Transcript www.research.umn.edu

Annual Report
to the
Board of Regents
on the
Status of University Research
R. Timothy Mulcahy
Vice President for Research
December 8, 2006
Annual Report: Table of Contents
• Section 1: Introduction
– Measures and metrics
• Section 2: FY06 Research Statistics
– http://www.oar.umn.edu/trends/index.cfm
•
•
•
•
Section 3: UMN Trends and Analyses
Section 4: Comparative Analyses
Section 5: Federal R&D Budget
Section 6: Strategies to Increase
Competitiveness
• Section 7: Conclusions
Introduction:
Measures and Metrics
• No single research metric is reflective of overall quality
or prominence
• NSF R&D ranking data are best recognized
• Based on science and engineering research funding
• Official publication of NSF data trails by ~2 years
• Emphasis on “research” in strategic objective will
necessitate inclusion of a credible research metric
• NSF ranking CANNOT be ignored, but should be used
with awareness of limitations
FY06 Research Statistics:
Highlights
• Research awards increased 2.7% to $576M
• Expenditures increased 1.5% to $518.4M
• Significant award changes:
– AHC-shared +65%; IT +11%; SoN +78%; UMD +34%;
UMM +263%; MS -7%; Pharmacy -4%; CLA -26%; Public Health -10%;
Vet Med -11%; Education -33%
• >5000 grant proposals were submitted
• Patent & licensing activity increased 18.6%; Gross
revenues = $56.1M
• UMN ranked 6th in commercialization by Milken Inst.
600
500
• Progressive growth
400
300
1995 $
Current $
200
Report Figure 3.1
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0
1998
100
1997
Research Expenditures (Millions $)
NSF Research Expenditures 1997-2006
• Average growth rate=
~6.8%/yr since 1999
• In constant 1995 $
average growth rate =
2.0%
Comparison Group
Rank in Various Ranking
Schemes
NSF
(Publics)
2004
Florida
Center
2005
Shanghai
(World)
2006
UCLA*
1
Group 1
14
U Michigan*
2
Group 1
U Wisconsin*
3
UC San Francisco
Rank in Various Ranking
Schemes
NSF
(Publics)
2004
Florida
Center
Shanghai
(World)
2006
Ohio State*
10
Group 3
66
21
UC Davis
11
Group 4
42
Group 1
16
U Illinois*
12
Group 2
25
4
Group 4
18
U Colorado
13
Group 6
34
U Washington*
5
Group 2
17
U Pittsburgh
15
Group 3
48
UC San Diego
6
Group 3
13
U Florida*
17
Group 2
53
Penn State*
7
Group 3
42
U North Carolina
18
Group 1
59
U Minnesota
8
Group 2
32
U Texas – Austin*
23
Group 2
39
UC Berkeley*
8
Group 1
4
* Public University Comparison Group
Change relative to previous year:
Increase
Decrease
2004 NSF Ranking: Public Universities
U TX - Austin
UNC Chapel Hill
U Florida
Pittsburgh
U Colorado
U Illinois-UC
UC -Davis
Ohio State
UC- Berkeley
U MN
Penn State
UC San Diego
U Wash
UCSF
U Wisc
U Mich
UCLA
• In 2004 Minnesota
ranked 8th*; tied with
UC-Berkeley
$20M
• Difference between
8th and 11th is just
$20M
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2004 NSF Research Expenditures (Millions $)
Report Figure 4.1
700
800
• Small differences in
future performance
can have a significant
+ or – effect on
ranking
* Includes amended total for UMN not published in
2004 NSF report, but accepted by NSF
Growth Rates: 1997 - 2004
• Based on NSF Survey
Expenditures
• UMN increased 53%;
overall average 88%
Price Index
U TX - Austin
U MN
U Mich
UC- Berkeley
U Wisc
U Florida
U Wash
Penn State
U Illinois-UC
UC-San Diego
U Colorado
Ohio State
UNC - Chapel Hill
UC -Davis
UCLA
UCSF
Pittsburgh
0%
• UMN 16th of 17
• Average annual growth
rates differed widely (5% 18%)
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Increase (1996 - 2004)
Report Figure 4.2
140%
160%
180%
• UMN average annual
growth rate = 6.7%;
average annual = 11%
• Price Index = 30%
NSF Research Rankings:
Public Universities - 1995 to 2004
> +2
+/- 2
> -2
* Public University
Comparison
Group
1995
2000
2004
UCLA*
9
3
1
U Michigan*
1
2
2
U Wisconsin*
2
1
3
UCSF
8
7
4
U Washington*
3
4
5
UC San Diego
5
5
6
Penn State*
7
8
7
UC Berkeley*
11
6
8
U Minnesota
6
9
8
Ohio State*
13
13
10
UC Davis
-
12
11
U Illinois*
13
11
12
U Colorado
12
14
13
U Texas – Austin*
16
19
23
• Differential
growth rate has
contributed to reordering of NSF
rankings
• Several
universities
(green) posted
gains since 1995
• UMN has
dropped two
positions since
1995
•remains 8th in
2004
UW
UM
UM
UW
UW
UM
UCLA
U Wa
UW
Number 3: The Gap
700
$237M
Number 3
600
400
300
UMN
200
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
100
0
• Based on NSF
expenditure data
• Growth rate
differential has
contributed to a
widening “gap” between
UMN and the 3rd ranked
public university
500
1996
$65M
Research $ (Millions)
800
Report Figure 4.3
NSF Survey Data: What categories
account for differences?
NSF Research Support
Category
UMN Research
Expenditures
UMN Rank
among 17
“peers”
Federally Sponsored
Research
$308 Million
10th
State & Local Government
Sponsored Research
$50 Million
4th
Institutional Research
Support
$70 Million
13th
Industry Sponsored
Research
$22 Million
12th
All Other Sources
$76 Million
3rd
#1 Research
Expenditures
$625 Million
(U Washington)
$80 Million
(U Florida)
$210 Million
(U Wisconsin)
$86 Million
(Penn State U)
$123 Million
(UCLA)
Net Impact: Comparison with #3
2004 Research Expenditures
(Millions $)
800
700
=
600
$140M
500
Other
400
Industry
Institution
300
State
Federal
=
200
$126M
100
0
University of Minnesota
Report Figure 4.5
University of Wisconsin
• Multiple components
contribute to the “Gap”
• Each provides unique
strategic opportunities
for improvement
• Each is achievable
Deconstructing Research Ranking:
Impact of Medical School and Engineering R&D
UMN
0
-10
U Colorado
U Florida
Ohio State
UC-Davis
UT-Austin
Berkeley
8
UNC
7
U Pitt
3
U Wisc
2
UCSD
-40
UCLA
-30
Penn State
-20
U Mich
• Data indicates UMN has
consistent research
strength across fields
10
U Wash
• Variation indicates
dependence for ranking on
MS or Engineering
20
Change in Rank
• Data depicts change in
national rank if MS
research, Engineering
research, or both (square)
are subtracted from total
U
Illinois
30
-50
5
13 17 18 19 20 23 24 29 36 38 39
Original NSF Rank
Report Figure 4.4
Consistent ranking when medical school and/or
engineering contributions are factored out
“reflects an academic commitment to the notion of
the well-rounded university – the campus that
cultivates the liberal arts and sciences as the core
activity of a mainstream University”
From “Deconstructing University Rankings: Medicine and Engineering, and Single Campus Research
Competitiveness”, Lombardi et al, The Center, University of Florida,December 2005
Declining Federal R&D Budget:
A Big Problem
• Federal sources provide
>70% of UMN research
funding
• 2007 NIH budget expected
to increase just 0.7%
• For third year in a row will
fail to keep pace with
inflation
Report Figure 5.1
NIH Budget: Impact on Investigators
• In 2006 NIH reduced budget
commitments on existing grants by
2.35%
•NIH will only fund current
commitments to ~80% until FY2007
appropriation is approved
•Success rate to decline to >20%
(~20% for NSF also)
•Considerably more time and effort
must be committed to securing
funding
Report Figure 5.2
Zerhouni, EA. Science 314:1088-1090, 2006
Strategic Positioning: Strategies to Close
“The Gap”
• Increase share of federal research support:
– Increase research capacity: faculty & facilities
• Biomedical Facilities Bonding Authority
– Provide for critical research infrastructure
– Emphasis on interdisciplinary research
• Institute for Advanced Studies, Institute on the Environment,
Institute for the Advancement of Science and Technology
• Allocations for new strategic interdisciplinary initiatives
– For example: nanobiotechnology, translational neuroscience
Strategic Positioning: Strategies to
Close “The Gap”
• Increase share of federal research support
(cont.):
– Work with colleges to develop strategic plans to
enhance research productivity
– Take advantage of major opportunities aligned with
UMN strengths
• For example: biofuels and renewable energy
– Enable increased faculty productivity
•
•
•
•
Office of Collaborative Research Services
Improve administrative support services
Reduce administrative hurdles
Increase awareness of and responsiveness to funding
opportunities
Strategic Positioning: Strategies to
Close “The Gap”
• Increase sponsored research collaborations with
business and industry
–
–
–
–
Emphasize long-term relationships
Revision of negotiating practices
University-Industry Demonstration Partnership
Academic and Corporate Relations Center
• Identify and prioritize increased unrestricted funds in
support of research
– Increased State support
– Improved technology commercialization
– Work closely with UMF & MMF
Conclusions
The University of Minnesota:
• remains one of the top public research universities
• maintains academic commitment to well-rounded
university research portfolio
• has continuous growth of research funding over the last
decade. The core is healthy.
• has identified critical challenges and formulated
strategic responses
Strategic positioning has put the University
in position to attain its research goals.