Brokering High-Level Research Partnerships

in the U.S.Susan Sauer Sloan, Director

Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR)

IFEES – Singapore / October 2010

The world we live in keeps getting more complex. Challenges need to

be addressed together, in partnership.

Collaborate: engage in a process of mutually beneficial leveraging of resources

Challenges• Energy supply

• Food safety and security

• Climate change

• Water quality and quantity

• National / world security

• Healthcare

• Aging infrastructure of cities and services

• Improved methods of instruction and learning

• And many others….

Trends in U.S. Research Environment• INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

– Pressures to decrease time-to-market for new inventions– Pressures to conduct research aimed at specific customer needs,

ergo: less basic, more applied

• ACADEMIC RESEARCH– In addition to primary role as centers of knowledge, universities

are increasingly viewed as economic engines– Pressure to integrate real-world concerns into both teaching and

research– Academic institutions look to companies to augment declining

government (federal and state) funding

• GOVERNMENT– Increasingly shouldering more of the burden for funding

fundamental, long-term research

University Research Critical to a Knowledge-Based Society

In FY 2008, university research in the United Statesaccounted for 648 new commercial products introduced into the market and almost 600 new companies formed.

Source: Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) U.S. Licensing Activity Survey Summary: FY 2008

Bayh-Dole Act of 1980It’s good policy:• Allows universities and small companies to own inventions they make with

federal funding.• Funding agencies can use these discoveries royalty-free for their own

purposes.• Universities are allowed to partner with industry to translate research results

into products benefiting the public.• Preference is given to small businesses and to those making products in the

U.S.• Resulting university licensing income is invested in more research, rewarding

university scientists and supporting technology transfer offices.• Operation under the Act keeps the inventors actively engaged in the technology

transfer process which is critical for companies to enable products for public use.

It’s good for the U.S. economy:• University research has helped create whole new industries, such as

biotechnology.• Since enactment, thousands of new companies have formed around university

research results – the majority locating in close proximity to the university.• University patenting has exploded…• University technology transfer creates billions of dollars of direct benefits

to the U.S. economy every year.

Benefits of G-U-I Collaboration• Sharing of risk and cost for long-term research

• Access to complementary capabilities

• Access to specialized skills

• Access to new suppliers and markets

• Access to state-of-the-art facilities

• Creating new opportunities for technological learning

Reference for Business, Encyclopedia for Business, 2nd ed.

Introduction to GUIRR• Established in 1984

• Joint body of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine

• MISSION: To convene senior-most representatives from government, universities, and industry to define and explore critical issues related to the national and global science and technology agenda that are of shared interest; to frame the next critical questions stemming from current debate and analysis; and to incubate activities of ongoing value to the stakeholders. This forum facilitates candid dialogue among participants to foster self-implementing activities and, where appropriate, carry awareness of consequences to the wider public.

GUIRR focuses on challenges at the interface of government, university, and industry that

have a science and/or technology component and are critical to ensuring U.S.

competitiveness.

– Developing a strong science and engineering workforce– Examining the efficacy and impact of export controls and visa

policy in a globalized world– Exploring university-industry approaches to intellectual property– Examining prospects for a national innovation infrastructure – Educating for homeland security in the next generation– Overcoming barriers to large-scale data integration– Surveying factors in multinational R&D location– …..

Composition• Membership of GUIRR spans all three sectors

– University Presidents and VPs of Research

– Corporate CEOs and VPs of Research

– Federal R&D agency heads and senior staff-delegates

GUIRR Council• NIH• NSF• DOD +• USDA• US Dept. of State• FDA• NIST • NOAA• EPA• DHS• NASA• OSTP• DOE

• NAS• NAE• IOM

• Noblis * • Dow Chemical • Microsoft Corporation• Eli Lilly & Co.• wTe Corporation

• University of Maryland *• University of Puerto Rico-Rio

Piedras• University of Rochester• George Mason University• University of Akron• California State University-Los

Angeles• Washington University in St. Louis

GUIRR U-I Partners• Battelle• Boeing• Corning• Hewlett-Packard• IBM• Intel Corporation• John Deere & Co.• Lockheed Martin• Mars, Inc.• Northrop Grumman• Northrop Grumman-Space Tech• PNNL• Raytheon Company• Semiconductor Research Corp.• Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)• Textron• Siemens• Noblis• Elsevier• Agilent

• The Ohio State University• Georgia Institute of Technology• Pennsylvania State University• University of California-Los Angeles• Stanford University• University of California-Berkeley• Iowa State University• University of Maryland• University of California-Davis• Massachusetts Institute of Tech• California Institute of Technology• Washington State University• University of Massachusetts• University of Texas at Austin• University of Texas at San Antonio• Northeastern University• Princeton University• George Washington University• Purdue• University of Michigan

Structure• Three large meetings a year convene the entire membership

– Introduce topics that are just emerging at the leadership level in at least one sector, but affect other sectors

– Bring in outside experts to provide unique perspectives– Planned discussion and debate– Informal networking– Smaller working groups focus on projects

GUIRR Meeting Titles/Themes2010• Geoengineering: Contemplating the Issues and the Need for Research• WATER: Quality, Quantity, and the Need for Innovative Technologies• Sensors: From Sea to Space – Innovations and Implications for the Future2009• Diminishing Natural Resources: Recognizing Limitations, Responding to the Challenges• Maximizing U.S. Returns on Shared Knowledge: Innovative Frameworks for Technology

Transfer and Full Global Engagement• Perspectives on the “Global Food Crisis” (Part II – emphasis on food safety)2008• Food Security – Global Challenges and Directions• New Partnerships on a Global Platform• Flying Over the Valley of Death: Accelerating from Discovery to Product2007• Environmental Sustainability: A Path Forward Via Government-University-Industry

Partnerships• Global Energy Policy Solutions II• Global Energy Policy Solutions2006• No College Student Left Behind: Higher Education and Workforce Implications of the

Spellings Commission Report• Strategies for U.S. Competitiveness: Developing a Proposed Role for GUIRR• Enterprise and Institutional Risk

Insights/Action/OutcomesExample #1

• International Research Collaborations

In 2008, GUIRR members observe increase in cross-sector collaboration across international borders but absence of any recognized guidelines or national protocol on how best to engage.

– Online portal is created to collect and maintain articles and documents of relevance to international research collaboration

– DOD (Air Force + Army + Navy) and NIH commit financial support for planned workshop

– Two distinguished NAE members from outside U.S. join planning committee:

- Dr. Giulia Del Brenna, European Commission - Prof. KunMo Chung, former president of Korean Academy of Science and

Technology

Example #1 - continued• Comprehensive workshop held in Washington, DC on July 26-27, 2010; it’s

purpose to: – examine core elements and identify issues related to the design and

implementation of international research collaborations – highlight specific tools that have been helpful in overcoming hurdles to

research collaboration– develop a common language/lexicon (lingua franca)

• Three cross-cutting thematic sessions – Creating an Environment for Productive International Collaboration– Cultural Differences and Nuances– Legal Issues and Agreements

• Five “track” areas– Intellectual Property– Ethical Standards– Research integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research– Risk Management– Export Controls

Example #1 - continued

• Written workshop summary being prepared for publication by National Academy Press (early 2011)

• Articles: NCURA Magazine, Air Force Research Laboratory International Notes, DHHS Office of Research Integrity Newsletter, Dayton Law Review

• Written primer planned – guiding principles, case studies

Insights/Action/OutcomesExample #2

• Food Safety

In 2008, melamine found in milk products from China prompts a GUIRR member food company to encourage broader cross-sector, cross-disciplinary examination of safety issues across the entire food supply chain.

– Obama Administration establishes new Food Safety Working Group; GUIRR member organizations emphasize need for R&D on top of regulation and inspection

– GUIRR hosts “Technology Workshop on Food Safety and National Defense” (September 2009); goal to examine how companies and universities might work with/tap the talent and research capacity of the national labs in repurposing technology (e.g., military detection technology to detect food-borne pathogens)

– GUIRR working group members meet with FDA Commissioner in early February 2010; encourage greater cross-sector collaboration in addressing food safety challenges

– New set of workshops planned – first set for January 2011

Insights/Action/OutcomesExample #3

Diminishing Natural Resources

In 2009, GUIRR notes that too little national attention is being paid to materials sourcing, availability, and/or sustainability.

• GUIRR holds highly successful member meeting on the topic in October 2009

• Staff members of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science and Technology Committee utilize GUIRR meeting materials as background; invite GUIRR meeting presenters to participate as expert witnesses in congressional hearing on rare earth supply

• Congress shows concern about access to domestic minerals, with an earmark to protect rare earth element mines and bills to promote access to molybdenum-99 isotopes (H.R. 3326, H.R. 3276, H.R. 2647)

• EPA establishes RFA for assistance in developing a new Center for Sustainable Rare Earth Mineral Extraction Technology, seeking funding from OMB

• Articles: Issues in Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering (ASME), NCURA Magazine

Two important groups supported by GUIRR

• University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP)– The purpose of the UIDP is to nourish and expand collaborative

partnerships between university and industry in the United States. The UIDP is crafting collaborative experiments on new approaches to sponsored research, licensing arrangements, and the broader strategic elements of a healthy, long-term university-industry relationship.http://www.uidp.org

• Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)– The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) is a GUIRR-supported

cooperative initiative among 10 federal agencies and 120 institutional recipients of federal funds; its purpose is to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants and contracts. http://www.thefdp.org

Thank you! QUESTIONS?Susan Sauer SloanDirector, GUIRRKeck 549The National Academies500 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20001U.S.A.

ssloan@nas.eduPhone: 1-202-334-1706FAX: 1-202-334-1369

http://www.nas.edu/guirr