ARubber Products
_1930
YEAR
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America
1940
investigations in colloids, catalysis, and syntheticorganic chemistry. Stine backed up his case by refer-ence to the examples of German chemical industry,and the General Electric Company. His request wasgranted, with a subvention of $20,000 for 1927 toundertake the deliberate search for new scientificfacts. The idea of fundamental research as an indus-trial strategy was thus blessed, belatedly. Its future was'secured when, within a decade, the brilliant work ofW. H. Carothers and his associates gave rise to neo-prene and nylon. By 1940 the fundamental researchprogram at Du Pont accounted for nearly one third ofthe Central Chemical Department's research budget,and employed 152 people. That number was barely5% of the total of "research workers" employed by thecompany. However, those 152 people formed a cruciallink between a vastly expanded industrial enterpriseand its basis in an equally transformed academe.23
"Sturchio, Chemists and industry in Modern America, pp. 138 -145. Stine (1882-1954): DAB, 1977, 25, 662.663: Carothers (1896-1937): DAB, 1958, 22, 96-97.
Table 3
Distribution of Research Personnel in the Chemical ProCess Industries, 1927 and 1938
Companies Employees
1927 1938 1927 1938\
Industrfai groupNumber
Aspercentage
of totalNumber
Aspercentage
of totalNumber
Aspercentage
of totalNumber
Aspercentage
of total
(1) (2) (4) (5) (6i 71 (8). ,
Food and kindred products 62 6:7 108 6.3 I 401 2.1 1,424 3.2Paper and allied products 28 3.0 57 3.3 271 1.4 752 1.7Chemical and all ed products 231 24.9 395 22.9 3,463 18.2 9,542 21.5Petroleum and it ',products 28 3.0 53 3.1 788 4.2 5,033 11.4Rubber products 20 2.2 35 2.0 1,115 5.9 2,250 5.1Stone, clay, and lassproducts 45 4.9 99 5.7 527 2.8 1,404 3.2Primary metals 97 10.5 144 8.4 1,222 6.4 2,728 .6.2
Total, chemical p 4essindustries 511 55.2 891 51.7 7,787 41.0 23,133 52.2Total, all industrie 926 100.0 1,722 100.0 , 18,982 100.0 44,292 100.0
,\SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry it, America.
A different, but equally vital, link lay with thechemical enginOrs. The Du Pont company did nothire its first cher! Icai engineering graduate until 1920.In 1929 a them cal engineering group was added tothe fundamental :research program. That group flour-ished as it focticd on the improvement of the "unitoperations" Of c liernical industry, and as it pioneeredin retaining as nsultants prOfessors from a numberof leading unive skies. Contacts and individual careersin chemical en tneering also vividly exemplified thedeveloping two way street between fundamental chem-ical i cience a d industrial production, and betweenac_ade .nic emplayment and commercial careers. Amongthe eh
\ hrnical engineers who later moved from the com-
pany to,\academe were Allen P. Coulborn (to the Uni-versity ots,Reli,ware, 1939), Thomas B. Drew (Columbia,1941), JarneS'O. Maloney (Kansas, 1946) and W. RobertMarshall (Wisconsin, 1947).24
3. Corporate and institutionalized philanthropy
If the emergence of fundamental research insidelarge corporations was one trend of the twenties andthirties, efforts by corporations to nourish funda-mental research inside the universities was another.Almost by definition that effort was never sufficient tothe demands and opportunities of academic research.But, it was real, serious, and sustained. The effort de-pended on many different individuals, corporations,
24Vance E. Senecal, "Du Pont and Chemical Engineering inthe Twentieth Century," in Furter, History of Chemical Engineering,pp. 283-301.
foundations and institutions and-like so much elsein the relations between the universities and indus-try-it awaits its historian. Here it is only possible tocast episodic light on the rich network of graduatescholarships, faculty consultantships, research grants,equipment awards, and other incentives by which aca-demic-industrial linkages were developed and sus-tained, and research and innovation fostered.
Most important in their long-run implications werethe growing number of fellowships for graduate stu-dents. For instance the Du Pont Company inaugurated,in 1918 a cluster of 18 fellowships and 33 scholar-ships at selected universities throughout the country,in line with its new stress on research and innovation.Other companies undertook similar efforts and chem-istry was by no, means the only subject favored. By1928 it seems that a minimum of 95 fellowships andscholarships were supported by at least 56 com-panies. The variety of chemically-linked endeavorsmay be seen from some information for 1934. In thatyear the John Hopkins Chemistry Department enjoyed$1,000 fellOwships "for the study of chemistry" fromthe Carbide and ;Carbon Chemicals Corp. (New York),the Cuhady Packing Co. (Chicago), ,the General MotorsCorp. (Detroit), Eli Lilly and Co. (Indianapolis), Westing-house Electric and Manufacturing Co. (Pittsburgh) andU.S. Industrial AlFohol Co., William R. Warner and Co.Inc., and John Wiley and Sons Inc. (all of New York).By 1940-despite the Depression-a national total ofat least 721 awards in all subjects were underwritteby 200 companies. In chemistry, the California Institute of Technology had 8 fellowships, while MIT had13, and various land-grant universities even more (111i-
219
nois, 15; Michigan, 10; Ohio State, 24; Penn State, 12;Wisconsin, 9).2s
Harder to trace, yet equally important, was thegrowing practice in companies of donahng specializedpieces of research equipment to particular universitiesand departments, or to individual professors for theirresearch. On occasion such corporate philanthropymight be extended by an individual/businessman, indonating a whole building to house a new or extendeddepartment of chemistry or chemical engineering. Asearly as 1917 C. W. and P. G. Gates, two lumber oper-ators, financed the Gates Chemical Laboratory at theCalifornia Institute of Technology, while a decade laterWilliam henry Nichols, Chairman of the Board of AlliedChemical and Dye Corporation, gave $3/4M for theNichols Building for Chemistry at New. York Unive0sity.26 Such examples could be multiplied.
Scholarships, buildings /and equipment given toeducational institutions underlined the growing beliefthat "the industry of procthcing the chemist is themost fundamental industry of all."27 Another mecha-nism that was of great use in acquainting industrialresearchers with academic findings, in making aca-demics sensitive to industrial problems, and in chan -.nelling recruits to selected companies, was the indus-trial consultantship. Thus the Standard Oil Companyof New Jersey dcdded to form "a thoroughly organizedand competent research department" in 1919. Toadvise and assist in this venture, Standard Oil callednot only on Ira Remsen of Johns Hopkins, but on War-ren K. Lewis of MIT and Robert A. Millikan of the Cali-fornia Institute of Technology. The services of theseconsultantsand especially of Lewiswere to proveinvaluable, when the company became urgently inter-ested in coal hydrogenation in 1927, as part of asynthetic fuel program to meet a feared petroleumshortage. Robert P. Russell, assistant professor ofchemical engineering at MIT, became manager of thenecessary research laboratory and "recruited a staffcomposed largely of young MIT faculty members andgraduate students."28
If consultantships represented one way in whichfaculty gave of their skills to industrial concerns, posi-
25P. Thomas Carroll, "Industrial Fellowships and Scholarshipsfor Academic Research in American Chemistry and Chemical Engi-neering, Selected Years, 1920-1940," (Unpublished paper, Depart-ment of l listory and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania,June, 1977).
2"Robert H. Kargon, "Temple to Science: Cooperative Researchand the Birth of the California Institute of Technology," HistoricalStudies in the Physical Sciences, 1977, 8, 3-31; "The Nichols Build-ing for Chemistry. The Formal Opening, December Third, Nineteentwenty-seven, at University Heights in the City of New York" (New YorkUniversity, New York, n.d.).
"M. T. Bogert in 1915 quoted in Haynes, American. ChemicalIndustry, vol. 3, p. 394.
2"Edward J. Gornowski, "The History of Chemical Engineering atExxon," in Furter, History of Chemical Engineering, pp 303-311.Quote appears on page 307.
220 ...e..:"!.227
tions as trustees of academic institutions were a modein which leading industrialists could bring their knowl-edge and concerns to bear on academic life. More subtlebut no less pervasive was the influence brought intoplay by those industrially-related foundations whichcame to dispense philanthropy on a previously un-dreamt of scale in the 1920s and 1930s. The variousRockefeller-related charities derived their assets fromthe booming of the oil industry, and the RockefellerFoundatiOn powerfully affected the development of sci-entificespecially medicalresearch in the UnitedStates, in the period up to 1940. As master strategistof Rockefelle' programs in the natural sciences, War-ren Weaver institutionalized a pattern of project grantsfor specific pieces of research by leading academicscientists that was to be widely imitated in the fiftiesand sixties; he was also the catalyst for that funda-mental research in biochemistry and molecular bio-logy which was to underlie the subsequent exfoliationof genetic engineering. In keeping with widening Amer-ican awareness, the Rockefeller-sponsored InternationalEducation Board vigorously promoted foreign scholarsand institutions (as, for instance, in the 1927grant of$131,455 for constructing and equipping of J. N. BrOn-sted's Institute of Physical Chemistry, in Copenhagen).29
The steel fortune of Andrew Carnegie was theother dominant force in the philanthropic support ofscientific research, principally through the vehicle ofthe, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. Anotherfar more modest research institute was the Bartol Re-search Foundation, inaugurated in 1924 at the Frank-lin Institute of Philadelphia. This institute derived itsendowment of nearly $1M from the sugar refining ven-tures of George E. Barto1.39 Quite different in style, butmore immediately powerful in its effects, was theChemical Foundation established in 1919 to admin-ister the licensing of seized German chemical patents,and to distribute the proceeds so as to advance chem-istry in America. This foundation favored populariza-tions and publicity, but it also provided needed fundsfor a multiplicity of academic projects from the Journalof Chemical Education to Wilder D. Bancroft's Journalof Physical Chemistry (which by 1931 received no lessthan $17,000 a year). In the years from 1919 to 1938the Chemical Foundaticin distributed over $8M, of
290n Rockefeller programs in the natural sciences, see Robert E.Kohler, "The Management of Science: The Experience of WarrenWeaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Programme in MolecularBiology," Ninerva, 1976, 14, 279-306; and Raymond B. Fosdick, TheStory of the Rockefeller Foundation (Harper & Bros., New York,1952), chapters 12-13. Among the International Education Board'sprojects in chenbstry described in George W. Gray, Educationon anInternational Scale (Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York, 1941), is anappropriation of $35,000 made to the American Chemical Society
/,for the publication of the second 'decennial index of ChemicalAbstracts (bp. 32-34). Sec also Ernest Victor Hollis, Philanthropic,Foundations and Higher Education (Columbia University Pres, NewYork, 1938).
30Lesher, Independent Ifesearch Institutes, p. 73.
which almost three quarters went to educational andresearch activities.31Altogether, it has been estimated,100 philanthropic loundations contributed over $22Mto higher education in the natural sciences in thedecade from 1921 to 1930, with the great bulk (c.$20M)going to academic research.32
4. The academic use of industrial opportunity
The uses to which the developing academic-indus-trial system could be put stand out most sharply in thecareer-patterns of certain individuals. Outstandingamong them was Roger Adams, who by 1940 had be-come the leading organic chemist in the United States,had built the University of Illinois Chemistry Depart-ment into the world's greatest producer of Fh.Ds in anydiscipline and had forged an unrivalled network of con-nections in industry.33 His life exemplifies the shrewduse of industrial opportunity, without. compromisingacademic tradition.
Roger Adams (ACS Pres. 1935) majored in chem-istry and took his Ph.D at Harvard (1912) before spend-ing a year in german laboratories. In 1913 he returnedto Harvard to teach elementary organic chemistry (a.position in which he was succeeded by J. B. Conant)and in 1916 he moved to the University of Illinois asan assistant professor. At Illinois he quickly found anunusual "industrial" opportunity. World War I had ledto an embargo on German goods, and American uni-versities and fine chemical users faced immediate,serious shortages of numerous organic chemicalstraditionally imported from Germany. Adams turnedan Illinois summer course in "organic preps" into"Organic Chemical Manufactures"a year round activityproducing some fifty or so rare organic chemicals forIllinois and other universities, and for industrial con-cerns, while incidentally providing financial supportfor graduate students. The chief corporate buyer of theorganic chemicals produced was Eastman Kodak. Ini-tially, the university provided a fund of $5,000 to coverthe start up expenses of what proved to be a highlysuccessful if modest venture, and one that still en-dured three decades later.
Organic Chemical Manufactures had many utili-ties. It provided good contacts for Adams and madehim visible in the industrial world. It gave his studentspractical experience in scaling up laboratory processes
",John W. Servos, "A Disciplinary Program That Failed: Wilder D.Bancroft and The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1896. 1933," Isis,1982, 73, 207-232; Williams Haynes and Edward L. Gordy, eds.,Chemical Industry's Contribution to the Nation: 1635-1935 (Chem-ical Markets, New York, 1935), pp. 139-143; Skolnik and Reese, ACentury of Chemistry, pp. 17, 264-265. Bancroft (1867-1953): DAB,1977, 25, 35-37.
32Lindeman, Wealth and Culture, pp. 72-83."An excellent biography of Adams (1889 -1971) is now avail-
able: T). Stanley Tarbell and Ann Tracy Tarbell, Roger Adams: Sci-entist i-.nd Statesman (American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.,1982).
to industrial quantities. It led to the creation of twoserials, Organic Syntheses and Organic Reactions,which Adams edited. And it gave him exposure to crea-tive administrative arrangements borrowed from thebusiness world; the two serials, for instance, were eachowned by private corporations which sold stock topatrons. Adams' key aide in creating Organic Chem-ical Manufactures was E. H. Volwiler (ACS Pres. 1950),his first Ph.D (1918). In a portent of things to come,Volwiler took employment with a 14trgeoning Illinoisdrug company, Abbott Laboratories, where Adams wasalready (1917) a highly-valued consultant; eventuallyVolwiler became Chairman of the Board, and Adams'long association with the company qulminated in hisown election to the Board (1953).
From 1918 to 1926 Adams published 73 scien-tific papers and trained 45 Ph.Ds, setting the style ofa lifetime of creative endeavor. Between 1918 and1958 he trained 184 PhDs in all. Whereas only 8% ofIra Remsen's students at Johns Hopkins had gonedirectly into industry, 65% of Adaens' students did so.Half of this latter group attained a position of directorof research or equivalent, and 1i4 eventually becamemembers of higher management. Pre-eminent as achemist was Wallace Carothersl(Ph.D 1924) who wentfirst to Harvard, then to Du Pont in 1928 to participatein their new venture into fundamental research. Note-worthy among Adams' pre-Wbrld War II students wereG. D. Graves (Ph.D 1923) whO also ;iad a distinguishedcareer with. Du Pont, E. E./Dreyer (Ph.D 1924; even-tually vice-President for Re:search, Colgate, Palmolive,Peet Co.), C. F. Rassweiler (Ph.D 1924; eventually vice-Chairman, Johns Manville Co., ACS Pres. 1958), Wil-liam H. Lycan (Ph.D 1929; eventually with Johnson &Johnson as vice-Chail;Man, J&J International), W. E.Hanford (Ph.D 1935;'eventually vice-President, OlinCorp.), E. E. Gruber Oh.D 1937; eventually vice-Presi-dent, General Tire & Rubber Co.), and T. L. Cairns (Ph.D1939, eventually Director, Central Research & Develop-ment Dept., Du Pont).
Adams himself was convinced that "graduatestudy is becoming more and more essential as theindustries learn to recognize the potentialities of menwith this training." In 1941 he emphasized that "theconstant flow of new applications of chemistry intoalmost every industry and the enormous increase inthe number of important chemical discoveries inrecent years have brought about a rapid developmentof chemistry and chemical engineering in the UnitedStates." The Illinois departmentwhich embracedboth chemistry and chemical engineeringexempli-fied that rapid development.; In 1940 it had 38 facultymembers and graduated 46 Ph.Ds, 30 of whom tookpositions in industries ranging from pharmaceuticalsto photography, and from steel to textiles. Throughhis Ph.Ds Adams nourished a network of links withindustrialists and industrial concerns, while he him-
2 2 8 221
self demonstrated by his actions the potentialities of"men with this training." He consulted, on a regularbasis lor A. E. Staley Co., M. W. Kellogg Co., Coca Cola,Abbott Laboratories, Johnson and Johnson, and DuPont. Indeed he was instrumental in helping shape DuPont's effort in basic research, both through his adviceand through his supply not only of outstanding leaders(Carothers, Cairns) but also of rank-and-file rest irchers(for example, in 1940 alone, 3 of his Ph.Ds went to
'Du Pont).34If, on Adams' definition the duty and one of the
primary responsibilities of the university was to trainchemists for industry, then industry too had its obli-gations. One small but important one was to assistin the supply of necessary apparatus and chemicalsto the university as when, in 1925, F. W. Willard, theAssistant Superintendent of Development at the WesternElectric Company, had 50 gallons of castor oil distillateshipped to the Illinois department "without charge asit is intended for student instruction." More important,indeed central, was industry's role in providing grantsfor fundaMental research, and in supporting students.Adams' success in persuading industrial companies tosupport graduate work is strikingly displayed in hisDepartment's roster for 1940: aside from 14 post-doctoral fellows supported by Du Pont, the RockefellerFoundation and the National Research Council, amongothers, some 28 graduate students enjoyed supportfrom industrial sources that included the ContinentalOil Cdmpany, Rohm and Haas, and the National LimeAssociation.
Roger Adams at Illinois found a harmonious wayof combining the growing interdependence of aca-demic research and chemical manufacturing in the1920s and, 1930s. Other institutions were not neces-sarily as convinced of the virtues of such interdepend-ence, nor as imaginative in grappling with problemsthat, inevitably arose when academic and industrialinterests found themselves in competition rather thancooperation.
At MIT, a conflict deknloped between William H.Walker with his Research Laboratory of Applied Chem-istry (RLAC), and A. A. Noyes (ACS Pres. 1904) whoseown more fundamental Research Laboratory of Phys-ical Chemistry was much less successful in attractingfinancial support. Walker, Arthur D. Little and Warren K.Lewis pioneered in developing a chemical engineer-ing curriculum ("unit operations"; the School of Chem-ical Engineering Practice) well suited to the practicaldemands of chemical industry, and MIT baccalaureatesin chemical engineering rose from 132 in the periodof 1910-1914 to 240 in the Depression years of 1930-] 934. Chemical research was correspondingly closely
3'University of Illinois, Department of Chemistry (University ofIllinois Press, Urbana, 19411, pp.' 10-20, 160 -161, Quote appears onpane 7.
tied to the programs and funding of the RLAC, and itssearch for narrow answers to specific questions (theleakage from oil barrels, for Vacuum Oil. Co.; bettergreaseproof paper, for the Papercan Corp.). When fun-damental research was undertaken, sponsors some-times refused to allow the publication of results (aswnen the Humble Oil Company vetoed publication ofwork on methods for vacuum distillation of lubricatingoils). The practical 'success of chemical engineers andapplied research militated against attention to funda-mental chemistry: baccalaureates granted in chemis-try in 1930-1934 (71) were less than granted in 1900-1904 (78). Leading workers in basic science found MITunattractiveA. A. Nbyes' own migration to Caltech isindicative. Only when the Depression years brought adramatic decrease in the funding of RLAC ($171,000 in1926.27, $55,000 in 1931-32) was MIT able to re-chartits course toward emphasizing fundamental researchonce again, in a way attractive to the best academicminds.35
If MIT invested heavily in direct industrial links inthe 1920s, the California Institute of Technology took0 1/2the opposite road, emphasizing "cooperative research"on problems of fundamental scientific importance thatcrossed disciplinary lines. A. A. Noyes was attractedfrom MIT to Caltech in part by the existence of thenew Gates Chemical Laboratory, one of several lab-oratories built for the Institute by wealthy Californians.In the 1920s and 30s Noyes, George Ellery Hale andR. A. Millikan built up the resources and prestige ofCaltech by emphasizing cooperative research, and bydrawing on a troika of patrons: the large, privatefoundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller), local Los Angelesand Pasadena wealth (Gates, Bridge, Robinson), andprivate industry. The student body was kept small andthe Institute emphasized graduate work and a clearfocus on research. Noyes was thus able to nourish apreeminent school of research in physical chemistrywith students and collaborators like G. N. Lewis, R. C.Tolman, W. D. Coolidge, L A. Kraus, and Linus Pauling.36
The experiences of Illinois, MIT and Caltech sug-gest something of the vitality and diversity of the sys-tem of academic-industrial contacts that ha emergedby the 1920s. The California Institute of Technologywas supreme in the art' of translating private, indus-trially-derived wealth (Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Cali-fornia locals) into the culturally-applauded triumphs ofabstract research. In contrast, Roger Adams found amore direct, harmonious' modus vivendi betweenacademic ambition and industrial needs, while the
5Nervos, "Industrial Relations," pp. 536- 549. Noyes (1866-1936): DS13, 1974, 10, 156-157.
3fiJohn W. Servos, "The Knowledge Corporation: A. A. Noyes andChemistry at Cal-Tech, 1915-1930," Ambix, 1976; 23, 175-186;'Anus Panting, "Fifty Years of Physical Chemistry in the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology," Annua.1 Review of Physical Chemistry,1965, 16, 1-14; Kargoti, "Temple to Science."
222 2.29
experiences of MIT served to underline just how diffi-cult was the sort of balancing act that Adams appar-ently performed with case.
Where Adams, Noyes, Hale and their peers at otherinstitutions were in close agreement was in the sharedbelief that developments in science required a new setof national agencies to coordinate and facilitate thegrowing venture. however it was to be a national enter-prise firmly under private control. As R. A. Millikan putit as early as 1922: "One of the most dangerous ten-dencies which confronts America today is the appar-ently growing tendency of her people to get into thehabit of calling upon the state to meet all their wants.The genius of the Anglo-Saxon race has in the past lainin the development of individual initiative.37
5. National enterprise and private control
The experience of World War I fostered a height-ened sense of national awareness in the scientificcommunity. Chemists were especially active. Sharedexperience in the Chemical Warfare Service drew lead-ing young men together, as did the industrial need tomanufacture on an emergency basis many chemicalspreviously imported from Germany. Of particular im-portance in laying the basis for future scientific co-operation was the National Research Council (NRC),which was jointly supported during the war by privatefoundations, industry and the federal government. Withthe war ended, the need for government involvementwas over but the desire lived on for private mechanismsto harness national enterprise. The Carnegie Corpora-tion appropriated $1.45M for a permanent building forthe NRC, in Washington, and $3.55M for an endowmentfund. By 1938 an additional $1.45M had been grantedfor the Council's operations.
In practice the NRC was largely composed of uni-versity professors, and its primary thrust was supportof research in the natural sciences. Over the period1919-38 the Council administered $4.02M in fellow-ships, and an equal amount in research grants inphysics, chemistry, mathematics, and biological andnatural sciences. About threequarters of this moneycame from Carnegie and Rockefeller fundS, with thebalance equally divided between other foundationsand industrial sources:Once again private, industrially-derived monies were used as a major support of funda-mental' research. The distinction however was that thefunds were under national direction, and distributedon a national basis by mechanisms of peer review.
The jewel in the NRC's crown was its system ofNational Research Fellowships. These fellowshipsfinanced by $4.8M from the Rockefeller Foundation'during the years of their existence, from 1919 to1951began with the broad purpose of promoting"fundamental research in physics and chemistry in
''Quoted in Karyon, "Temple to Science," p. 15.
educational institutions" through the support for oneor two years of postdoctoral fellows "who have alreadydemonstrated a high order of ability in research." A. A.Noyes, Wilder D. Bancroft, and Roger Adams wereamong those influential in directing the award of fel-lowships in chemistry. Their aim was unabashedlyelitistthe use of private funds, on a national basis,to support extraordinary talent and to build a wcirld-reputation for American science. The fellows (between20 and 88 a year in all sciences, in the era 1920-40,with 1931 as the peak year) tended to cluster at certainfavored institutionsthe chemists at Berkeley, Har-vard, and Caltechthus reinforcing the values thescheme's sponsors wished to promote.38
The NRC also created an Industrial Advisory Com-mission, including George Eastman, AndrewW. Mellon,and Pierre S. du Pont, which, it was hoped, would solicitfunds from industry for the support of academic re-search in a way that would reinforce the scheme ofNational Research Fellowships. however the Commis-sion was not a success. Undeterred, George Ellery Haleset to work in the early 1920s to create a NationalResearch Fund, based on the conviction that withoutpure science the whole system of industrial progresswould dry up. That belief was endorsed by the trusteesof the proposed fund, including its secretary, HerbertHoover. Their aim was to raise $20M from industry forthe support of research, to be distributed in grantsmodelled after the system of National Research Fellow-ships. The campaign began in earnest in 1926, butthe pledges never amounted to the $20M hoped forand, with the onset of the Depression, the Wholescheme collapsed.39
The ambition for a National Research Fund financedby industry reveals how strong was the sense 1:If theneed for national enterprise transcending the desiresof particular individuals and institutions, and thesense of the possibilities and appropriatenes of in-dustrial support of academic science. The fai ure ofthat ambition in turn underlines the limitations ofindustrial patronage. in this same era of the 1920sand 30s MIT was finding that individual colipaniespreferred research that was specifically harnessed totheir' own concerns (better grease-proof paper) andthat if the research possessed an industry-wide utility(vacuum distillation techniques for lubricating oils),the sponsoring company had no, wish to se publica-tion of results; and destruction of its 9ampetitiveadvantage. To put it differently, no sponSoring com-pany wished to finance those "externalitis of benefit"which would accrue to its competitors through the
38For an informal history of the fellowships, see Myron J. Rand,"The National Research Fellowships," Scientific Monthly, 1951, 73,71-80.
"See Lance E. Davis and Daniel J. Kevl s, "The National Re-search Fund: A Case Study in the Industrial Support of AcademicScience," Minerva, 1974, 12, 207-220.
230 223
open publication of research for which it had paid. Thisfact of economic life meant that industrial leadersmight applaud the idea of a National Research Fundand agree that science was the mother of invention,but they were unwilling to commit the resources oftheir individual firms to an activity that would not yieldthem exclusive or privileged benefit. Support of par-ticular academic institutions for reasons of sentimentvia endowment or recurrent gifts from private individ-uals (Eastman, Du Pont, Nichols, etc.) was one thing.Commitment of company money to a National ResearchFund was something else. For it did not promise anyexclusive or special privilege of the kind that could begained through direct support of individual universi-ties and departments, through, say, fellowships withtheir promise of a competitive edge in recruitment.The problem of externalities of benefit set one sharplimit on the extent and character of industrial moniesfor academic research.
If a voluntary National Research Fund could onlyfully work when all firms contributed in some propor-tionate way, such a voluntary fund was not the only wayof raising the necessary funds on a national basis.National fund raising was of course well entrenchedeven in the 1920s, via the taxing power of the federalgovernment. And, already in the 1920s, and 1930s, thegovernment was funding basic research in a numberof areas, and thereby allowing industrial and commer-cial firms at work in those areas a means of internalizingthe externalities of benefit. Those areas-of governmentinterest, and the whole idea of federal funding ofresearch, took on a new saliency in the 1930s as theDepression sharply limited all but the most essentialcorporate expenditures, and "New Dealers" experi-mented with remedies for what seemed to be glaringdefects in the American way of doing business.
The Department of Agriculture for one, had a longtradition of supporting scientific researchits budgetfor this activity already stood at $11.2M in 1929. By1939 that figure had increased to nearly $20M and,thanks to the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, $4M of thatSum was for the first time six. ifically allocated to basicresearch. One aim of that r ...:earch was to find newindustrial (chemical) uses `-1. surplus farm productsa program also vigor :1,s'; url;ecl by the Farm ChemurgicCouncil, which ir,eluded luminaries. like Roger Adams.In 1938 the Dv'. ir`ment of Agriculture also began toextablish region,t1 r 'search laboratories.'"
More cont nitious was the effort to establish basicresearch within the National Bureau of Standards.Between 1935 and 1941 its Director, Lyman J. Briggs,pressed the argument that there was "an essentialplace in Government for basic research in physics andchemistry in order to provide the foundations for new
")Carroll W. Pursell, Jr., "The Administration of Science in theDepartment of Agriculture, 1933-1940," Agricultural History, 1968,
42, 231-240.
224
'industries." The sort of research Briggs had in mindlay between the fundamental research undertaken inthe universities and the applied research carried outby industries seeking answers to their immediateproblems. The research "must be quite fundamentalin character" but have "some distant practical objec-tive", and the National Bureau of Standards was itsproper home. Briggs' plan drew on the earlier "Recov-ery Plan of Science Progress" presented in 1933 byRoosevelt's Science Advisory Board. That planneverimplementedproposed that the federal governmentspend $1619 over six years "in support of researchin the natural sciences and their applications." Thefunds were to be assigned as far as possible to univer-sity laboratories, through a special committee of theNational Research Council: national enterprise underprivate control, once again.
Briggs proposed an annual Congressional appro-priation that would grow to $519 after five years, withhalf to be spent in the Bureau of Standards, and halfdispersed through contracts. The Bankhead-Jones Actoffered an encouraging precedent, and the failure ofthe National Research Fund indicated the need foraction by the government. However Briggs was unableto win Congressional support for his ideas, in partbecause of infighting between the Bureau of Standardsand other agencies that felt their interests threatenedby his proposal (Agriculture, Labor ). Also troublingwere questions as to how political control andthedesire for geographical equity might influence the dis-tribution of contracts, and why such research shouldnot be supported by a fresh, direct tax on the indus-tries that would benefit. The Agriculture Secretary,Henry A. Wallace, might announce in 1936 that "todayone of the major functions of government" was to sup-port basic research "wherever it may lead, for the ulti-mate good of all the people." However in the 1930sthat belief seemed rather to threaten traditional Amer-ican values and an academic-industrial system withmany triumi.vhs to its credit, than to point to new worldsof Gpportunity. It was only through the experience ofWorld War II that those opportunities were plainlyrevealed.41
C. The Influence of War
1. World War I and the : turn to normalcy
The First World War had a profound effect on thenation's science. The 1914 award of the Nobel prize toHarvard scientist Theodore W. Richardsthe first Nobelaward to an American chemistwas one early indicatorof the changing position of America in relation to Euro-
41Carroll W. Pursell, Jr., "A Preface to Government Support ofResearch and Development: Research Legislation and the NationalBurcau of Standi.rds, 1935-41," Technology and Culture, 1968, 9,
145-164. Quotes appear on pages 145 and 148.
pean research.42The war laid waste to areas of Europe,bled her resources, and delivered damaging blowsfrom which Germany, her leading scientific nation, wasnever fully to recover. In contrast; American involve -merit in the war was distant, and comparatively brief.Mobilizatibn of the nation's scientists and. especiallyits chemists was more of an adventure than a sus-tained enterprise with profound results or compellingpractical implications. Recruitment of chemists undermilitary auspices in 1918, to man the Chemical War-fare Service, worked surprisingly well. The govern-ment's own emergency program to build nitrogen fixa-tion plants also set an interesting precedent. Thenitrogen program cost $10711.and delivered only oneplant, operating on an experimental basis, when theArmistice intervened. However the program hinted atwhat might be achieved if scientific knowledge, indus-trial skills and government money were to be appliedto difficult but technically feasible problems.43
It was to take a far longer war, in which Americaninterests were more obviously at stake and scientific-knowledge was a more familiar key, before the unionof science, industry and government would take holdon a lasting basis. lnstead the scientific legacy of WorldWar I lay with those individuals who were newly awareof the national character of their work, and newly con-vinced that American science in the twentieth centurywas destined to take on the world leadership that hadlain in Europe for over three hundred years. The NationalResearch Council was the most obvious symbol of thisawareness. The NRC advocated nationai enterpriseunder private control, in keeping with the commondesire for "normalcy" which, followed the experienceof World War I. The federal role was seen as properlyone of very modest support in certain areas (notably,agriculture) and coordination rather than direction ofprivate initiatives (as in the National Advisory Com-mittee for Aeronautics, founded in 1915 and con-tinued in peacetime). In the 1920s and 30s the NRCreinforced rather than diSturbed the belief that theAmerican system of academic-induStrial relations, andindeed the health of the whole of American science,was a question best left in private lands. At the sametime the NRC fostered that sense of national commu-nity which provided the basis for massive, rapid, andefficient government direction of academic and indus-trial aspects of science when the outbreak of WorldWar II rendered such direction a matter of overridingnational importance.
2. Science and government in World War 11
World War II brought about a fusion of academicresearch, industrial production, and government finance
42Ric:hards (1868-1928): D513, 1975, 11, 416-418."Skoinik & Reese, .1 Century of Chemistry, pp. 146-147.
on a hitherto unprecedented scale. The atomic bomb,radar, napalm, and buna-S rubber were some of themore obvious outcomes. It turned out that the endsfully justified the means, but those means were initiallyregarded with surprise. J. B. Conant recorded howrecalling his 1918 work in the Chemical Warfare Ser-vice--"I had imagined, as war drew near, that manyof my scientific friends and, perhaps, I myself wouldonce again put on a uniform."44 Instead, in June 1940,under the leadership of Vannevar Bush, a convincedRepublican and president of the Carnegie Institutionof Washington, a National Defense Research Commit-tee (NDRC) was formed by President Roosevelt.45 Andin a way symbolic of the previous erathe Commit-tee's first, and for many months sole salaried staffmember (its executive secretary) was financed by theCarnegie Corporation.
Conant well summarized one view of the realitiesthat the NDRC came to express:
Forgetting (if one can) the contribution of the PIDRCto the winning of the war, it is clear that the creationof the committee marked the beginning of a revolu-tion. The mode of the committee's operation...hashad a transforming effect on the relation of the uni-versities to the federal government. The pattern sethas made the postwar world of American scienceentirely different from that of the prewar years. Theessence of the revolution was the shift in 1940 fromexpanding research in government laboratories, toprivate enterprise and the use of federal money tosupport work in universities and scientific institutesthrough contractual agreements.
Bush insisted from the start that, rather than buildingand staffing government laboratories, the NDRC won ild
"write contracts with universities, research instif Atesand industrial laboratories." In this way the theme ofdispersed, privately controlled activity was carried overfrom the prewar era. In some ways the NDRC fulfilledthe functions of the hoped-for National Research Fundof the 1920s, or of the 1933 "Recovery Plan of ScienceProgress." In other ways it built on Bush's experienceas a member of the National Advisory Committee forAeronautics. But the size and scale of the problemsconfronted by the NDRC, and the speed with which itpushed toward solutions, were wholly without precedent.
The inner core of the NDRC consisted of a physi-cist (Karl Compton, MIT President!, a chemist (Conant,Harvard President), and an: (Frank Jewett,Director of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, NAS Pres-
ident), together with Bush and Dr. Richard Tolman of
"James B. Conant, My Several Lives: Memoirs of a SocialInventor (harper & Row, New York, 1970), p. 236. Conant (1893-
1978): WWW, 1981, 7, 121.45Some of Bush's personal views may be found in his
memoirs, entitled Pieces of the Action (William Morrow & Co., New
York, 1970). Bush (1890-1974): WWW, 1976, 6, 63..
232225
Caltech.4,, Conant himself had charge of the ChemicalDivisionDivision B (Bombs, Fuels, Gases, ChemicalProblems). tie found it quite natural to enlist as hisfirst two colleagues in supervising the work of theDivision, Warren K. Lewis and Roger Adams. They inturn recruited scores of their influential colleaguesand students in key institutions.'" The result was that,over the years from 1940 to 1945, hundreds and thoU-sands of chemists, chemical engineerS and other sci-entists became intimately familiar with the idea ofresearch in universities and independent institutesbeing funded by the government, and of priorities inresearch being set by those most scientifically equippedto judge the outcome. The 'NDRC was joined in July1941 by a Committee on Medical Research (CMR).NDRC and CMR together formed a new Office of Scien-tific Research and Development (OSRD), charged notonly with necessary research but also with the develop-ment of new weapons. The result was a vast increasein the scale of activity, and in the number and inten-sity of contacts between academics and industrialists.
In the period to June 1945 OSRD was responsiblefor over seven hundred contracts with non-industrialorganizations, ranging from 75 contracts with a valueof $116M channelled through MIT and 48 contracts for$83M at Caltech to 9 contracts ($1,111) at the Univer-Sity of New Mexico and 15 contracts ($1.1M) at BattelleMemorial Institute.48 The CMR wing of the organiza-tion alone wrote contracts for $2.3M of chemicalresearch in universities and other institutions, as partof the overall $25M it committed between 1941 and1947. And CMK could point with pride to the resultsof its wartime workin the development and wide useof penicillin, sulfonamides, gamma globulin, adrenalsteroids and cortisone, among other drugs and tech-n iq ues.49
The success of the Manhattan Project, ofwork onthe production of synthetic rubber, of the developmentof new drugs, and of a host of lesser schemes madeplain for all to see that science was an essential keyboth to national defense and to economic prosperityin the modern state. The question faced in 1945, and
"Conant, My Several Lives, pp. 234-238; Carroll Pursell, "Sci-er ice Agencies in World War II; the 05RD and its Challengers" in Nathaniteirigold, ed., The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspec-tives (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C, 1979), pp. 359-378.
"Sec W. A. Noyes, ed., Chemistry: A History of the ChemistryComponents of the National Defense Research Committee, 1940-
' 1946 (Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1948).-"James Phinney Baxter 3rd, Scientists Against Time (Little,
Brown & Co., Boston, 1946), p. 456. See also Irvin Stewart. Organiz-infi Scientific Research for War: The Administrative History of theOffice of Scientific Research and Development (Little, Brown & Co.,Boston, 19481.
'''Stephen P. Strickland, Politics, Science, and Dread Disease: A,Short History of United States Medical Research Policy (HarvardUnixersity Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 16.
226
argued out explicitly before Congress and elsewhere inthe period up to 1950, was to define the proper nodesby which the state might secure its interests in theseareas, given the realities of America's pluralistic sys-tem of academic industrial relations. The answerswere not arrived at easily, nor did they command com-plete consensus. however those answers were builtout of wartime experience with the funding of researchby government, and they were answers that under-wrote a new era of unparalleled intellectual achieve- /ment in the basic sciences.
3. The new social contract
Just as Vannevar Bush was central to OSRD, andshaped its style, so he set out a widely-influential pro-gram for postwar research in his Sciencethe EndlessFrontier. 50 The elitist style of OSRD had already arousedCongressional criticism when, in the fall of 1942, Sen-ator Harley M. Kilgore introduced a "Technology Mobil-ization Bill." The critics wanted several disparatethingsa fairer deal for small business and the loneinventor, and a more professional "Office of Technolog-ical Mobilization" to curb the alleged waste of scien-tific manpower and the unhealthy concentration ofresearch and development contracts, together with the"giveaway" of patents to private companies. By thesummer of 1943 Senator Kilgore was focusing on anOffice of Scientific and Technological Mobilization(OSTM) which would coordinate the scientific andtechnical agencies of the federal government. Theintention was, Inter alla, for OSTM to finance throughgrants and loans scientific and technical educationand the advancement of pure and applied research.Kilgor : believed that the prevailing system of academic-industrial relations had reduced much university re-search to "the status of handmaiden for corporate orindustrial research, and has resulted in corporate con-trol of many of our schools."51
In contrast, the National Association of Manufac-turers saw Kilgore's ideas as an attempt to "socialize"all of science in the United States. The Army and Navyalso greatly disliked the idea of a civilian-dominatedagency being in control of the development of militarytechnology. Most scientists also disliked the Kilgorebill, though few went as far as Frank Jewett, presidentof the National Academy of Sciences, who claimed thatscientists were unalterably opposed "to being made
50Vannevar Bush, ScienceThe Endless Frontier (GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C., 1945). The paragraphs that followdraw heavily on Daniel J. Kevles, ''The National Science Foundationand the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942-1945," Isis,1977, 68, 5-26. See also J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Sci-ence, The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945-57.(National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1982), Strickland,Politics, Science, and Dread Disease, and Skolnik & Reese, A Cen-tury of Chemistry, pp. 149-150.
5lQuoted in Kevles, "The National Science Foundation," p. 10.
;33
the intellectual slaves of the state" and consideredfederal aid to academic research a threat to the free-dom of science. What most scientists rather fearedwas, in the words of J. B. Conant, "coordinating agen-lcies with dictatorial powers. . .a peacetime scientificgeneral staff."52 As events were to prove, they had farless objection to federal funding itself.
Late in 1943 Vannevar Bush wrote to Kilgore, set-ting out his own ideas about postwar needsneedscentered on coordinating rather than controlling thefederal agencies concerned with science; on having ascientific advisory system in the federal government,but one staffed by the bestand hence most disinter-estedscientists rather than by representatives of labor,
small business or consumers; and on federal supportfor academic research and training, to advance thework of the intellectually most talented. The new billfor a National Science Foundation that Kilgore drafted
early in 194-4 conceded much ground to Bush. andother critics. However there was still one fundamentaldisagreementKilgore wanted a foundation respon-sive to lay control and directly interested in researchthat would advance the general welfare; Bush and hisallies wanted an agency run by scientists mainly for the
purpose of advancing science, for they believed thatsuch an agency would best serve the public good astalented and disinterested individuals created newknowledge available to .all. It was in this context, andwith a deliberate eye to its political utilities, that on 20November 1944 President Roosevelt released a letterdrafted by Bush which invited the latter's ideas on thepeacetime implications of OSRD. Bush responded bycommissioning carefully constructed task forces of sci-
entists and industrialists, and with his own tract on Sci-
enceThe Endless Frontier which was published towidespread applause in July 1945. By then, Bush and
his friends were deeply convinced that federal supportof basic research was a necessity, that universitieswere the proper home of that research, that a founda-tion insulated from geographicand populist pressures
was the appropriate agent of federal largesse, and that
peer review mechanisms would support the pursuit ofacademic excellence.
In practice, political contention meant that it was
not until May 1950 that the Natio,nal Science Founda-
tion became a reality. By then, quite separate initia-tives had split off both medical and military research,which were to be sponsored and pursued by otherfederal-agencies. The /immediate postwar period ofconfusion about proper peacetime practices thus gave
rise to a pluralism in the federal mean's of support ofacademic research which nicely matched the pluralismof private patronage. By the early 1950s academicscientists were able to seek support from an array of
5,Quotations from lievles, The National Science Foundation,"
pp. 11-12.
federal agenciesincluding Agriculture, Commerce,Defense, and the Atomic Energy Commissionas wellas from the National Science Foundation and theNational Institutes of health. This pluralism was sooncombined with Cold-War demands for scientific strength,consumerist wishes for better health, and baby-boom
desires for improved educational facilities. The resultwas an escalation of federal support for science in away not foreseen by even the most farsighted visionaryin 1940. The result was also to downgrade the impor-tance of industrial support of academic work, even asthat support continued to grow in absolute amountand in the variety of its forms.
The change in scale and in priorities may be seen
by contrasting the state of affairs, in the late 1950s
with that of 1930. In 1930, the national budget fromall sources for scientific research and development ofall kinds was roughly $166M. Industry provided 70 per-
cent of the funds, while the federal government under-wrote only 15 percent. Ten years later, industry stillprovided two thirds of the money. The governmentshare had increased slightly to one-fifth, but the totalwas still only about $345M. Wartime mobilizationchanged this radically, as government research ex;penditures climbed to $720M in 1944. By the late1950s, U.S. expenditures on research and develop-ment reached ten billion dollars (over twenty timesgreater than prewar levels, in constant dollars) andgovernment supplied two thirds of the money."
A change of such magnitude was equivalent to theratification of a new social contract for basic science.That contract still involved academics, industrialistsand the federal government. But all parties were nowagreed that government (through taxation) was themajor internalizer of the "externalities of benefit"deriving from basic research. And it was to be thedirect defense- and education-related needs of govern-
ment which would dominate the contract for almostthree decades after World War II.
D. The Era of Growing Federal Support, 1950-1965
1. The expansion of academe
It was anticipated that, following World War II,there would be a short-lived surge in undergraduateenrollments as those who had deferred attendancesought necessary credentials for civilian, peacetimecareers. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, the surge duly occurred.However what had not been anticipated was the way in --
which postwar prosperity would encourage marriage
and with it the childbearing that had also been defer-red from the Depression years. A rising birthrate (withpeaks of 3,817,000 births in 1947 and 4,208,000 in
1
"The argument of this paragraph depends on Sturchio, Chem-
ists and Industry, p. 216.
234227
1957) brought with it a heightened demand for teach-ers-initially on the nursery and elementary levels but,from the late 1950s, on the high school and collegelevels too.
Demand for teachers (that is, college graduates)implied an increased need of those who in their turnwould teach the teachers. Ph.Ds in the sciences andin engineering subjects we're among those required tostaff the expanding universities, and in a familiar proc-ess, the academic expension on this more advarkedlevel also fed on itself in the years of postwar pros-perity. The National Defense Education Act that fol-lowed the 1957 launching of the Soviet Sputnik wasbut one of the Many mechanisms by which college andgraduate school were made more accessible to thou-sands of students, and the supply of Ph.D.s boostedto meet an escalating demand. At the same time, theexpansion of high technology industries and the needsof the Cold War increased still further the demand forscientists and engineers. Doctorates granted in chem-istry had averaged under 500 a year in the late 1920s:by 1960 the figure was 1,062 and rising strongly.54
The 1950s and early 1960s were years of relativelyuntroubled expansion for the nation's research univer-sities. With both new Ph.Ds and senior professorsbeing keenly competed for by rival academic institu-tions, the research ethos was emphasized heavily. Itwas riot only that many of the best scientists valuedfundamental research more highly than anything else.It was also that, because of the peer review system andthe growth of federal support, individual scientistsbrought funds and overhead with" them if they movedfrom institution to institution. Buying scientific "stars"might help rather than hurt a university's budget whilealso serving to enhance the institution's reputation.
2. NSF, Nlfi and basic research
The change in the scale, and the modes of financ-ing, of university work between 1940 and the mid-sixties was nothing short of extraordinary. While thetotal educational and general income of colleges anduniversities trebled between 1940 and 1950, the fed-eral contribution multiplied more than thirteenfold(from $3911 to $52419). By 1950, government on alllevels (and principally the federal government) wasestimated to be meeting 60 percent of the total cost ofhigher education, and far surpassing private philan-thropy or industrial giving as a source of support.
In the 1950s and early 60s federal support forresearch grew rapidly. One estimate suggests that totalfederal support for basic research increased from$20111 in 1956 to $1,782M in 1964. In the latter year,federal funds for bask research in chemistry were esti-mated at $100M. By way of contrast the 'whole chem-
"Buti ct al.. Chemistry In America, p. 289.
228
teat induistry of the United States was estimated tobe spending only $110-$11519 of ,its own money onbasic research that year (though industry itself alsoobtained at least 25%Kof the funds that the federal gov-ernment committed to chemical research).
It seems that, of the $10019 the federal govern-ment spent on basic research in chemistry,about halfwent to universities, principally in research grantsdistributed by the system of peer review. The pluralismof the system, and the variety of federal agencies in-volved, may be seen from Table 4. That table showshow, in 1964, nine federal agencies each contributed$1M or more to basic research in university chemistry,with the National Institutes of Health and the NationalScience Foundation providing more than $1011 each.In contrast, the universities themselves contributed amaximum of $8.3M to chemical research, while privatefoundations provided $4.719, and industrial support ofbasic chemical research on campus amounted to$2.5M, just 5% of the federal total.55
The rapid growth of federal support helped tounderwrite a major flowering of chemical research inwhich, by 1960, the United States was the dominatingworld power. It also fed two contradictory moods. Onthe one hand, certain observers understood that anera of such rapid growth must have its terminus. Onthe other hand, scientists engaged in academic worksaw mainly the need for still further funds to exploitramifying opportunities.
Early in 1965, Harvey Brooks pointed out that "asa fraction of the gross national product, research and
Table 4
Sources of Explicit Research Funds (in millions), 1964
Federal Agencies University $ 8.3
NIH $13.8 Industry $ 2.3NSF 11.3 (Hidden Support) .... 0.2AEC off-site 9.4AEC on-site 3.5AFOSR 3.5 Total $ 2.5NASA 1.8ARO (D) 2.0 OtherONR 1.4ARPA 1.0 PRF $ 1.9Other 1.6 Other foundations .... 2.4Overhead 0.9 Other 0.3(Hidden Support) 2.1 . (Hidden Support) 0.1
Total $51.3 Total $ 4.7
Grand Total $66.8
SOURCE: Adapted from Table Fl. Chemistry:Opportunities and Needs. p. 217.
"Frank H. Westheimer, ed., Chemistry: Opportunities andNeeds: A Report on Basic Research in U.S. Chemistry (NationalAcademy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1965). Sec pp. 164, 217, etc.
9
development activities are nearly three times what theywere during the peak of effort toward the end of WorldWar II. . iederal expenditures have been doubling inabout six years. It is obvious' to ask whether there isany natural or logical limit to this trend. It is hard tosee what it is, or should be. . ." However, "the slowedgrowth of federal funds for general science, the kind onwhich most graduate students are trained" ("little sci-ence") was coming into collision with "rapidly risingaspirations and expectations on the part of universi-ties. . .Typically, institutions plan to expand faculty by50 percent, and graduate students by 30 percent...inthe next five years."56
The NRC Committee on Science and Public Policy,a:group composed of leading university professorswith one lone representative from industry, concurredin the belief that the federal government was thepatron who should meet the growing needs of "littlescience." Its 1965 "Westheimer report" on Chemistry:Opportunities and Needs pointed out that only 33.2%of grant requests in chemistry were fully or partlyfunded by NSF-in 1963, and argued that "the careers ofyoung investigators are stifled for lack of funds." TheCommittee felt that "chemistry. . .has outgrown itsresources." Looking back over 10 years of extraordi-nary growth in federal support with a compoundedannual growth rate of 16%, the report concluded: "theCommittee feels strongly that even a 16 percent rateof increase will prove inadequate to achieve the propergrowth of U S chemistry."57
The sentiments of the Westheimer report providean interesting indicator ofacademic hopes in 1965, ifnot of political realities in a nation beginning to facecampus unrest and about to confront the strains of theVietnam War. The report also indicates the changedposition of industrial support of academic research,for that support was simply not a matter that the com-mittee pursued in any deteil.
3. Industrial research
In the 1950s and 60s the chemical process indus-tries continued to play a major role in the still-growingemployment of industrial chemists. Within the chem-ical process industries, the chemicals and allied products
group became increasingly important: the proportionof all industrial chemists employed in the latter groupincreased from one-third to one-half in the years from1950 to 1970. Chemicals and allied products accountedfor 52 percent of the growth in industrial employmentof chemists over the twenty-year period, and for 81 per-
cent of the increase in chemists employed in the chem-ical process industries (see Table 5).
"Harvey Brooks, -Effects of Current Trends on the Support ofResearch, in Effects of Current Trends on the Support of Research,Motional Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1965), p. 4.
"Chemistry: Opportunities and Needs, pp. 185, 188.
The growing importance of chemists within thechemicals and allied products group is confirmedby an examination of total employment in the indus-try. Chemists constituted a growing fraction of a grow-ing labor force, increasing from about 208 per ten /
thousand employees in 1950 to over 480 in the mid- /1960s. This indicator displays in microcosm the in-creasing importance of chemical skills and knowledgwithin the industrial economy and hintsat the steadilygrowing importance of all varieties of industrial re-search. Another indicator that points to the same phe-nomenon is company funds committed to researchand development activity In 1957, firms in chemicaland allied products spent $616M; by 1964 the figurewas $1,082M.58
Whereas industrial employers in the Depressionyears had found it comparatively straightforward torecruit able PhD chemists, they faced a changed com-petitive position in the postwar era, even as theypossessed convincing evidence of the worth of basicresearch. One result was that major employersfirmslike Exxon, General Electric and Du Pontchose toemphasize how like academic research their own workwas. Extensive new research laboratories were built,often in campus-like settings remote from actualindustrial plants, and "blue sky research" aimed atunspecified, distant targets was much in vogue. Fromthe early 1960s a reaction set in, as much of thatresearch failed to yield economically valuable discov-eries. The consequence was disillusionment, and awidening gulf between academic and industrial pre-occupations.
Even so, about 8 percent of industrial chemists'were employed in basic research in 1964, according toone estimate. And these chemists contributed about30 percent of American publications on chemical re-search.59 Some of this basic research was financed bythe federal government (perhaps 25 %), for just as fed-eral grants to universities were one outcome of WorldWar II so too were government contracts to industrialfirms with the capacity to undertake basic research inareas of interest to such agencies as the Ator is EnergyCommission, the arrned services, and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration. The new socialcontract thus involved changed forms of interactionamong academe, industry and government. Theseforms were strengthened and routinized as universityprofessors not only acted as consultants to industrialfirms on the concerns-of these firms but participatedin federally funded industrial research, and sat onappropriate government advisory panels. Howeverindustrial and academic interests moved further apartin certain ways, as the availability of federal funds toboth academic and industrial researchers served to
"Sturchio, Chemists and Industry, p. 311.59Chemistry: Opportunities and Needs, pp. 157 -159.
236 229
Table 5
Chemists in the Chemical Process Industries, 1950-1970
Food and /% Paper and . Chemicalskindred / allied and allied
Year products products productsPetroleum
refining
Rubberand
products
Stoneclay and
glassPrimarymetals
Totala
(1) , (2) (3) (4) (51 (6) (71 (81
A. Number (Thousands)
1950 2:9 1.5 13.4 2.3 1.6 0.9 2.0 24.61955 3.6 2.1 23.7 3.5 2.0 1.2 2.3 38.41960 AA 2.8 32.0 3.9 2.2 1.5 2.7 49.51965 '4.5 2.9 37.8 3.4 2.8 2.2 55.11970 /4.5 3.6 42.8 3.2 3.0 1.5 2.4 61.0
B. As percentage of to al chemists in industry
1950 7.9 4.1 36.6 6.3 4.4 2.5 5.5 67.21955 6.5 3.8 43.0 6.4 3.6 2.12 / 4.2 69.71960 6.1 3.9 44.4 5.4 3.1 2.1 / 3.7 68.71965 5.3 3.4 44.7 4.0 3.3 1.8 2.6 65.'e1970 4.8 3.9 45.8 3.4 3.2 1.6 2.6 65.2
a Detail may not add to tot I because of rounding adjustments.
SOURCE: Bud et al., Chemistry in America.
insulate the two groups from an anxious concern witheach other's agendas.
4. Research associations and technologicalresearch institutes
A comparatively small but not unimportant quan-tity of basiC research in chemistry, as in the other sci-ences, continued to be conducted in a growing varietyof private institutions. By 1964, seventeen major non-profit research institutions estimated their annualexpenditure for basic research in chemistry to total$1011. These seventeen institutions employed about1000 chemists, with over 40% engaged in basic re-search.60
The research institutes in question included sucholder, industrially-oriented organizations as the Bat-telle Memorial Institute, the Franklin Institute (wherethe Laboratories for Research and Development begancontract research in 1946) and the Mellon Institute. Allenjoyed substantial growth in the 1950s and 60s-Bat-telle for instance increased its research space from500,000 to 900,000 square feet between 1950 and1960 while establishing European branches in Genevaand Frankfurt, each with several hundred staff mem-bers. By 1958 Battelle had moved sufficiently beyondits original concern with metallurgy to begin work onchemotherapy for the cancer research program of NI1-1.The somewhat newer Armour Research Foundationhad $11.0M of "research volume" and 445 staff mem-bers by 1956, by 1961 its income had grown to $1611and its research contracts were undertaken by a staff
6"Chernistry: Opportunities and Needs, p. 162.
230
of 1,250 organized into six divisions, including chem-istry, and metals and ceramics research. Though quiteseparate from the Illinois Institute of Technology, theArmour Research Foundation answered to the sameboard of trustees and in 1963 it was renamed the !IT'esearch Institute: yet another illustration of the.arieties of linkage in the academic-government-indus-trial system 61
The most successful of the campus-linked insti-.tutes was the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), whichwas founded in 1946 by the trustees of Stanford Uni-versity at the request, and with the support of,a group/of industrial leaders. Initially it was governed by a..
board of directors elected by the Stanford trustees,with the university president as chairman. The aim ofSRI was "to promote and foster the application of sci-ence in the development of commerce, trade, andindustry." The institute began life with a $1/211 loanfrom the University-and a staff of three. Funds for build-ings and facilities were provided for by the SRI Asso-ciates Plan (itself a variant of the Technology Planintroduced by MIT almost fifty years earlier), throughwhich companies and individuals provide $15,000 forMembership. By 1960 over $2.7M had been contributed,and the list of corporate members contained names of _
many large companies. By 1960 too, SRI had 1800 per-manent employees and had handled over $10011 inassignments. The success of SRI testified to the con-tinuing vitality of academic-industrial connections. Atthe same time the Institute-depended-heavily on the--
roliarold Vagtborg, Research and American Industrial Develop-ment (Pergamon Press, New York, 1976). p. 219.
237
availability of government contracts. That reality, andthe fact that Stanford University chose to sever its linkswith SRI in 1970, indicate how direct links between theuniversities and industrial concerns were no longer ahigh-priority matter in the 1960s.62
Other research institutes with a specific geograph-ical locus rather than an explicit university connectionalso appeared in this era. The Midwest Research Insti-tute began in July 1944; in Kansas City, Missouri, closeby the Kansas City University. By 1960 it had 273 em-ployees and a "research volume" of $2.3M. Contracts.-from the armed services and other government agen-cies were especially important to its growth. The South-ern Research Institute lof Birmingham, Alabama, wasorganized in 1941 but ,did not begin operations until1945. Its capital fundcontributed primarily by areaindustriesexceeded $4M by 1960, while its almost400 employees worked on some $3 1/2M of contractsin eight divisions including metallurgy, biochemistry,organic chemistry, chemotherapy, and applied chem-istry. Finally, the Southwest Research Institute, orga- ,nized in San Antonio,' Texas, in 1947, had over 5001employees by 1960. Approximately 45 percent of itsincome came from industry and other non-govern-ment sources, while the remainder came from militaryand civilian agencies of government. Characteristically,'its staff members published actively, held office in avariety of learned and professional societies, andoffered numerous courses both in local universitiesand as far away as the University of California and theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.63
Technological research institutes connected witha particular academic institute (Armour, SRI, Mellon)flourished in this era, as did those with a specificregional concern (Franklin, Battelle, Southern, Mid-west, Southwest). A third form of organization of grow-ing importance was the institute with ties to an indus-trial trade association, and devoted to a particularindustry or technology, as the Institute of Paper Chem-istry, the Institute of Rubber Research, or the TextileResearch Institute. One final group of considerableinterest to science in generalthough not so much tochemistry in particularwas that group of instituteslike the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Caltech), the Law-rence Radiation Laboratory (University of California),the Institute for Atomic Research (Iowa State- Univer-sity), and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (CornellUniversity). These latter institutes depended primarilyon government funds and undertook work of imme-diate interest to the defense of the nation. While ofgreat importance to the evolving academic-govern-
"2Lesher, Independent Research Institutes, pp. 79-86, 95-99.See also Weldon B. Gibson, SRI, The Founding Years (PublishingServices Center, Los Altos, CA, 1980).
"3Lesher, Independent Research Institutes, pp. 86-93, 100-102.
ment-industrial system, they lie outside the scope ofthis history.64
5. Old themes and new variations
The essential continuities that linked the newsocial contract to its prewar roots, and the reality of thechanges in the relations of academe, industry and gov-ernment may be seen refracted in the later career ofRoger Adams.
Adams has been a member of Roosevelt's ScienceAdvisory Board in 1934-35, and had played a key rolein the NDRC from its earliest days. He was thus familiarwith the theories and the realities of the links betweengovernment and the research universities, and able tohelp in shaping early NSF policy toward both scienceand industry from his position as a member of theNational Science Board (1954-1960). The fact that healso joined the board of the Battelle Memorial Institutein 1953 meant that he was cognizant of the opportuni-ties that faced the nonprofit research institute. Forinstance, he was able to prevail against opposing viewsin NSF' and to guard the tax-free status of theselinsti-tutes.66
Adams believed wholeheartedly in the virtues ofprivate enterprise, and of the necessity to seek out,reward and nurture scientific talent. It was thereforenatural for him to play a major role in helping toshape three philanthropic ventures which were to bemajor supports of postwar chemistry in acadthie andwhichbut for federal largessewould have loomedeven larger in the consciousness of chemists commit-ted to basic research.
As a member of the American Chemical SocietyBoard of Directors from 1940 to 1950, Adams was inti-mately involved in the negotiations that led to the crea-tion of the Petroleum Research Fund (PRF) to support"advanced scientific education and fundamental re-search in the 'petroleum field'." The monies in thefund derived from successful innovations in the petro-leum industry, and were administered as an endow-ment by the ACS: by 1976 the PRF had given more than$60M for chemical research,66 Adams was also ap-pointed a trustee of the Robert A. Welch Foundation.This foundationestablished in 1954 with the fortuneof a Texas oilmanwas to devote itself to fundamentalresearch in chemistry. By 1976 it was to report assetsof $123.5M and expenses of $7.5M or "approximatelyforty percent of all private foundation funds devotedto the direct pursuit of non-mission oriented basic
64 For a discussion of federal research and development centerssee Orlans, The Nonprofit Research Institute.
65Tarbell and Tarbell, Roger Adams, p. 188.6°Skolnik and Reese, A Century of Chemistry, pp. 34-35.
238 231-
chemical research in colleges and 'universities. "67Finally we should note Adams' key role in shaping theprogram of post-doctoral fellowships offered by theSloan Foundation. In keeping with Adams' vision, thesehighly-regarded fellowships allow their recipients un-fettered freedom to pursile their own basic research.68
theThe examples of the PRF, the Welch Foundation,and the SloanIfellowshipis indicate how older forms ofprivate philanthropy continued a flow of funds fromindustrial fortunes into academic research. If suchphilanthropy did not en the limelight afforded to
,V .
earlier ventures associated with Carnegie and Rocke-feller, it was nOnetheless important to the continuedhealth of chemical res arch and to the pluralisticcharacter that informed the American system even inthe days of greatest gro yth in government support ofacademic science.
E. A New Consolidatl n, 1965-1980
1. Academic steady 'state
y the late 160s it was apparent that the boomday, were over for federal financing of academic re-
/ search. The 'rapid buildup in enrollments and incal support fort all /forms of higher education were
/ coming to an end.Ari 1970 the numbers of PhDs in/ chemistry (22p8) and chemical engineering (438)
reached a peak; by 1979 the figure had fallen backsome twenty-five percent. However the number of bac-calaureates awarded in chemistry emained steady(11,617 in 1970; 11,643 in 1979) and in chemical;engineering it rose significantly (3,720 in 1970; 5,655in 1979).69 As these statistics suggest, what had changed
;was not so much the overall size or t. teaching mis-sion of the university but its relative a.Lractiveness as
Ia site for research.Overall federal spending for basic r :search in all
fields had reached a record $2415f'; 1965, fromonly $103011 as lab, a 1960. Aft- ; 1965, furthergrowth was painfully rloW,--a r ak 2837M in 1968was not surpassed until :i97F!, ..i.;th $292111. howeverin every year federal spending clWarfed all other sourcescombined (1965, $241511 to $100111; 1978, $292111
67W. 0. Milligan, "Preface," in Proceedings of the Robert A.Welch foundation Conferences on Chemical Research: XX. Amer-ican ChemistryBIcentennlal (Robert A Welch Fotindation, Houston,1977)) p. viii, Financial data is included in 'The Robert A.. WelchFoundation," in The International foundation Directory, It V. Hodson,ed. (Gale Research Co., Detroit, 19741, p..32/.
"Adams was chairman of the committee that recommendedthe fellowships. The program was approved in 1954, and the initialawards were made in 1955 to 24 individuals, totaling $235,000. By1975 the program had disbursed $25M to 1.220 scientists; about40% of the awards have been for chemistry. Vor further details seethe Annual Reports of the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.
"Chemical and Engineering News, 1981 59 (27 July). 69.
232
to $1090M). As the major recipients of federal moniesfor basic research, universities were acutely aware ofthe slowdown in the growth of largesse from their mainpatron. It is estimated that total university expendi-tures from all sources for basic research in all fieldswent from $2003M in 1968 to $2,110M a decade later:steady state indeed.70
Given this context, it is not surprising that academicsbegan to show new interest in nonfederal sources forthe support of basic research, from the early 1970sonward.
One obvious, familiar soiree lay in industry. Ifindustrial ability to finance basic researchin house,or in universities and other centerswas small com-pared with federal sources (25% of the latter, in 1965),it was not subject to the same political' constraints.
2. The federal government as bearer of externalities
Academic spokesmen and othe s committed tothe basic re/Search mission of the VII ersities came toa gradual consensus in the 1970s, On the one handthey realized that growth in federal unds for that mis-sion could no longer be taken f r granted./ On theother hand, they had no desire t return to the worldas it was in the heydey of Rog r Adams and -Frank;Jewett; Instead, they believed that the pluralisticmodes of federal support whit had developed in the
/ 1940s and 50s, together with p oject selection by peerreview, meant the danger had been avoided that aca-demic scientists would become the "intellectual slaves"of the state. At the same time, the extraordinary recordof American success in Nobel prize and other interna-tioral comparisons indicated that federal supportcould be compatible with the loftiest of intellectualcriteria. Academic spokesmen felt comfortable withthe twin ideas that the university was "the home ofresearch" and that the federal government was theproper bearer of the externalities of cost of that research.
What was less clear to academic or other spokes-men was the appropriate scale on which those exter-nalities should be financed; or when considerations ofnational security took over from prospects of civilianapplication as an appropriate ground for economicchoice; or where the correct boundaries lay betweenfederal support of basic research and private, indus-trial responsibility for financing innovation and devel-opment. All three areas provoked continuing discus-sions through the 1970s. What was new within thosediscussions was the increasing attention focused onthe possible roles of industry, and the reaching out forfresh cooperative modes that would embrace industry,academe andpossiblygovernment.
/ '"Science Indicators, 1980. Report of the National Science/Board 1981 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,11981), tables 2-13 and 3-10. (All figures in constant 1972 dollars).
233
3. Old and new forms of academic-industrialinteraction
Many older forms of academic-industrial coopera-tion returned to prominence in the 1970s, in chemis-try as in other sciences/The benefits of consultancieswere stressed, with the addition that this was one goodway of bringing the industrial client abreast of govern-ment-financed work in university laboratories. Indus-trial grants were also/stressed, though as late as 1972it was reported that "universities which have been 'toowell' funned from federal sources...tend to stop look-ing for industrial research support, which is harder toget." Industrial' fellowships were re-emphasized, andmote academic institutions began to experiment with"industrial associates" on the MIT model. Connectionsbetween industrial research associations and universi-ties also gained a new prominence.
At the same time, many individuals and institu-tions began to cast about for new models of academic-industrial interaction. Not surprisingly in view of theirprominence as supporters of academic research, fed-eral agencies were involved in this experimentation.Already in the mid-1960s, the Advanced Research Proj-ects Agency funded three goal-oriented projects in thefield of materials science, each linking one universityand one company in a team effort. This form of venturewas an obvious modification of the (industrial) con-tractor(university) subcontractor model familiar tosome Department of Defense and NASA ventures.71
By early 1972, national concern over perceived"failures" to innovate as successfully as spme foreigncountries led the President of the United States toannounce an "Experimental R and D Incentives Pro-gram" within the National Science Foundation. Withinthis program one development was the creation ofindustry-wide "university-industry centers", as in theMIT-Industry Polymer Processing Program. Seed funds`from NSF allowed MIT staff to identify industry-widenroblems, define research needs and select projectsto he supported. By 1980 some twelve member corn-',allies were paying $560,000 (the full cost) to support
",Rustum Roy. "University-Industry Interaction Patterns," Sci-ence, 1972, 178, 955-960. Quotation- from p. 956.
25 projects, with all patent rights accruing to MIT. Inthis period NSF also introduced the deliberate, partialfunding of cooperative research projects between aca-demic and industrial researchers.72
The later 1970s also saw a revival, on a new scale,of the older model of direct agreements between aparticular academic institution and a particular indus-trial company to cooperate on basic research in anarea of common interest. Thus in 1974 Harvard Med-ical School and the Monsanto Company entered into atwelve year, $23M commitment to basic research onthe biochemistry and biology of organogenesis. MITand the Exxon Corporation have launched a compar-able ten year, $8M agreement for a combustion sci-ence prograni.73 Similar arrangements in the bioengi-neering field have been concentrated at West Coastuniversities.74 Most spectacular of all is the $100M'endowment promised for the molecular genetics anddevelopmental biology to be undertaken at the newWhitehead Institute of MIT.75 While all these venturesinvolve chemistry to some degree, they operate innovel scientific areas and on a previously unknownscale as to duration and financial commitment.
4. Unstable equilibrium
The most optimistic of industrial spokesmen donot expect that industrial financing will underwritemore than ten to fifteen percent of academic researchin the decade ahead. Whether 'funding on even thatscale will be forthcoming on a sustained basis remainsto be discovered. Equally uncertain is whether indus-trial companies will find such investment as financiallyrewarding as they hope. It is also not yet clear whatlong-run role federal agencies will play in facilitatinonew forms of academic-industrial cooperation. how-ever what is clear is that the new interest in academic-industrial ventures, which has been growing rapidly forseveral years, marks the end of one stage in the storyof basic research in America. The next chapter remainsto be written.
72"Tcchnology Incentives: NSF Gropes for Relevance," Science,1973, 180, 1105-1107,and Denis J. Prager and Gilbert S. Omenn,"Research, Innovation, and University-Industry Linkages," Science,1980, 207, 379-384.
73Prager and Omenn. "Research," and Wayne Biddle, "A Patenton Knowledge," Harper's, 1981, 263 (July) 22-26.
74See flew York Times, 12 September 1981, p. 32."'"Academic Values Tested by MIT's New Center," Chemical
and Engineering rieivs, 1982, 60 (15 March) 7-12.
240 233
UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY COOPERATION IN MICROELECTRONICSAND COMPUTERS
I. Some Perspectives from the Field
by
Erich BlochInternational Business MachinesIBM
and
James D. MeindlStanford University
H. Seven Case Studies
by
William CromieCouncil for the Advancement of Science Writing
241 235
CONTENTS
236
Page
I. SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD
A. Introduction 237B. Semiconductor Research Cooperative 237C. Center for Integrated Systems 239D. Overall Impact of Increased University-Industry Cooperation in Research 241
II. SEVEN CASE STUDIES
A. Introduction 243B. Stanford Center for integrated Systems 244C. Caltech Silicon Structures Project 246D. University of California, Berkeley 246
E. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 247
F. Microelectronics Center of North Carolina 248G. Minnesota Microelectronids and Information Sciences (MEIS) 249H. National Facility for Submicron Structures at Cornell University 250I. Assessment 251
J. Involving the Federal Government 252
242
CHAPTER 1
SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD
A. Introduction
The last two years have seen an increasing trendfor cooperation between industry and academia in themicroelectronics area and those high technology in-dustry sectors that depend on microelectronics as itsbase technology: computer manufacturers, instru-ment makers, telecommunication companies.
The following two accounts describe aspects ofthis new relationship and the underlying reasons for achange between these two sectors of U.S. society.
This description is meant to stimulate others intoaction, or at least stimulate new thinking in this impor-tant relationship.
Semiconductor Research Cooperative (SRC)
1. Semiconductors and Computers: Basic Industries
The 1'980's will see an increasing penetration ofhigh technology into industry, business, and the every-day life of people across the globe. The technologies ofsemiconductors and computers are predominant con-tributors to these developments.
The reasons are not difficult to perceive:
a. Semiconductors and computers are produc-tivity tools that have a strong positive influ-ence on cost and quality in manufacturingand on the effectiveness of the engineer, sci-entist, and administrator.
b. Because semiconductors and computers arenew developments and products themselves,they represent growing industry sectors con-tributing to the wealth of nations and takingthe place of declining industries.
c. They are basic industriessimilar to steeland automobile in the early part of this cen-
tury. Their developments are used as buildingblocks for novel products and have resultedin the establishment of new industry sectors.
2. Increase in Worldwide Competition
Because of the pervasiveness of semiconductorsand computers, worldwide competition in the twoindustries is increasing. Through government initia-tives, especially in Japan, France, Germany, and Eng-land, the knowledge base of /these technologies isspreading worldwide and is augmented by the contri-butions in research, development, and manufacturingthat these nations are making.'
The United States no longer has an undisputedlead. In fact, in specific sectors of these industries,such as memory devices, calculators, and displays, theU.S.A. has lost its preeminence. It is important toelaborate on this point with specific data:
While the U.S semiconductor industry sup-plied 100% of worldwide memory chip produc-tion in the early 1970's and over 90% in 1975,the U.S. production of 16K memory chips hadfallen by 1980 to 60%. The production of 64Kchips in 1982 is estimated to be 30% for theUnited States and 70% for Japan.
The number of papers presented by U.S.A.-based authors in the prestigious yearly 1SSC(International Solid State Circuit Conference)has decreased from 78% in 1971 to 55% in1981. Japan's participation in turn has in-creased from 5% to 30%.
The worldwide sales of semiconductors by thethree major world industrial centers has alsoundergone a change. The percentage U.S. con-tribution to worldwide semiconductor produc-tion in 1981 has dropped to 60% from a highof 70% ten years ago; Japan's has increasedto 26%.
243 237
3. The World Environment
The economic and political stresseS that U.S. com-panies arc experiencing make the p/ospect of worldcompetition even more ominous.
The inflation rate in the U.S. since 1978 has beenhigher than that of West Germany and Japan. While theU. S. had to contend with double digit inflation, Japan'sand West Germany's inflation rate was below 5%.
The capital investment required in semiconductorshas been increasing to close to 20% of every salesdollar. The cost of capital financing, however, is lowerby a factor of two in Japan compared to U.S. costs in1980 and 1981.
Japanese companies do not depend on equityfinancing but are dependent on loans from banks thathave an equity position in the enterprise. It is accep-table to show an after-tax profit of as low as 2%. Suchlow after-tax profits for U.S. companies could inhibitseverely their capability of raising needed capital.
Import duties are uneven. Japan's duty for semi-conductors is twice that of the U.S.; Europe's is doublethat of Japaq.
Both Europe and Japan have strong "buy national"policies in the high-technology sector making it dif-ficult for U.S. companies to sell in government-controlledsectors; such as telecommunications and railroads.
Standards and other non-tariff regulations im-posed by the national government are barriers to thepenetration of foreign manufacturers into the Japaneseand European markets, as compared to the "laissez -faire" policy of the U.S.
In order for high-technology sectors to progressand continue to advance, research and developmentefforts must be expanded, and qualified technical pro-fessionals must be made available to industry andacademia. On both of these counts, the United Statesis not keeping up with its world competitors. U.S. R&Dspending as percent of GNP has been dropping from ahigh of 30/0 in 1963 to 2.3% in 1981. In the same timeframe, in Japan this index has increased from 1% toclose to 2%, and West Germany's from 1.25% to 2.4%.
With regard to education, the U.S. has be:m over-taken by Japan in the yearly production of electronicand electrical engineers. This discipline is basic formost high- technology industry sectors; especially semi-conductors, computers and the telecommunicationsindutry.
4. The Semiconductor Research CooperativeA New Relationship
The need for research and qualified people, aswell as the increased world competition, has focusedmembers of the semiconductor and computer indus-tries on an effort called the Semiconductor ResearchCooperative (SRC).
238
a. Purpose
The purpost of the SRC effort is to increasethe level of focused research of the U.S. semiconductorindustry. It is aimed at, both enhancing long-term re-search efforts (5-10 years) in those areas that, becauseof the difficulty of the problem, require a long gesta-tion period. It is also aimed at shorter term researchthat will yield product results in a 3-5 year time frame.It is, however, not aimed at advanted technology orproduct development endeavors. The participatingcompanies will take the results of the cooperativeresearch and derive from it new products. Cooperationin research does not preclude a vigorous competitionin the marketplace.
While the R&D expenditures of both the semi-conductor industry and the U.S. industry are not insig-nificant, probably less than 10% of the R&D expendi-tures is aimed at research; the remainder is spent onadvanced technology and mainly on shorter rangeproduct develOpment. Spending additional and newfunds for research specizally should materially increaseand enhance the basic understanding of concepts thatlead to new Products.
A further purpose of the SRC is to add signifi-cantly to both the supply and quality of degreed pro-fessionals. This will be accomplished by having themajority of the research executed by universities, therebyfunding new research positions and attracting new talentto these endeavors.
Another benefit is aimed at the upgrading andmodernization of the tools required in the pursuit ofsemiconductor research. Many universitites today lackappropriate equipment and instruments to work in ameaningful way at the forefront of these technologies.
The participating membership of the SRC is avaried one. It not only is composed of semiconductorcompanies, but also of their major and leading-edgeusers: computer companies; instrument and equip-ment companies; defense-oriented, as well as con-sumer product-oriented companies, and semicon-ductor equipment makers. What these companieshave in common is their heavy dependence on semi-conductors for their product line. In order to competein the world market, they must rely on a dependableand vigorous U.S. semiconductor industry.
They are also manufacturers of semiconduc-tors for sale or for their own use and perform researchand development in this discipline.
244
b. Rationale for a Joint Cooperative Effort
Such an effort in all probability could not havebeen organized a few years ago. One reason for thischange is the realization that the semiconductorindustry is under severe and continuous pressurefrom foreign competition. Semiconductors have nowbecome a basic industry and it is important for thewell-being of the country to have viable companies in
this sector of its economy. The need for defense sup-port alone would justify this position; but the industrialrequirements cannot he minimized.
The semiconductor and the computer indus-tries, despite their growth, are still in their early stagesand new developments come at an increasingly rapidrate. Therefore, a lead in research will determine marketperformance in the future.
At the same time, the cost of conducting basicresearch has been escalating, not only because of infla-tion and the increasing cost of manpower, but alsobecause of the increasing complexity of the technologyand the need for sophisticated tools and equipment..The availability of these tools is especially importantin the research phase. The sharing of this equipmentand making it available among a large number of par-ticipants reduces research cost.
While the universities and some regional insti-tutes have recognized the importance of semiconductorstudies and are focusing on research in this field, theearly obsolescence of equipment and the continualneed for new capital infusion is a major problem.
The support of industry is required; especiallySince the reduction in government spending has leftthe universities in a vulnerable position. The SRC effortwill substitute industry dollars for government dollars.
The question can be asked why individualcompanies should not merely increase their own re-s arch, or else. interact individually with universities.
While such an approach is certainly feasible, ajoint effort will be able tc attack a research area withthe necessary resources. Individual companies fre-quently can apply only iimited funds and facilities to aparticular undertaking.
A -joint effort further avoids the overlap ofendeavors that is so often the case when individualcompanies pursue their individual research.
c. ImplementationWhile plans have not completely firmed up, it
is contemplated that the SRC will be a non-profit orga-nization and operate as a subsidiary of the Semicon-ductor Industry Association (SIA).
It will be governed by a board of directors, athird of which will be elected by and will be membersof the SIA board; the other members will come fromparticipating industry and academia.
Reporting to the board will be an executivedirector whose full-time job it is to formulate researchprograms; enter into activities with universities and othernot-for-profit institutions; monitor progress, and be afocal point for disseminating the results of this effort.The executive director is to be assisted by a smallgroup of technical people from member companies.
SRC members will pay a fee proportional tothe integrated circuit sales volume or the purchasevolume of integrated circuits of the participating com-pany. While not firmed up completely, the number of
dollars thus raised for this research will be $5-7 mil-lion in 1982, and $10-15 million in 1983; hopefullyincreasing thereafter as both the participating baseand the industry is growing. Based on 1980 expendi-tures, this expenditure should increase the researchbudget of the industry by 25% in 1983not an insig-nificant addition. By preliminary estimates it couldmore than double the yearly support of the semicon-ductor and computer industry to university research.
Membership will be open to all companiesthat manufacture semiconductors in the U.S. The SRCand participating universities will own patent rightsand other intellectual property which can be licensedto non-members for an appropriate fee.
C. The Center for Integrated Systems
The Center for integrated Systems (CIS) at Stan-ford University is an example of cooperation betweenindustry and academia as well as government in re-search and education dealing jointly with semiconduc-tors and computers. The dual objectives of the CIS areto educate a new genus of technical leader and toresearch new fundamental concepts for very largescale integrated (VLSI) systems. These objectives im-pose a compelling need to deal cohesively with anextremely broad spectrum of disciplines ranging fromsemiconductor materials to computer systems soft -.ware. The organization, personnel, facilities, researchand educational goals of the CIS are summarizedin the following discussion, which concludes with ahassessment of the overall impact of increased univer-sity-industry cooperation in research.
1. Organization
Stanford University contains Schools of Business,Earth Sciences, Education, Engineering (E), Humani-ties & Sciences (H&S), Law and Medicine (M) on asingle campus. The principal Departments whosefaculty are affiliated with the CIS are Electrical Engi-neering (E) and Computer Science (H&S). During thepast five years the research and curricula of these twodepartments have been expanding rapidly in many_phases of integrated systems. In addition, the Depart-ment of Applied Physics (H&S) conducts a substantialresearch and teaching program germane to integratedsystems.
A central feature of the organization of the CIS isan Executive Committee which formulates policy andconsists largely of faculty from the electrical Engineer-ing and Computer Science Departments. The Chair-man of this Committee and the Co-Directors /ho plan,initiate and direct CIS operations report to th?. Dean ofEngineering. Nonetheless, the research program of theCIS is university wide in scope, already including im-portant collaborations with the Departments of Aero-nautics & Astronautics (E), Materials Science (E), Mech-anical Engineering (E), Biological Sciences (H&S),
245239
Applied Physics (H&S), Medicine (M), Radiology (M),Surgery (M) and others.
A key element of the CIS is a Sponsors AdvisoryCommittee consisting of one representhtive from eachof 18 corporations (listed in Figure 1) who have electedto become Sponsors of the CIS and contribute a totalof $13,500,000 for design and construction of a newCIS building. Technical advice from the representa-tives on this Committee will provide important guidancefor CIS research. Annual contributions from Sponsorswill be used to support CIS research and educationalprograms. The most serious policy issue facing theCIS is resolution of patent and property rights involv-ing both university and corporate interests.
The singular organizational challenge confrontingthe CIS is the need to mold a synergistic research pro-gram, extending from semiconductor materials throughcomputer systems software, compatible with traditionalpractice of academic freedom.
Autonomous research project teams led by a facultymember acting as principal investigator are a promi-nent feature of the CIS. These teams are both intra-disciplinary and multidisciplinary and range between2 and 20 members including faculty, professional staff,technical staff, graduate students and industrial researchassociates assigned to the CIS on a full-time basis bySponsor corporations. These industrial research asso-ciates on sabbatical leaves from Sponsor corporationsare expected to add important new ingredients to theCIS research program. Costly facilities for design,fabrication, test and application of integrated systemsare shared by all project teams and centrally managedby the Co-Directors.
2. Personnel
More than 30 faculty, 80 members of the researchstaff and 200 graduate students are now engaged inintegrated systems research at Stanford. Their num-bers can be expected to grow significantly in the futureas a larger proportion of the 90 faculty members inthe Electrical Engineering, Comb .ter Science and Ap-plied Physics Departments respond to the unusualopportunities offered by the CIS. Of the 30 faculty withinterests in integrated systems, approximately 60%are systems, architecture and software oriented and40% are materials, device and circuit oriented. Annualsponsored research expenditures of the faculty in theElectrical Engineering, Computer Science and AppliedPhysics Departments are now approximately $30 mil-lion. More than one-third of this total is directly perti-nent to integrated systems.
3. Facilities
The current research program of the CIS is con-ducted in a set of laboratories and offices loca. ted inAve proximate buildings, each occupied in part by theElectrical Engineering or Computer Science Depart-ment. The total space available to these Departmentsfor research is approximately 120,000 square feet;about 50% this is used for integrated systems re-search.search. The buildings are linked by a wideband localarea cpmmunications network providing access viaoffice terminals to more than $2 million of locallyinstalled computer equipment. Research dealing withVLSI systems design and related tools represents aprincipal use of these computational facilities. A corn-
SPONSORS OF THE CENTER FOR INTEGRATED SYSTEMSAT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
NORTHROP CORPORATIONTRW INCORPORATEDGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYUNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONI NT ERNAT IONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATIONGENERAL TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONICS CORPORATIONINTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATIONDIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATIONHONEYWELL, INCORPORATEDXEROX CORPORATIONHEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANYTEKTRONIX, INCORPORATEDTEXAS INSTRUMENTS, 'INCORPORATEDMOTOROLA, INCORPORATEDFAIRCHILD CAMERA AND INSTRUMENT CORPORATIONAMERICAN MICROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATEDINTEL CORPORATIONMONSANTO COMPANY
240
Figure 1
246
plete integrated circuit processing laboratory, includ-ing electron-beam and optical mask making, opticalprojection alignment, epitaxy, ion implantation, lowpressure chemical vapor deposition, diffusion, plasmaetching, sputtering and evaporation equipment, is inoperation. In addition, dedicated laboratories exist fortesting and application of prototype integrated systems,..for laser and electron-beam processing and for ultra-violet and synchrotron X-ray photoemission studies ofsemiconductors. Total investment in specialized facili-ties and equipment for semiconductor materials,device and circuit research exceeds $12 million. Cur-rent expenditures for capital._ equipment pertinent toVLSI systems design and fabrication are about $3 mil-lion annually.
A new CIS building whose basic construction costwill exceed $9 million is scheduled for completion inlate 1983. The gross area of this building will be 70,000square feet. It will provide a net area of 30,000 squarefeet of additional space for research, including 10,000square feet of Class 100 clean rooms.
4. Research Program
Topics of major existing research projects dealingwith integrated systems are listed below.
Knowledge-based VLSI deSign: application ofartificial intelligence techniques to develop-ment of heuristic programs providing expertsoftware systems for VLSI design (in collabora-tion with the Heuristic Programming Project).
VLSI information systems: special purpose sig-nal processing algorithms and architectures;design aids and compatible high level languagetesting programs for VLSI.
VLSI computer systems: general purpose arch-itectures and design aids for VLSI; high perform-ance graphic work stations; custom "geometryengine" microprocessor for graphics work sta-tion; custom high performance microprocessorwithout interlocked pipeline stages for generalpurpose use.
Medical and rehabilitative electronic sensors,circuits and systems: auditory prosthesis; read-ing aid for the blind; silicon gas chromatograph;totally implantable telemetry for measurementof blood flow and pressure, bioelectric poten-tial, dimensions, strain, temperature and chem-Val on concentrations in biomedical researchanimals.
Fast turn-around fabrication laboratory for VLSIsystems including projections of limits of VLSI.
Integrated circuit process emulation linkingtwo-dimensional process and device models. ,
Laser, electron and ion beam processing ofsemiconductor materials including new devicestructures in recrystallized semiconductors.
Fundamental studies of semiconductor sur-faces and interfaces using ultraviolet and X-rayphotoemission and Auger electron emission.
The vast majority of the effort described above isfunded by agencies of the Federal Government includ-ing the DoD, 11113, NSF and NASA. DARPA and NII-lhavebeen particularly important sponsors. An increasedlevel of financial and technical suppol t from the CIE,Sponsors and the SRC will be pursued in the future.
5. Educational Program
The CIS is not an an academic department andconsequently confers no degrees. However, throughthe Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceDepartments, a goal of 30 Ph.D. and 100 M.S. grad-uates per year with broad competence in integratedsystems is targeted. As a reference point, during the1980-81 academic year the Departments of ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science conferred a totalof 79 Ph.D. and 286 M.S. degrees. CIS resources derivedfrom Sponsor annual contributions will be used to estab-lish new courses and educational laboratories and tofurnish video tapes of courses to Sponsors. CIS Spon-sors have the opportunity to provide fellowships forgraduate students.
6. Conclusion
To meet the challenge of a growing and increas-ingly competitive industry, Stanford's CIS is focusingits efforts on creating a new disciplineintegrated sys-tems science and engineering, a meld of semiconductormaterials and integrated circuits with computer sys-temsand producing a vital new genus.of technicalleader well prepared to practice this discipline.
D. Overall Impact of Increased University-IndustryCooperation in Research
The Center for Integrated Systems is a uniqueentity in that it reflects all of the peculiar features ofStanford University, especially its immediately prei iousresearch and teaching programs in semiconductorsand computers, its faculty, its material resources andits broad industrial affiliations. In this sense similarefforts at other academic institutions are marked bytheir distinctive characteristics. For example, estab-lishment of an on-campus laboratory for fabrication ofexperimental integrated systems markedly expandsopportunities for research related to process anddevice physics and models as well as computer sys-tems. In addition, it opens the door to exciting syner-gisms between these two broad disciplines. However, theorganization, personnel and facilities required to sup-port an integrated systems fabrication laboratory are
24! 241
very sizeable by academic standards, and a large andhealthy diversity of approaches exists within academia.A very significant feature of the CIS approach is that,vithout a virtually unprecedented level and kind ofcommitment from irdusiry, the means for acquiringan integrated systems fabrication laboratory would notexist.
Transcending their diversity, the CIS and cor-responding entities at other academic institutions rep-resent a new level of ccoperation between academia
242
24 8
and industry. By adding a third party to the alreadyfruitful university-government research cooperation,opportunities for productive academic research areboth enlarged and enhanced. An expected result isincreased academic freedom which can be assured bythoughtful selection of non-proprietary goals in jointuniversity-industry research. hopefully, the CIS sym-bolizes a new era of productivity in university researchthrough unprecedented cooperation of academia, gov-ernment and industry.
CHAPTER II
SEVEN CASE STUDIES
A. Introduction
Universities and industry in the United States havebegun a technological and sociological experimentunique in the nation's history. They are cooperating tomeet the challenges of an electronics revolution that ischanging the way the world computes, communicates,manages information, manufactures, and learnsandso the way people work, play, and think. The technical,economic, and social impact of this revolution alreadyhas surpassed that of the Industrial Revolution, andthe former has only started to climb toward its peak.For example, electronics form the basis of an "infor-mation industry" pr&licted to grow into a $500 billion-a-year enterprise by the end of the centurythe largestenterprise on Earth.
The electronics revolution extends back to the inven-tion of the, telephone more than 100 years ago, but itaccelerated dramaticallyand became the microelec-tronics revolution with the invention of the transistorin 1947. Constructed of semi-conducting materials,particularly silicon, these small, lightweight "electronicvalves" replaced less reliable, less energy-efficientvacuum tubes in myriads of products from radios tocomputers.
The other technology central to the microelec-tronics revolution involves using photolithographictechniques to "print" entire circuits on a silicon chipin one operation instead of individually wiring hun-dreds or thousands of transistors together manually.The cost of processing a fingernail-size, integrated cir-cuit chip essentially does not increase as the numberof transistors on it increases; therefore, the moretransistors, the more functions and the less the costper function. The cost per function of computers, com-munications equipment, scientific instruments, proc-essing devices, satellites, and other electronic productsfell by a factor of 100,000 in less than two decades.The continuing decline in cost per function resulted
in an expanding market and a phenomenal 17 percentannual growth rate in the electronics industry from1970 to 1980. The number of semiconductors on achip increased from hundreds. to hundreds of thou-sands (450,000 in 1981), and industeal and academiclaboratories now experiment with very large-scale inte-grated (VLSI) circuits containing a million or moreelements.
Such growth does not occur without problems.For industry, lack of adequately trained people andneed for more efficient ways to design and programhighly, complex circuits top the list. An 8-bit micro-processor logic chip requires 182 man-days to pro-gram; 6 man-years of efforts are needed to writeinstructions for a 16-bit logic chip. And new chips thathandle 32 bits (letters or digits) simultaneously noware available.
The microelectronics boom has produced a growthin job opportunities far beyond the growth in engineer-ing graduates. According to the American ElectronicsAssociation, the industry's largest trade group, thenumber of electrical-engineering graduates at all levelsremained about the same in 1980 as in 1972-18,008versus 17,682while the industry grew 136 percent.U. S. colleges and universities in June, 1980, turnedout only 10 percent of the 54,000 four-year computer-science graduates that industry wanted to hire. At themaster's level, the supply totaled 10 percent of the34,000-job demand. Only 24 percent of the 1,300openings for Ph.Ds were filled. "Less than 200 grad-uates a year in this country know enough about VLSI totake a job in this area," states Control Data vice presi-dent. Walter Bruning.
Prime factors contributing to this manpower situa-tion include faculty members leaving universities forhigher-paying industry positions, and outmoded lab-oratory teaching equipment. "You can easily spend$10 million setting up a microelectronics lab at a uni-versity; few schools can afford that amount," notesStephen Kahne, director of the National Science Foun-dation's Division of Electrical, Computer and Systems
243
Engineering. "Equipment is between a factor of fourand 20 more expensive than (it was) a decade ago,"says John G. Linvill of Stanford University. "Some ofthat increase has been due to inflation, but most of itstems from the fact that circuit complexity demandsequipment with much more exquisite control." Newcomputer-aided procedures are needed to design,manufacture, and test VLSI circuits, and this requiresincreased capital outlays.
Many industry people see competition from Japanas a bigger problem than the manpower shortage.That nation initiated nationally suppOrted programsthat involve cooperation between government, indus-try and, to a lesser extent, universities. One such ven-ture involves an eight-year $300 million (half from gov-ernment, half from industry) program to produce aVLSI supercomputer by the end of the decade. "Curriculaat universities, which generally lack modem processingequipment, is closely correlated with on-the-job train-ing of graduates, and this fosters a close relationshipwith industry," comments Bruning. Such cooperativearrangements, known to Westerners as "Japan, Inc.,"threaten U.S. technical superiority and dominance ofthe world market. Japan now holds about 40 percentof the global market for 16,000-bit memory chips, andit is engaged in a struggle with American industry todominate sales of the 64,000-bit chip.
To meet the challenges of foreign competitionand to solve mutual domestic problems, industry andacademia in this country have entered into. variouscooperative ventures. "This is the beginning of a 'USA,Inc., declares Brian Dale of GTE, which maintainsworking associations with Stanford University, Cali-fornia Institute of Technology, and MassachusettsInstitute of Technology. Industry is manpower limitedand people are the main product of universities.Industrial facilities contain state-of-the-art equipmentneeded to properly train students but lacking at manyuniversities. The schools, on the other hand, canprovide graduates familiar with new circuit-designmethods required by industry to deal with increasingcomplexity. The Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) combines these capabilities in a $9million program that translates students' designs intoworking chips. Students at the California Instituteof Technology, Stanford University, Massachusetts In-stitute of Technoiogy (MIT), Carnegie-Mellon Univer-sity, University of California at Berkeley, and Univer-sity of Southern California use computers and thelatest architectural techniques to design VLSI circuitswhich are fabricated at companies such as TexasInstruments, IBM, TRW, Honeywell, Hughes, and West-inghouse.
Industry has led the federal government in con-ducting electronics research in this country. Aboutone-quarter of all the scientists and engineers in in-dustrial labs work for the electronics industry; and a
244
steady growth has occurred in both the basic andapplied segments of their R&D. This growth is likely tocontinue since it has been a principal factor in pricedecreases and corporate growth. Basic research aver-ages about 3.5 percent of all R&D, which totaled about$750 million in the microelectronics sector in 1981,according to a National Research Council report, Out-look for Science and Technology: The Next Flue Years.However, this average includes large corporationswhich devote 10 percent or more of their R&D funds tobasic research and many small firms that have no R&Dbudget. Emil Sarpa of Intel says that his companyspends as much as 15 percent on basic research. Mostcompanies are reluctant to invest large sums over manyyears with little assurance of when and how benefitswill result. This provides another strong motive for co-operation with universities. "Predictions of the nature,placement, and timing of breakthroughs are uncertain,at best," comments Linvill. "These uncertainties areless troublesome in the graduate school environmentthan in industry. A negative result may bear practicallythe same educational value as a positive one if it con-tributes to knowledge."
Cooperative arrangements in the U.S. do notfollow the monolithic model of Japan, Inc. They Centeron regional centers which seek to take advantage ofthe proximity of the corporations involved to a largeuniversity or research complex, and of relationshipsbetween faculty and executives that have grown out ofcommon goals and interests. A typical example isStanford University which lies amid the nation's largestconcentration of microelectronics producers and usersin "silicon valley", a chain of ten cities and more thana thousand firms stretching south from San F,:inciscoto San Jose and beyond. More than 150,000 peopleworked in the electronics industry in this area in 198J,about 40,000 of them for the valley's 15 largest semi-conductor firms. Stanford has participated in the localelectronics revolution since its inception in the mid-1950's. Today, university training, research, and con-sulting provides industry with manpower, expertise,and fresh ideas. Industry, in turn, awards researchcontracts, contributes funds, and shares state-of-the-art equipment.
B. Stanford Center for Integrated Systems
To cope with the new problems and challengesof the 1980's, a small group of university and indus-trial leaders founded a facility known as the Center forIntegrated Systems (CIS). Stanford's departments ofelectrical engineering and computer science cooperkewith industry to train students and corporate.profes-sionals and io generate new scientific and technicalideas for development of VLSI systems. John Linvill,director of the center, says that two Major factors ledto its establishment: "First, a university cannot beisolated from the industry it serves; it needs the latest
tools and equipment to produce people who can dowhat is essential for. survival and growth of that indus-try. Second; vertical integration of training is required;students should learn to handle entire computation,communications, and control systems. In 1979, myselfand three Stafford colleagues began discussionsabout how these things could be done. (The col-leagues were James Meindl, James Gibbons, andMichael Flynn.) We talked it over with industrial friendswho are close to the university geographically, intellec-tually, and socially." One of the friends was GeorgeFake, a former Stanford faculty member and then, asnow, head of Xerox Corporation's research center inPalo Alto. "We had a long history of cooperation withStanford and obtained enormous benefits from theassociation," he states. "Therefore, I supported theidea of CIS and joined an advisory committee to helpthem get started." Linvill and his group. presented aplan for the center to the Stanford Board of Trustees,and they received a go-ahead to seek funds in 1980.
"We did not encounter any intentional roadblocksat Stanford," Linvill recalls, "but you always run intoproblems when you want to do something significantlydifferent. Some people viewed the proposed changesas a threat to their position; others feared that closerties with industry would compromise the university'sindependence." Industry was not as reluctant and adevelopment committee headed by John Young, pres-ident of Hewlett-Packard, began recruiting sponsors.CIS began formal operation in February, 1981, andhad 14 sponsors by the end of the year. These includeDigital Equipment, General Electric, GTE, Fairchild,Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, Intel, Northrop, Tek-tronix, Texas Instruments, TRW, and Xerox: These cor-porations each pledged support of $250,000 a year for3 years, plus operating funds, to construct and run adesign-automation laboratory, fabrication facility, andother supporting structures.
Corporate participation in CIS follows the modelof Stanford's highly successful industrial affiliates pro-gram, in which companies gain access to the latestresearch at the university in exchange for membershipfees. CIS also draws on a departmental research-assistantship program in which companies sponsor
. research and benefit from close association with grad-uate students. Many of the companies had prior associa-tions with Stanford's computer science and electricalengineering departments. The latter includes an inte-grated circuit lab Which has made ICs since the early1970's. It now includes one of the few facilities at aU.S. university where student-designed ICs are quiCklyfabricated and returned to them for testing. Whileawaiting construction of its central facility, CIS willconduct projects in this and other existing laboratoriesfor semiconductor research, information systems,computer systems, and artificial intelligence. Federalfunds financed much of this technical base. "Individualsin these various labs received $9 million in federal
support in 1981," Linvill notes. "In this sense, CIS is aninfant born half-grown."
CIS has specific goals: 1) to produce 30 Ph.D. and100 M.S. graduates a year, 2) to do fundamentalresearch, 3) to offer short courses, conferences andworkshops, and 4) to provide a forum through whichwork at the center will be coupled with that in industry,other educational institutions, and government facili-ties. A Dean's Committee establishes CIS policy. Itsfour members include the chairperson of an 11-memberexecutive committee representing all of Stanford's sci-ence, engineering, and humanities departments. Asponsor's advisory committee, composed of high-levelexecutives from sponsoring corporations meets semi-annually with the Stanford-faculty representatives. Thechairman of the latter committee, now John Doyle ofHewlett-Packard, says that he. :'meets with the execu-tive committee a couple of times a month."
Fake comments that "Xerox's contribution to CISis very small compared to what we are investing internallyin the same kind of research. (The corporation is con-structing a major new IC laboratory in Palo Alto.) Forlittle additional investment we enlarge our perspectiveby participating in a broad program of basic research.We envision opportunities for joint interaction with theuniversity and with other companies, as welt as theability to recruit students. On a per-dollar basis, itshould be a good investment."
Brian Dale is more pragmatic concerning GTE'scontribution. "It costs about $100,000 a year to sup-port a top-level researcher in-house," he notes. "Weshould get as much or more out of the same amountinvested in Stanford or any other good school." Themain reason, Dale explains, is that "universities havetaken the lead in novel approaches to the design ofVLSI circuits and we want to catch up."
Fake and Dale say that corporate supporters haveno intention of trying to influence the university's free-
: dom to select areas of research. "However," Fake com-ments, "we will make our interests known, as well asOur preferences when several choices exist." Linvillremarks: "If a sponsor sees something his companydoes not like, we will do our best to accommodatereasonable changes."
One thing that industry does not like is Stanford'spatent policy. "Many questions need to be resolved,"says Doyle. "The most difficult ones involve visitingscientists who come up with patentable ideas whileworking at CIS. Also, when. you have people from com-peting companies working side-by-side, you may haveto decide whose idea 'it is. One arrangement would beto give all sponsors royalty-free licenses for hardwareand software developments. But this could result inthe federal government classifying the corporate con-tribution as sponsored research. You then must paytaxes and 70 percent overhead to the university. Theseproblems are receiving a lot of attention, and, if bothsides bend a little, we solve them."
251245
C. Caltech Silicon Structures Project
Patents loom as a problem in other industry-uni-versity ventures. Industrial affiliates receive royalty-freelicenses to patents originating from cooperative re-search conducted as part of California Institute ofTechnology's Silicon Structures Project (SSP). Caltechobtains the same rights and can sell licenses throughits foundation, the California Research Institute. In theonly incidence, to date, where the Institute wished todo this, its foundation cleared the sale with corporatesponsors. No sponsor objected. Linda R. Getting,administrative director of SSP, admits that sponsorobjections could be a problem in the future. However,no clear line of action has been decided in such a case.
SSP was established to do basic research on VLSIsystems and to train students and industrial peoplein their design. Twelve corporations were contributing$100,000 a year by the end of 1981. As at CIS, theseinclude high-technology giants such as Burroughs, Digi-tal Equipment, Fairchild, General Electric, GM, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Sperry Univac,and Xerox. "Fifty percent of the corporate support goesto SSP, the rest goes to the Institute (Caltecii)," explainsGetting. "We also receive $200,000 a year from theNational Science Foundation to support graduatestudents."
Decisions about supporting research projectswith these funds are made by a committee consistingof Getting, SSP technical director George Lewicki, andCarver Mead, professor of computer science and amain driving force behind the program.No advisoryboard of sponsors exists as it does at Stanford. Eachsponsor sends a scientist to Caltech for a year to workon VLSI design. This arrangement has not run assmoothly as anticipated. "We thought we could sendwho we wanted and this person could do what he orshe wanted," complained one corporate executive.:Apparently this is not so." "Some industry peoplecame with specific assignments," said Getting. "Thiswas less than desirable because they used resourceswithout increasing knowledge. Some projects couldhave been done at corporate laboratories. We wantindustry scientists to tie their own problems andinterests to the interests of the Institute and to theeducational requirements of the graduate students."
SSP includes no fabrication facility, such as is'planned for CIS. "We.decided that a so-called 'siliconfoundry' required more management capability andstudents than we possess," explained Getting. Also,Carver Mead believes that universities should take thelead in circuit-design research while industry concen-trates on -fabrication. This does not please some ofth6 industrial sponsors. "I see it as a limitation," saidone representative. "Student s need feedback on whatcan and cannot be done with circuit materials. Experi-ence in fabrication enhances the whole educationprocess." Les Hogan of Fairchild Camera and Instru-ment Corporation feels that "students need experience
246t
in processing; companies that hire them cannot beexpected to provide all the training in this area. Also,when professors become involved in fabrication theyoften come up with major innovations."
Ivan Sutherland, formerly of Caltech's computerscience department, originated the idea of SSP to dealwith the overwhelming complexity of VLSI circuits, andto educate students in the disciplines needed todesign and program such circuits. His plan was, atfirst, "cooly received" by the Caltech administration,according to someone familiar with its history. "TheSSP proposal caused a lot of negative reaction and re-sistance throughout the Institute," this person recalls."Many people felt that the university would be prosti-tuting itself to industry, or at least doing developmentwork that indtistry should do. VVhen the administrationfinally decided to pursue industry support, it quad-rupled the $25,000 fee proposed by Sutherland."
D. University of California, Berkeley
Several corporations affiliated with Stanford, Cal-tech, or both also support microelectronics . researchat the University of California, Berkeley. Besides seek-ing funds to create its own fabrication and design facil-ity, this university participates in a statewide industry-academia cooperative effort known as the Microelec-tronics Innovation and Computer ReSearch Operation,or MICRO. Researchers from the nine UC campusespropose projects to companies with which they havedeveloped contacts. If the company agrees to fundthe research, matching funds can be obtained fromMICRO.
The state program was initiated by GovernorEdmund G. Brown to help the electronics industry,which employs 40,000 Californians, and to countercompetition from Japan and other sections of the U.S.The state Legislature appropriated almost $1 millionfor MICRO in 1981. "We expect to get at least thatmuch, and perhaps as much as $2 million in 1982,"11/2comments George Turin, the UC, Berkeley, facultymember who chairs the committee that reviews MICROproposals. The five-member committee consists offaculty from five UC campuses. It operates under theguidelines of an advisory board of state-government,academic, and industry members, which deals withlong-range planning, training requirements and man-power needs. "MICRO gives priority to projects thatpromise industrial fallout in the medium.- term -4 to10 years," Turin points out. "We want technical peoplein industry to form close associations with universityresearchers. Technology transfer will be encouragedby these contacts, and by graduate students who workon the projects then are hired by sponsoring corn-panies."
Of $980,000 appropriated for MICRO, approxi-mately $50,000 went for administrative costs, and$100,000 for fellowships in microelectronics and corn-
252
puter science. The remaining $830,000 was matchedby $820,000 in cash and $540,000 worth of equipmentfrom industry. In 1981, these funds supported 31 proj-ects on six campuses, most of themabout 40 per-centat Berkeley.
- The university, in a separate effort, seeks stateand federal funds to convert an existing campus build-ing into a microelectronics research center. The stateis expected to provide $2.3 million, NSF $1.7 million,and the UC system $500,000 for this purpose. To sup-port research at the center, particularly in computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacture(CAM), Berkeley began a campaign to raise $5.5 mil-lion from industry. "The center will not duplicate fabrica-tion capabilities available at corporate laboratories,"declares David Hodges, professor of electrical engi-neering. "Our efforts will be limited to advanced andexotic processing that cannot be done at many otherplaces or at any other place." Hogan says that Fair-child may contribute $1 million to this effort. Heopines that the Berkeley facility is 'just right for train-ing studentsnot too big and not too small." Hodgesexpects that the center will attract additional projectsfunded by MICRO. "Berkeley's approach is not to giveindustry a list of things they can get for their invest-ment," Turin remarks. "Rather, we ask companiesabout their needs then try to provide what they want."
Certainly one of the things industry wants fromall cooperative arrangements is the chance to recruitgood people. Stanford will provide this through in-creased enrollment at CIS, but Caltech and Berkeleywill concentrate on better-educated, not more, stu-dents. Enrollment at Berkeley and other schools in theUC system is at its ceiling. The $100,000 provided byMICRO will help Berkeley and the other campusesachieve a goal of "providing paid research assistant-ships and other incentives for high-quality engineer-ing students to attend graduate schools instead ofimmediately taking jobs in industry," states LarryHershman, budget director for the UC system.
E. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
While Berkeley depends heavily on state supportfor its brick and mortar requirements, MIT. will rely onfederal funds to provide a central facility for its uni-versity-industry Microsystems Program. More than 90percent of research at the Institute is federally sup-ported and the combined electrical engineering andcomputer science department looks in that directionfor $8 million to renovate a campus building. Plansinvolve using overhead funds from federal support ofall research at MIT not just that related to microelec-tronics. At the beginning of 1982, the Institute had notreceived approval to do this, but it was well-along inobtaining industry funds for equipment and annualoperating costs of about $150,000. Industrial con-tributors including Analog Devices, Boeing Aerospace,Digital Equipment, GenRad, GTE, Harris Corporation,
Honeywell, IBM, and Teradyne, committed $250,000 ayear for three years.
When the program gets underway, industrial spon-sors will be invited to send their scientists to thecampus. "We envision taking 12-to-15 people annually,each for a period of 9-to-12 months," says Richard B.Adler, associate head of the electrical engineering andcomputer science department. "These would be top-level people. We would offer new ideas, access to thelatest research, and contact with graduate students."Industry is attracted to "the excellent software peopleat MIT, particularly those in computer science andartificial intelligence, who are developing powerful newconcepts for handling very complex circuits," explainsBrian Dale. Richard Paine of Analog Devices points to"industry's huge void in IC-design expertise which wewant to fill." His company will provide $25,000 a yearfor five years to support a professorship at MIT. "Thisenables the school to educate 20-30 more students,"comments Graham Sterling of Analog Devices. "We dothis because we feel that a slow flow of trained studentscould constrain the development of our industry."
IndUstry played a major role in the origin of theMicrosystems Program. "In 1974, IBM tried to get ourcomputer-scienr- people interested in designing inte-grated systems,' Adler recalls. "At the time computerpeople here and elsewhere paid little attention to theengineering involved in circuits they used. And mostelectrica' engineers had a 'bottom up' approach todesignit. added, functions as they were needed. AtMIT, we were not foresighted enough to grasp whatIBM told us about designing the complex circuits ofthe future from the 'top down'." The faculty, however,was more receptive in 1979 when Lynn Conway, nowwith DARPA, came to MIT. Along with Carver Mead, shewrote the tarst textbook on VLSI systems. It explains asimplified approach to design and instruction, pioneeredat Caltech, which drastically reduces the time requiredto train circuit designers. "We discussed such newdevelopments in design and education among our-selves and with our close friends in industry" Adlerremembers, "then we came up with the idea of theMicrosystems Program. In January 1980, MIT an-nounced its creation and began actively solicitingindustrial support."
Paul Penfield, head of the EE/CS departmentdirects the program. A high-level technical staff will behired to handle day-to-day operations. The bulk ofresearch funds, like the renovation money, is expectedto come from federal sources. "DoD supports themajority of work in our dery rtment," Adler says, "andwe do not expect DoD Dominance to change for someyears."
"Industry cannot tell MIT what to do," Adler de-clares, "but the Institute cannot limit itself to tellingindustry what it is doing and will do. We must,have aforum." Several representatives of contributing cor-porations complain that such a forum does not yet
253 247
exist. "The people at Microsystems promised to set-upa sponsors adv/Sory committee, but they have notdone this," GTE:s Dale said in January, 1982. Some ofthe criticism is/sharper. "MIT did not hesitate to takeour money, but it never bothered to' provide a meansto get togeth94 with us as a group," comments anotherSponsor repVesentative. -
/Corporat/e people generally agree that MIT/S stand-
ard patent /policy is too vague to cover specific casesinvolving ),(iduStry, scientists working with faculty andwith each other on :campus. "This area is going to re-quire lot's oldiscassion," opines Dale. "lye are con-sidering establishing a common research fund towhich all sponsors would contribute," Adler remarkS."MIT and the sponsors would agree in committee onwhat projects would be funded from this pool. Patentrights would be available on 'a non-exclusive, royalty-,free basis to all contributorS." .,/
/
Cooperative programS at universities also aren
attempting to deal with the problem/ of the faculty'sdesire for prompt, open publication versus industry'sneed to protect proprietary information and foreignpatent rights. "We could agree to delays in pu lic_ationOf 60-90 days to protect industrial invrtors," 1? er notes.
1
F. Microelectronics Center of Noitth Carolinaf
Universities ,ind corporations in the Boston andsilicon valley areas must cope with high living andlabor costs, high taxes, pollution, a steady increasein crowding, and what many consider toibe a decliningqualityof life. North Carolina claims an alternativeto this in the form of a new microelectronics centerfinanced by $24.million in state funds and located inthe "backyard" of three universitiesand a complex offederal and private research facilities known as Re-search Triangle 'Park. The Park, where the Microelec-tronics Center of North Carolina / (MCNC) is situatedlies roughly equidistant from Dt.lce University at Dur-ham, North Carolina State Univ rsity at Raleigh, andthe University of North Carolina a Chapel Hill. MCNC isa non-prOfit consortium of the e three universities,
11together with the University of orth Carolina at Char-lotte; North Carolina A&T Stat University at Greens-boro, and the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), a non-profit research organization.
i 2
MCNC began with General Electric Company's sitesearch for a new microelectronics plant to producecustom ICs for its own products. "In 1979, after look-ing at about 30 sites, we selected the Research TrianglePark for a variety of reasons," recalls GE's Don Patterson."These included the local universities, proximity toother GE facilities on the East Coast, quality of life,attractiveness of the area to recruit into, and the strongsupport of Governor Jim Hunt."
GE offered the Research Triangle Institute hinds toprepare a prospectus on a cooperative industry-state-
248
university research an /educatiorrventure. "Governor-Hunt responded enth siastically to this idea," saysGeorge R. Herbert, cha rman of MCNC and president ofRTI. Hunt wanted to focus the resources of the NorthCarolina Board of Science and Technology, which heestablished in 1977, on areas that would yield themost jobs and revenue. The number of electronicscompanies in the state had been increasing andmicroelectronics obviously was a promising area.When GE came on the scene, Hunt called a meeting ofthe presidents of the universities and RTI and askedthem if "it made sense to invest the effort and moneyto become a major eastern center of microelectronicsresearch," according to Herbert. When the answer was"yes," Hunt asked the State Legislature for, and ob-tained, in 1981, $24 million for two years support.
About $10 million will go for construction of a newresearch center at Research Triangle Park and aninterim fabrication facility at North Carolina State. Theequipment budget totals $8.65 million, and $5.3 mil-lion in operation costs includes $2.1 million for re-search grants and $300,000 for graduate fellowships.To stretch their dollars, MCNC submitted a proposal toNSF requesting matching funds for equipment pur-chases. The Research Triangle Foundation, owner ofRTI, provided an unrestricted grant of $300,000 whichenabled MCNC to becom-e a reality in July, 1980, be-fore appropriation of the state funds. GE betame thefirst industrial sponsor with a membership fee of$250,000.
"It's amazing how fast the North Carolina grouppicked up the cue and put the necessary educationprograms in Place," Patterson comments. "The presi-dent of the community-college association flew to sil-icon valley to check out curricula and equipment atthe technical schools. He established comparablecourses here, and graduates who can maintain andoperate state-of-the-art equipment will be availablestarting in the spring of 1982." All five universitiesoffer the Mead-Conway course in VLSI circuit design,and MCNC established four $10,000 fellowships ateach of the five universities.. The stated objective of the center is to support theeducational and research activities of the participatinginstitutions. however, "MCNC also will serve the needsof industry and government by undertaking, with itsown staff, research projects not related to the educa-tional and research functions of the universities,"Herbert states. In addition, the center intends to act ,-..sclearing-house for non-proprietary research at the par-ticipating institutions, make it possible for corporatescientists to spend time with faculty researchers, andinvite industry to technical seminars at its facilities.An advisory board of university and industry memberswill evaluate research proposals and be responsiblefor long-range planning. They will work under policiesestablished by a board of directors consisting of thechancellors of the five universities, representatives
254
from state government and the private sector, and thepresident of RTI.
At the beginning of 1982, approximately $10 mil-lion worth of grants and contracts to the participatinginstitutions (mostly from federal sources) supportedresearch in microelectronics and relevant disciplines.However, 18 months ,after its establishment, GE re-mained MCNC's only industrial sponsor. "Several cor-porations have expressed interest," Herbert noted, "butwe are not actively 'seeking more sponsors until wefind a president." This has not been easy. The boardof directors, tried to attract one of the key people atthe Stanford microelectronics center with a salary of$120,000 per year, described by one professor as"phenomena! in North Carolina," but the overture wasunsuccessful.
MCNC institutions also have some catching-up todo. One GE engineer was "astonished to find that RTIand the universities were doing advanced work in gal-lium arsenide and related semi-conductor materialsbut not in silicon. "That's where the state-of-the-artadvances will be made, so it's extremely important toget into silicon if you want to -ittract microelectronicscorporations." Herbert admits that "we have fallenbehind in the development of ICs on silicon chips, butnew MCNC Programs will focus on bringing us up-to-date. Our main facility will include the latest equip-ment for fabrication of silicon-based circuits designedlocally or at other microelectronics centers that do nothave processing capabilities."
G. Minnesota MEIS
GE, through its California-based Calma Company,also contributed $500,000 worth of CAD equipmentto the new Microelectronic and Information Sciences(MEIS) program at the University of Minnesota. Inaddition, MEIS attracted approximately $2 millioneach from Control Data and Honeywell, and about$1 million each from Sperry Univac and 3M. "Ourtarget budget is $10.3 million for the first four years,"declares MEIS director Robert M. hexter, "and.we havea schedule for approaching other corporations." NSFmatched $200,000 of industry funds to renovate amicroelectronics laboratory with a small fabricationcapability on the Minneapolis campus of the Univer-sity's Institute of Technology.
MEIS will support basic research projects initiatedby member and non-member corporations and by facultyfrom the mother school as well as other universities."In most, but not all cases, we require matching fundsfrom a federal grant or other source," Hexter explains.Research will be concentrated in four areas: circuit-design automation, software engineering, microelec-tronic devices, and materials research. The university'sexpertise in the latter, field won it a 4-year, $1.4 millionNSF grant to establish a regional facility for surfaceanalysis. At MEIS, a board of five industry and eightuniversity directors makes decisions about project
funding. Their actions are subject to approval by theUM Board of Regents.
Unless a research contract specifies otherwise,MEIS owns patent and copyright rights to hardwareand software developed in its program. "These can belicensed to anyone," points out Walter Bruning, Con-trol Data's representative on the board. "Affiliates haveroyalty-free rights up to the extent of their contribution.We want MEIS to become financially self sufficient as aresult of grants, contracts, and royalties."
As ail end product of discussions between liexter,Bruning and others about university-industry synergism,Control Data gave the university a challenge grant of$2.3 million in December, 1979. "We had to raiseanother $3 million in 12 months or return the money,"hexter says. "We raised it in eight monthS." The grant,according to Bruning, was stimulated by NSF's estab-lishment of the Regional Instrumentation Center forSurface Analysis. This is a good example of seedmoney spent by the federal government followed by amajor private-sector commitment to get a partnershipgoing. "The-Japanese have become our main competi-tion primarily because of such government-industrycooperation," Bruning says.
Control Data expects its investment to supportfaculty to train more skilled graduates. "We also wantuniversities to upgrade their equipment and haveaccess to modern industrial labs," comments Bruning."Additionally, cooperation offers super-opportunitiesfor technology transfer from universities to industryand for universities to obtain substantial revenuesfrom royalties." Honeywell Vice president Jerry Dineenstates flatly that "the principal reason 'we contributeto MEIS is to assure ourselves of an adequate supply ofwell-trained people. We expect to achieve this. We alsohope for, but do not count on, a synergy between.Honeywell's research program and the program at theuniversity. Finally, we hope to contribute to the healthof the whole industry by supporting long-range, funda-mental research in high-risk areas." "All our projectswill involve fundamental research of the kind that mostcorporations cannot afford to do but that is needed tokeep us competitive with other countries," remarkshexter.
The MEIS program has been criticized for its deci-sion not to construct a central facility. "They couldhave trouble attracting faculty and students," believesone observer. "A centrally located facility is a very posi-tive thingone that it is difficult to do without," addsDineen. Hexter answers: "having a custom-made facilityin the middle of the campus would be terrific. But anestimated $8 out of every $10 spent for basic researchgoes toward buildings and equipment, and we wouldprefer to spend that money on good people and goodresearch." Control Data, as a compromise, seeks torent MEIS a building it owns near the campus. "Wehave proposed lease-holder improvements to accom-modate MEIS, the surface analysis center, and materials-
255 249
research facilities funded by DoD," Bruning says. "Ifeel confident that we will develop a central site asmomentum in the program increases
H. National Facility for Submicron Structures
Materials research such as that going on at MEISand the surface analysis center is becoming morecrucial as the microelectronics revolution acceleratesinto its next phasecircuit devices with dimensionssmaller than one micron. "At this point, electronicshas penetrated almost every aspect of our lives," notesJoseph M. Ballantyne, director of Cornell University'sSchool of Electrical Engineering. "But ever greaterchanges and impacts lie ahead with the decrease insize, cost, and energy requirements that will come withintroduction of submicron circuit structures."
The shift also will aggravate some existing prob-lems. As devices become vanishingly small, the cost ofequipment to fabricate and test them becomes prodi-giously large. Only the largest companies can affordthem. Universities do not possess funds to purchasestate-of-the-art machines to train students. NSF, in1976, reacted to this situation by organizing a seriesof workshops to explore the feasibility of establishinga national laboratory for research on submicron struc-tures. Academic and industrial scientists could per-form at a central facility a broad range of researchwhich NSF does not have the resources to fund at alarge number of individual laboratories. An overwhelm-ing concensus favored the concept and, after reviewingproposals from universities, government and non-profit laboratories, NSF announced, in July, 1977, thatit would support establishment of the National Re-search and Resource Facility for Submicron Structures(NRRFSS) at Cornell.
The Foundation provided funding of $6.65 millionfor the first five years. Cornell contributed $5 million;$3.8 million of this in construction and renovation and$1.2 million for equipment. About 3,000 square feetof existing space was renovated and a new 8,000square-foot facility was dedicated on October 1, 1981.Initial NSF support extended from July 1, 1977 toJune 30, 1982. Edward Wolf, who succeeded Ballantyneas NRRFSS director in July, 1978, says that the facilityrequested approximately $13 million for its, secondfive years. This breaks down to $1.4 million for opera-tions, $500,000 a year for Cornell-faculty research proj-ects, and the remainder for equipment.
Research at the facility "reaches beyond that inindustry," notes Ronald J. Gutmann, who overseesNRRFSS for NSF. "Except for a few giant corporations,most research is dedicated to improving what alreadyexists. Industry dc...fs not have time and funds to investin understanding basic phenomena, particularly atsubmicron sizes. Yet this understanding is necessaryfor new devices and for insight into why devices do anddo riot work. Universities cannot provide this under-standing without sophisticated, state-of-the-art equip-
250
ment and concomitant resources.lndustry and aca-demia move forward incrementally, while the idea ofthe submicron facility is to leapfrog evolution and pro-vide the knowledge base for revolutionary advances inmicroelectronics."
The goals of the facility are: 1) to promote andcarry-out research to advance submicron technology,and to train engineers and scientists in this field;2) to provide a resource for the academic communityand for industry to use to fabricate advanced devicesor research structures with submicron dimensions;3) to stimulate innovative research by all investigatorswhose work can benefit from use of the facility or willshed light on fundamental physics or materials prob-lems that affect submicron technology; 4) to keep thetechnical community apprised of the capabilities ofNRRFSS and the work done there.
In keeping with the first goal, the facility has$500,000 per year to support Corneil researchers,including resident Ph.D. candidates. In implementingthe second goal, priority goes to representatives ofacademic institutions. Although researchers from 13other universities used facility resources during its firstfour years of operation, Cornell faculty accounted forthe major portion of use. This generated criticismabout accessibility, and Wolf is attempting to raisevisitor time to 50 percent of the total. Industry usersinclude researchers from Westinghouse, GTE, GE,Eastman Kodak, Varian, Bell Laboratories, MicrowaveAssociates, Honeywell, IBM, and ITT. They pay a modetfee of $50 to $200 per hour, depending on the equip-ment used. Research is not confined to semiconductorwork; it includes studies of superconducting Joseph-son junctions, microwave circuits, structures for inte-grated optics, surface-wave devices, amorphous metals,ultrapressures, and a variety of other areas.
Those who wish to use the facility submit a shortproposal that outlines the objectives of their projectand estimates what equipment would be used and forhow long. A program committee, composed of fourpeople from Cornell and six from other universities,together with a non-voting NSF representative, reviewsthese proposals. Cornell members do not vote on pro-posals made by researchers from other universities.The users' funds support approved projects. Per-hourrates for equipment use are less for academic than forindustry researchers. A policy board, which deals withlong-term planning, facility objectives, and operationguidelines, consists of members from industry anduniversities, including those affiliated with the micro-electronics centers.
Investigators also can interact with NRRFSS throughNSF's industry-university cooperative-research pro-gram. During fiscal 1980, this program spent $10 mil-lion on joint basic-research projects, including $1.06million on nine projects in the fields of solid-statemicrostructures engineering and computer science.This program has, however, been criticized for its
56
lengthy processing procedures. Normal NSF peer re-view of proposals is time-consuming, and further timemay be consumed in negotiating the necessary admin-istrative agreements between the company and theuniversity. Industrial research managers are accus-tomed to moving faster than these procedures permit.
I. Assessment
University-industry cooperative centers also arebeing planned or developed at several other locationsin the U.S., including Carnegie-Mellon University inPittsburgh and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)in Troy, NY. RPI invested $1.1 million of its own fundsand plans to raise $30 million from industry by 1986to support its new Center for Integrated Eleztronics.Considering all these efforts, NSrs Stephen !Saline char-acterizes the state of government- industry - universitycooperation in microelectronics as "helter skelter.""There exists no nationally accepted way to do thingsbecause each company and university attempts tosatisfy its own needs," he says. "Some of the arrange-ments will succeed and some will not, but the resultwill be a patchwork of regional centers." Many peoplein the industry and academia do not feel that thiswould be bad.
It is unlikely that any of the centers will survivewithout continued federal research support, as the sit-uation to date shows. In 1980, investigators in labora-tories and departments considered part of Stanford'sCIS received $9 million in federal research grants/contracts, more than two-and-a-half times the annualmembership revenue pledged by industry sponsors.Caltech's Silicon Structures Project receives $200,000annually from NSF to support graduate students anddepends on DARPA funds for its VLSI design and fabri-cation program. MIT cannot build its planned new fab-rication center without federal funds, and DoD proj-ects are expected to dominate research there for theforeseeable future. California provided funds to builda center at UC, Berkeley, but federally sponsored re-search will be needed to keep it going. The institutionsthat make up the Microelectronics Center of NorthCarolina currently receive about $10 million in federalresearch grants and contracts, and the State provided$24 million in the expectation of attracting more fed-eral dollars. A major underpinning of MEIS is the fed-erally supported Regional Instrumentation Center forSurface Analysis, and the program hopes to attractmoney from DoD, NSF, and other agencies to matchindustry funds.
Given continued federal support, industry and aca-demia are still sizing-up each other. Most of the par-ticipating corporations say that it is too early to decideabout funding the centers beyond the present com-mitment. The comment of John Doyle, is typical: "Ihave no reason to feel discouraged, but I don't havemuch reason to be satisfied because we have notachieved much yet."
Industry does believe, however, that continuedcooperation is vital to combat what it sees as the majorthreat to its health. "In 15 years or less, the Japanesewill dominate the worldwide IC market unless we allpull together to something about it," opines DelThorndike of Digital Eau:pment Corporation. "The U.S.must bring together the elements of government,industry, and academia to form an effective USA, Inc.,"comments Brian Cale. "Otherwise, the U.S. will getburied in the next 10 ye,.;rs by Japanese technology.We have made a betcjinning; university and industrypeople sit down together t discuss mutual problemsand work with each other in laboratories. They have todo more of this and the governmentstate and fed-eralshould do all that is possible to make it easier."
Progress is being made desp!te mutually negativestereotyping, but prejudices must be overcome forsuccess to be achieved. Many academics see the ar-rangements with industry as a threat to intellectualfreedom and the responsibility, of universities to seekknowlede for its own sake.' They believe that theirinstitutions have "sold out" to corporations. Someindustry people regard the universities to which theycontribute as "an endless hole for money for which weget little in return," or "a group of professors who willnot give up their independence to participate in inte-grated or team research activities." "University peopleare accustomed to working as principal investigatorsas sovereigns of their research projects," Doyle pointsout. "Corporate scientists work as equal partners onteams whose goals are defined by management. Largeamounts of understanding must be achieved beforethese two types work together successfully. We are talk-ing freely and openly about this, but we have not doneany research yet.".
Industry praises arrangements they regard asinvolving team efforts but criticizes those where "pro-fessors act in a vacuum." "Berkeley is putting togethera group of device physicists,'computer scientists, andcircuit-architecture people who work together," notesJohn T. Mendel of Hughes Aereospace Corporation."And the MICRO program has a bottom-up approachwherein projects come from professors and corporatetechnical people working together. This makes thatuniversity sensitive to the needs of industry. Othercenters have a top-down approach; direction comesfrom deans and department heads who may not beinterested in the same problems as individual pro-fessors or corporations." Hughes decided, on thisbasis, to participate heavily in the MICRO program butto not contribute to Stanford.
IBM's Tom Horton represents another point ofview. "It's naive to expect specific benefits from thesearrangements," he insists. "If a company wants some-thing specific, they should negotiate a contract for it.You have to support these ventures on the faith thatthey will lead to new, useful knowledge, successfultechnology transfer, and more well-trained people
f 25 7251
which will keep the industry healthy in the face ofworldwide competition." A number of corporationsaccept this view and voice satisfaction with the cooper-ative ventures. Don Patterson reports that GE believesthat its commitment to the MCNC is "well worth it fromthe point of view of educating company people, gainingnew knowledge, and having a chance to recruit goodpeople."
Because no nationally accepted way to do thingsexists, and the patchwork of microelectronics centersis becoming more dense, a company that is not satis-fied with the policies of a university can look elsewhereto fulfill its needs. Centers such as CIS have a heavycommitment to processing technology; others, suchas Caltech and MIT, possess expertise in circuit designand software. Yet others try to achieve a balance andbe attuned to the requirements of companies in theirgeographic area. The growing number of centers createswhat Bruning calls "a cooperative venture attitude,"that will certainly lead to more and different types ofarrangements. "We expett to see more of the type ofcooperation that Control Data has pioneered," he pre-dicts. "Our company works successfully with Honeywelland NCR in sharing research arid development, butthis does not prevent us from being very competitive inmarketing." The Semiconductor Industry Association,a trade group, has established the nonprofit Semicon-ductor Research Cooperative through which it plans tospend $20 million on long-term research at universi-ties in 1982-4. (See Chapter I).
Doyle concludes that "the sociological part of theuniversity-industry experiment will be more difficultthan the technical." There are no concrete results yet,"he admits, "but people from both sides are trying hardto work together." Stanford's president, Donald Kennedy,echoes these (sentiments: "There are fundamental dif-ferences betWeen what universities are willing to pro-vide and what industry requires. Not infrequently, therealso are differences between the conditions set by uni-versities and thoSe_acceptable to industry. Satisfactoryarrangements, not only in the field of microelectronicsout in biotechnolsi)gy.,energy research and other areas,require sbecial-, often demanding negotiations. That'snot a minor chore, but neither is it an insurmountableone."
A big step in this direction was taken in March,1982, when university presidents, faculty members,and businessmen with connections to the academicinstitutions met in seclusion at Pajaro Dunes on theCalifornia coast. The presidents of Stanford, Caltech,MIT, University of California, and Harvard discussedthe problems of collaboration with representatives of
1 corporations. The meeting focused on commer-cialization of biology but the issues do not differ sub-stantially from those involved in microelectronics ven-tures. The conferees set no policy, and they agreed toleave resolution of the more contentious issuessuchas conflict of interest, patents and licenses, and dis-
252
closure of research contract provisionsto individualuniversity faculties. They did, however, agree on thenecessity to preserve academic freedom and values, aconsensus that Harvard president Derek Bok called"reassuring." A'summary draft statement declared that"research agreements and other arrangements withindustry (must) be so constrUcted as not to promotesecrecy that will harm the progress of science, impairthe educational experience of students and postdoc-toral fellows, diminish the role of the university as acredible and impartial source, interfere with the choiceby faculty members of the scientific questions theypursue, or divert the energy of faculty members andthe resources of the university from primary obliga-tions to teaching or research."
J. Involving the Federal Government
The success of arrangements resulting from in-dustry-university collaboration depends heavily onassistance from the federal government:This does nothave to come solely, or even principally, in the form ofincreased spending; instead, it might involve changesin allocation of funds, tax incentives, and reduction orclarification of regulations.
Several corporate sponsors want their-contributionsused to support research rather than to construct facil-ities and buy equipment. "Until World War II, buildingswere constructed by federal and state governments,and engineering research was supported mainly byindustry," obseives Fairchild's Hogan. "Now the situa-tion has isversed. The government only wants to spon-sor research, and industry finds itself funding brickand mortar, something it does not want to do." Turinof UC, Berkeley agrees: "State and federal funds tradi-tionally were used for buildings and equipment, butuniversities now go to industry for this."
Industry wants changes in the targeting of funds tobe coupled with tax benefits. The Economic RecoveryTax Act of 1981 (ERTA) provides tax incentives forequipment makers to donate items of their own manu-facture to universities. Therefore, notes Intel's EmilSarpa, "NSF and other agencies can designate moregrant dollars for research and facilities and less forequipment. Microelectronic centers should be able toprocure the equipment they need from corporatesponsors. Federal guidelines for grants could even re-quire that potential grantees make an effort to acquireequipment that they need in this way." Analog Devices'Graham Sterling wants to go further by convincing thegovernment to extend ERTA incentives to all donors ofnew and used equipment whether or not of their ownmanufacture.
Industry is not alone in seeking tax breaks for theresearch it supports. "As our national attention is fixedon the extraordinary difficulty of paring back govern-ment expenditures, one hears it asserted that the pri-vate sector can be expected to accomplish those
258
things from which the government now proposes towithdraw," Donald Kennedy told the Senate FinanceCommittee in May 1981. "The plain fact is that signifi-cant changes in private-sector support, especially forresearch, will require new incentives. I simply do notbelieve that significant sources of funds exist in theprivate sector that we are not now tapping."
The ERTA provides such incentives in the form oftax credits for 65 percent of the cost of research con-tracted to a university. Sterling and others would likethis changed to 100 percent. Other corporate repre-sentatives mention the need for additional write-offsagainst internal R&D allowances for participating inmatching-fund programs such as MICRO, or consortiasuch as that proposed by the Semiconductor IndustryAssociation. Sterling also suggests that the ERTA "safeharbor leasing" concept, which allows corporations tosell tax and depreciation credits, be extended to uni-versities and other non-profit institutions. "If this weredone," he comments, "universities could obtain 40-45percent effective discounts on. capital equipment that
.4.
they purchase with their own funds to keep their lab---oratories current with high technology."
Other items on industry's "wish list" include moresupport for graduate students, tariffs on imports ofJapanese electronic products equal to those leviedagainst imports of U.S. goods, and antitrust regulationthat allows more corporate cooperation in researchand development. "Control Data and Honeywell brokethe ground in this area," Doyle says, "but we (Hewlett-Packard) would not feel comfortable doing the samething with IBM or Digital Equipment under the present'restrictions."
Some of industry's wishes obvious y are -serving.Others could provide ways for government to keuniversity-industry collaboration easier without adtional expenditure. They could make the sociologicalpart of the experiment less difficult and facilitategrowth of a USA, Inc., not of the same type as Japan,Inc., but effective in helping universities and corpora-tions solve nagging problems, and the nation to retainits dominance in the microelectronics revolution.
259253
Report on a National Science Foundation Workshop on IntellectualProperty Rights in Industry-University Cooperative Research
by
National Science FoundationOffice of 1.he General Counsel
27 April 1981
CQNTEN iS
256
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 257
I I. BENEFITS AND DANGERS OF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH 258
A. Reasons for Undertaking Cooperative Research 258
B. Da nge's of Cooperative Research 258
C. Consensus 259
III. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 260
A. Intellectual Property Rights Matters Inhibit Cooperative Research 260
B. I ndustty-University Negotiations Difficult 260
C. Intraorganization Obstacles 260,
D. Consensus 261
IV. TRADE SECRETS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 262
A. Pre-existing Secrets 262
B. Secrecy of Results 262
C. Consensus 262
PATENT RIGHTS 263
A. Basic Patent Rights 263
B. Strategies and Interests 263
C. Problems between Universities and Exclusive-Strategy Firms 263
D. Problems between Universities and Nonexclusive-Strategy Firms ..... ....... 264
E. Miscellaneous Rights 265
F. Consensus 265
VI. SOLUTIONS AND FURTHER ACTIONS 266
APPENDIX AParticipants in the Workshop 267
261
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
On 27 April 1981, the National Science Foundationhosted a one-day Workshop on Intellectual PropertyRights in Industry-University Cooperative Research.
The purpose of the workshop was to find outwhethe! intellectual property issues were inhibitingCooperative research and, if so, how. The intent was toidentify problems that require further study or correc-tive actioneven if not necessarily by the NSF.
The workshop included participants from busi-ness, academia, and Government. An att-,mpt wasmade to obtain a cross-section or opinion in each of
these three sectors by inviting persons from a varietyof positions within representative organizations. At-tendees are listed in Appendix A.
This report summarizes the five major topicsdiscussed:
Benefits and dangers of cooperative research,Cooperative research and intellectual propertyrights,Trade secrets and proprietary information,Patent rif;hts,Solutions and further actions.
262257
CHAPTER II
BENEFITS AND DANGERS OFCOOPERATIVE RESEARCH
Underlying the workshop was an implicit assump-tion that cooperative research should be encouraged.This reflected both the policy of the NSF and the per-sonal judgment of the workshop planners. Since theparticipants were selected partly for their known inter-est in and experience with cooperatiye research, most,if riot all, approved that policy and shared that judg-ment. However, comments of participants severaltimes raised dangers and drawbacks of cooperativeresearch as well as opportunities for universities,firms, and the research community.
A. Reasons for undertaking cooperative,research
One university representative declared that indus-try-university cooperation, or "coupling", is an essentialpart of the technology transfer process. Universitiesand firms must attempt to move the latest scientificdiscoveries from campus laboratories to the producltion line if America's productivity and balance of pay-ments difficulties are to be solved. He also noted thatcooperatiVe research is vital for engineering and ap-plied sciences because feedback from industry helpsto-estaWish-ooth- research- direction and -educationalemphasis: Several academic participants commentedthat reduced Federal spending is forcing universitiesto find other support for research. University researchersand administrators must seek funds from industry forthe same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: "Becausethat's where the money is."
One business participant opined that much coop-eration between individual faculty members and firmstakes place without the knowledge of the universities.Cooperative research programs merely formalize andcontrol an inevitable phenomenon.
258
B. Dangers of cooperative research
Among the doubts and misgivings expressed werethose of one academic participant who was concernedabout the effect of interactions between highly-struc-tured business (which he termed "crystalline") andlargely unstructured university research departments( "liquid" or, jokingly, "gaseous "). He feared coopera-tive research might adversely affect the focus and func-tioning of academic researchers.
Participants from all three sectors worried thatindustrial support could pervert universities' priorities,channeling research into areas that produce short-term profits from those that advance scientific knowl-edge. In particulk: some fear that Federal budget cutswill cause a "gold rush" towards industrial sponsor-ship, particularly by smaller or less-prestigious univer-sities. This might trigger a "race to the bottom", asuniversities compete for industrial support by com-promising their principles. One academic researchadministrator said twat such pressures are alreadygreat at smaller universities. An industrial participant,noted that academia cannot rely upon the generosityof strangers to save them. If a university offers its birth-right for a mess of pottage, a business firm will takethe bargain.
According to one university researcher, coopera-tive research projects should be on the basic end ofthe research spectrum. Firms should come to univer-sities not for answers to specific problems, but forknowledge to cure deep ignorance. An industrial par-ticipant agreed that cooperative projects should focuson basic research, the traditional province of campusresearchers, rather than applied research or develop-ment, the main concern of firms "in-house" researchers.He said that applied research and development arenaturally, more likely to produce results that haveimmediate commercial significance and that conse-quently firms want to impose greater restrictions onapplied research and developmental projects. He notedthat universities must expect to incur "in-house"-type
263
restrictions if they seek to perform "in-house"-typeresearch.
A representative from a public university said thatuniversities, both state-chartered and private nonpro-fit, have to carefully avoid going into the research"business" for practical as well as philosophical rea-sons. He identified Federal tax problems and conflictswith small research companies as possible results ofincreased university involvement with applied researchor development.
C. Consensus
The consensus of the participants was that coop-erative researchon the whole, at its present volume,and as currently conductedis clearly good for bothuniversities and industry. Cooperative research, how-,ever, is not without its dangers, which may be exponen-flally related to the volume of cooperative research orthe proportion of cooperative research to total univer-sity research.
264259
CHAPTER III
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH ANDINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
A. Intellectual property rights matters inhibitcooperative research
The participants agreed that intellectual propertyrights sometimes prove a stumbling block to industry-university cooperative research. A research adminis-trator noted that in the industrial Northeast less thanfour percent of academic research was industriallysponsored. tie said that time and again during coop-erative research negotiations, at meetings of govern-mental' commissions, and in private discussions withbusinessmen, patents were given as the reason firmsdo not sponsor more on-campus research. Othersechoed this observation, although the thought wasexpressed that intellectual property problems mightoccasionally be more excuse than reason for failing toundertake cooperative research.
'All agreed that intellectual property rights are astumbling blockan inhibitionnot a roadblock tocooperation. In many cases, the problems are moreapparent than real. however, firms and, on occasion,universities may not bother to investigate beyond theappearance. One participant thought that cooperativeresearch, like any new activity, is often the victim ofinertia. Intellectual property rights problems inhibitcooperative research not because they are so seriousor difficult to resolve, but because they abet suchinertia, causing delay and nuisance both within andbetween the organizations involved.
B. Industry-university negotiations difficult
Many explanations were offered for difficulties inindustry-univerSity negotiations. The differing struc-tures of a university and a firm might be to blame. Aresearch administrator noted that both university andbusiness hierarchies resemble pyramids, but that theacademic pyramid stands on its apex, not its base. liesaid that business negotiators were often surprised-
260
or appalledto learn how often university policies areestablished by the faculty and cannot be modified bythe research administrator or even the universitypresicient.
The perspectives of business and academia differas well. As an industrial representative noted, firms areaccustomed to purchasing goods and services throughbinding contracts. Universities, on the other hand, getthe bulk of their external research funding from appro-priations, donations, or Federal grants, which attachrelatively few conditions. A firm's contract adminis-trator seeks to protect its interests through standardcontractual "boilerplate". Academic administratorsand researchers naturally resist what they perceive asunusual restrictions on university research activities.Each Side resents the other's departure from standardoperating procedure. (One of the Federal employeessuggested that the same clash of perspectives canoccur when a Government agency supports researchas a "procurement" rather than "assistance" activity.)
The clash of perspectives seems to be only onesymptom of a more serious problema failure to ade-quately understand the other party's interests. Fromthe comments made by university participants, thismisunderstanding lies mostly, though not exclusively,on the industry side. As an academic with much expe-rience in cooperative research noted, firms sometimesforget that a university is not just a research performer.Universities have three institutional responsibilities:advancement of knowledge, education, and public ser-vice. The last of these is particularly important forstate-run universities, which get most of their fundsthrough a political process.
C. Intraorganization obstacles
Some of the participants indicated that industry-university differences and misunderstandings are fre-quently less troublesome to cooperative research thanintraorganizational ones. Several persons commentedthat academic and industrial scientists seldom havetrouble in identiing and designing worthwhile research
projects. The difficult cooperative research negotiationsarc-those-between.staff -fresearch-administrators.and.--lawyers), not line (researchers). Some believe this phe-nomenon is partly explained by the fact that an orga-nization's staff may have a better, broader, view oforganizational responsibilities, priorities, and goals.Legitimate concerns of the university or firin may riotbe apparent to the researchers. A few participants,however, felt strongly that cooperative research nego-tiations also often run afoul of the specialized con-cerns and narrow interests of university or industrystaff who handle negotiationsthat the tail wags thedog. If true, this might explain the disproportionatedifficulties intellectual property rights, particularlypatents, create in negotiating cooperative researcharrangements.
Everyone.at the workshop agreed that patents arethe intellectual property rights issue. Copyrights werehardly mentioned and trade secrets reportedly seldomcause serious disagreement between universities andfirms. One participant noted that in his experience,once agreement on patent rights is reached, otherintellectual property rights questions are quickly re-solved. A major reason for this is probably that patentsarc perceived to be more valuable than other formsof intellectual property. Another reason might be thatpatents are "countable". If a trade secret is disclosed,the economic advantage that might have been pro-vided by exclusivity is forever unknown. The value ofan invention that is disclosed but not patented is alsoforever unknown. If a patent is obtained, however, theeconomic value of the underlying invention may beidentified and traced. "Countability" begets accounta-bility. Someone can be held accountable for not havingobtained rights to an'invention at the time of negotia-tion, at the time the invention is made, or at any time,during the seventeen-year life of the patent. Nobodywants to be labeled "the one who gave away the gold-
mine patent". The only way to insure against laterregrets --at- not - having obtained- patent _rights_is_to_ob,_., .
tain patent rights. The natural human fear of failure,or of being seen to fail, presses the negotiator into anuncompromising position. Unfortunately, this pres-sure affects both industrial and academic negotiators.Conflict and even stalemate can result.
Some at the workshop, chiefly nonlawyers, wereconvinced that intellectual property rights negotia-tions are particularly difficult because they are usuallyhandled, directly or indirectly, by lawyers. Lawyers areheavily involved with intellectual pro;--e.ty rights becauseintellectual property, more than real or personal prop-erty, depends on satisfaction of legal conditions. Infor-mation does not become a trac secret unless it hascertain attributes and, more importantly, is treated byits owner in a certain way. A writing is not fully pro-tected by copyright (even under the 1976 CopyrightAct) unless certain formalities are observed. A pat itcannot be issued unless the invention and patentapplication satisfy the statutory criteria. For this rea-son, intellectual property rights matters are the par-ticular concern of lawyers. Lawyers, by training and(some argue) by nature, are cautious individuals, for-ever guarding against the lavvsuit that never occurs.Adding lawyerly caution to human far of failure in-creases the "viscosity" or "friction" caused by patentnegotiations if, /-tiniversity dealings.
D. Consen
The con:,,..If ;sus c.:fthe- participants was that thoughcooperative research Ilei:.otiations, pa: titularly on in-tellectual pre.:Jeqy. are IA n difficult because of int :r-
sectional mis.'.w.z..;-3,'.;ngs and intraorganizatinterests, con-. pre.:11;;;;r :Aid understanding can re olve
difficulties
266
.1:
261
TRADE SECRETS ANDPROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Trade secrets and proprietary information, whilepotentially a source of great conflict between academiaand industry, appear to be nonissues in most coopera-tive research arrangements. The participants reportedthat problems result most often from lack of thoughtOr preconceptions, not from aii!, basic conflict betweenacademic and business ethics. There was generalagreei rent on appropriate protection of a firm's pre-existing trade secrets and prompt publication of re-search results.
A. Pre-existing secrets
everyone agreed that a firm must protect its pre-existing secrets and that secrecy would conflict withthe education -and advancement of knowledge func-tions of the university. This general conflict, however,apparently causes few specific problems. Only one in-stance was mentioned in which secrecy questions pre-vented cooperative research. That involved a refusal bya firm's lawyer to modify or omit some standard secrecy"boilerplate a clash more of perspectives than ofes:--ntial interests.
There may be few probl ems in this area chiefly be-cause firms have elected to keep their trade secret-related research entirely "in-house". One industrialparticipant_opined that a_ firm would be.foolish to en-trust a valuable trade secret to outside researchers,whether academic or industrial. A decision that tradesecret-related research is inappropriate for coopera-tive research might result from a firm's judgment thatuniversities cannot or will not keep secrets. An aca-demic research administrator noted that universitiesundeniably can keep secrets (the Los Alamos atomicresearch facility, after all, is run by a university), butth:it many have policies which rule out "secret research".
262
CHAPTER IV
What ,jialcult or forbidden at the institutionallevel, hotv,,Ner, can appartly often be accomplishedby individuals. When university researchers do researchin industrial laboratorks. r.Ine academic said, they dooften sign .7.. ontitiality agreements.
A busine,F.srra:3 t-:.!_?-ied that, in fact, technical tradesecrets are.seldon-i /r-; issue. Proprietary informationsuch/as the fact Lho.t a firm was exploring a certaintechnology or planning to entera particular marketis more often trivalved. No one saw a conflict betweenacademe responsibilities and nondisclosure of thatkind of infcr-riatirin,
3ecrccy of results
T,' 'ere was also general agreement that the resultsof :ooperative research should be made public. Theindustrial participants recognized the university research-ers' need to publish, both to exchange infdrmationand to establish academic credential's. An academicparticipant said many firms feel that the inevitabledelay between submiss'Ort and publication gives thesefarms sufficient adva tage over their competitors.Everyone agreed that elaying publication for a limitedtime io permit Alin of patent applications is reaSon-abic Periods of del y ranging from thirty days to oneyear were mentioned: One firm's patent attorney evensuggested that a time limit would help avoid tardinessin filing.
C. Consensus
The consensus of the participants was that a
tected and that, except as necessary to protect patentfirm's pre-existing secrets should and could be pro-
ryrights, publication of cooperative research resultsshould not be restricted.
267
CHAPTER V
PATENT [GAITS
A. Basic atent rights
Rep esentatives of some companies and universi-ties say hat they insist on "title" to or "ownership" ofpatent.. This can be misleading because "ownership"of a p1 tent, though typically evinced by holding legaltitle to it, actually consists of a package of differentlega ' rights., Fewif anynegotiators need or reallyins' t on having all of these.
/The basic rights secured by a patent are:
1. The right to exclude others from practicing(making, using, or selling) the invention (Thisis the basic Iegal right secured by a. patent,and is enforced by prosecuting infringers),
2. The right to practice the invention (withoutbeing prosecuted for infringement),
3. The right to license others to practice theinvention,
4: The right to license the right to exclude others,and
5. The right to receive royalties from those li-censees.
The legal "owner ". or "titleholder" may alienateany or even all of these rights by a patent license. Cor-respondingly, a person may acquire, through license,any or even all of these rights without having title tothe patent. If the "owner" licenses all patent rights,retaining only bare legal title, the licensee becomesowner for all practical purposes.
B. Strategies and interests
Some of the industrial representatives at theworkshop said that their firms wish to be able to takeadvantage of the so-called "patent monopoly" and ex-clude their competitors from practicing an invention.Most companies follow this "exclusive" strategy". Other
business participants, however, said that their com-panies only want to assure their own access to relevanttechnology and do not care whether others may prac-tice an invention. They thus follow a "nonexclusivestrategy". One person noted that his firm followsboth strategies depending on its contribution to theresearch and the importance of the particular technol-ogy to its markets.
To pursue an exclusive strategy, a firm should"own" (i.e., control) at least the first four, and ideallyall five, basic patent rights. To pursue a nonexclusivestrategy, on the other hand, a firm need only obtainor retain onethe right to practice the invention.
Universities have three primary interests in patents.Primarily, they (and particularly their patent adminis-trators) want to share in the income generated by uni-versity inventions. Second, they wish to protect them-selves against charges that they have conspired tosuppress or impede a new technology by ensuring thatsuch inventions are commercialized. Finally, they wishto minimize the legal complications of comminglingresearch support. To satisfy these interests, universi-ties would prefer to "own" all five basic patent rights.
C. Problems between universities andexclusive-strategy firms
The conflict between exclusive-strategy firms anduniversities is obvious, since both ideally would like tohave complete control of the patent rights, althoughfor different reasons. Three issues seem to dominatenegotiations in these cases: ownership of title, controlof exclusivity, and, last but not least, royalties.
Ownership of titlein itself mostly a matter ofform, not substanceis often the-threshold issue. Thecritical point, of course, is "not "bare legal title" butwho controls the important patent rights. (Astute 'ego-tiators, recognizing that, may be able to trade "barelegal title" for substantive concessions.) Universitiesdo have a valid reason for wanting title as suchthecommingling problem. Separating research funding
268 263
sources is a difficult or perhaps impossible task inthe informal academic environment. Under Federalgrants, which support most academic research, theuniversity can retain "title" to Government-supportedinventions without difficulty, but cannot assign it with-out permission and holds it subject to certain Federalrights. If a university obligates itself to assign an inven-tion to a fin n and then discovers that, through com-mingling, the invention also received support from theGovernment or another firm, it may find itself in theposition of having sold something twice. The universi-ties may also want legal title for political reasons, sincefaculty members or state legislators unsophisticatedin patent matters might equate not taking title withsurrendering all patent rights. Why some companiesinsist on "title" is unclear.
The second issue is who will control the patentexclusivity and so determine who may practice theinvention. The firm wants to be able to practice theinvention itself, or not, and to license others, or not,as it determines is best for its business. If the firmsees that profits are maximized by keeping the priceof the patented product high, it will do so. If it deter-mines that its investment in an alternate technologywould be destroyed, it may choose not to practice orpermit others to practice a patented process. (Severalinvestigations, however, have shOwn this last to bemore a theoretical possibility than an actual practice.)
These practices are consistent with the univer-sity's desire to maximize its patent income (provided,of course, that the firm shares. its profits or savings),but not with its public service responsibilities. Theuniversity, whether a public or private organization, isseen by its faculty, its students, and the general publicas having a responsibility to promote the public interest. After all, state institutions and nonprofit organiza-tions exist (in theory) because society has found that,due to market imperfections, some "public goods" or"good works" would not be supplied or. performed bythe private sector. Consequently, the university wantsto ensure that its employees' inventions are commer-cialized so that the benefits are available to the public,'on reasonable terms. Universities do often grant exclu-sive licenses, but the workshop participants involved.
----"Witii-aCadmic patent licensing noted that they preferto grant a license for a term of five or eight years(rather than the full seventeen-year life of the patent),to give exclusive rights only for certain fields of use,and to impose "working" requirements to protect thepublic against nonuse of the invention.
The final issue is moneyslicing the patent in-come pie. From the workshop discussions, difficulties..seem to arise from-an inequality of bargaining powerbetween the university and the firm. Academic patentadministrators feel that firms too often fail to give uni-versities a fair share of patent-related income. Theysay that firms exploit the academic researcher's muchgreater interest in current research support than in
264
future university income from possible patents to ob-tain licenses for low, or often no, royalties. They saythat while this occasionally results in "windfalls" forthe companies, it tends to poison the industry-univer-sity relationship. On the other side, firms insist thatthey have the right, indeed the duty, to strike the bestbargain they can. Business representatives point outthat eliminating royalties entirely is desirable becausethat forecloses disputes between the university andfirm as to whether a certain invention is incorporatedin or used to manufacture a particular product. Theyalso maintain that the exchange of future patents forcurrent funding may be a good deal for the universityas a whole, if not for its patent administrators.
D. Problems between universities andnonexclusive-strategy firms
The conflict between universities and nonexclu-sive-strategy firms may seem less obvious, but mayactually be more troublesome, particularly since thesefirms currently fund much, perhaps most, of industry-university cooperative research.
The "title" question does not arise, of course,since nonexclusive firms are willing to let the universitykeep most patent rights so long as they receive a rightto practice.
However, the "exclusivity" question is stood uponits head, to the university negotiator's disadvantage.Now the firm insists on nonexclusivity, at least to theextent that it always be allowed to practice the inven-tion. A firm that follows a nonexclusive strategy usuallyhas one or more of the following characteristics:
1. It is involved with a fast-moving technology.Patents are of little value because an inven-tion will likely be obsolete before one issuesand because competitors can "invent around"the patent.
2. Its products are complex, containing manypatentable components. As a result, the poten-tial costs of negotiating individual patent li-censes is high and the industry naturally grav-itates towaitls cross-licensing.
3. Finally, the firm is a large, market-dominating-company which is more likely likely to be hurtthan helped by restrictions on the spread oftechnology.
General Electric, AT&T, International BusinessMachines, and Exxon, four nonexclusive strategy firmsmentioned at the workshop, each obviously has atleast one of t'lese characteristics. A nonexclusive rightto practice held by one of these firms is believed to dis-courage commercialization by anyone else. Anotherfirm may be reluctant to bear the costs of introducinga new product if it knows that the dominant firm hasthe right to come into the resulting market, which it islikely to dominate as well. If the large firm's license
263
thus discourages others from practicing the invention,the university obviously cannot earn royalty incomefrom anyone except its former cooperative researchpartner. This means that the university patent adminis-trator gets a patent that cannot be successfully licensed.
Instead of limiting exclusivity to protect the publicagainst nonuse or excessive "monopoly" profits, theuniversity in this case tries to preserve exclusivity tosalvage its licensing opportunities. Those unfamiliarwith the innovation process, however, often do notunderstand the notion that a patented product may beproduced only if the number of persons able to pro-duce it is limited so that the prospects of extra pro-fits will justify undertaking the often extraordinaryinvestment and risk-taking associated with initial com-mercialization. As a result, the university finds itself inan uncomfortable position, arguing agairist free accessto technology and for more profits. From the firm'sview, of course, to expect it to fund research withoutassuring that it can use the fruits of that research isunreasonable. After all, a nonexclusive license to pos-sible inventions seems a very small return for thou-sands of dollars of research support.
Universities might find this situation easier toaccept if the firm's nonexclusive license bore substan-tial royalties. however, the inequality of bargainingpower between the university and the firm is perceivedas particularly great with nonexclusive firms and theuniversity often gas no royalties from its nonexclusivelicense. Since one characteristic of a nonexclusive firmis the complexity of its product, such firms may have aparticular incentive to foreclose patent disputes byobtaining royalty-free licenses. This is obviously a verysore point with universities, certainly with their patentadministrators. So it is that negotiations between uni-versities and nonexclusive-strategy firms are often dif-ficult and bitter.
E Miscellaneous rights
In cooperative research negotiations with bothexclusive and nonexclusive firms, numerous subsid-iary patent issues arise. These include:
1. Who controls publication of results to protectpatentability,
2. Who decides whether or not to file a patentapplication,
3. Who drafts the patent application, particularlythe claims,
4. Who pays for patenting and maintenancecosts, and
5. Who decides when to sue for infringement.
Except for the first, these issues are of interest pri-marily to patent attorneys, but they can be anothersource of delay and difficulty in putting together indus-try-university deals. From the comments of the work-shop participants, a "clash of perspectives" may com-plicate negotiations over these subsidiary issues.Representatives from industry thought these mattersshould be specified in the cooperative research agree-ment, while those from universities indicated thatthese items could te. left until after an invention ismade.
F. Consensus
The consensus of the workshop was that there aregenuine conflicts between universities' interests inpatents and firms', particularly in respect to exclusivityand royalties. These conflicts, however, can be, andtypically have been, resolved through good faith nego-tiations.
1270265
.
CHAPTER VI
SOLUTIONS AND FURTHER ACTIONS
The workshop participants agreed that many ofthe intellectual property rights difficulties in industry-university cooperative research projects are caused byinexperience and misunderstanding. More informa-tion is needed, especially by new entrants. Several pri-vate groups were reportedly considering the creationof an cooperative research information clearing houseto help alleviate this problem.
The participants saw little role for the Government
266
:.in resolving these difficulties. Several believed that theBayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. §200 et seq.), enacted in late1980, would encourage cooperative research by les-sening the commingling problem and by publicizingthe fact that universities can give companies patentrights. (Experience since the workshop has apparentlyconfirmed this belief.) The participants felt that suc-cessful industry-university collaborations would begetmore interest in cooperative research and that a
effect would occur without any major at-tempt to promote cooperative research.
27l
APPEND'X A: Participants in NSF Workshop oh Intellectual Property Rights inIndustry-University Cooperative Research
Government
Charles H. HerzGeneral .CounselNational Science FoundationWorkshop Secretary
Frederick W. BetzDirector, Industry/University
Cooperative Research ProgramNational Science Foundation
Richard I. GersonOffice of Renewable ResourcesDepartment of Energy
Robert F. KempfAssistant General Counsel for Patent MattersNational Aeronautics & Space Administration
William RaubAssociate Director for Extramural
Research & TrainingNational Institutes of Health
University
Norman HackermanPresidentRice UniversityWorkshop Chairman
Roger DitzelPatent AdministratorUniversity of California
Milton GoldbergExecutive DirectorCommittee on Governmental RelationsNational Association of College and
University Business Officers
Don KeatingDirector, Center for Industrial ResearchCollege of EngineeringUniversity of South Carolina
Clive ListonPatent & Copyright ManagerStanford University
Dillon MapotherAssociate Vice-Chancelor for ResearchUniversity of Illinois
Clri!le. A. McCartneylire.1;tor, Department of Contracts-GrantsUniversity of Southern California
Eli M. PearceChairman, Chemistry Department.Polytechnic Institute of New York
Allen J. SinisgalliDirector, Office of Research
and Project AdministrationPrinceton University
Nam P.-SuhDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Industry
R. S. DetrickManager, External ResearchKoppers Company, Inc.
Brice FarwellContracts AdministratorInternational Business achines Corp.
C. Harold HerrSenior Patent AttorneyE. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Mark E. KellyDirector of Chemicals and Plastics ResearchDow Chemical USA
Marvin MargoshesScientific LiaisonTechnicon Instruments Corp.
William MilesPresidentUniversity- Patents, Inc.
Pauline NewmanPatent CounselFMC Corporation
Judith ObermayerMoleculon Research Corp.
Mrs. Hesna PfeifferAssistant Director of PatentsMerck & Co., Inc.
John D. UphamMonsanto Company
2 72267
UNIVERSITY- INDUSTRY RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS:AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY TO EARLY 1982
compiled by
Carlos E. KruytboschExecutive Secretary
Committee on 14th Annual Report of theNational Science Board
273269
SUBJECT INDEX
Agricultural ExtensionModel for Technolog,u TransferRogers
Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering IndustryBusiness Week, Culliton 1981, B. Davis, Fox 6/22/.81,Fox 10/12/81, Lepkowski, Miller, Norman, Thorrias,Weber, Weiner
Cases of University-Industry InteractionsAmerican Petroleum Institute (API) - RabkinCase Western Reserve University, Macromolecular Sci-
ence Council of Graduate SchoolsCase Western Reserve University and Diamond-Shamrock
Co. DietrichDefense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) -
Bement, SinnottEconometric Forecasting Cases OmanExxon, University/Industry Programs - LucchesiHarvard- Monsanto - Culliton 1977Indiana University and Crest Toothpaste OmennMIT, Industrial Liaison - Council of Graduate Schools,
OmennMIT, Chemical Engineering in 1920's - ServosMIT, Energy Laboratory - WeissMIT, Whitehead Institute - Norman, LepkowskiMonsanto Central Research Grant Clearing House
Chemica.! WeekNSF University-Industry Programs - US/NSF 1980Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada (PAPRICAN) -
Bindon, Science Council of CanadaResearch Triangle Institute (RTI) - HamiltonRockwell International Inc., Programs with Minority
Universities - Cannon, Council of Graduate SchoolsSilicon Valley - UseemUniversity of r.alifornia at Davis-Calgene and Allied
Chemical -nUniversity of Cali Fornia at Irvine, Industrial Associates
HillUniversity of Delaware, Composites Center Council of
Graduate SchoolsUniversity of Minnesota - Swalin
^.
Commercial Innovations by University FacultyRoberts
Corporate PhilanthropyBranscomb 1981, Chemical Week, Council for Fi-nancial Aid to Education, Research Corporation,L. Smith, M. Useem
Industrial Research OrganizationChemical Week, David, Fernelius, Healey, IndustrialResearch Institute/Research Corporation, Mansfield1971, Watson, Wolff 1981
Industrial ResearchScience Citation AnalysisSmall
Intellectual PropertyPatents, Licensing, ProprietaryRights
Fox 10/12/81, Marcy, Massachusett3 Institute ofTechnology, National Association of College andUniversity Business Officers, Omenn, ResearchCorporation, US Department'of Justice
Science, Technology, Innovation and ProductivityRelationships Among
Gilpin, Keane, Langrish, Mansfield 1980, McConnell,Mogee, Rae, Watson
Tax Policy and R&DMansfield 1932
University-Industry Relationships ConferencesUS Department of Energy/Industrial ReSearch Insti-tute, Dickson, Engles, tieytin, US /NSF 1960, US/NSF1980
University-Industry Relationships Dangers for Aca-demic Research
Bok, Dickson, Lepkowski. Servos, Weiner
University-Industry RelationshipsEducationHencke, et al., Honan, Mullins, National Academy ofEngineering
274 271
University-Industry RelationshipsForeign CountriesCanadaScience Council of Canada
"EuropeFakstorp, EIRMA,2 Declercq 1979FranceNational Research Council (NRC)GermanyBritish Council, NRC, US/DOC/OPTI
A. D. LittleJapanTokyo Chamber of Commerce, US/DOC/OPTISwedenSweden, US/DOC/OPTIUK British Council, Gallagher, Kenyon, NRC,
A. D. LittleUSSRBorstein
University-Industry RelationshipsGeneral OverviewsBaer, Battenburg, Bok, Brodsky, Brown A., Brown CI.,Bugliarcllo, Declercq 1979, Declercq 1981, Doan,El RMA, Farris, Fusfeld 1976, Fusfeld 1980, Johnson,Kiefer, Linvill, Lohr, Lyon, MacCordy, Murray, NationalCommission on Research, Noble, Fake, Prager,Ridgeway, Shapero, M. Useem
United States/Department of Commerce/Office of Productivity,Technology: and Innovation.
:European Industrial Research Management Association
272
University-Industry Relationships Government RoleBranscomb 1979, Brown G., IR!, Keane, MacCordy,Mogee, Prager, US Congress/Subcommittt, on Sci-ence, Research, and Technology, US/NSF 1976, US/NSF 19R0
University-Industry RelationshipsMinorltiesCannon, Council of Graduate Schools, Mullins
University- Industry RelationshipsNational Research.Facilities
Cantwell (Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratoiy),Robinson (Brookhaven National Laboratory:NationalSynchrotron Light Source)
University-Industry RelationshipsPolicy StatementsAtkinson, Brown, Industrial Research Institute, Na-tional Commission on Research, Wolff 1980
University-Industry RelationshipsStPtisticsBrodsky, Bugliarelio, Council for Financial Ai..; to Ed-ucation, Mansfield 1980, Nason
Venture CapitalFox, A. D. Little, Weber
275
AUTHOR INDEX
Atkinson, Richard C. "Planning for Science in the 1980's."Speech at the Public Affairs Symposium, AnnualMeeting of the Federation of American Societies forExperimental Biology, Anaheim, California, April 14,1980. 11 pp.
Discusses areas of future emphasis in planning forthe biosciences. Nearly two pages are devoted todiscussion of the University-industry connectionand the associated changing patterns of researchperformance and scientific careers.
Baer, Walter S. Strengthening University-Ind..4stry In-teractions. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corpora-tion, January 1980. 28 pp.
Analyzes policy objectives of attempts to increaseflow of university-industry interactions, and examinescurrent state of knowledge regarding effects of threebroad types of university-industry relationships uponindustrial innovation. Sets forth eight policy op-tions. Bibliography.
Battenburg, Joseph R. "Forging Links Between Industryand the Academic- World." Journal of the Societyof Research Administrators, Vol. XII, Winter 1981.
Battenburg is with tile Corporate Research Depart-ment of the Eaton Corporation of Michigail. Thepaper examines the problems associated with uni-versity-industry interactions. "Gap size" factors arelisted, i.e., those tending to widen or reduce thegap between the sectors. Ten types of mechanismsto promote closer relationships are listed and brieflydiscussed. Specific first steps for initiating con-tracts both for universities and companiesaresuggested.
Bearn, Alexander A. "The Pharmaceutical Industry andAcademe: Partners in Progress" American Journalof Medicine, 71, July 1981, pp. 81-88.
A useful review of the state of university-industryrelationships in pharmaceuticals by an official atMerck Sharp and Dohme International.
Bement, A. L. "DARPA's Experience with University-In-dustrial Interactions in Materials Research," Notes(slides) for a presentation at DOE/IRi Conferenceon Mechanisms of University-Industry Interactions,December 7-8, 1978, Reston, VA.
The Director of the DARPA Materials Science Officelists DARPA's various "institutionalized" programs,and examines tile "coupling".programs (1966-1973)in some detail. Proposes a number of "lessonslearned" from the experience.
Appended is NSrs 1973 "MR1, Program Policy State-ment" which governed the takeovei- of these inter-disciplinary laboratories for materials researchfrom DARPA.
Bindon, C. "Output Measures of Cooperative Research:The Case of the Pulp and Paper Research Instituteof Canada"' Scientometrics, 3 (1981), pp. 85-106.
This paper describes and analyzes the scientificoutput of a cooperative industrial research institute(1/41Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada,PAPRICAN). It compares the employment patternsof McGill graduate students who have done theirthesis research under the auspices of the industriallaboratory with graduate students from the samedepartments who have not worked at PAPRICAN. Acomparison is also made of the publication prac-tices of three grotips: PAPRICAN staff not associatedwith the university (McGill), the PAPRICAN staff whoalso hold academic appointments at McGill, andthe faculty of the Chemistry Department at McGillwho do not hold staff positions at PAPRICAN.
276 273
It is found that the academic association withPAPR1CAN during graduate research has a significantimpact on the number of students who go on tocareers in industry.
The publication record is compared to variousstandards so as to judge various qualities of thescientific output of the different groups. ThePAPR1CAN staff performs as would be expected ofindustrial researchers, and the McGill faculty shownormal characteristics for an academic group.However, those who hold positions in both the in-dustrial institute and the academic sector revealthe special role they play in linking the "science"of the second with the "technology" of the first.
Bok, Derek. "President's Report: Business and theAcademy" Harvard Magazine, May/June 1981, pp.23-35.
Can the universities enter the marketplace withoutsubverting their commitment to learning and dis-covery. This indepth review covers most of theissues, starting from the position that better Indus-
trial /commercial utilization of academic research(technology transfer) is an important and desirablegoal.
Bok posits six conditions necessary to maintainthe highest quality of fundamental research in sci-ence, and examines the state of academic sciencewith reference to each one. lie further posits fourdangers to the quality of academic science fromincreased emphasis upon technology transfer.
"...the prospect of reaping financial rewards maysubtly influence professors in choosing which prob-lems they-wish to investigate."
"...professors may be diverted from any form ofresearch (and teaching) in order to perform othertasks involved in the process of technologicaldevelopment.
"...the risk of introducing secrecy into the processof scientific research."
"...a threat to the quality of leadership...the statef morale...(and) the reputation for disinterested
nquiry (that) helps to preserve the confidence andespect of the public a state of mind that is evernore essential to the progress of academic sci-
,:nce as its dependence on external support con-tinues to rise."
Borstein, Morris, et al. The Planning and Managementol Industrial Research and Development in theUSSR. Joint US-USSR Science and Technology Ex-change Program, Final Report, Technical NoteSSL-TN-7557-7, under NSF Grant IN i 78-18699,Task 1, June 1980. 63 pp.
274
Report of a December 1979 visit by a US delegationof specialists to study the Soviet experience in plan-ning and management of research and develop-ment, and the introduction of the results of R&D in"Science-Production Associations" (N.P.O.$).
Describes case studies of two N.P.O.s in which re-search-oriented institutes for scientific researchare associated with_ experimental and full-scale pro-duction plants. Instructive financial comparisonsare drawn with the US corporation Union Carbide.
Branscomb, Lewis M. "Opportunities for CooperationBetween Government Industry, and the University,"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 334,December 14, 1979. pp. 211-227.
The author of this article is Vice President and ChiefScientist of IBM, a former Director of the NationalBureau of Standards, and since 1980, Chairman ofthe National Science Board.
The article focusses attention on the inadequacyof "technology demonstration projects" as a gov-ernment means to stimulate commercial technology.It discusses two possible alternatives for government-industry-university cooperation in technology de-velopment: "Exploratory Generic Technology," and,more speculatively, "Cooperative Development ofProduct Prototypes."
The typical Federal concern with commercial tech-nology development has involved massive demon-stration projects, e.g., in synfuels, solar energy, andpersonal rapid transit. The shortcoming of thisapproach is that it leaves out the costly investmentsin engineering and production tooling and processesthat make the product commercially manufacturable.The author uses the example of the proposedCooperative Automotive research Program toillustrate th;.: lack of connection with product andprocess design and manufacturing engineering.
Branscomb, Lewis M. "Strengthening Industry's Uni-versity Connection," The Bridge (National Academy ofEngineering), 2, Fall 1981. pp. 35-38.
Article by the Vice President and Chief Scientist ofIBM and Chairman of the National Science Boardargues for the need for increased flexible fundingof university research and training in science andengineering through corporate philanthropy. TheIBM Program of Departmental Grants is discussedthe program makes grants of $25,000 to selecteddepartment: 4 in fields of science and engineeringrelevant to IBM.
277
The British Council. Academic/Industrial Collaborationin Britain and Germany: Proceedings of the British-German Seminar on Acadethic Research and In-dustry. The British Council, Cologne, February1977. 31 pp.
A report of two days of disCussion of academicresearch and industry by six German and six Britishsenior researchers, administrators, and managersfrom industry and the universities.
The objectives of the seminar were to examine andcompare experience in the two countries and tomake recommendations on the ways in whichacademic institutions can usefully increase or moreeffectively select the industrially orientated aspectsof their scientific research, but without essentiallyimpairing theirfreedom of study. The discussionsfocussed principally on engineering and thosetechnologies and related sciences which supportthe manufacturing industries.
BrOdsky, N., Kaufman, H. G., and Tooker, J. D. Univer-sity Industry Cooperation: A Preliminary Analysisof Existing Mechanisms and their Relation ;hip tothe Innovation Process. New York: '`iYU Center forScience & Technology Policy, July 1979. 108 pp.(Under National Bureau of Standards Or ler No.NB79NAA/A8898.)
A catalogue of .existing university- industry relation-ships with short descriptions of case examples.Assessment of contrioution of each type to fourphases of the innovation process:
Additions to knowiedge/experk'nce pool;
Development of new concepts;
Development of new products and processes;
Market development.
Brown, Alfred E. "The Industry/University Interface inAmerica Today." Paper presented at the AmericanSociety for Metals, Materials, and Processes Congress,Cleveland, Ohio, October 28-30, 1980. 18 pp.
A manager from the Celanese Corporation discusses:(1) current mechanisms of industry/universitycooperation; (2) barriers to cooperation; (3) sug-gestions for improvement of the interface. Leansheavily on the 1978 NYU study of industry/universityconnections. His suggestions include: more effective
. communication to professors by companies of theirresearch interests; greater personnel movementincluding permanent career changesbetween thesectors; university establishment of interdisciplinaryresearch centers; experimentation with novel jointarrangements.
Brown, George E., Jr. University-Industry Links: Gov-ernment as Blacksmith. Paper presented at AAASSymposium on "Government/Industry/UniversityRelations," San Francisco, CA, January 5, 1980. 16pp.
Congressr arc Brown assesses some effects of thechanging 'nvirc.nment for innovation upon existingand potential university-industry linkages. Describes,six current Federal efforts to foster linkages, andsix additional areas of linkage which "should beconsidered."
Bugliarello, George. "Focusing on the Function of theUniversity." Proceedings from the first MidlandConference, sponsored by Dolk Chemical Company,October 197g. pp. 153-170.
Useful brief compilation of statistics on the sources ofsupport for and performers of R&D, focusing onthe university-industry relationship. Presents moredeteiled information on chemistry and chemicalengineering.
Valuable listings of eight major obstacles to a morefruitful university-industry relationship, and sixstrategies for dealing with these problems.
Business Week, Special Report, "The Second GreenRevolution: Harnessing Biotechnology to ProduceMore Food with Less Energy." August 25, 1980. 4pp.
Discusses university, industrial, and Governmentactivities in plant bioengineering and focuses uponthe "rapid buildup in corporate bioengineeringresearch." Notes the competition between academicand corporate laboratories for competent scientists.
Cannon, Peter. "A Model for Industry University. MinorityDoctoral Engineering Programs," Research Man-agement, July 1980, pp. 21-23.
Dr. Cannon, Vice President for Research, RockwellInternational, describes a program begun 3-1/2 yearsago by Rockwell International Science Center(Rockwell's corporate research laboratory) aimedat increasing the number of minority engineers withPh.D.s in solid state electronics.
The principal mechanism utilized was to sub-contractcompany funded research on gallium arsenide totwo historically black universitiesHoward and NorthCarolina A&T. NASA has also participated in thisproject.
Cantwell, Katherine M. "University-Industry ResearchRelationships at the Stanford Synchrotron RadiationLaboratory." A report submitted to the NationalScience Board, July 1980. 6 pp. and appendix.
278 275
The Assistant to the Director of the SSRL describes,joint hidustrial-university cooperation at the lab-oratory.
All of the advisory panels lime industrial members.Of the 88 institutions experimenting at SSRL, 26are private corporations; and of the 309 proposalsfor research at SSR1.: active in March 1980, 55involved joint ,university-industrial research.
Three types of cooperation are identified:
Cooperation on specific research proposals;
Industrial contributions to facility beam linedet.,:lopment and instrumentation;
Implementation of new scientific techniques byindustrial groups, which then become available tothe general user community.
A list of industry-university proposals is appended.
Chemical Week. "Weighing University Research Pro-posals." February 3, 1982, pp. 55-56.
Describes Monsanto's new Office of External Re-search and Developmenta central corporateclearing house to weigh all university grant pro-posalswhether internally or externally generated.The article also briefly discusses mechanisms em-ployed at Dow 'Chemical and DuPont for initiatingresearch contact with universities.
Committee on Economic Development. StimulatingTechnology Progress. (New York & Washington, DC.Committee on Economic-. Development, January1980) 96 pp.
Discusses the nature of technological progress andits relationships to economic growth. :usesprimarily on the hindrances to tecti.1.)iogicalprogress required by tax policies, r.:,rv,:rnmentconstraints upon innovation, and parr.; alicies.The role of universities in basic researc,1 is brieflydi'.4russecl. Recommends provision of a tax creditfor support of nonproprietary university research.
Council for Financial Aid to Education. Voluntary Sup-port of Education, 1979-80. New. York: CFAE,May 1981.
An annual survey of educational philanthropy datingfrom 1954-55. The survey for 1979-80 reports actualreturns from each of the participating 914 four-yearcolleges and universities and 105 two-year colleges.These data are extrapolated to arrive at estimatesof total -national voluntary support of colleges oruniversitiesthe total for 1979-80 being $3.8 billion.It is .estimated that 15.2% of the total, or $577million, were gifts earmarked for research purposes."Business corporations contributed a record 18.3%of total voluntary support as a result of a 25.2%increase in their grants."
276
Council of Graduate Schools/National Science Foun-dation (CGS/NSF), Industry/University Coopera-tive Programs: Proceedings of a Workshop Held inConjunction with the 20th Annum Meeting of theCouncil of Graduate Schools in the United States,December 2; 1980. '5 pp.
Useful compilation of . of a variety of academic/industrial programs bot' m industrial and uni-versity perspectives. Univt.i:-3: programs disctissedinclude: MIT Industrial Program, UniVersityof Delaware Composites Case WesternReserve Polymer Science and Ene-)%t_, .1.3, Materials
Research at Pennsylvania State U.n,.. ;:y, AnimalSc. i, ice Programs at .Iowa State .. .{,Y, and acoc; .,rive computer science d .. at-New State University. Con-q:,.their per:, ..-*.tives included:Johnson. Johnson, Pfizer,Internatic...3l. Also described is ttte. unique Phila-delphia ;:lt:,.)ti for Clinical Trialsa consetjurn.of six area medical instit. ttions Aicti aimsto coordit resources available to provide anattractive opportunity for the placement and per-formance of cli.-:ical trials of new drugs and devices.
CnIliton, Barbara. "Harvard and Monsanto: The $2.3-Million Alliance" Science, 25 February 1977, pp.759-763.
An intensive case study of this highly visible agree-ment. Discusses:
The antecedents of the agreement; the "readiness"and motivations of the parties to cooperate. One ofii.c Principal Investigators had been a long-timeilo:isanto, consultant, and Monsanto warned a"window" on the new biology as well as rights to along -shot possible cancer et. i.e.
The tortuous process of negotiation;
The patent and publication issues and theirresok,tioit (Harvard changed its patent policy);
The appoirilment of a prestigiot:- national .atisorycommittee to oversee the public interest ;:.spectsof the agreement-
Three kinds of monetary support which are esti-mated to total $23 million twelve years:
(1) $200,000 a year for each of the co- investigators;
(2) $1.4 million to equip laboratories;
(3) A $12 million endowment cuvrent incemewhich would support the project research, but whichwould ultimately be used as general, string-free funds.
Culliton, Barbara. "Biomedical Rese:Irr.' Enters theMarketplace," New England Jouri:. of Medicine,304 (May 14, 1981), pp. 1195-1201.
Reviews recent sieps in the progress of biotech-nologyin particular recombinant DNA andmonoclonal antibody techniquestoward frontstage. The role of the press in publicizing thephenomenon is examined. A brief history of Har-vard's patent policy is presented, followed by adescription of Harvard's proposed biotechnologycompany and a discussion of the various argumentsand points of view that led to its rejection.
The suit and countersuit between Hoffmann-LaRocheand the University of California over the properutilization of the MI cell line.which producesinterferon are described and discussed as anexample of the difficulties of establishing substantialcollaboration between academic institutions andindustrial corporations.
Concludes that there is room for collaborativearrangement5 that suit both sides.
David, L. E., Jr. "Science Futures: The Industrial Con-nection" Science, March 2, 1979. pp. 837-840.
The president of Exxon. Research and.Engineering.Company explores the idea that the traditionaldiversity of mechanisms for the transfer of knowledgeand ideas to industry, as well as the communicationof realistic problems to academic researchers, maynot be adequate for the future.
A rich and detailed discussion of trends and char-acteristics of industrial research laboratories iscompared with a cursory treatment of academicorientations. The paper concludes with an optimisticreview of "strands for the industrial connection."
Davis, Bernard D.,''Sounding Board: Profit Sharing Be-tween Professors and the University?" New EnglandJournal of Medicine, 304, May 14, 1981, pp. 1232-1235.
Weighs the pros and cons of two mechanisms bywhich university inventions enter the commercialmarket:
Patents:
Formation of private corporations by facultymembers.
esents arguments for a third kind of arrange-meritinstitutional profit sharingwhich is seenas both providing a fair share of profits to theuniversity and the scientist inventor, while avoidingsome of the dangers to science posed by the existingarrangements. Davis argues that the rejected Harvardproposal for profit sharing did not receive a fairhearing due to high emotions, press ballyhoo, andthe Genentech stock offering episode.
.7
Davis, Lance E. and Kevles, Daniel K. "The NationalResearch Fund: A Case Study in the IndustrialSupport of academic Science." Minerva, 1974,12:207-220.
The story focuses on the period 1915-1932 andthe attempts of a number of individuals to generateindustrial support for "pure" scientific research. Thewentual failure of the effort provides an instructivecase study in the behavior of business enterprisesin the financing of academic research.
George E. Hale, of the Mt. Wilson Observatory, wasinstrumental in the creation of the National ResearchCouncil (NRC) in 1916 which was designed to bringtogether government, industry,and the universities tomobilize science and engineering for the nationaldefense. In 1918 the NRC was made a permanentagency, and Hale had it create an Industrial AdvisoryCommission, which he encouraged to promote acampaign for business support for university science.In 1925 a plan and organization emerged whenthe National Academy of Sciences (NAS) authorizedthe creation of a National Research EndowmentWhich wa.; to raise $20 million in capita/ from in-dustry, u be di:.-,burT.ed by the NAS as grants in aidof research. The word "Endowment" was soonchanged to "Fund" because corporations were notpermitted to engage in philandiropythey had todemonstrate nat dot lions worked to the corpora-tion's profit- making advantage. Jerbert Hoover waschairman c' the Fund. But in three years the fundhad raised less than half of its goal and th-,It from afew lart.;e corporations. The goal was reJtrced to$10 million, and thi. amount was p:edged by 1930,but when the Fund trLd to call in the pledges inthe first year or he Depression, the Natiooal ElectricLight Association, a trade association of electricalgenerating rid equipment lanufacturing<firmswhich had pledgr.. 03 :pillion, found' that its mem-bers could not pay By 1932 the promoters agreedthat the National Research Fund was dead.
The econom;c-theoretical concept of "externalities" isused to explain the failure of the National ResearchFund (NRF). "The campaign for the NRF was anattempt to finance academic science in.w11:ch thosewho paid the costs C01.1!..i not avoid havito, touch ofthe resulting benefits flow to others"the "free rider"problem. Eventual government fun( rig of basicresearch provided a solution to the probler.. thatgained the support of industrial ,:orporations.
Declercq, Guido V. "A Third Look at the Two Cultures:The New Economic Responsibility of the University."International Journal of Institutional Managementin Higher rfr'ucation, July 1981.
2so277
The Administrator of the Catholic University ofLeuven in Belgium explores the idea that therelations between the economy and the world oflearning and research are changing under thepressure of the scientific revolution, as the economyof the fleveloped world is increasingly based onhigh technology and applied science.
"Universities are being drawn to the centre of hightechnology based national economies from theirlormer position at the outer fringe of economicsociety. As a result of this new development, uni-versities are being forced into new roles for-whichmany are not prepared and that raise a number ofnew and urgent questions. This may lead, in EricAshby's words, to a "thorough revision of the innerlogic of universities." (Eric Ashby, Adapting Univer-sities to a Technological Society, Jossey-Bass, 1.974.p. 114) We arc fast moving away from the monasticconception of Newman's university with its pursuitof knowledge irrespective of its utility."
."The new economic responsibility demands thatthe university in the innovation process, develop a/broker's fundion, either by the university itself orby means of professional outside help, to bring thetwo parts of the innovative process together." Severalsuch brokerage mechanisms are discussed.
Declercq, Guido V. "Technology Transfer from Campusto Industry" International Journal of InstitutionalManagement in Higher Education. 3, October 1979,pp. 237-252.
Since World War II universities have been consideredas elements in industrial development of countries,and more recently in terms of their functions assources of innovative ideas for economic regen-eration. This article examines the question of howuniversities should fulfill this role.
A discussion of three general questions is followedby examination of examples of mechanisms toimprove university-industry interfaces in severalEuropean countries, Canada. and the United States.The three questions discussed are:
Do universities have somethingto offer to industry?
Does industry, or society, expect a return, in theform of inventions, from the large financial inputsthat go into our higher educational system?
Why arc universities as such apparently weak intransferring technology to the marketplace?
`"Existing professional transfer formulas" discussed
Industrial liaison centerspossibly in cooperationwith local or central governments;
Profit-making or non-profit "campus companies;"
278
Research parks.
Dickson David. Summit' Set on Academe-IndustryBig Links" Science and Goverinment Report, 12,March 15, 1982. pp. 1-4.
/Report on a scheduled meeting between the presi-
, dents of five major research universities and the/presidents of about ten biotechnology companiesto explore guidelines for future relationships. Thisactivity is taking place ass the State of California'sFair Political Practices /Commission (FPPC) gaveformal approval'to a rule which will require universityfaculty members to dis'close whether they have anyfinancial interest in cfmnpanies that provide them
/ with research grants/.
The case of Raymond Valentine, Professor of PlantBiolOgy at the U iversity of California's Davis campusis discussed at en th. Professor Valentine was closelyinvolved ins tin up a private genetic engineeringcompany in DaisCalgene. lie also had a $2.3million res arc n contract from Allied Chemical toinvestigat nitrogen- fixing/properties of plants./
When it ascrevealed that Allied Chemical hadpurchas d a/large block of CaJgene shares, conflictof inter ncerns were raised which resulted inan ulti aum to Valentine from the U.C. Davisadmi stration that he must either withdrawn fromthe r ea ch project or from Calgenehe chose towith raw from the project.
Thi de ate, however, continues on the differencebetween occasional consulting on the one hand,and long-term commitments involving substantialfinancial interest on the other. It was argued thattihe latter was "already stifling free exchange of/information and ideas on the Davis campus."
Dietrich, J. J. and Sen, Rajat. "Government-University-Industry Interaction in Research and Development: ACase Study" Research Management, September1981, pp. 23-25.
Two managers of the Diamond-Shamrock Company,a major force in electrochemical technology and inthe chloralkali industry, describe the developmentof a cooperative agreement between the company,the U.S. Department of Energy, and Case WesternUniversity (Dr. Ernest B. Yeager, intemational leaderin electrochemical research) for research in oxygenelectrocatalysis.
The proxii nate goal of the research is to invent anoxygen depolarized air cathorle which, if fitted to amembrane cell for the production of pure caustic,could save the U.S. chloralkali industry billions ofkilowatt hours of electricity annually.
The article describes the organizational and legalarrangements. which permit all parties to maximizetheir divergent interests.
Conclusions are drawn concerning the conditionsfor successful interactions of this kind.
/Doan, Herbert D. "New Arrangements for Industry-,
Academic Research" Research Management, March. 1978, pp. 33-35.
Two proposals are offered for interlocking universityand industry research:more closely, and therebyraising the effectiveness of the U.S. research effort.
Engles, E. F. "A New Initiative in Stimulating Industry/University CooperatiOn: The First Midland Conferenceon Advances in Chemical Science and Technology."Paper presented at the Congress of the AmericanSociety of Metals, Materials, and Processes, Cleveland,Ohio, October 30, 1980. 14 pp.
A research mjinager for Dow Chemical provides a'useful account of the genesis and development ofI/the 1979 ndland Conference and its 1980 sequelat Allento ri, PA.
European I hd/ustrial Research, Management associa-tion (EIV,M(k), Working Group Report No. 7, Industry/UrriveritY Relations, Park: El RMA, 38 cours Albertler, 7008 Paris, France, 1972. 58 pp.
A u3,.,:_ftil discussion of following topics:
Mentalattitudes;
/Joint and sponsored research;
// Exchange schemes;
, The role of government;
The special situation of the small firm.
Discussion of each topic is followed by conclusionsand recommendations.
Fakstorp, Jorgen and Idorn, G. M. "University- Industry/ Relations in Europe" Research Management, July
1978. pp. 34-371
Two technical executives of Danish firms argue thatbecause the political and social unrest of the sixtiesdisrupted what ties there were between industryand academia, a dialogue should be initiated toexplore cooperative R&D activities. Differe-cesbetween the U.S. and European traditions relay igto university-industry relationships are describwthese are less developed in Europe. In addition,much of the post-war expansion of public fundingfor research resulted in the creation of a numberof national research institutes which neither pos-sessed a graduate program, nor cooperated withindustrial sectors.
Farris, H. W. "The Campus and Industry" IndustrialResearch, April 1964, pp. 76-81.
./The articlL :37 the associate director of the Universityof Michi .9 Institute of Science and Technologyexpresses; an "air 'a industry posture." Dis,cussefour mechanisms tor matching university cap/abilities/with industry needs. Attempts to define appropriatekinds of industrially supported work in the university.
FerneliuS, W. Conrad and Waldo, Willis H. "sole of BasicResearch in Industrial Innovation" Research/Man-agement, July 1980, pp. 36-40.
An analysis of 78 case histories of successful com-mercial developments since 1965 was conductedto determine/what role was played by basic researchinformation (since 1945) in the process, and toevaluate the resultant economic benefits as quan-titatively as possible.
Fox, Jeffrey. "Can Academia Adapt to Bi technology'sLure?" Chemical & Engineering Threw's, October 12,1981, pp. 39-44. //Reviews the problems of conflict of/interest, intel-lectual property, and the openeSs of scientificresearch created by the comme cial vitality of thenew biotechnology.
"As an idea, this technology haS already touchldoff an /epidemic of enterpreneurial activity th i is1-tinning rampant on university campuses. ool-headed scientists have turned into feverish sch mers
, caught up in a heady delirium :of corporate pi nning,/real estate speculation for:lab expansio s, andmarket watching."
, I"Neither political If anings or social sta ding is aguarantee of immu' 'tY fifoM this new 'b As onestill resistan' university s4ientist puts it, 'It's likethe original version of the movie The BodySnatchers. You look into the eyes of omeone andrealize it's tco late." if
Report contains interviews with ten faculty membersinvolved in commercial activities/and a valuablesummary of conversations 'th postdocs in the field.
Fox, Jeffrey. "Plant Molecular Biology, egins to nourish"Chemical Engineering News/June 22, 1981, pp.33-44.
industrialsurvey of U,S. and /international academic,
Industrial and joint activities in adapting geneticengineering techniques to plant molecular biology.The R&D thrusts of the variobs groups are discussed.
Fusfeld, H. I. "New Approach s to Support and WorkingRelationships." Special 'Industry/University R&D"issue of Research Ma gement, 19, May 1976.
2 8 2 279
This article that more effective links in R&Dactivities mu be forged, between industry, aca-demia, and government. Several new mechanismsare suggested.
Fusfeld, , H. I. The Recent Science and EngineeringDoctorate from an Industry View." Papeir presentedat the S Annual Meeting, San F ancisco, CA,January. , 1980. 15 pp.
Argues t iat stimulation of the growt, of cooperativeresearc between universities, government, andindustry, on the basis of current m chanisms, "couldamount to $500 million in five to ten years. Thiswould support close to 10,000/Ph.D. scientists andengineers, about 40% of those not on faculty today,or about 25% of the research effort not accountedfor by tenured faculty.... This expansion would notbe in new funds, but would represent a restructuringand a shift in commitments from government andindustry."
Gallagher, Colin. "Time for an Industrial ResearchCouncil." Times Higher Education Supplement,September '26: 1980. p.
The Head/of the Industrial Management Departmentat, the University of Newcastle in Great BritainpresentS arguments for a national body to lookafter the university-based research needs of industry.A cl(34e analogue is made to the proposed U.S.Nati 'nal Technology Foundation.
Gilpin,iRobert. Technology, Economic Growth, and in-tqnational Competitiveness. A report prepared forthe Subcommittee on Economic Growth of theJoint Economic Committee, Congress of the UnitedStates, July 9, 1975. Washington, D.C.: USGPO,1975, 87 pp.
This report is excellent background reading for abroad understanding of the role of technology andresearch and development in the economy. Itcontains a thorough examination and assessmentof the scholarly literature on the role of technologyin economic growth, an examination of the per-formance of the U.S. economy in the light of thisknowledge, and an assessment of the role of gov-ernment in facilitating several strategies for growth.
In a section on Government Support and UniversityResearch, Gilpin advocates, "...the need/for a newalliance between government, University,iand privateindustry in newer arras of concern to /replace thedeclining efficiency of the anachronistic allianceforged at the end of the Second World War. On theuniversity side the situation is ripe for cooperativeefforts which would invigorate scientific and technicalresearch relevant to our emergent set of nationalpriorities."
280
lie also maintained that, "The government side ofthis potential alliance has yet to develop its fullpotential" due to inadequate leadership structurewhich at that time centered upon the Director ofthe NSF, and a lack of appreciation in the missionagencies of the importance of exploratory develop-ment and basic res:mrch.
A very useful section summarizes "what we know(and don't know) about industrial innovation"including a discussion of the role of basic research.Another section discusses what the governmentshould and should not do.
A selected bibliography is appended.
Hamilton, W. B. 'The Research Triangle of North Carolina:A Study in Leadership for the Common Weal" SouthAtlantic Quarterly, Vol. 65, Spring 1966, pp. 254-278.
"The tale of the Triangle is one of local and stateleadership for the common weal and of the inter-relationship of ideas and action, of cooperationamong businesmen, university professors, andpolitical leaders. The concept evolved by that leader-ship was unique at the time; its eventual realizationwas a product of such good old fundamentals ashard work, brains, persistence in the face of dif-ficulties, and philanthropy; of the presence ofuniversities growing in grace; of the exertion ofpolitical influence; and of an expanding nationaleconomy..A priceless ingredient was a decent stateatmosphere for human relations."
The details of the story of the develop ent of theTriangle from 1952 to 1965 are welt/ told by thisprofessor of history at Duke Univers/ ty.
/Healey, Frank H. "Industry/Needs for Basic Research"Research Management,' November 1978, pp. 12-16.
The vice president for/research and engineering ofthe Lever Brothers Company reviews data from NSBScience Indicators-- 1976 bearing on the declinein industrial support for basic research.
Applauds the initiation of the NSF University IndustryCooperative Research Program and argues that "itis unlikely that industry will spend any more of itsown money on basic research unless some positiveincentive is provided."
Hencke, W. R., Greene, J. It, Rosner, D. E., and Nordine,P. C. ''A Program for Student Involvement in IndustrialR&D." Special "Industry/University R&D" issue ofResearch Management, 19, May 1976.
This article describes a novel industrial researchtraining approach in which students perform asconsultants to industry on real-life problems.
283
Hey lin, Michael. "Confusion Over Innovation HighlightedAgain" Chemical Sr Engineering News, March 3,1 980.
Report on a February 1980 conference at Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology {MIT) on the roleof cooperative R&D among industry, the universities,and government in stimulating technological in-novation. The conference was cosponsored by theMIT Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity,and the NSF.
The article described the conference as "a love-infor cooperative research" but said that few new policyrecommendations emerged.
Several individuals expressed. reservations aboutuniversity-industry cooperative programsthey werewon'ied about unanticipated effects upon universities(a potential threat to academic freedom") and thepoorly understood linkage between growth in scienceand technology and growth in innovation.
Hill, Lamar. "Negotiating with the Community: UCIIndustrial Associates" In OECD/CERI Centre forEducational Research and Innovation, InstitutionalMechanisms of Interaction Between Higher Ed-ucation and the Community: Illustrative Evamples,Paris, OECD, 1980. CERI/CR/79.06.
This case study, written by an historian, examinesthe means employed by the University of California,livine, to negotiate with the surrounding communitythrough a specifically created entity: UCI IndustrialAssociates. The case study begins with a backgroundstatement regarding the origins of UC1, a descriptionof its environment, and a description of the cir-cumstances surounding the organization of thenegotiating entity. There follows a description. ofthe development. and current status of the IndustrialAssociates. In conclusion there is an analysis ofthe results of the negotiating entity's activities, ofits relationship with the University, of the continuingproblems which derive from the discordant men-talities in the University and the surrounding com-munity, and of the integration of Industrial Associateswith specific academic and research programs inorder to reduce the mutual isolation which thisdiscordance occasions.
flonan, James P. "Corporate Education: Threat or Op-portunity?" AAHE bulletin, March 1982, pp. 7-9.
A useful review of the literature on corporate-basededucation programs which have grown in both scopeand magnitude during the past decade. Several largecorporations including IBM, AT&T, Wang, and Xeroxare assuming a major role in educating, and trainingtheir employees in fields heretofore primarily theresponsibility of colleges and universities. Some ofthe corporate programs are even granting degrees.ConclUdes that the corporate programs should beseen as an opportunity for higher education tobecome more sensitive to the needs of industryand to expand cooperative efforts. Bibliography.
Industrial Research Institute, Inc. Industrial Innova-tion:' The Impact of Federal Policies on Industry/University Relations. A Position Statement by theIndustrial Research Institute. New York: IndustrialResearch Institute, September 26, 1980. 1 p.
The IRI strongly supports increased interactionbetween industry and university research, and urgesthat Federal policies be developed to promote closercollaboration between universities and industrialorganizations.
The recommended policies include:
Tax incentives to stimulate industrial support ofuniversity research and graduate education;
Federal funding agency programs to enhancecoupling;
Uniform patent policies which permit universitiesto retain title to inventions made using governmentfunds;
Improve forecasting of scientific and technicalmanpower requirements.
The NSrs University/Industry Cooperative-ResearchProgram is "especially commended." But, "the IRIviews with great caution proposals to establish new'Generic Technology Centers,' since there is sig-nificant risk that such laboratories may become aself-perpetuating drain on national resources andlack the necessary inputs on market needs andopportunities to be an effective force in the inno-vation process."
Industrial Research Institute/Research Corporation.Contribution of Basic Research to Recent SuccessfulIndustrial Innovations (Final Report totiSr underGrant No. PRA 77-17908, September 1979). 18 pp.plus 271 pp. of attachments.
Query of 529 companies to accumulate 54 usablecase histories of industrial innovations.
284281
Johnson, Elmima C. and Tornatzky, Louis G. "Academiaand Industrial Innovation" in Gerard G. Gold (Ed.)New Direr tiotts for Ekperiential Learning: BusinesSand Higher EducationToward New Alliances,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981, pp. 47-63.
A useful analytical approach to university-industrylinkages, geared toward their role in industrialinnovation. An "array of operational options" ispresented. Se% eral integrating concepts from theliterature on organization theory dealing with inter-organizational behavior are discussed: goal congruityand compatibility, boundary-spanning structures,and organizational incentives and awards. .
These concepts are utilized in examining severalcases described in the literature: MIT PolymerProcessing Program, Harvard-Monsanto ResearchProject, Kockwell International-Black Colleges, NSFInnovation Centers, Harvard University-Genetic En-gineering Company.
Kenyon, Sir George. "The Public View of the Universities:Direct. Services to Industry."' Speech to the 12thCommonwealth Universities Conference, Vancouver,B.C., Canada, August 1978. 14 pp. Summarized as"No Egg, No Chicken" in Manchester Guardian March6, 1979.
The Chairman of Manchester University's Councildiscusses university-industry relationships, both intraining and research. Describes a, range of effortscurrently underway by the 44 British universities to"sell themselves to industry."
"Teaching companies" and "sandwich courses" aretwo instructional innovations bridging the gapbetween the sectors. Several universities have formedseparate companies for the purpose of acquiringindustrial research contracts.
Kiefer-, David M. "Forging New and Stronger Links Be-tween University and Industrial Scientists" Chemical& Engineering News, December 8, 1980, pp. 38-51.
Substantive overview of current developments inthe area. Includes discussibn of:
The available statistics;
Existing NSF programs;
The Carter Administration initiatives for Depart-ment of Commerce-support of "generic technologycenters" and the Cooperative Automotive ResearchProgra rn;
The Exxon -MIT combustion research agreement;
The Harvard-Monsanto arrangement for researchin biology and biochemistry of organ development;
The University of Delaware Center for CatalyticScience and Technology with 20 industrial sponsors;
282
An extensive treatment of the movement towardestablishment of a Chemical Research Council.
Langrish, J. "The Changing Relationship Between Sci-ence and Technology" Nature, 250, August 1974.pp. 614-616.
The author examines the premise that technologicalinnovation sterns from scientific research, andsuggests that relative to the early decades of thetwentieth century, the relationship between scienceand technology has changed drastically. To testthis premise, abstracts in five volumes of the Journalof the Society of Chemical Industry between 1884and 1952 were classified by institutional locus, themain geographic divisions being Britain, the UnitedStates, and Europe. A marked decline in university-based contributions is paralleled by a concomitantincrease in industrial-based research over time. Whencitations from 1957, 1961, and 1967 IndustrialReviews are examined by institutional locus, againa notable decrease in the relative contribution ofthe university to industrial chemistry emerges.
Lepkowski, Wil. "Academic Values Tested by MIT's NewCenter" Chemical & Engineering News, March 15,1982, pp. 7-12.
An in-depth description and critique of the $125million Whitehead Biomedical Research Instituteat MIT. The story is constructed from interviewswith David Baltimore, the head of the Institute, andboth proponents and opponents among the MITfaculty and administration. There is discussion of theissue of potential conflict of interest centering onBaltimore's reported $3.5 million equity stake in thebiotechnology firm of Collaborative Research, Inc.The president of this company is also interviewed.
Libsch, J. F. "The. Role of the Small, High TechnologyUniversity." Special "Industry/University R&D" issue ofResearch Management, 19, May 1976.
Smaller universities need means to achieve a 'criticalmass' effort of people and capabilities in selectedresearch areas without destroying opportunitiesfor individual research efforts.
Linvill, John G. "University Role in the Computer Age"Science, Vol. 215, February 12, 1982, pp. 802-806.
The Director of Industrial Programs at StanfordUniversity's Center for integrated Systems discussesthe role of the university in the development ofmanpower resources in computer technology, andopportunities in university-industry link6ges.
285
Little, Arthur D., Ltd. New Technology-Based Firms inMc United liingdonz and the Federal Republic of(iermny. kmdon: A. D. Little, Ltd. for the Anglo-(ierman Foundation lor the Study of IndustrialSociety, 1977.
This comparative assessment of the environmentlor new technology -based firms (NTBrs) was under-taken to provide a detailed analysis of the environ-mental factors within each country which influencethe development of NTBrs, and to make recom-mendations on how the creation and growth of suchfirms might be encouraged.
In contrast to the situation within the U.S. wherethere are several thousand NTBrs with sales ofbillions of dollars, there are only about 200 NTBFsin the U.K. and slightly less in Germany.
Among the factors cited as more faVorable in theU.S. for the generation of NTBFs are:
greater mobility of individuals between academicinstitutions and private industry;
the behavioral and attitudinal character of Ameri-can scientists, many of whom are willing to set uptheir own businesses in order to exploit theirtechnical knowledge.
A section on the role of universities in ''spinninoft" NTBrs reports on two British studies in 19t'9and .1970 which documented the reluctance ofuniversity scientists to become involved !n industry.
Lohr, Steve. "Cz-mpuses Cementing Business Alliances."Neu, York 'limes, November 16, 1980.
Prompted by Harvard's disclosure that it was con-sidering establishment of a commercial genetic-engineering company, this article reports on a rangeof issues and activities in the university-industryarea. In addition to the standard exa.nples ofExxon-M IT and Harvard Monsanto, mention is madeof: a Purdue-Control Data project on computerdesign and production, and establishment by EsteeLauder of an Institute of Dermatology at JohnsHop-hills University.
Lucchesi, Peter-J. "Exxon's University-Industry Program"Proceedings of the First Midland Conference on/1dvances in Chemical Science and Technology.September 1979. pp..173-179.
Describes the following Exxon programs:
Scientific Grant Programabout $500,000 a yearin grants to professors selected by Exxon's basicresearch staff.
(tinder development) Exxon Fellowship's Programto assist promising non-tenured faculty.
;j -
Visiting University Scientists programcurrentlysupporting eight university scientists working sum-mers at Exxon labs.
Exxon Faculty Fellow programfive year supportto a prominent academic scientist who must spend20% of his time at Exxon labs doing work of hisown choice. One Fellow currently has support, anda second is soon to be named.
Exxon-M1T 10-year agreement on combustionresearchsupport at about $600,000 a year. Par-ticipating facult devote 50% of their research timeto working on agreement projects.
Lyon, R. E., Jr. "A Bridge Reconnecting Academia andIndustry through Basic Research- (Paper presentedto the George Washington University, GraduateProgram in Science, Technology, and Public Policy.Seminar series on, "The Research System for the1980's: Public Policy Issues" March 26, 1980.5 pp.
The paper explores the following five main points:
The "connection" should be at the basic researchlevel;
The "connection" must be at the cooperative,working level;
Government should assist the process, but notattempt to "steer the science and technology;"
A tax incentive for industry is the first step;
"Industry funding should supplement and com-plement, not totally replace" Government fundingof academic research.
MacCdrdy, E. L. "Prospects for Government/University/Industry Research Cooperation." Paper presentedbefore the Division of Science Resource Studies,National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.,September 22, 1980.
Explores the emerging role of the Federal Govern-ment in stimulating greater collaboration betweenuniversities and the industrial sector in researchand development, and discusses the potential suchlinkages have for matching the technological de-velopment interests of industry with the researchinterests of university scientists. Government par-ticipation is described as including: the continuedfinancing of fundamental research through universitylaboratories; the deveaopment of a climate ofunderstanding and support for this collaborativeprocess; the identification and evaluation of im-pediments in the innovation process; and thecollection, analysis, and publication of statistics toaonitor the progress of this triparty arrangement.
Suggestions for ways in which universities and theindustrial sector might contr:butc to the develop -merit of a research partnership are also provided.
283
Mansfield, Edwin. "Basic Research and Productivity In-crease in Manufacturing." American economic
70 (December 1980). pp. 863-873.
The results of Manliekl's study indicate that thereis a statistically significant and direct relationshipbetween the amount of basic research carried outby an industry, or by a firm, and its rate of increaseof total factor productivity, when its expenditureson applied R&D are held constant.
Mansfield also collected new and original data onbasic and applied R&D expenditures of 119 com-panies, concerning the changes in the mix of R&Dbetween 1967 and 1977, and the changes theyexpect between 1977 and 1980. The findings in-dicated that "practically all industries have cut theproportion of their R&D expenditures going for basicresearch. Most industries have cut the proportiongoing lor relatively risky projects."
Mansfield cautions that correlation is not causationand that 'basic research expenditures could be a(unction of high productivity growth rather than viceversa.
Mansfield, Edwin, et al., Research and Intiduation inHodern Corporation. New York: WW Norton, 1971
This classic textbook treats the several phases ofR&D in several R&D intensive industries: In Chapter 8on major pharmaceutical innovations (originally thedissertation of co-author Jerome Schnee) data arepresented on the sources of innovations for 68 ofthe most widely used 'drugs in the U.S.
Three major findings are advanced:
"External sourcessources other than the inno-vating firmhave played a major role in the tech-nological progress of the ethical pharmaceuticalindustry in the U.S. These external sources provided54% of the discoveries which produced pharma-ceutical innovations during 1935-1962.... in particularthe innovations contributed by universities, hospitals,and research institutes (23% of the...total) hadsubstantial...importance."
"...the grouping of the innovations into two timeperiods' indicates that external sources have declinedin importance over time." During 1935-1949 externalsources provided 62% of the disCoveries, whichdeclined to 43% during the 1950-1962 period.
284
There was considerable variation among productcategories in the sources of discoveries. A majorfactor accounting for these differences is the existingstate of the art within the categories. The biologicaltest and screening systems used by pharmaceuticalfirms have greater potential for uncovering new anduseful chemic91 structures in those areas wherethere is reasonably high correlation between animaltests and clinical trialse.g., digestive and gen-itourinary drugs, and respiratory system drugs. Butin product categories not amenable to biologicaltests system approaches, such as drugs for neo-plasms and the endocrine systems, the non-screen-ing approaches of external sources have beenrelatively more fruitful.
Mansfield, Edwin. "Tax Policy and Innovation" Science,March 12, 1982, pp. 1365-1371.
A comprehensive, scholarly review of what is knownabout the quantitiative impact of particular taxmeasures upon the rate of innovation and R&Dinvestments. Includes a detailed examination ofthe provisions of the EconoMic Recovery Tax Ad of1981 relating to R&D investments.
Concludes, "Without question, our nation's taxpolicies have a major impact on the rate of inno-vation. But because practically no studies have beenconducted to estimate the effects of past or proposedtax changes, we have little or or no dependableinformation concerning the quantitative impact ofparticular changes of this sort on the rate of inno-vation."
Marcy, Willard. "Patent Policies at Educational and Non-profit Scientific Institutions." Paper presented atthe 175th meeting of the American Chemical Society,March 13-14, 1978. ACS Symposium Series 81. 12pp.
Provides a brief history of the development ofadministrative mechanisms for handling the transferof useful technology from the university laboratoryto the marketplace, beginning with the pioneerefforts of Dr. Frederick Gardner Cottrell who foundedthe Research Corporation in 1912. Reviews thepurpose, objectives, and administration of universitypatent policies, including procedures for reportinginventions and for distributing income realized frompatents. Considers factors influencing universitypatent policies such as Government policies andforeign patenting opportunities. Concludes withseveral examples of basic problems which suit-ably drafted patent policy gtiidelines can helpresolve."
2
Massachusetts hstitute of Technology, Office of Spon-sor cd Proctrams. "Research Agreements with In-dustrial Sponsors: Review Draft." MIT, Cambridge,MA, November 3, 1981. 31 pp.
This comprehensive guide summarizes the broadprinciples and specific contract provisions applicableto research agreements between MIT and industrialand commercial organizations. George Dummer,Director of the Office of Sponsor NI Programs, statesin a separate letter, ihis is still a review draft....consequently it shoud not be cited as representingan official statement of MIT policy, although itaccurately reflects current practice."
McCe;.,,f.11, J. Douglas. "Productivity Improvement in:,,esearth and Development and Engineering in theunite(( States- Society of Research Administrators'.10Litial, Vol XII (Fall 1980), pp. 5-14.
this article focuses primarily on internal manage-rit and, personnel fa:tors in productivity. However,
ii5t411 is presented of four nationwide factorstn.,: accounted for decreasing R&D productivity inthe 11.5. from 1960 through 1975.
(..i;anges in. capital gains tax codes in the late
obsession in the 1960's among many com-pai;:es with the idea of rapid growth while minimizingrisk to -hnrt term earnings;
Lowicompared to Japanese and German industry)investment in process engineering and manufac-turing technology R&D;
Overencnantment by many companies with the!Alamor or high technology. One mining (company)suppor':,1 research is solid state physics andscmic-ndi ..,tors for some 15 years without a payoffbecausi t mananment felt it enhanced the imageof the mnpany."'
Monec, Mary Ellen. "Thes Relationship of Federal Sup-port of Basic Research in Universities to IndustrialInnovation and i'roductivity.." in, U.S. Congress, JointEconomic: Committee, SpeciatStudy on EconomicChange, Volume 3, Research & Innovation: Demi-opiici a Dynamic Nation. Washington: D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, December 29, 1980.pp. 257-279.
Section II examines "The Relationship of BasicResearch to Industrial Innovation" and concludesthat the contribution is usually delayed and indirect,but that science, "seems to, act as an -engine" oftechnology,"
Section III examines "The Relationship of IndustrialInnovation to Productivity," and.concludes that thereis consensus of scholars that, "the contribution ofR&D to economic growth is high." Section IV on"The Relationships Between Universities and In-dustry" notes the "natural barriers" between uni-versity and industry that may obstruct the transferof academic basic research to industrial utilization.These include differences with regard to patents,publications and freedom of research directions.Concludes "the transfer of knowledge betweenacademic science and industrial application requiresactive effort on both sides."
Miller, Julie Ann. "Spliced Genes Get DOWn to Business."Science rictus, Vol. 117, March 29, 1980, pp. 202-205
Examines the founding and growth of Genentech,Cetus, Biogen, arid rienex.
Murray, Thomas J. "Industry'sNew COItege Connec-tion," Dun's Review, May 1981, pp; 52-54, 59.
An overview of developments in the_university-industry area. The optimistic tone".`of the piece isreflected in the following: "Both academic andcorporate leaders seem confident that they can meettheir mutual goal to increase industry's share oftotal college research to 15% or $$600 million duringthe 1980's. To help the cause along, they arecurrently lobbying hard to get tax incentives forcorporate funding of projects."
Mullins, R.T. "A Technical Enrichment Program forMinority Students." Special "Industry /University R&D"issue of Research Management, 19, May 1976.
A preparatory and support program at StevensInstitute of Technology helps engineering studentsovercome the deficiencies of high school educationand lowers the attrition rate.
Nason, Howard K. and Steger, Joseph A. Support ofBasic Research by Industry. Washington, D.C.:National Science Foundation, 1978.55 pp. (Preparedfor NSF/STIA/SRS under Grant NSF C-76-21517.)
Presents results of a 1975 survey of companyexpenditures for R&D. Concludes that there hadbeen a "real" decrease in industrial basic researchexpenditures. Advances five principal explanationsfOr the decline.
National Academy of Engineering. Academe/Industry/Government: Interaction in Engineering Education. ASymposium at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting Octo-ber 30, 1980. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress, 1981. 74 pp.
288 285
Panels of distinguished speakers addressed threebroad topics:
In-house Industry Engineering Education Activities.Representatives from GM, IBM, Bell Laboratories,Hughes Aircraft, and GE described their programs.
Academe-Industry Joint Programs. Programs aredescribed at Digital Equipment Corp. (for equipmentgrants to universities); the Purdue-Control Data Corp.effort in the CAD/CAM area; another CAD/CAM courseat UCLA assisted by several corporations.
The Support Role of Government. Federal programsare described including NSF's Industry/UniversityCooperative Research program, NSF's University/Industry Cooperative Research Centers, InnovationCenters, and its graduate fellowships. DOE's pro-grams to help support university industry interactionin research are described, as well at its $3 millioninstitutional awards program which requires theuniversities to develop mechanisms to ensure that(here is long term industrial participation. The role
the DOE supported National Laboratories is alsomentioned.
National Association of College and University Busi-ness Officers. "Survey of Institutional Patent Policiesand Patent Administration," Administrative ServiceSupplement, March 1978.
Examines the findings from a'survey of universitypatent policies and practiccts conducted by theSociety of University Patent Administrators in 1977.Data are tab :lated for the 48 major researchinsititutions responding to the survey, and theimplications of the results are discussed. More than70% of the responding institutions have established"patent committees" whose functions includemaking decisions on patenting inventions, formu-lating patent policy, and determining royalty dis-tributions for the institution. Well over 80% of theinstitutions use patent management firms such asthe. Research Corporation. The majority of institu-tions invest their share of royalties from patentingactivities in further research. Among the other issuesanalyzed are: the number of patents applied forand issued during the last 10 years; the use of
' arbitration in the event of disagreement about theinstitution's rights in an invention; methods to obtaininvention disclosures; institution patent agreementswith Federal agencies.
National Commission on Research. Industry and theUniversities: Developing Cooperative ResearchRelationships in. the National Interest August, 1980.38 pp.
286
Reviews the post-war funding history of basic re-search in universities and industry. Concludes that,with appropriate safeguards, increased researchrelationships between universities and industry,"currently have an opportunity for growth, and outof that growth will come increased innovation."
Report contains a systematic statement of the bene-fits and hazards of cooperative research relationshipsto universities, industries, and government. Inaddition, the roles and responsibilities of thepartners are described. A one-page bibliographyis appended.
National Research Council, "Research in Europe andthe United States," Chapter 13 in Outlook for Scienceand Technology: The Next Five Years. San Francisco,W. H. Freeman, 1982.
This chapter describes the R&D systems of theUnited Kingdom, France, and Germany. The mate-rials were primarily collected and written up by Dr.Charles V. Kidd of George Washington Universityand Dr. Bruce Smith of the Brookings Institution.Each country report contains a number of referencesto university-industry research and training linkages,seen in the perspective of the total research systemof the country.
Noble, David F. and Pfund, Nancy E. "The Plastic Tower:Business Goes Back to College." The Nation, Sep-tember 20, 1980, pp. 233, 246-252.
Noble teaches the history of technology at MIT, andPfund is a research associate at the health ServicesResearch Division of Stanford Medical School.
The authors view the emergent phenomenology ofuniversity-industry relationships from a socialistperspective. The universities and their faculties areseen as being induced through a variety of incentivesinto structuring their research along lines dictatedby corporate profit motives.
The universities are seen as "an inherited resourcethat rightfully belong to us all, a substantial-socialinvestment" with a large degree of public account-ability for their work. "This fact is recognized explicitlyin the case of government support. Funds are given inthe name of the citizenry by government to fostersocial ends that are shaped and defined in thepolitical processa multiplicity and diversity of endswhich oftentimes conflict."
The authors argue that in-the case of the $23 millionHarvard-Monsanto agreement, "the firm has inessence transformed part of the public sector socialresource into a private sector preserve, with littlepublic scrutiny or accountability over its use of thefacility."
The authors further argue that in the eager campusquest for industrial support, a social climate hasbeen created in which dissenters and critics ofindustrial perspectives will be elbowed aside andtheir voices suppressed.
Noble's book, America by Design: Science, Tech-nology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1979.) provides a fullhistorical analysis from this general perspective.
Norman, Colin. "MIT Agonizes Over Links With Re-search !..init," Science, October 23, 1981, pp. 416-417.
Reports on the debate in the MIT community aboutthe ptwlosed establishment of the WhiteheadInstitute for Biomedical Research with a uniqueaffiliation between the institute and MIT. Mr. Edwin C.Whitehead, a s..lf-made millionaire, proposed tospend $20 million to build and equip the institute,provide $5 million a year in operating funds, andleave an endowment of $100 million when he dies.He characterized the proposed institute as "a purelyphilanthropic enterprise."
Faculty concern revolves around three issues: theadministrative structure, appointment of faculty, andselection of research projects.
Omenn, Gilbert S. "University/Industry Research Link-ages: Arrangements Between Faculty Members andTheir Universities." Paper presented at AAAS Sym-posium on Impacts of Commercial Genetic Engi-neering on Universities and Non-Profit Institutions,Washington, D.C., January 6, 1982.
Substantive review of cases of faculty who havesought opportunities to combine academic andcommercial roles. Materials are included on:
The history and functioning of the WisconsinAlumni Research Foundation (WARF);
Indiana University and Crest Toothpaste;
MIT's Industrial Liaison Program;
Two cases in econometric forecastingOttoEckstein's Data Resources Inc. and Laurence Klein'sWharton Econometric Forecasting AF-ociation;
Medical school clinical practice plans, includingincome sharing plans for basic science faculty.
Omenn prescribes a pluralistic approach but says,"We should encourage coherent institutional re-sponses and explicit, openly negotiated arrange-.ments with their most precious resourcetheirfacultyfor their mutual benefit and for the public,interest.
Pake, George E. "Some Industrial Perspectives on theUniversity-Industry Relationship," Council of GraduateSchools, Communicator, Vol. 12, April 1980, pp.1-2, 8 -10; Revised version published in PhysicsToday, January 1981, pp. 44-4-7.
The Vice President for Corporate Research of theXerox Corporation presents a typology of mech-anisms for university-industry interaction. Theyinclude:
Participation of business and industrial leadersin university governance: (1) Boards of Trustees,(2) Visiting Committees;
Direct support by industry of programs in uni-versities: (1) Direct funding of academic researchprograms, (2) Joint research ventures, (3) Companyfunded fellowships and scholarships, (4) Industrialphilanthropic grants;
University services provided to or for industry:(1) Continuing education programs, (2) Extensionservices, (3) Specially tailored short courses,(4) Industrial associate or affiliate programs.
Enhancement of personal development of indi-viduals: (1) Faculty sabbaticals in industry, (2) In-dustrial leaves to university faculties, (3) Facultyconsulting to industry, (4) Placement of graduatesin industry.
The role of Government is also discussed, especiallyin relation to tax arrangements for R&D investments.
Place, Geoffrey, "The Government Role in the Develop-ment and Commercialization of Technology" inNSF, Science and Technology: Annual Report tothe Congress, June 1980 Volume II of the ASTRCommissioned Papers Series.
A manager of Procter and Gamble Co. discussesthree factors upon which the effectiveness of theprocess of the development and commercializa-tion of new technology depends. The third factoris, "The effectiveness of coupling among the varioussectors of the national R&D resource." Cites severalauthorities to argue that the.current level ofuniversity-industry coupling is far below optimum.
Explores possible Federal roles in stimulating thesepartnerships: "jawboning", matching industrial grantsto universities with Federal awards, and tax incentivesfor industry support of university research.
Prager, D.J. and Omenn. ,) S. "Research, Innovation,and University-Industry Linkages," Science, Vol. 207,January 25, 1980, pp. 379-384.
At the time of writing, Prager and Omenn were withthe Office of the President's Science Adviser.
290 287
Carter Administration actions to enhance basicresearch and stimulate industrial innovation havefocused attention on the importance of formaluniversity-industry cooperative relationships inscience and engineering. This paper examines thestatus of, and potential for, university-industryresearch consortia and research partnerships andthe current and prospective roles of the federalgovernment in stimulating such relationships. Auseful typology of university-industry relationshipsis presented.
Kabkin, Y.M. and Lafitte-Houssat, J.-J. "Cooperative Re-search in the Petroleum Industry," Scientometrics,
1 (No. 4, 1979), pp. 327-338.
Paper describes an unusual historical case ofcooperation in petroleum research between industry,Government, and the universities.
"After years of debate, the American PetroleumInstitute (API), a trade association representingAmerica's oil companies, decided in 1926 to sponsornearly thirty research projects connected with variousaspects of the science of petroleum. One of theprojects, known as API Research Project 6, wasconducted at the National Bureau of Standards (NESS)in Washington and from 1950, till its termination adecade later, at the Carnegie Institute of Technologyin Pittsburgh. The project was remarkable in manyrespects. For one, while it was financially sponsoredby the API, i.e. by the entire petroleum industry, itsoperation took place outside industry, and its resultswere openly published."
"The project's organization was of a novel coop-erative nature. 1 he cooperation among the oilcompanies embodied by the API, and the coop-eration between the API, on the one hand, and theFederal Government and several universities, onthe other, affected the goals and the modes ofoperation of Project 6. Both kinds of cooperationinvolved contradictions. One basic contradictioncould be noticed in the initial formulation of theresearch program. It had to generate knowledgerelevant to the interests of the petroleum industry.At the same time that knowledge had to be funda-mental, i.e., not 'too relevant' because the practicalapplication and commercialization of the resultshad to be left to individual companies. The main-tenance of a balance between relevance and funda-mentality was a major concern for those involvedin the research planning at the API."
Rae, John. "The Application of Science to Industry," inAlexandra Oleson and John Voss (eds.), The Orga-nization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,1979. pp. 249-268.
288
The author, Professor emeritus of the History ofTechnology at Harvey Mudd College, provides acompact summary and interpretation of the usesof science by industry in the period covered.
"Since America was a new country...there was nor-mally more work to be done than there were handsavailable to do it. There was therefore a premiumon devising techniques and gadgets that supple-mented labor. It was important to be able to makedevices that worked, but it was not important toknow why they worked."
The absence in America of well established uni-versities or any considerable body of "gentlemanscientists" led to an American tradition that, 'min-imized the pursuit of science for its own sake andmagnified...the untutored but ingenious gadgeteer."Further, the absence of sufficient trained craftsmen inAmerica strengthened the role of the "cut-and-try"tinkerer. "The ingenious tinker enjoyed an astonish-ing longevity as an American folk-hero, reaching anapex in fact in the 20th century with Thomas A.Edison and Henry Ford." The creation of institutionalstructures for the application of science to industrytook the form of development of professionalsocieties during the late 19th and early 20th cen-turies, and the growth after the turn of the centuryof in-house industrial research laboratories. Manyof these were initially geared towards analysis andtesting.
The First World War created a situation where, "forthe first time in American experience, scientistsand engineers from industry, government, and theacademic world came together to work cooperativelyin group research.... There was a lesson to be learned,and it was." When the country returned to peacetimeactivity it was ready for a new stage in the utilization ofscience by industrythe substitution for "cut-nnd-try'methods of the application of science throughorganized and systematic research.
Research Corporation. Science, Invention and Society:,'The Story of a' Unique American Institution. NewYork: Research Corporation, 1972. 40 pp.
Describes the formulation (in 1912), growth andfunctioning of the Research Corporation.-In 1979competitive peer-reviewed awards for basic researchtotaled $2.3M. An additional $0.5 million was pledgedin 1979 by a variety of corporations and foundationsto support basic research through ResearchCorporation programs.
29.E
The Research Invention Administratio^,provides institutional visiting and erchiding legal) services to identify inupotential for technology development,in the patenting process. The amountwas expended in 1979 in support ofevaluate nearly 400 inventions from 114 insRoyalties and license fees from successful piin this program are shared by RC, the inveh,and their institutions. In 1979 a gross income or$41`1 from these activities was allocated as foilows:$1.8M to institutions; $0.8M to inventors; cnd$1.4M for support to RC programs.
Ridgeway, James. The Closed Corporation. (NewRandom House, 1968) 273 pp.
A best selling Vietnam era radical critique of the"m i I itary-industrial-academic complex."
Numerous cases are presented of close relationshipsbetween professors and presidents and corporateenterprise. These are taken as evidence for the"corruption" of academia. Many of these same casestoday are seen as the harbingers of new roles foracademia in societyincreasing technology transferto raise industrial productivity. A case in point isthe WARFWisconsin Alumni Research Fundwhichwas castigated by Ridgeway for engaging in pricefixing, but which today is hailed as model forobtaining university benefits from university research.
The book contains many briefly discussed casesof professor- entrepreneurs running businesses whileretaining their university positions, corporate boardactivities of academic administrators (including alengthy list of names), university owned businessdeals, the varieties of consulting and the relatedconflicts of interest, and the strategies for investmentof academic endowment funds. Several accountsare made of the role of professors with consultingor research relationships with industry or tradeassociations giving Congressional testimony for oragainst bills in the: interest of their patronscasesin the pharmaceutical, automobile, and tobaccoindustries are treated in detail.
A whole chapter is devoted to several University ofCalifornia enterprises ("Multiversity Inc."). Examinedare U.C.'s relationships with the AEC, the PacificGas and Electric Company, agribusiness on thebraceros issue and the Irvine Company. The privateinduStry connections of the university administratorsare catalogued in detail.
Roberts, Edward B. and Peters, Donald It "CommercialInnovations from University Faculty." Research Policy,10 (1981), pp. 108-126.
Study of a sample of faculty of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) has determined thatMany academic scientists and engineers havecommercially-oriented ideas, but that few take strongsteps to exploit their ideas. "Idea-havers" scoredhigh on creativity measurement instruments andparticipated in more diverse work environments.Academic "idea-exploiters" are marked by personalbackground characteristics of family, religion, andparental occupation that have been identified inearlier research as characteristics of new technicalcompany entrepreneurs. Other indicators reflectinghigh need for achievement were also observed inthe idea-exploiting group. Finally, professors re-porting commercial ideas were much more likelyto be involved in consulting with business or gov-ernment than were those who did not report ideas.Policy implications for universities and countriesinterested in technology-oriented developmentare discussed.
Robinson, Arthur L. "National Synchrotron Light SourceReadied," Science 214, October 16, 1981.
Reviews the evolution of policies for expansion,equipping and industrial utilization of nationalfacilities for synchrotron radiation sources.
The innovative 'concept of "participating researchteams" (PRTs) was developed at the new BrookhavenNational Laboratory National Synchrotron Lightsource.
"A group (industrial, university, or governmentlaboratory) accepted as a PRT would build andfinance one or more experimental stations inexchange for unrestricted use of the facilities for75 percent of the running time. The PRT wouldalso have to give outside users access to its instru-mentation for the remaining 25 percent of the time.Included in PRT's selected so far are IBM, BellLaboratories, Exxon, and Xerox, who together ac-count for about 40 percent of the PRT-suppliedexperimental stations."
The financial contributions of the industrial membersof the PRT's provide a way to get the light sourceinstrumented at a much faster pace than wouldotherwise be possible given the available governmentfunding.
Rogers, Everett M.-, Eveland, J. D., and Bean, Alden S."Extending the Agricultural Extension Model." Stan-ford University Institute for Communication Research,September 1976. (U.S. Department of Commerce,NTIS # PB-285119) 172 pp.
292 289
This report is respo1nsive to concerns among gov-ernment and industrial officials that the. U.S. lacks
.1adequate mechanisms for linking the performerand users of research together for purposes ofenhancing techn?logical innovation. It is oftenasserted that "the agricultural extension model"should be the bisis for improving upon existingtechnology transfer and research utilization mech-anisms. This repiOrt describes the historical devel-opment and current operating structure of theCooperative Extension Service (CES) of the U.S.Department of Agriculture, in order to accuratelyportray the major features of what is commonlycalled the "Agricultural Extension System." Com-parisions are ,made between the CES and sevenother GovernMent programs designed to enhanceinnovation and ostensibly modeled after the CES.Conclusions are drawn about the degree of cor-respondence/ between the CES and its imitatorsand their relOve effectiveness. Recommendationsfor future research are noted.
Science Council of Canada, Annual Review 1981. "Uni-versity-IndUstry Interaction" Statement of theChairman/ Dr. Claude Fortier, 1981. Minister ofSupply and Services, 1981. Cat. No. SS1-2/1981.pp. 21-441
/
Explores/at length the issues of the governmentrole in the provision of university trained scienceand engineering "operational manpower" and"research- trained manpower."
Sectionlon university-industry cooperation discussesthree Model relationships: the Pulp and PaperResearich Institute of Canada and McGill University,the Criter for Cold Ocean Resources Engineeringand Memorial University in St. John's, and the
/research brokering functions of the IndustrialReseiarch institutes, and the Centres for AdvancedTechnology both created by the Federal Depart-ment of Industry, Trade, and Commerce. Additionalpro/grams discussed:
/L'Instftut National de la Recherche Scientffique,a constituent branch of the University of Quebec).INRS-Telecommunicationsa center for graduatestudies and research situated within the laboratoriesof an industrial organization (Bell Northern Re-
,
search);
PRAI grantsProject Research Applicable inIndustry;
the "Relevant Research" Approach;
Industrial Innovation Centers in Quebec andOntario;
Initiatives by industry;
290
Servos, John W. "The Industrial Relations of Science:Chemical Engineering at M.I.T., 1900-1939," Isis1980, 71, pp. 531-549.
This study examines the questions: "How did in-dustrial patronage (for scientific research and trainingat universities) affect the evolution of academicscience, basic and applied, and how did it influencethe goals and values of scientists themselves?"
Using primary materials from MIT archives the studydocuments two major transformation of the insti-tution. The first, around the turn of the century, sawthe shift from a local, vocational/technical schoolto a nationally recognized institution with both basic(A. Noyes) and applied (William I1. Walker and A.D.Little) research and training capabilities.
During the decades of the 1910's and 1920's, theapplied research orientation came to dominate MIT,with strong ties to and support from industrialorganizations.
The second tranformation, during the 1930's, sawa realignment of the balance between basic researchand basic science training, applied research andtraining in current industrial technique. The studyis an instructive case on the limits of industrialsupport of an academic institution. During the 1910'sand 1920's "(W) Walker and (A.D.) Little has beenwilling to allow industry to determine the prioritiesof the Research laboratory for'Applied Chemistryand indeed to subordinate the program in chemicalengineering to the immediate interests of business.They were willing to do so because they perceivedan identity of interests between businessmen andapplied scientists. Their successors were, to a muchgreater degree, sensitive to the need for disciplinaryindependence and eager to follow their own judge-ments regarding the best opportunities for research.In 'part this attitude arose from their experiencewith the restrictions imposed by sponsors; in partit resulted from the increasingly abstract characterof chemical engineering itself.
Shapero, Albert. University-Industry Interactions: Re-curring Expectations, Unwarranted Assumptions andFeasible Policies. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio StateUniversity, July 31, 1979. 47 pp. (Prepared forNSF/STIA/PRA under PO-SP-79-0991.)
Explores implications of several aspects of universitysocial and organizational structure for possibleexpansion of university-industry relationships. Five"exemplar options" are recommended. Bibliography.
293
Sinnott, Maurice. "University-Industry Programs: AnAnalysis of a Series of Joint University-InduStryResearch Programs Sponsored by the DefenceAdvanced Research Projects Agency." Paper pre-sented at a Conference ,on University ResearchManagement, June 6-7, 1977. 7 pp.
Written by an associate dean of engineering at theUniversity of Michigan, these remarks track andinterpret DARPA's experiments in "coupling" com-panies and universities in R&D during the 1960's.
The author believes that the principal lesson learnedfrom these experiments was the development of abetter appreciation by both industry and the uni-versities of each other's strengths and limitationsin R&D.
Small, Henry and Greenlee, Edwin. A Citation and Pub-lication Analysis of U.S. Industrial Organizations(Final Report for NSF Contract PRM 77-10048.)Institute for Scientific Information, 325 ChestnutStreet, Philadelphia, PA 19106. January 1980. 95pp.
This is an exploratory.study using Science CitationIndex data for 1973 and 1976 to see how thesedata and techniques can be used to examineindustrial research.
The study determines the extent to which industrialorganizations cited research performed in theuniversity, Government and other sectors, and theextent to which industrial organizations were citedby the various sectors. Several kinds of evidencewere noted, of a gradual decline in publicationwoductivity of industrial organizations from 1973-1976 especially in basic research.
Interesting citation measures of association between /Specific industrial firms are presented to map the,relationships between these organizations. A struc-ture, which reflected research field and productorientation was formed.
Smith, Lee. "The Unsentimental Corporate Giver," For-tune, September 21, 1981, pp. 121-124, 129, 132,137, 140.
Useful examination of the patterns and motivationsof corporate philanthropy. Contrasts two philoso-phies of corpoate philanthropy: That espoused byMilton Friedman, "r,upposedly the headmaster ofthe give-nothing school"; and the view that,/ "thepurpose of business is to serve society," sponsoredby Lawrence A. Wien and Kenneth N. Dayton.
I I
Some relevant facts cited are:I !
In the late 1970's corporations (and corporatesponsored- foundations surpassed the independentfoundations in total gifts for the first time since themid-1950's.
1
Average gifts have oscillated around 1% of pre-tax earnings since the 1950's,,
Five of the ten top recipients of corporate largessewere universities.
The proportion of total corporate gifts going toeducation (about 40%) declined slightly between1965 and 1979.
Swalin, R.A. "Improving Interaction between the Uni-versity and the Technical Community." Special"Industry/University R&D" issue of Research Man-agement, 19, May 1976.
A number of steps taken at the University of Min-nesota have substantially increased cooperativeefforts between the University and the surroundingtechnical community.
Sweden. Utbildnings Departementet. Adjung rade Pro-fesscirer: Utvardering av forsoksverlcsam eten aren1973-1979. Stockholm: LiberForlag, 1979. (Ds U1979:13) (In Swedish).
An evaluative study, based on intervie , of sevenyears of experience with an "adjunct. (Professor"program between industries and universities inSweden. Descriptive information is piesented onthe 60 participantstheir education,' mployrnenLwork activities and field of compete ce. Descrip-tion of the administrative arrangeme is -- includingpercent of time/and salary adjustme t. Re:ruitmentto the program and motivations ar ex 31ored, asare effects upon the incumbents.
Thomas, Lewis "Business and Basic Sc ence." Bulletinof the New York Academy of Medi ine, 57(6):493-502, Jul-Aug. 81.
"The recent examples of marketahybridornal antibodies and regenomes ought to be raising neporations) 'are or should be unout of pure self interest, for whin, say, the year 1995 or 2009,
e products fromombinant DNAanxieties.... (cor-
quely concerned,t will be availablewaiting then for
application to new products. If lo g-term investmentsin basic science are not continued, they will findthemselves out of business (3r at least out ofcompetition with their counte parts."
Tokyo Ch .tuber of Commerce and Industry, The Cur-rent Condition and Future Prospects of Industry-University Cooperation in Research and develop-ment and in Manpower Development May 1973
Report is in Japanese, but a 10 page Englishsummary was prepared for NSF.
294291
tri 1972/73 about 700 Japanese companies re-turned questionnaires dealing with their modes andlevels of interaction with universities. Past, current,and desired future cooperation were described. Thestudy analyzes present and expected future in-volvement in 13 types of interaction, including "jointresearch," "offering scholarships," "sending em-ployees as lecturers to/ universities," and "utilizingfacilities of universities," by size of company andtype of industry. Thus; for example, 29% (52c/o) ofall the manufacturingcompanies reported currentinvolvement in "doing joint research and com-missioned research"32% (58%) for the "machineand tool" industry, 48% r(60%) for concerns in the"chemical, rubber, ceramics, and earth and rocks"industry. and 2 1 To (46%) of the companies in "steel,metal, and non-ferrousrmetal." The percentages inparentheses are the companies expectations forfuture cooperation thus, in 1973 Japanese com-panies held Optimistie expectations of expansionof their research connections with universities.
United Nations Association of the USA. Economic PolicyCouncil, Technology. Transfer Panel, The Growth ofthe U.S. and World Economies through Techno-logical Innovation and Transfer. New. York: UNA-USA,Inc., 1980. 76 pp.
This report examines the development of industrialtechnology and its,' international transfer. It claimsthat it, "is in the main a consensus view among thebusiness, labor,iand academic groups representedon the Panel."
Amongst the recommendations aimed at the gen-eration of new technologies in the U.S. were:
"Business, labor, universities, and financial insti-tutions shoulti work together more closely at alllevelsplant, community, industry, trade association,and national/ organization7-to develop new tech-nologies at home and to acquire new technologiesfrom abroad, -.
"The U.S. 'Government should play an importantbut largely /indirect role. It should ,support tech-nologies with industry-/Wide or inter-industry ap-plications...."
BusinesS is encouraged "to invest greater re-sources in joint industry-university research...."
I
United State . Department of Commerce, Office of Pro-ductivity Technology and Innovation, Office ofCooperative Generic Technology. Cooperative R&DPrograms to Stimulate Industrial Innovation inSelected Countries. Washington, D.C.: various datesin 1979 and 1980.
Appendix 17A Summary, by Elaine Bunten-Mines,Julie Menke, and Carl W. Shepherd, June 1980.75 ppz
292
Appendix 16Sweden, by Carl W. Shepherd, June1980. 55 pp.
1
Appendix 14Japan, no author listed, November1979. 73 pp.
Appendix 11Federal Republic of Germany, byCarl W. Shepherd, May 1980. 124 pp.
These studies were carried out in response to anOMB directive to "review past Federal and Statecooperative technology programs... and those ofother countries" in order to determine the viabilityof the Department of Commerce's propOsed Coop=erative Generic Technology Program, All of thereports are considered working papers foOiscussiononly, and do not represent official policy or con-clusions of the Department of Commerce.
!United States. Department of Energy/Industrial Re-search Institute. "Mechanisms of University- Industryinteraction." IRI/DOE Conference, December 7-8, I
1978, Reston, VA. 117 pp. 1 I
\Packet of materials for attendees containing: fourshort statements of problems and issu by par-ticipants; short descriptions of nine actual orkshopfellowship, intern, equipment and liaison programs;short descriptions of seven joint research rogram
United States. Department of Justice. Antitrust GuiConcerning Research Joint Ventures, Novem1980. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1980. 13 pp
An outgrowth of the Carter administration Dome ticPolicy Review of Industrial Innovation, this ocu, entseeks to_ clarify Department of Justice/ poll oncollaboration among firms in research to akecertain that the antitrust laws are not "mista enlyunderstood to prevent cooperative activity....
The Guide includes a general introduction expl iningthe Antitrust Division's analytical approach to re-search joint ventures, followed by a num er ofhypothetical cases designed to exemplify th mostimportant or difficult situations, and the. Di 'sion'sapproach to them. In additionythe Guide ntainssummaries of previous business review cl rancesand advisory letters of the Antitrust Divisio relatingto joint research.
eer
United States. House of Representatives, C rnmitteeon Science and TeChnology, Subcom ittee onScience, Research nd Technology. H arings onGovernment and II novation: Universi y-IndustryRelations. July 31; ugust 1-2/1979. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Govemme rt Printin Office, 1 79. 522 pp.
Contains testimon , letters and article by a varietyof persons promin nt in R&D relating to proposedlegislation entitle , "National Science and Tech-nology Innovatiori Act of 1979."
295
United States. National Science Foundation, 1980 'In-dustrial Program Grantee Conference Proceedings,edited by David D. Douglas, Industrial Research andExtension Center, University of Arkansas, Little Rock,Arkansas 72203. 172 pp.
These Proceedings document the substance of aconference held hot Springs, Arkansas, May 12-14,1980, on the theme of innovation and productivityin America. Seven sections containing 4-6 paperseach were on the following topics:
1. Thematic presentations on innovation and pro-ductivity.
2. Current programs: university/industry coupling.
3. Current programs: innovation center/technologyinnovation projects.
4. Current programs: small business innovationresearch.
5. Current programs: planning experiments.
6. Government viewsuniversity/industry coop-erative research.
7 Lessons learned/new opportunities.
United States. National Science Foundation. Proceed-ings of a Conference on Academic & Industrial BasicResearch, Princeton University, November 1960. NSF61-39.
Participants from 43 major R&D companies, uni-versities and Government examine the conditionsfor advance in basioscience_Thezoles-of-the-severalsectors in basic research were discussed, and fourpapers examined the industrial experience in basicresearch (G.E., Bell Telephone, Merck, Celanese).The interdependence of academic and industrialbasic research was discussed in three papers on:polymers, semi-conductors, and aerodynamics.
United States. National Science Foundation. Researchin Industry: Roles of the Government and theNational Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: NSFDecember 1976. 21pp., plus 160 pprattachments.
Reviews role of scientific research in non-academicinstitutions with special attention to NSF programsand policies relating to private industry. Containsmuch data and bibliography.
Useem, Elizabeth. ducation and high Technology In-dustry: The Ca e of Silicon Valley. Summary ofresearch findings\" Boston, MA. August 1981, mimeo.32 pp.
Dr. Useem, sociology professor at the University ofMassachusetts, Boston, has documented the varie-ties of relationships between the over 500 high-technology firms in the Santa Clara valley (SiliconValley) and all levels of the educational systemsecondary schools, two-year community colleges,and four-year colleges and universities. The siudyexplores the degree and manner in which educa-tional institutions are changing to meet the demandsof a rapidly transforming technology.
The general conclusion is that the relationshipsare positive, strong, and evolving in appropriatedirections at the unive;sity level. At the communitycollege level relationships are bedeviled with mis-understandings, mistrust, and discontinuities, withnoreaTifirprovements perceived. At the secondarylevel, science and technical education is in completedisarray, still sinking fast, and with few exceptionsthe high-technology business community is payinglittle attention. During 1981/82 Dr. Useem will carryout a comparative study of education-industryrelationships in the Boston/Route 128 area.
Useem, Michael. "Business Segments and CorporateRelations with U.S. Universities," Social Problems,29 (December 1981), pp. 129-141.
It is generally assumed that business derives im-portant benefits from higher education and providesfinancial support in return. This presumes thatbusiness is relatively undifferentiated, and thatcorporate relations with universities are largelyuniform. Using data on the goveming_boards_and-characteristics of 341 colleges and universitiesselected through a national sample, this paper showsthat what is called the. "dominant stratum" ofbusiness, rather than business as a whole, hasformed an enduring relationship with universitiesthat are oriented toward education of the elite: thegoverning boards of these universities are dispro-portionately composed of members of the dominantstratum; universities with high proportions ofdominant stratum trustees are more successful thanothers in raising financial support from corporations;and members of the dominant stratum take a directrole in obtaining corporate contributions. Thefindings imply that relations between business andhigher education are structured less around busi-ness as a whole and more around a distinct segmentof business. Bibliography on corporate and universityownership and control.
Watson, Kenneth M. "Technologists in Top Management,Part One: The Business SUCCESS Factor," and "PartTwo: Management, Technologists, Coordination, andCommunication," Chemical Engineering Progress,Vol. 55 (February and May 1959), pp. 37-44, 37-41.
296293
- The papers examine the factors determining busi-ness success and the role of technology amongthem. "In the study reported herein, a businesssuccess factor was developed by evaluating andcombining annual profit on invested capital withrates of income growth and capital expansion. Atechnology factor was then developed by combin-ing level of research and development activity withpercentage participation of technologists inmanagement.
"The business and technological performancesduring the ten years 1948-58 are compared for 20large oil companies and 20 large chemical ct-ripanies on the basis of readily available publisheddata. Companies having higher technological factorsare found to show significantly greater successindexes. No significant relationship is found betweenbusiness success index and either research level,or technological participation in management alone.There are indications, however, that a high level ofresearch activity may be a liability unless combinedwith a technologically perceptive management.
"Such results are believed to provide standards ofcomparison which will be generally useful to man-agement, technologists, and investors."
Weber, David. "A new Industry Springs to Life," Venture,May 1981, pp. 88-93.
This article catalogues the mushrooming of entre-preneurial biotechnology companiesat least 40since 1978. The new companies include thoseaiming to produce products in fields ranging frommedicine to plant and animal breeding, and fromenergy production to industrial chemistry. Othercompanies focus on support activities, makingbiological materials, such as already modified DNA,machinery with which to conduct research, and evena new crop of newsletters and journals.
A significant proportion of these companies havedirect academic connections.
Weiner, Char leg. "Relations of Science, Government,and Industry: The Case of Recombinant DNA" inAAAS, Policy Outlook: Science, Technology, andthe Issues of the Eighties, A draft report to the NSF,Washington, D.C.: American Association for theAdvancement of Science, 1981. pp. 109-156. Forth-coming, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, Spring 1982.
294
Comprehensive short history of the problemsposed by the rapid development of recombinantDIVA techniques. Topics treated include the con-cerns about risks in the 1970's, the current statusof DNA technology and its regulation, and policyproblems and prospects for applied moleculargenetics in the 1980's. The perceived damage tothe health of basic scientific research posed by itsclose association with highly profitable commercialventures is discussed in detail. Bibliography.
Weiss, Malcolm A. and White, David C. "The MIT EnergyLaboratory and the Role of Industry/UniversityInteraction." Paper presented at the 1980 ASMMaterials and Processes Show and Congress, Cleve-land, Ohio, October 30, 1980. 12 pp.
The Director of the MIT Energy Laboratory describesfour methods by which industry sponsors researchat his laboratory. The lab has a $12 million budget,roughly two thirds from government and one thirdfrom industry. tie states, "although it doesn't comeeasy...Government money comes easier...industrysponsored research is worth going after." Thebenefits for MIT and for the sponsoring companiesare listed and four models of supportin additionto the traditional one-shot support of a single facultymember's researchare listed:
Center for Energy Policy Researchbasically an"associates" program with 3 year rolling commit-ments according to no fixed formula (24 companies,9 other organizations). No restrictions on MIT'schoice of topics. Many associates have their seniorstaff participate in projects. 1980 budget -about$500,000.
Electric Utility Workshopseminar-workshopprogram in which electric utility companies identifyproblems and then sponsor research projects.Sppnsors hav?. prepublication review rights, andnon- exclusive royalty free patent rights. Up to 15sponsors spend about $500-700,000 annually.
Exxon Research and Engineering CombustionResearcha ten year bilateral agreement for annualproject support of about $600,000 predominantlyfor specific basic research projects mutually agree-able to Exxon and MIT in the combustion of fuelscontaining carbon. Some portion of the supportwill be spent at the sole discretion of MIT researchers.Exxon has the right to review proposed publicationsfor patent applications and to ensure that noproprietary information disclosed by Exxon to MITis included. MIT owns the patents and Exxon has anonexclusive royalty free right to use the patents.Termination of the agreement requires two year'snotice. The MIT researchers agree to make at leasthalf their research time available to the program.
297
ASPEN Projecta large computer program de-veloped with DOE support as a tool to simulateproposed or existing industrial processes. Firms(48 so far) coinmit $15-25,000 at MIT over two years,for which MIT trains their personnel in the use ofASPEN andwork realinstalling A
make available the MIT computer toroblems of the firm, and to assist inPEN on an in-house computer if desired.
Concluding, bon .mot: "How does a university ne-gotiate wit 11 a firm t6 a mutually satisfactory agree-ment? The same way any negotiation is carriedoutby kncwing the location of both pressure pointsand erogenous zones and when to touch which."
Wolff, Michael. The President's Initiatives for IndustrialInnovation," Research Management, January 1980,pp. 7-12.
Useful report on the substance and political back-ground of President's Carter's initiatives relating tohis Domestic Policy review of Industrial Innovation.While some of the measures received fairly universalapproval, e.g., in the patent area, considerabledisappointment was expressed in industrial circlesthat no tax measures were proposed to "addressthe disincentives to capital formation."
S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1983 /. 1 I - / I 1 3
Wolff, Michael. "The Why, When, and. 1-low of DirectedBasic Research," Research Management, May 1981,pp. 29-31.
"The enthusiastic growth in basic research thatoccurred in industry during the booming 1950'sand 1960's was throttled by the financial turbulenceof the 1970's. For the decade of the 1980's, however,concern with U.S. productivity and technologicalcompetitiveness spells a potential resurgence inindustrial basic researchbut wfth one difference:this time it will be directed research.
,"At a recent IRI Special Interest Session a group ofresearch managers addressed four key questionsrelated to directed basic research (DBR). The answersprovide useful guidelines for the successful conductof this often misunderstood type of research."
One manager included the following criterion fordeciding what DBR to undertake: "Leverage yourresearch dollar whenever possible with workinguniversity relationships and competitively wonFederal study contracts in areas of basic researchrelevant to your company's technologies."
298 295
