Research at the
University of Michigan
Business & Finance Forum
Stephen R. Forrest
Vice President for Research
February 8, 2007
Topics
• Introduction to Research and OVPR
• Research numbers
• Initiatives
• Tech transfer and industry research
2
Rankings
School/College
Architecture &
Urban Planning
Art & Design
Business
Dentistry
Education
Engineering
Information
Law
Medicine
Music
Nursing
Public Health
Rank (yr. publ.)
11 (1997)
34 (2003)
11 (2006)
3 (1993)
9 (2006)
6 (2006)
5 (2006)
8 (2006)
11 (2006)
4 (1997)
3 (2003)
5 (2003)
School/College
Rank (yr. publ.)
Public Policy
Social Work
8 (2005)
1 (2004)
LSA Programs
Biology
Chemistry
Economics
English
Geology
History
Math
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology
12 (2006)
17 (2006)
11 (2005)
12 (2005)
5 (2006)
7 (2005)
7 (2006)
13 (2006)
3 (2005)
2 (2005)
3 (2005)
Source: U.S. News
3
Highest Impact Universities
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
University
Top Ten Appearances
Harvard University
Stanford University
MIT
UC-San Diego
Yale University
UC-Berkeley
Columbia University
University of Michigan
Caltech
Duke University
15
11
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
6
Source: ScienceWatch, Inst for Scientific Information, Vol. 13, No. 5-6, 2002
(Ranked by frequency of Top Ten appearances in academic journals covering 21 fields, 1997-2001)
4
Research Excellence:
Succeeding on the International Scale
5
UM Total Research Expenditures
(FY 1996-2006)
$778M
$800
$797M
+2.4%
$700
Millions of Dollars
$592M
$600
$500
$441M
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
• Funding visibility into future unclear
• Expenditure outlook in FY 07 “guardedly optimistic”
6
Total R&D Expenditures
Rank of Top 10 Universities and Colleges
Institution
Michigan
Wisconsin
UCLA
Johns Hopkins 1
UC-San Francisco
UC-San Diego
Stanford
Washington
Pennsylvania
Duke
FY 2004
FY 2005
$769M
$764M
$773M
$705M
$728M
$709M
$671M
$714M
$597M
$521M
$809M
$798M
$786M
$766M
$754M
$721M
$715M
$708M
$655M
$631M
Source: National Science Foundation
1) Total excludes $670M (2004) and $678M (2005) in R&D expenditures for the federal
Applied Physics Laboratory on the JHU campus.
7
UM Research Expenditures, by Sponsor
FY2006: $796,965,386
Federal
73.4%
$585,231,455
Other Funding
Sources
3.7%
$29,300,832
UM Funds
15.2%
$120,932,949
Industry
4.2%
$33,585,188
State/Local
Governments
1.2%
$9,790,688
Foundations
2.3%
$18,124,274
8
UM Research Expenditures, by Unit
FY2006: $796,965,386
Med School
41%
Engineering
17%
LSA
10%
ISR
9%
SPH
6%
All Other
8%
OVPR Units
4%
SNRE
1%
Education
2%
Dentistry
2%
9
Office of the Vice President for Research
Mission
• To anticipate new research trends and
support interdisciplinary opportunities.
• To engage the disparate communities in
the university research enterprise.
• To expedite the diffusion of new
knowledge into the classroom and the
community.
• To promote integrity in research and
ensure compliance with government
regulations
10
Snapshot of OVPR
Accomplishments in 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
Launch of Search & Discovery
Distinguished Innovator Award
New policies for OTT approved
New AVP for Social Sciences & Humanities
Arts & Humanities Funding Group Established
Instituted effort to manage HPC resources &
growth
• Improved IRB Processes in Health & Behav. Sci.
• eResearch & grants.gov Transition
11
Anticipating Opportunities
• The best research ideas come from the “ground up”
• OVPR can catalyze ideas: making the whole greater than the sum of
its parts
• OVPR can supply necessary “connective tissue” between disparate
efforts
Nanotechnology
& Nanoscience
12
A New Initiative:
Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute
Supporting and Growing
Research & Education for a
Clean, Affordable Energy Future
Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute
Generation
Materials
Policy
Fuels
Alt. Energy
Business &
Economics
Energy Storage
TBD
TBD
13
Defining Energy Research at UM
• Established strengths are the core of the Institute
– Automotive Engineering
– Nuclear Engineering
– Solar
– Low power/solid state electronics
– Hydrogen
• Priority areas for growth and coordination
– Policy, economics and societal impact of the energy challenge
– Carbon-free energy sources
– Transportation systems and fuels
– Energy storage
– Energy utilization
14
Resources
• Phoenix Memorial Lab Renovation
– $11M from State and UM for facilities upgrade and partial
renovation
– 3rd floor for Hydrogen Energy Technology Lab (~$2M)
• Schools and Colleges
– Commitment for over 4 chaired positions from LSA & CoE
– 4+ graduate fellowships from/to Rackham
• Operating budget
15
Industry Partnerships:
Why Universities Do It
– Academic Mission
• Dissemination of knowledge to the public
• Test concepts and face challenges in the “real
world”
• Encourage partnerships that promote student
learning & employment opportunities
– Resources
• Create new jobs in a changing economy
• Supplement and enable federal research support
• Generate licensing income for research and
education
16
Industry Partnerships:
Why Companies Do It
• Gain Access
• Students
• Technology (e.g. licensing)
• Consultants
• Advanced resources (e.g. eMALL, MNF, libraries, etc.)
• Research Collaboration
• Attract government support through academic teaming
• Reduce research costs through outsourcing
• Enrich talent base
• Negotiated rights to IP
17
The Key to University Success
• Established centers and initiatives that are
compatible with regional industrial infrastructure
and needs
• Highly engaged faculty and students with a
range of experience: an outward-looking culture
• Integration of classroom learning with a practical,
laboratory perspective
• A broad institutional concept of the benefits of
working with industry
18
Challenges Exist to Improving Our
Engagement with Industry
– Culture - No deep tradition of industrial research
& tech transfer at UM
– Location - Lack of high population density,
robust technical & funding infrastructure
– Knowledge – Limited understanding of how to
engage with industry
– Reputation – Some view UM as unsupportive of
engagement
19
U-M Tech Transfer Performance
25
120
Royalties
Equity Sales
Agreements
Amount (Millions)
20
100
80
15
60
10
40
5
20
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fiscal Year
We are doing well, but…
•Licensing income is not a clear indicator of success with industry partnerships
•To the extent that partnerships contribute, it is far-trailing indicator
20
12
•Agreements=Partnerships
Recent BIG Events
• Google - selects Ann Arbor for new business center
• NanoBio - UM faculty spin-off receives $30M
investment, one of largest biotech investments ever
in Michigan
• OncoMed - company based on UM technology
raises $33M in new investment
• Pfizer closing
21
UM Research Sponsored by Industry
(FY1995-2006)
22
Advancing Innovation
UM Industrial Relations, Research,
and Technology Transfer
A Plan for Progress
• Faculty Advisory Committee
• Professional & Administrative Staff Group
– Charged to formulate objectives,specific plans, metrics,
and a path forward
• Consultation with committed external partners
23
Critical Elements of
OVPR Proposal
• Change the culture
• Make long term strategic investments
• Experiment with solutions: be
entrepreneurial
• Measure success
• Manage resources
24
Change the Culture
• Recognize innovators/entrepreneurs commensurate with other
academic pursuits
• Create policies & procedures to promote entrepreneurism
– Expedite implementation of eResearch
– Provide a user-friendly web portal
• Move OTT to Central Campus
– Create a deeper business/academic connection
– Provide “match-making” services for faculty & industry
• Engage Business School, Med. School and CoE to teach
entrepreneurism to practitioners
• Alter organizational structure and staffing to promote interactions
• Simplify and expedite COI process
25
Make Strategic Investments
• Add faculty incentives – examples:
– GSRA funding/tuition relief on large grants
– Equipment
– “Engagement” seed funds
– Equalize overhead costs and cost sharing for industry & government
• Partner to make Ann Arbor the hub for regional development
– Ann Arbor SPARK, MEDC, other educational institutions
• Establish gap fund to move innovations from lab to commercialization
– Licensing income
– Angel investors
– Foundations
– Michigan investors
– State
• Establish mechanisms to promote & accelerate commercialization
26
Measuring Success
• Number of new partnerships
• Effective placement of students in key roles in emerging
industries
• Michigan gains reputation as:
– “Partner of choice”
– Center for innovation
• Adequate resources to sustain activities
27
Bottom Lines
• We have to think BIG and clearly define the
“Michigan Difference”
• We have to invest NOW!
• We must experiment: not all efforts will lead to
success
• We must be in it for the long term
29
Things that keep me up at night
• Becoming & remaining the best
• Streamlining research administration
• Streamlining tech transfer and development of robust
industry research relationships
• Responding to the unexpected (e.g. Pfizer)
• Maintaining research integrity while also streamlining
IRB and COI procedures
• Regulations that restrict academic freedom
• Understanding and support future university
computing needs
• Tightening federal budget and impact on research
funding
30
Thank You!
31