to BioTechniques free email alert service to receive content updates.
How to Save Research Universities

06/18/2012
Daniel B. Moskowitz

After almost three years of study, the National Research Council has released a report that lists 10 actions that governments, industry, and universities must take to ensure robust US R&D efforts.

Bookmark and Share

Other countries are threatening US leadership in research and unless that shift is stemmed, the US will face grave economic consequences, according to a new report released by the National Research Council (NRC). In response, the council has begun a campaign to strengthen US research universities so that they retain their leading role in an increasingly competitive world.

Location of estimated worldwide R&D expenditures, 1996 and 2007. Source: National Science Foundation





On June 14, after almost three years of study, the NRC released a report that listed 10 actions that governments, industry, and universities must take to ensure robust US R&D efforts. As summarized by committee member James Duderstadt, University of Michigan president emeritus, the 10 recommendations fall into three broad categories:

  1. strengthening the existing partnership between researchers and funders, for example, by increasing federal and state funding and making universities more cost-effective;
  2. addressing particular problems facing research universities, such as federal research funding not covering the full cost of projects and coming with burdensome regulations; and
  3. getting more researchers through the educational pipeline by improving science education in primary and secondary schools, attracting more women and minorities, and changing immigration laws.

"These are all interesting and important recommendations," said Mark. S. Wrighton, chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis. Especially significant, according to Wrighton, is the call for relationships between universities and businesses to move from that of supplier and customer to "more of a peer-to-peer nature, stressing collaboration."

Steven Fluharty, senior vice-provost of research at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed. "This is a very, very important and timely report," he said. To him, the number one recommendation is perhaps the recognition that "we need much greater stability and predictability in funding for research."

But others find the council’s recommendations a bit stale. "Basically, the report is saying things that people have been saying before," noted Steven G. Clarke, biochemistry professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "These are things we are working on all the time. There are things that are already on the top of our list."

While Wrighton and Fluharty acknowledge this, they believe the recent fallout from reduced research funding makes the arguments particularly compelling right now. "It comes at a time when it is clear that we are going to have to reset priorities," said Wrighton.

But that may be an optimistic view of what is possible in the political climate in Washington today. For instance, although the report was asked for by a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, Congress did not make any money available for the effort. Instead the NRC tapped private sources such as the Sloan Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation to pay for the project.

Over the next year, the council will hold workshops around the country to drum up support for those recommendations.

Keywords:  research policy


In order to deliver a personalised, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your computer.

By continuing to use this site and access its features, you are consenting to our use of cookies. To find out more about the way Bio Techniques uses cookies please go to our Cookie Policy page.