*The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by this editorial do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of all the members of the NanoExpress editorial team or its affiliates.
The Travesty of Universities as Job Creators
Commentary by Walt Trybula, Ph.D.
The recent opinion/editorial by “NanoExpress Editors” titled “The Travesty of Universities as Job Creators” is an interesting commentary on a problem, but I am not sure what problem is being addressed. It appears to be condemnation of the existing system, at least since the Bayh-Dole Act, which reduced funding support for educational institutions. They do point out that what the critics of the Act had as concerns are actually coming to pass.
One issue seems to be that the universities are addressing a revenue shortfall by attempting to recover research investment through licensing of technology and providing opportunities for external funding to focus research areas. Another issue is that companies that provide funding for specific areas of research want to direct the focus of the research and expect to be able to license any worthwhile results. A third issue is that the professors are involved in developing commercialization efforts, which must necessarily, according to the op-ed, take away from their primary focus of educating students and have the potential for various types of conflicts. There are a number of other items, but this commentary will only consider the three listed above.
Revenue
First, it must be understood that universities do not have an unlimited source of funds. For public institutions, funding is obtained through state provisions, student tuitions, research funding, and alumni contributions. With the increasing pressures on state budgets, the amount of funding is not going to increase significantly, if at all. Increases in student tuition are not popular. The recent decision in California to raise tuition significantly lead to student protests. These objections did not change the fact that funds are required to run the universities.
The previously sited editorial states: “universities are exposing themselves to liabilities and putting tax dollars and tuitions as (sic) risk”. Funding is not sufficient to meet the needs of the institutions, so what is their choice? Reduce the number of students? Obviously, that is not the correct answer if the objective is to provide an educated workforce.
There have been efforts to reduce the various elements of the Administrative side of the universities and this provides challenges of trying to do more with fewer resources. More importantly, the needed revenue can not be continuously obtained through this method of reducing personnel. Everyone is trying to increase contributions from alumni, but that produces one time successes and what is needed is continuing sources of funding. That leaves research as a source of finding funding. One option would be to reduce research because sophisticated equipment is expensive to acquire and maintain. However, that would result in less innovation, less technology advances, and fewer opportunities for students to learn about the latest advances in science and technology.
Since research develops novel ideas and has the potential for commercialization, this remains a path for possible revenue generation. In the early paragraphs of the referenced editorial, the commentary is that the universities have deviated from their original purpose to focus on “selling” their inventions. In reality, the universities are working at solutions that will keep their focus, the education of students, at the most affordable level permitted by their sources of funding.
Funded Research
One source of revenue is funded research. The revenue generated through funded research is two-fold. The first is that all funded research has an overhead charge, which is similar to a company’s General and Administrative (G&A) charges. This provides additional revenue for the university. When student workers are “hired” to do the experimentation, they are both learning how to conduct the research experiments and earning funds for their time and effort. In a number of cases, the experimental work helps a student determine his/her future educational goals.
The referenced editorial makes a number of claims that there are a number of things that limit academic freedom including:
- “ Allowing company representatives on governing boards;
- “Giving the sponsors first right to IP;
- “Allowing sponsors a role to decide which research products are funded;
- “Permitting industry review before the research is published;
- “Allowing companies to delay publication of research results.”
There are suggestions given on how to “correct” this. It is important to consider what is not correct with the above items. The objective of the university is to provide an education that the graduating student can use to become a productive member of society. Having company representatives participating provides for the opportunity to convey the latest needs of industry. This will provide a benefit to the students. Removing the members of the organizations which hire the students provides a challenge in determining what focus will best benefit the students as they enter the workforce.
The response to the next four items requires a little background on the funding of the research. First, companies do not generally give grants to researchers and say “do whatever you want to do with it, take all the time you want, and when you are done, let us know what you did.” Having been successful in funding industry-sponsored university research for over 25 years, the author thinks he understands a little about the process. The term “successful” is used to describe research that addressed issues that were key to industry, of interest to the researchers, and educated a double digit number of doctoral students.
The ownership of IP is a very ticklish situation. Some companies think that if they fund some development, they should have rights to all pre-existing IP. Obviously that is not reasonable. Having stated that fact, if a company funds research that results in a significant breakthrough, they should have some rights to benefit from the discoveries. And, yes, the sponsoring organization should have the initial opportunity to develop the concepts. This does not address the issues of exclusivity and non-exclusivity.
A large percentage of funding for research starts through a request for Proposal (RFP). The researcher responds with a proposal that includes research objectives, timelines, costing, etc. The proposals are evaluated and research foci chosen. At this point, the sponsor has chosen the research area. The statement above “c” implies that the researcher should now be allowed to do what s/he wants. That is not part of the work agreements. There is normally a signed contract that details the obligations of all parties, which includes the funding responsibilities, the focus of the research, and any limitations on publications and presentations. The researcher or the institution does not have to accept them. No one is forcing them to take the funding.
From the corporate side, the review of material and possible delay of publication may be critical. A researcher may not be cognizant of the implications of his/her ideas. In the majority of the world, the ability to file for IP protection ends when the information is disclosed publically. A presentation at an open conference is sufficient to void any international IP rights. The author has been involved in having a patent disclosure filed over a weekend to allow a prominent professor to make a major presentation without jeopardizing the IP rights. Based on the value of innovations, the company needs to have these review processes in place.
Researcher Commitment
There seemed to be an indication that having researchers (professors) involved in commercialization efforts are liable to have various types of potential conflicts. Being involved in external corporations are potential situations which can take away from the focus on campus activities. The influence of companies may not be aligned with the university’s research agenda and enterprises.
It is pointed out that job creation comes from small companies. Developing educated graduates who are capable of moving into this arena and contributing will provide a source of jobs as the students graduate. Teaching students to become business knowledgeable is a worthwhile goal since it helps them become employed. Without this small business focus, the professors’ understanding and behavior is not realistic due to not having to worry about rent, utilities, or similar items However, the commentary being discussed seems to indicate that the professors should not be involved in businesses, which would help them communicate the issues and problems to the students. In other words, don’t provide the students with the best educational experience.
An interesting phrase has commercialization and greed as a pair. While greed has become a common term in the financial markets, wanting to create a concept and develop a company to market/produce it is not greed. Bettering oneself and creating new jobs and wealth in the course of doing that has been a part of the culture of this country. Stating that educators should not be able to earn additional money though side activities is not a means of keeping the good researchers/educators. We want our students to have the best education, which requires the best educators. If we force innovative people out of the educational arena, we will have problems. Currently, Israel, a very creative country, has a concern about not having enough educators to develop the workforce that will be needed. We need to keep researchers on the job in their research role and in their educational role.
Summary
Universities are addressing a revenue shortfall by attempting to recover research investment. Companies provide funding for specific areas of research and the universities and researchers agree to those goals when they accept funding. Other companies have the same opportunities to provide directed funding if they so desire. There is no restriction on which companies are permitted to provide funding. Professors are involved in developing research into practical applications. This requires their developing an understanding of commercialization activities, which can be passed on to his/her students. There are many challenges in developing concepts and commercializing them. The existing system may not be perfect, but it is not something that should be discarded. Granted, that it does not create an immediate large number of jobs, but that comes over time. It takes time for a company to grow.
It appears that the unintended consequences of the Bayh-Dole Act has been a series of events that have forced universities to become more creative in acquiring the funding needed to serve the students. Is this the real issue and the one that needs to be corrected?
###
Commentary by Walt Trybula, Ph.D., Director of the Trybula Foundation, Inc. Dr. Trybula is both an IEEE Fellow and an SPIE Fellow, and works with emerging technology companies to bring their technology innovations to commercialization. He has been actively promoting safety issues regarding to nanotechnology development. Dr. Trybula is also the Director of the Nanomaterials Application Center at Texas State University. His experience includes 13 years at SEMATECH, the semiconductor research consortium, where he was a Senior Fellow. In addition to experience gained from growing a very early stage company and being a co-founder and president of another start-up, he spent 12 years with General Electric, which included 9 years as a Senior Consultant on Corporate Staff. He can be reached via email at w.trybula@tryb.org.
