DC Hearing on the Role of Research Universities
The House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing on Wednesday June 27, 2012 on The Role of Research Universities in Securing America’s Future Prosperity: Challenges and Expectations. Witnesses included: Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chair, Committee on Research Universities, National Academies; Dr. John M. Mason, Jr., Associate Provost and Vice President for Research, Auburn University; Dr. Jeffrey R. Seemann, Vice President for Research, Texas A&M University and Chief Research Officer, The Texas A&M University System; Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Senior Vice President for Research, The University of Arizona; and, Dr. James N. Siedow, Vice Provost for Research, Duke University.
Subcommittee Chair Mo Brooks (AL) opened the hearing saying it would focus on the “challenges faced by the Nation’s research universities as well as the findings and recommendations from the June 14 report issued by the National Academies, Research Universities and the Future of America.” Mr. Holliday testified about the report, officially titled Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security. He outlined the “especially important” challenges identified in the report:
-Federal funding for university research has been unstable and, in real terms, declining at a time when other countries have increased funding for research and development (R&D).
-State funding for higher education, already eroding in real terms for more than two decades, has been cut further during the recent recession.
-Business and industry have largely dismantled the large corporate research laboratories that drove American industrial leadership in the 20th century (for example, Bell Labs), but have not yet fully partnered with research universities to fill the gap.
-Research universities must improve management, productivity, and cost efficiency in both administration and academics.
-Young faculty have insufficient opportunities to launch academic careers and research programs.
-There has been an underinvestment in campus infrastructure, particularly in cyberinfrastructure, that could lead to long-term increases in productivity, cost effectiveness, and innovation in research, education, and administration.
-Research sponsors often do not pay the full cost of research they procure, which means that universities have to cross-subsidize sponsored research from other sources, such as tuition or clinical revenues.
-A burdensome accumulation of federal and state regulatory and reporting requirements increases costs and sometimes challenges academic freedom and integrity.
-Doctoral and postdoctoral preparation could be enhanced by shortening time-to-degree, raising completion rates, and enhancing programs’ effectiveness in providing training for highly productive careers.
-Demographic change in the U.S. population necessitates strategies for increasing the educational success of female and underrepresented minority students.
-Institutions abroad are increasingly competing for international students, researchers, and scholars, as other nations increase their investment in their own institutions.
Mr. Holliday further outlined the report’s ten recommendations for improvement, which would address three main goals: (I) strengthen the partnership among universities, federal and state governments, philanthropy, and business in order to revitalize university research and speed its translation into innovative products and services; (ii) improve the productivity of administrative operations, research, and education within universities; and (iii) ensure that America’s pipeline of future talent in science, engineering, and other research areas remains creative and vital, leveraging the abilities of all of its citizens and attracting the best students and scholars from around the world.
Dr. Mason testified about the connection between research and quality education, saying, “when research is reduced, instruction and learning at all levels are diminished, especially in those disciplines where much of our innovation originates – those in science, technology, mathematics and engineering.” Further “as research declines, bright kids do not select these tougher academic disciplines” resulting in the “U.S. industry and government” having “fewer skilled employees for the advanced positions that move our economy.” Dr. Mason also offered comments on the report’s recommendations, including cautionary testimony that research and academic programs, when cut, are rarely reinstated.
Dr. Siedow offered his critique of the recommendations of the report after expressing his organization’s strong support for the three overarching goals of those recommendations. One involved the recommendation regarding setting and implementing a nationwide commitment to government-funded research and development at 3 percent of gross domestic product. Dr. Siedow said the call for immediate implementation was “unrealistic” in the short term, but commended “the principle of achieving an agreed upon level of national support for R&D.”
Drs. Tolbert and Seemann also offered unique perspectives on the report through the lenses of their respective institutions as well as critiques of the report’s recommendations.
For more information, see: http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-research-and-science-education-hearing-role-research-universities-securing.
The message can be summarized:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MeE8Ik4Y&w=320&h=195]