Academia, Industry And The NSF: What Are The Interactions And How Are They Evolving?
Rutgers University
Busch Campus Center
31 October 1996
Purpose:
The objective of this NSF Workshop was to bring together members
of the academic and industrial communities to discuss the nature
of their interactions and what roles NSF should play in fostering
university-industry ties and in advancing biotechnology. Among
the issues that were addressed are: 1) How do we best train students
for the future?; 2) How must the university organize itself to
facilitate this training?; 3) How do we best deal with issues
related to intellectual property?; and 4) What is the appropriate
infrastructure for modern training?
Attendees:
The Workshop was attended by a broad cross section of the Rutgers
University and industrial communities. Included were students
and faculty from the Life Sciences Division, University administrators
including those involved in technology transfer, and senior members
of New Jersey based biotechnology industries. Approximately sixty
people participated.
Organization:
The meeting began with an introduction by Professor Kenneth Breslauer,
Associate Dean and Director of the Life Sciences Division of
Rutgers University. Mary Clutter then gave a presentation in
which she outlined the current NSF budget situation, the goals
of the NSF, and strategies that have been developed to meet those
goals. Dr. Clutter also focused on the issues of how we must
train scientists to meet the changing job market, and in particular
how the NSF might help facilitate industrial partnerships. Following
Dr. Clutter's presentation, Helen Berman and Burt Ensley outlined
the charges for the five breakout groups. Following several hours
of lively group dynamics and consultations, the leaders of each
presented the consensus of their discussions which are outlined
here.
Breakout Group Summaries
Group A: Undergraduate Training for the Real World
Leaders: Michael Beals, Professor and FAS Associate Dean of Educational
Initiatives
Francine Essien Professor and Director of the Office of Minority
Undergraduate Programs
The group emphasized the importance when developing new strategies
for undergraduate training, keeping in mind the diversity of the
student population in terms of their backgrounds and goals, as
well as the diversity of the real world for which they are being
prepared to contribute. The training must be broad and flexible
so as to acknowledge that the types of skills needed by the marketplace
may change. Two key aspects of preparation include training in
critical thinking and learning practical skills. Keys to successful
strategies include: 1) involving students early in a research experience;
2) re- examining curricula in terms of providing examples of more
real world applications of basic principles; 3) involving students
in the educational process so that upper level students can work
with other levels and college students can work with high school
students; 4) establishing externship programs with local industry
(preferably during the summer) that permits students to experience
directly the world of industrial research and management.
Specific proposals include 1) NSF support for undergraduate involvement in mentoring and teaching positions; 2) intermediate level grants to support curriculum change; 3) development of partnerships with industry to provide advice for first year chemistry and biology courses; 3) establishment of a fixed percentage of all research grants to support undergraduate "scholarship" in the broadest sense; 4) support of small scale instrumentation for wide instructional use; 5) create a national data bank containing feedback from graduates about what was successful or unsuccessful about their undergraduate education; 6) create methods to get feedback from industrial employers (perhaps in the form of departmental advisory boards) as to how well we are training students; 7) establish/expand undergraduate summer externship programs with local industry.
Group B: Graduate Training for the "Real" World
Leaders: Robert Krug, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry
Aaron Shatkin, Professor and Director Center of Advanced Biotechnology
and Medicine
The emphasis of this group was that research training should be
broadly based rather than overly focused/targeted in a manner that
precludes career options. The specific suggestions were: 1) provide
support for training in alternative careers, including teaching
in the K-12 years; 2) facilitate industrial internships so that
students have an opportunity early in their training to experience
the industrial environment; 3) recognition of the globalization
of science; 4) formation of university-industry partnerships for
teaching and curriculum planning, including industrial scientist
participation in the teaching and design of University courses,
in addition to student advising; 5) creation a combined BS/MS degree
that might better prepare non-Ph.D. students for the industrial
sector; and 6) establishment of a system for job placement tracking.
Group C: Industrial/ Academic Ties: Practical Issues
Leaders: Burt Ensley, CEO, Phytotech
James Flanagan, Professor, Vice President for Research and Director
of the Center of Applied Industrial Productivity
This group started by underscoring the very practical issues of
the difference between industry and the university. They noted
that industry is the conduit for knowledge to society and expects
a return on its investment, whereas the University supports, with
the assistant of outside funding, most basic research. It pointed
out that the industrial culture is opaque to academia and suggested
that an intermediate culture be established. This might include
industrial student training, industrial involvement in curriculum
development and in teaching. The many issues surrounding the development
of technology and technology transfer were discussed, including
potential conflicts of interest and the funding of patents. One
of the most serious problems noted is the wide range of polices
surrounding technology transfer agreements. Specific suggestions
to the NSF were: 1) provide matching funds for industry sponsored
post doctorals and interns; 2) initiate a grant program to support
industrial instructors; and 3) help establish national guidelines
for tech transfer.
Group D: Interdisciplinary Research
Leaders: Joachim Kohn, Professor, Director Center for Biomaterials
Josef Kokini, Acting Director, Center for Advanced Food Technology
This group emphasized the important of interdisciplinary research
and education, while noting that all product related research is
by definition interdisciplinary. The University should encourage
mobility between disciplines, departments, university and industries
by having more flexible policies with respect to leaves so far
as to encourage the broadening of ones scientific horizons, which,
in turn, should encourage interdisciplinary training and research.
Recommendations to NSF included 1) the creation of less targeted
interdisciplinary programs; 2) the establishment of fellowships
in which the post doctoral fellow is the PI and bridges the gap
among disciplines; 3) the establishment of graduate fellowships
targeted to interdisciplinary research; 4) increased funding for
shared resources; and 4) programs that encourage industry-academic
interactions, including SBIRs. It was suggested that there be a
mid course review of interdisciplinary programs and that there
be more preproposals to meet RFP requirements.
Group E: Infrastructure and Shared Resources
Leaders: Helen Berman, Professor
Casimir Kulikowski, Professor
This group defined infrastructures in terms of buildings and facilities,
equipment, communications, and human resources. The strongest need
at this time is for communications, networking, and staff support
to manage and maintain the huge growth in these areas. The emphasis
was on the support of the human infrastructure, and the finding
of ways to leverage NSF funds to do this. Two NSF sponsored initiatives
were identified. 1) SBIRs to fund technology transfer facilitators,
with the goals of allowing the technology transfer to become self
sufficient and the return of resources to the university to increase.
2) RFP's should contain explicit reference to technology transfer
and grants should have incentives for technology transfer.
Summary:
There was universal agreement that modern training at all levels
should be interdisciplinary and involve some sort of research
component. Emphasis on critical thinking as well as skills was
judged to be crucial. More ties between the university and industry
should be established, including student internships in industry
and industrial involvement on university advisory boards, curriculum
developments, and teaching. In addition to helping fund these
interactions, there was agreement that the NSF should take a
leadership role in establishing uniform technology transfer guidelines,
and in providing incentives for technology transfer as part of
research grants. Finally, it was suggested that SBIRs could provide
a mechanism to reward individuals whose programs contain elements
that would facilitate technology transfer.
Back to BIOAC Workshop Reports main page