[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: COLLABORATIONS
FUELING AMERICAN INNOVATION
AND JOB CREATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-396 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mo Brooks, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman, Accenture..............
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation...........................
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 31
Dr. John S. Hickman, Director, Global University Relations and
Life Sciences, Deere and Company...............................
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Lou Graziano, Director, University R&D Strategy, Sustainable
Technologies & Innovation Sourcing, The Dow Chemical Company...
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President for Research and General
Manager, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Georgia Institute
of Technology..................................................
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Discussion....................................................... 73
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman, Accenture.............. 90
Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation........................... 94
Dr. John S. Hickman, Director, Global University Relations and
Life Sciences, Deere and Company............................... 97
Dr. Lou Graziano, Director, University R&D Strategy, Sustainable
Technologies & Innovation Sourcing, The Dow Chemical Company... 99
Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President for Research and General
Manager, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Georgia Institute
of Technology.................................................. 105
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS
AND RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: COLLABORATIONS FUELING
AMERICAN INNOVATION AND JOB CREATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mo Brooks
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.009
Chairman Brooks. The Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education will come to order.
Mr. Lipinski, the Ranking Member, is not yet here but we
are going to go ahead and proceed without him inasmuch as we do
have two other Members of the minority party present. When Mr.
Lipinski does arrive, then if we have already passed the point
at which he makes his opening statement, we will give him the
opportunity to do so. If we haven't reached that point, well,
then he will make his opening statement in the normal course of
events.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's hearing entitled
``The Relationship Between Business and Research Universities:
Collaborations Fueling American Innovation and Job Creation.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine partnerships and
collaborations between industry and research universities.
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biography, and truths-in-testimony disclosures for
today's witnesses.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
We are pleased to welcome this distinguished panel of
witnesses to examine partnerships and collaborations between
industry and research universities. I look forward to working
with my fellow Members of this Subcommittee to learn more about
these important relationships.
The fundamental basic research taking place at U.S.
research universities is essential to the future prosperity of
our Nation. Collaboration between business and academia helps
fuel research necessary for American innovation and helps
prepare a workforce that meets the needs of industry. Both are
critical components to future economic prosperity and job
growth.
As we discussed in a previous Subcommittee hearing in June,
the National Academies report entitled ``Research Universities
and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to
Our Nation's Prosperity and Security,'' asserts that ``business
and industry have largely dismantled the large corporate
research laboratories that drove American industrial leadership
in the 20th century, such as Bell Labs, but have not yet fully
partnered with research universities to fill the gap at a time
when the new knowledge and ideas emerging from university
research are needed by society more than ever.'' This report
asserts an important role for industry to play in maintaining
the strength of the Nation's research universities. The report
also asserts that ``business is the channel through which basic
ideas developed in research universities reach the
marketplace.''
The report recommends that America strengthen businesses'
role in research partnerships, reform graduate education, and
reduce regulatory burden for U.S. research universities as part
of its 10 stated actions to support the future of United States
research universities. Today, we will hear from witnesses
representing industry and academia and learn more about what
these collaborations hold for the stakeholders and students,
how they take shape and evolve, and if and how they can
continue to be strengthened.
I look forward to learning more from our witnesses, and how
this Subcommittee and Congress can institute policies which
help rather than hinder industry and research universities.
Thank you again to our witnesses for taking the time to be
with us today.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski from the great
State of Illinois for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mo Brooks
Good morning. We are pleased to welcome this distinguished panel of
witnesses to examine partnerships and collaborations between industry
and research universities. I look forward to working with my fellow
Members of this Subcommittee to learn more about these important
relationships.
The fundamental basic research taking place at U.S. research
universities is essential to the future prosperity of our Nation.
Collaboration between business and academia helps fuel research
necessary for American innovation and helps prepare a workforce that
meets the needs of industry. Both are critical components to future
economic prosperity and job growth.
As we discussed in a previous Subcommittee hearing in June, the
National Academies report, Research Universities and the Future of
America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation's Prosperity and
Security, asserts that ``business and industry have largely dismantled
the large corporate research laboratories that drove American
industrial leadership in the 20th century, such as Bell Labs, but have
not yet fully partnered with research universities to fill the gap at a
time when the new knowledge and ideas emerging from university research
are needed by society more than ever.'' The report asserts an important
role for industry to play in maintaining the strength of the Nation's
research universities. The report also asserts that ``business is the
channel through which basic ideas developed in research universities
reach the marketplace.''
The report recommends that America strengthen businesses' role in
research partnerships, reform graduate education, and reduce regulatory
burden for U.S. research universities as part of its ten stated actions
to support the future of U.S. research universities. Today we will hear
from witnesses representing industry and academia and learn more about
what these collaborations hold for the stakeholders and students, how
they take shape and evolve, and if and how they can continue to be
strengthened.
I look forward to learning more from our witnesses, and how this
Subcommittee and Congress can institute policies which help rather than
hinder industry and research universities. Thank you again to our
witnesses for taking the time to be here with us today.
Mr. Lipinski. I thank you, Chairman Brooks. Thank you for
holding this hearing. And thank you, witnesses, for being here
this morning.
I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Graziano for
being here today after agreeing to testify just three days ago
and to Chairman Brooks and his staff for their flexibility in
adding Dr. Graziano as a witness.
I could not have selected a more apt hearing title myself.
Norman Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, likes to
describe scientific research as the engine of a thought-based
economy. To paraphrase him further, if your plane is too heavy
to fly, you don't toss out the engine. I couldn't agree more,
which is why even in these tight budget times I continue to
believe that we must sustain our investments in scientific
research, which means sustaining our investments in our world-
class research universities.
But it takes more than just the engine to fly a plane. It
takes a system of components working together. In this case,
the path from the lab bench to innovation and job creation
depends on a complicated network of private companies,
scientists, universities, venture capitalists, startups, and
entrepreneurs. And today, as the most important question that
we are facing is where are the jobs going to come from in
America today and in the future, I think innovation is the key.
It is something I have focused on since even before the
recession started, since I have been on this committee for the
past 7-1/2 years is we need to promote innovation in this
country, and we have great research universities, national
labs, fantastic research, the best in world, going on. We need
to do a better job of turning that research into innovation and
into jobs.
At the June 27 hearing that the Subcommittee held, we heard
from several university leaders representing a diverse set of
research universities about the nature of their partnerships
with industry and their efforts to promote entrepreneurship on
their own campuses. At a July 16 field hearing in Chicago, we
heard from research faculty and experienced entrepreneurs how
the NSF Innovation Corps Program is helping to drive
entrepreneurship and commercialization of university research.
I am pleased that today we get to hear about some of the
same issues from the perspective of business leaders whose
companies actively partner with research universities, as well
as the head of a research corporation at a major research
institute.
One of the topics I would like to explore further is the
role of the federal science agencies such as the National
Science Foundation in facilitating and contributing to
university-industry partnerships and to hear from witnesses
about what is working well and where we can make improvements.
The Federal Government can use many mechanisms to promote
collaboration between the business and university communities.
These include tax incentives such as R&D tax credit, direct
support for university-based research centers that require or
encourage industry partners, or convening university and
industry stakeholders around areas of shared interest. These
also include programs such as NSF is Innovation Corps, an
education program which helps federally funded research
innovations transition from the university lab into a
profitable company.
While limited partnerships around easily definable
milestones are valuable and should continue, our ultimate goal
is to promote the creation of innovation ecosystems within
which universities, businesses, research institutes, and other
stakeholders build and sustain long-term and mutually
beneficial collaborations.
In the last hearing, university leaders talked about the
need to move more collaboration closer to this kind of peer-to-
peer relationship. I would be interested in hearing the
perspective of today's panel on that issue.
Finally, I would like to hear from our witnesses their
thoughts on STEM education, and in particular how their
companies can better partner with universities to ensure that
they are producing graduates with the skills, including the
soft skills, that meet the needs of today's industries.
I think the data on the supply and demand for STEM workers
is variable enough that is difficult to generalize across all
sectors of our economy or all levels of education. But as
leaders from large companies with significant STEM workforce
needs, you are well positioned to help us understand current
and future demand in your respective industries.
Once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here
this morning and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Brooks for holding this hearing, and thank you
to the witnesses for being here this morning. And I'd like to give a
special thanks to Dr. Graziano for being here today after agreeing to
testify just three days ago, and to Chairman Brooks and his staff for
their flexibility in adding Dr. Graziano as a witness.
I could not have selected a more apt hearing title myself. Norm
Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, likes to describe
scientific research as the ``engine of a thought-based economy.'' To
paraphrase him further, if your plane is too heavy to fly, you don't
toss out the engine. I couldn't agree more, which is why even in these
tight budget times I continue to believe that we must sustain our
investments in scientific research, which means sustaining our
investments in our world-class research universities.
But it takes more than just the engine to fly a plane, it takes a
system of components working together. In this case, the path from the
lab bench to innovation and job creation depends on a complicated
network of private companies, scientists, universities, venture
capitalists, startups, and entrepreneurs.
At the June 27 hearing we heard from several university leaders
representing a diverse set of research universities about the nature of
their partnerships with industry and their efforts to promote
entrepreneurship on their own campuses. At a July 16 field hearing in
Chicago we heard from research faculty and experienced entrepreneurs
how the NSF Innovation Corps program is helping to drive
entrepreneurship and commercialization of university research.
I am pleased that today we get to hear about some of the same
issues from the perspective of business leaders whose companies
actively partner with research universities, as well as the head of a
research corporation at a major research institute.
One of the topics I'd like to explore further is the role of
federal science agencies such as the National Science Foundation in
facilitating and contributing to university-industry partnerships, and
to hear from witnesses about what's working well and where we can make
improvements. The federal government can use many mechanisms to promote
collaboration between the business and university communities. These
include tax incentives such as the R&D tax credit, direct support for
university-based research centers that require or encourage industry
partners, or convening university and industry stakeholders around
areas of shared interest. These also include programs such as NSF's
Innovation Corps, an education program which helps federally funded
research innovations transition from the university lab into a
profitable company. While limited partnerships around easily definable
milestones are valuable and should continue, our ultimate goal is to
promote the creation of innovation ecosystems within which
universities, businesses, research institutes, and other stakeholders
build and sustain long-term and mutually beneficial collaborations. In
the last hearing, university leaders talked about the need to move more
collaboration closer to this kind of peer-to-peer relationship. I'd be
interested to hear the perspectives of today's panel on that issue.
Finally, I'd like to hear from our witnesses their thoughts on STEM
education, and in particular how their companies can better partner
with universities to ensure that they are producing graduates with the
skills, including the soft skills, that meet the needs of today's
industries. I think the data on the supply and demand for STEM workers
is variable enough that it is difficult to generalize across all
sectors of our economy, or all levels of education. But as leaders from
large companies with significant STEM workforce needs, you are well
positioned to help us understand current and future demand in your
respective industries.
Once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here this
morning and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
Chairman Brooks. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witness panel for today's hearing. Our first witness will
be Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman for Accenture. In
addition to chairing the Board of Directors, Mr. Green works
closely with the leadership team on Accenture's long-time--
excuse me--long-term business strategy. He has served on
Accenture's Board of Directors since its inception in 2001.
From September 2004 through December 2010, Mr. Green served as
Accenture's Chief Executive Officer. He assumed the additional
role of Chairman in 2006. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Our second witness is Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice
President and Chief Technology Officer for Lockheed Martin
Corporation. As an officer of the corporation and a member of
the Executive leadership team, Dr. Johnson guides Lockheed
Martin's technology vision and provides corporate leadership in
the strategic areas of technology and engineering. Dr. Johnson
currently chairs the United States Council on Competitiveness,
Technology Leadership, and Strategic Initiative.
Our third witness is Dr. John S. Hickman, who is the
Director of Global University Relations and Life Sciences for
Deere and Company. The Global University Relations group is
developing and sustaining a global network of university
relationships to support Deere and Company's strategic business
objectives. Prior to joining John Deere, Dr. Hickman worked as
a faculty member at Kansas State University specializing in
soil management and environmental quality.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Louis Graziano, Director of
University Research and Development Strategy for Sustainable
Technologies and Innovation Sourcing for the Dow Chemical
Company. In 1981, Dr. Graziano joined with Rohm and Haas
Company in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and held research
management positions in adhesives, biocides, and codings. In
2005, he took a leadership role in external technology building
collaborations and partnerships with universities, federal
agencies, and industry partners. Dr. Graziano continued in that
role when Rohm and Haas was acquired by the Dow Chemical
Company in 2009.
Our final witness, who happens to--I have just discovered--
come from my hometown is Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President
for Research and General Manager of the Georgia Tech Research
Corporation for the Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia
Institute of Technology is a comprehensive university which
reported over $655 million in research expenditures for fiscal
year 2011. Ms. Garton is responsible for the financial and
business affairs of Georgia Tech Research Corporation,
including technology transfer and research contracting. Ms.
Garton joined Georgia Institute of Technology in 1998.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize our first witness, Mr. William Dr. Green.
And Mr. Green, thank you for being here, and you are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM D. GREEN,
EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, ACCENTURE
Mr. Green. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Brooks,
Ranking Member Lipinski, and the entire Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to testify before you today on a subject that I am
extremely passionate about.
I am the Executive Chairman of Accenture. I previously
served as its CEO. I have been with Accenture for 34 years
starting directly out of college. I also recently had the honor
of serving as a member of the Committee on the National
Research Universities of National Research Council.
I am testifying today in my capacity of the Chairman of the
Board of Accenture to discuss the relationship between business
and our national research universities, which is critical to
the future prosperity and security of our Nation. I will also
discuss my own experience at Accenture and I will draw upon the
work of the Committee on Research Universities that I believe
is so profoundly important.
Accenture is a global management consulting and technology
services company with over 250,000 employees serving clients in
120 countries. We are proud that more than 37,000 of those
employees are based here in the United States, and last year,
we hired more than 5,000 people in the United States, many of
whom came to us directly from college campuses.
Representative Hultgren knows about our investment and
talent in human capital since he recently visited our training
facility outside of Chicago. Each year, we send 25,000
employees to train at this particular facility. In fiscal year
2011 we spent close to $50 million on that training.
Congressman Lipinski, I am sure, knows about our work with city
colleges in Chicago and the Skills for Chicagoland's Future
that we are involved in a great deal.
Accenture has traditionally been one of the top college
campus recruiters in the United States, hiring people with
undergraduate and advanced degrees, and we thank Georgia Tech
for their contributions to our company as well.
Global competitiveness is the key CEO issue, and having the
talent to compete is what keeps CEOs up at night. The companies
and the countries with the best talent win. I think we have
learned that in the last few years. To sustain our standards of
living--to lead, to ignite our economic growth engines--it is
about talent, research, and innovation. It is that simple.
Our national research universities are our secret weapons.
They are a national asset we have invested in for decades.
Every country--and I have traveled to 40 or so countries in the
last year or so--every country wants to build the capability we
have. And we need to be gone when they get there. And gone
means by investing and leveraging our research universities to
fuel an economic renaissance that we have--the likes of which
we have never seen before and taking full advantage of this
incredibly precious asset.
We found a shortage of talent in this country, especially
with people with background in the STEM areas. At the same
time, there is very little recognition of the vast power and
potential at our fingertips within these institutions across
government, across society, and unfortunately, across business.
And it is time that we seize that opportunity, particularly
business.
The National Academy report provides a compelling review of
the strengths and challenges of our research universities, the
opportunities they confront moving forward. It also recommends
10 steps that state and Federal Government, universities, and
businesses can take to strengthen our country's university
research.
There were three really broad goals in there. First,
strengthening the partnerships among universities, federal,
state governments, philanthropy, and business. Second,
improving the productivity and administrative operations in
research and education within the universities, how they
operate themselves, how do we get more value for money? And
finally, ensuring that America's pipeline of future STEM talent
remains creative and vital, leveraging the abilities of all its
citizens and attracting the best students and scholars from
around the world.
There were four major recommendations in there that very
much focused on business, accelerating strategic partnerships
and more collaboration to reduce the time to innovation.
Reforming and creating new graduate degree programs were
business helps shape the outcome we want not for the jobs of
today but for the jobs of tomorrow. Focusing on the STEM
pathways and diversity to get a bigger percentage of our people
engaged in these exciting disciplines. And lastly, focusing on
the international students and scholars, the people we train
that are some of the world's best that we can allow them to be
here and contribute to our economy.
People with graduate degrees drive research and development
in profound ways. The Commission on Pathways through Graduate
School and Into Careers, on which I also served, has
incredible, you know, direction on improving the role and the
collaboration between business and our research universities
broadly.
I would just talk for a minute about Accenture's university
partnerships. At Accenture we collaborate with major research
initiatives in a variety----
Mr. Brooks. Excuse me, Mr. Green, we are about a minute
over on your 5-minute allotment. If you could please wrap up,
we would appreciate it. We do have your full testimony in
writing as a part of our record.
Mr. Green. I shall do that right now.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Green. Accenture is a company that lives by talent,
5,000 people hired in the United States. The best people that
are in the best companies are the ones that win, and we have
invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the research
infrastructure. And what we need to do as a company and with
other companies is to do more to make a difference, to harvest
the unique asset that we have.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.019
Chairman Brooks. Thank you for bearing with our time
limitations.
At this point, the Chair will recognize our second witness,
Dr. Ray O. Johnson, for five minutes.
Dr. Johnson, thank you for sharing your insight with us
today.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAY O. JOHNSON,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, distinguished
Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to
participate in today's hearing. On behalf of the 62,000
engineers, scientists, and IT professionals at Lockheed Martin
and the greater population of 120,000 employees, we appreciate
this opportunity to discuss the relationship between business
and academia. With your permission, I will submit a prepared
statement for the record and now offer a brief summary. Thank
you, sir.
As Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at
Lockheed Martin, I guide the Corporation's technology vision
and provide corporate leadership in the strategic areas of
technology and engineering across a portfolio of more than
4,000 programs. I am extremely proud of the work of my
colleagues and our university partners.
University collaboration is an inherent part of our
company's innovative culture. We proactively develop and
maintain relationships with universities and academic
institutions globally. Our goal is to facilitate, encourage,
and enable utilization of university research and the resultant
insertion of the university technology in our programs and
products. For 2012, we plan to make research and development
contributions to universities of approximately $20 million.
While we invest in a wide variety of technical domains, we
are increasingly concentrating our efforts in fewer, larger
partnerships with universities in strategic areas such as
nanotechnology, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. Some of
our relationships span literally decades. Others are more
recent. What you will see throughout is our pursuit of game-
changing innovations, not inventions, not evolutionary
improvements. We work with universities because their
inventions become the basis for our innovations. They help us
reach critical milestones in the delivery of affordable
solutions to our customers.
Our collaboration with universities extends beyond research
and development to talent acquisition. Lockheed Martin is a
large employer of entry-level talent, recruiting close to 1,800
full-time intern and co-op students annually. Over 75 percent
of our skill needs are for technical talent. To meet those
needs, we have established relationships of mutual benefit with
over 100 U.S. colleges and universities. We develop
relationships with faculty, staff, and student organizations
throughout--through activities such as curriculum development,
classroom presentations, advisory board participations, and
scholarships. We seek partnerships with institutions known for
academic excellence, diversity, and research expertise. These
schools also are often the top universities where we sponsor
research.
For all the benefits the university collaboration provides,
Lockheed Martin, like many companies in the present economic
reality, is aggressively reducing costs. This reality is
putting increased pressure on research funding. Sponsored
research generally advances knowledge within a domain in the
form of research results, papers, and presentations. The
positive financial implications of this work often occur over
time horizons that stretch far beyond immediate sales
forecasts. Sometimes, university research is necessarily
reduced when weighed against more critical expenses that have
more near-term impact.
There is also a perception that university research
agreements are exceptionally difficult to negotiate,
specifically with regard to intellectual property or IP rights.
Generally, we are able to negotiate the rights we need while
still allowing the university the freedom to pursue its own
activities. However, we have noticed an increased reluctance
from universities to grant IP rights to certain research
sponsors.
Despite these challenges, industry, including Lockheed
Martin, has and will continue to play an important role in the
future of university research. Businesses will continue to make
investments as they look to diversity into new markets and
domains.
The National Academy of Sciences report that we are
discussing today offers several important recommendations to
help overcome the existing challenges and enable even greater
collaboration. There are three recommendations that we consider
among the top priorities. They are recommendation one,
concerning the adoption by the Federal Government of stable and
effective polices, practices, and funding for university-
performed research and development; recommendation three on the
strengthening of the business role and the research partnership
facilitating the transfer of knowledge, ideas, and technology
to society; and recommendation nine on securing the full
benefits of education for all Americans in science, technology,
engineering, and math.
Important is the federal reestablishment of the research
and development tax credit, preferably a permanent and enhanced
R&D credit when research is performed in the United States, the
highly skilled scientists and engineers along with the
institutions are maintained and strengthened. However, other
countries have introduced strong incentive specifically
directed toward research conducted within their borders.
In our opinion, these three recommendations would provide
some of the most significant impacts as--and they are
attainable. Having consistent policy would provide a stable
backdrop for research. Providing for a permanent research and
development tax credit would enable companies to make
investments in U.S. universities driving wealth and job
creation through innovation. Helping students realize their
full potential through science, technology, engineering, and
math education would guarantee our Nation the next generation
of researchers that we so desperately need.
In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the
opportunity to join you here today. The Committee is addressing
extremely important issues that not only impact American
businesses, but they also have the potential to benefit every
person in our country as innovation benefits us all.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.026
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Johnson.
The Chair now recognizes our third witness, Dr. John S.
Hickman.
Dr. Hickman, five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN S. HICKMAN, DIRECTOR,
GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RELATIONS AND
LIFE SCIENCES, DEERE AND COMPANY
Dr. Hickman. Good morning and thank you.
I am the Director of Global University Relations and Life
Sciences at Deere & Company, and I am pleased to have this
opportunity to share our perspectives on collaborations with
research universities and how that impacts both people and
innovation at Deere.
Deere & Company is a leading global manufacturer of
agricultural, construction, forestry, turf care equipment. Our
strategic direction reflects on the very important role that
innovation is going to play in addressing two important
challenges for the world--how to feed a population growing in
size and affluence and, at the same time, develop the
infrastructure required to support massive urbanization.
Regarding innovation, we are seeing the rise of smart
machines, equipment that is monitored and directed by
computers, global positioning systems, sensors, and actuators
to ensure safer and more efficient operation. Simultaneously,
we see an increase in frugal innovation or value innovation
that is very important to our company. Frugal engineering
requires a very intensive focus on the customer so you
precisely deliver the features that they need at a price the
customers can afford to pay.
Now, no one company has all the resources to develop,
maintain, support the innovation being demanded by industry.
Especially moving in the future, we understand the need to
partner with others such as universities. Aside from the role
that research universities play in innovation, research
universities are very important in attracting and developing
employees and understanding at times our customers' local needs
both today and into the future. All of these critical--are
considered critical success factors helping us meet our global
business aspirations.
Deere formed a Global University Relations Initiative in
2011. The initiative is to develop and sustain alignment among
the strong university relationships currently in place today
and guide direction for those universities we are going to need
globally moving into the future. And research universities play
a very important role in this initiative.
We have a broad reach of R&D activities--innovation
activities at U.S. research universities. Historically, the
majority of our research efforts have been with faculty and
colleges--or students, excuse me--faculty and students in the
College of Engineering. However, research activities occur
across many parts of campus. Many of our research projects
would be classified as sponsored research. They have
comprehensive legal agreements but there are other types of
research activities including professional service agreements,
consulting agreements, memberships in consortiums, equipment
loans, research gifts, and grants.
At Deere, we really like to focus on the complementary
benefits we can achieve through our collaborations with
universities, so the win-wins we can achieve for both parties.
Industry plays a very important role in advising universities
as to the relevance of research and workforce development. In
being able to address both current and future business needs is
part of that win-win. We encourage our employees at John Deere
to make sure that they engage in the university in reviewing
curriculums, serving on advisory councils and advisory boards,
participating in federal grants, getting in the classrooms, and
so on. At some universities we have a physical presence right
on or very near campus. One example of that is our John Deere
Technology and Innovation Center that is located in Champaign,
Illinois.
Where we expect to have significant research activities
with the university, we try and negotiate a Master Research
Agreement between Deere and the university. That Master
Research Agreement addresses the various IP publication
confidentiality, all the sort of difficult legal issues and
makes forming subsequent research projects a very simple
process moving forward. The long period of time to negotiate a
research agreement is the most frequently mentioned challenge
associated with university-industry relationships.
We are also members of a couple of organizations or forums
with organizations that can help us specifically address
collaboration opportunities and the dynamics of industry-
university relationships. Two organizations are convened by the
National Academies, and they include the Government University-
Industry Research Roundtable and the University-Industry
Demonstration Partnership. These organizations have a variety
of materials that can help out, including continuums and
research guidebooks. Researchers from industry and universities
have gotten together to develop these materials. Such
organizations help us focus on the opportunities rather than
the challenges associated with these relationships.
And again let me reiterate Deere's appreciation for this
opportunity to appear before the Committee today and I would be
pleased to address your questions later in the hearing. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hickman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.033
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Hickman.
I now recognize our fourth witness, Dr. Louis Graziano.
Dr. Graziano, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. LOU GRAZIANO, DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY R&D STRATEGY,
SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES & INNOVATION SOURCING,
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Dr. Graziano. Thank you.
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Lou Graziano and I am the Director
of University R&D Strategy at--for Dow Chemical. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss our views on the university-industry
partnership and its role in America's future today.
Dow believes that our relationship with academic partners
is critical to our success and to the success of our partner
institutions as well. A vibrant collaborative environment
ensures that the greatest minds of industry and academia come
together to solve the technological challenges that face
society today and in the future. We believe that the most
effective way to have a successful university partnership is to
focus on a limited number of academic partners. This allows the
partners to achieve a depth of understanding of each other's
strategy and needs and thus allows us to grow together in ways
that could not be realized with a less committed relationship.
To this end, Dow has increased its investment and programs
with leading U.S. universities with a $25 million-per-year
commitment over ten years. The investment is currently being
distributed among 11 U.S. institutions. DOW took this step to
strengthen research in traditional scientific fields important
to the future of the company and the future of the Nation. Our
collaborations take many shapes and their beginnings vary. Some
might suggest that it all starts with an idea, but the real
genesis starts with the recognition of a problem such as
achieving breakthroughs in solar energy conversion efficiency
and the articulation of the problem. It is precisely this
reason that we take a strategic approach to our university
partnership model. The depth of our relationships helps us
recognize the relevant problems of today and then combing our
capabilities to build the ideas that will solve those problems.
A deeper relationship results in a higher quality
collaboration.
The three important outcomes we seek in our collaborations
include the discovery of advanced technologies that are
relevant to the industrial and society problems we face today
and in the future; the development of excellent talent at the
Nation's institutions of higher learning, and the assurance
that our partners remain strong in the disciplines that are
essential to healthy, sustainably advantaged manufacturing
sector to secure America's economic future; and providing new
avenues of support to our partners, ensuring that they benefit
not just from our funding but also from the collaboration of
scientific minds and the advanced knowledge we bring to the
table with respect to other important issues such as safety,
such as sustainability and intellectual property protection.
The resources Dow expends in the research collaboration
includes many intellectual exchanges, training seminars on a
number of topics, joint workshops, and onsite visits. This
provides the graduate researchers perspectives that cannot
always be achieved in a research laboratory setting. These
activities help tomorrow's workforce get a broader
understanding of industrial challenges and the scale at which
industry operates.
In addition, our academic partners witness firsthand our
approach to portfolio analysis, project selection and
prioritization, a critical learning for a successful business
entity and a successful nation.
Intellectual property is often noted as a challenge to
successfully executing collaborations. It remains a challenge
today, and in many cases, collaborations abroad provide a more
industry-friendly atmosphere for partnerships. However, Dow has
worked hard to overcome these barriers. The committed
partnerships that we have built helped us create a more
cooperative environment and allowed us to establish strong
academic programs in many areas, including advanced
electronics, new polymer platforms, and energy efficient
separation processes, to name a few.
Another challenge in maintaining the research focus and
discipline once a collaboration is in place. The real close
interaction that we expect of our own scientists who are
leading the industrial side of the partnership, that helps us
maintain that discipline. This is a significant resource
expenditure at Dow and one which we feel is essential to
achieving a true collaborative environment with our partners.
The National Academies report highlights many key features
of an improved research university system. Of note is the
recommendation for better business-university engagement. At
Dow, we are playing a major role in ensuring the business-
university relationship creates a true peer-to-peer environment
and encourage progress in this direction. We applaud any
efforts to find better ways to support fundamental research
that encourages industrial interaction.
Another issue in the report is the retention of foreign
students trained in the United States. Many graduate students
come from overseas to get their training in the United States
and many of these students benefit from a system which leads
the world in critical thinking and problem-solving. We
recommend reducing barriers that remain--to remaining in the
United States after a young professional's education is
completed. In this way, the Nation can ensure we are maximizing
our return on education investment.
Thank you once again for providing me with the opportunity
to address the importance of the university-industry
partnership in ensuring innovation and economic prosperity for
our Nation's future.
I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Graziano follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.040
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Graziano.
At this point, the Chair recognizes our final witness, Ms.
Jilda Diehl Garton for five minutes.
Ms. Garton?
STATEMENT OF MS. JILDA DIEHL GARTON,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND GENERAL MANAGER,
GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Garton. Thank you. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member
Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored by your
invitation to present this testimony and by the opportunity to
discuss collaborations between America's research universities
and private industry. I will address your questions about the
National Research Council report from my perspective as a
research officer in a university with a long history of
industry engagement and one that has a strategic vision and
plan that infuses innovation and entrepreneurship across
everything we do.
Georgia Tech is a comprehensive public university with
21,000 undergraduate and graduate students and we are proud to
be the graduates of more engineers than any other U.S.
university. Georgia Tech has long been a university that is
engaged with industry. Of that $655 million, 14 percent of our
research funding comes from private industry with new awards
from industry totaling over $88 million last year. Of the 407
invention disclosures my office has received last year, 103 of
those resulted from industry-sponsored research. Our students
are an active part of the research and discovery process, and
in fact 70 percent of our invention disclosures named one or
more students among the inventors.
But just as we innovate in our research programs, we also
try to innovate in our business processes. We have created a
series of sponsored research agreements that tailor the terms
of collaboration, including intellectual property terms to the
needs of both parties in the collaboration and we target these
to the specific level of technical development, of the research
project that we are undertaking, and to the needs of both
parties. Our White and Gold Agreement and our TRL 3-6 Agreement
are both described in my written testimony.
At Georgia Tech, we have several new programs that focus on
accelerating innovation for the creation of new ventures as
well. We have our GT:IPS program, which is a facilitated and
streamlined licensing program and our FlashPoint Program, which
builds on lean startup methodologies and provides professional
development for entrepreneurs.
NSF recently announced that Georgia Tech will be a node for
its I-Corps Program. The Georgia Tech node will serve the
Southeast region and beyond and builds on existing programs in
the Enterprise Innovation Institute and the Advanced Technology
Development Center, which is the Nation's oldest and largest
university-based business incubator.
The main challenges facing Georgia Tech's research efforts
are not unique to our institution. The NRC report addresses the
major challenges of dealing with limited resources, increasing
regulation, and increasing reporting requirements. If we could
reduce the administrative burden for our research
investigators, we could--they could complete their
groundbreaking working more quickly and innovations could be
commercialized more quickly.
As a research administrator with over 22 years of
experience in higher education, I can tell you that the call
for consistent and full recovery of all research costs,
including facilities and administrative costs and the cost of
research compliance would, if implemented, bring a
predictability and a stability to the research enterprise that
would be very welcome. And it would also foster better
compliance regimes.
I should note that the NRC report calls for full support of
research costs by all sponsors, including industry, and rarely,
in my experience, does private industry object to paying full
and indirect costs.
Finally, recommendation three in the NRC report suggest
strengthening research partnerships and suggests actions by the
Federal Government, businesses, and universities to foster
innovation. When endeavoring to accelerate in innovation, it is
critical to recognize that there is a considerable distance
between an invention and an innovation. Federally funded
research at universities is largely and properly directed
toward fundamental research where inquiry leads to new insights
to form the bases of transformational new ideas. These are
generally early-stage technologies.
The Federal Government has a role in helping to fund proof-
of-concept in the initial stages of translational research.
Programs like NSF's I-Corps and NIH's NCATS program fill the
niche. Proposals like those offered by Congressman Lipinski to
permit SBIR funds to be used for proof-of-concept research
would extend the availability of federal funds already intended
for the creation of new ventures to this early critical stage.
These federal programs contribute to an ecosystem that brings
business professionals, investors, and inventors together in an
environment that is conducive to entrepreneurship. However, it
is companies that provide the investment in development that
allows innovations that originated under federally funded
research to become commercially viable new technologies that
can have a positive impact on people's lives. Over 80 percent
of Georgia Tech's licensed inventions are license to existing
industry.
Finally, in summary, university-industry engagement is
important in meeting our country's need for new technologies
and innovations and for training scientists, engineers, and the
workforce to lead innovation in the future. The NRC's report
offers actions that would strengthen this partnership and the
research enterprise.
I look forward to discussing these actions further and I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.055
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Ms. Garton.
I would like to thank the panel for their testimony.
Reminding Members that committee rules limit questions to
five minutes, the Chair will at this point open the round of
questions.
Normally, the Chair recognizes himself, but in this
instance, I am going to defer my opening slot to Mr. Benishek
of the great State of Michigan.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
it.
Well, this is a great opportunity for me. I was just at a--
actually a community college yesterday that does concrete
research in association with concrete business people in the
City of Alpena. And that was--leads me to my first question is
that how do these partnerships get started and how do you
determine--I mean it sounds like from some of the testimony
that it is like big research universities, you know, the big-
time schools. And, you know, I have like five small
universities in my district which, you know, they seem to have
done some pretty decent research in this--in concrete
development and research. And I mean how do I get, you know, my
community colleges and, you know, four-year, two-year degree
schools involved in this a little bit more? And is there more
of a place for that? Does anyone have to comment?
Dr. Graziano. I will be happy to comment. I don't have a
real clear answer to say, well, this is how to do it. And you
are right. We do concentrate on the larger research
institutions for our R&D strategy because that is where we are
looking at graduate students. But at the same time, we--I know
we work--we have worked a lot with Delta College to help bring,
you know, the not-advanced degrees into better training and
better workplace opportunities.
As far as getting R&D funding there, I think the best way
that we could probably do something like that is through the
major universities. So let's say, for example, we have a
research program, if we have something that makes sense in the
area of, say, your concrete research that you were talking
about, a project that could go through, say, University of
Michigan or Michigan State University, could be subcontracted
to the universities. So I think it is a matter of marrying up
those capabilities so that we can say, hey, that aligns--what
they are doing there aligns with some goal that we want to get
at now. How do we make that connection----
Mr. Benishek. Right.
Dr. Graziano. --to get a program underway that maybe can
support that research in a way that aligns with our goals and
what our needs are. Does that make some sense----
Mr. Benishek. Yeah, a little bit.
Dr. Graziano. I think it is probably not exactly what you
wanted to hear but----
Mr. Benishek. Well, I am going to send my people over to
talk to you but----
Dr. Graziano. That would be great.
Mr. Benishek. Ms. Garton, I had a question, too. You
mentioned about the regulated nature of higher education and
there were some barriers to research. Could you give me a
couple of examples of things like that?
Ms. Garton. Yes, sir. The--universities don't certainly
object to regulation and to requirements to report the results
of our research or to report how funds are used for research.
What I think the problem is is where we have duplicative
regulation or we have multiple reporting to different agencies.
We report the same data to a number of different agencies and
have sort of a duplicative reporting process. So the kinds of
things that I would suggest that could probably be looked at
and to reduce burden would be things like requirements by, for
example, the Department of Defense to have multiple reviews of
the same protocol by three different IRBs before the research
can be conducted. That could probably be, you know, streamlined
and improved so maybe one IRB could do that work.
Other things like the federal reporting requirement could
be streamlined and be put into a logical sequence, which I
think people are beginning to work on doing so that we don't
have multiple reports, electronic reports that have to go in
different formats to different agencies and require us to have
different systems to report our results to three different
agencies.
Mr. Benishek. Right. I just have one more question. You
know, government funding plays a significant role in this
initial research, and I support that and I also support the
public-private partnerships. But I wanted to know what your
opinion is as to determine when the time for the government
funding is over and what parameters we should put on this R&D
funding so that it transitions to more of a--when there is
something actually economically viable, at what point does that
occur. Mr. Hickman, do you have a--you seem to be nodding your
head there. Do you have an idea there?
Dr. Hickman. The transition can occur at many different
places. And at that time it is more likely that Deere will to
take this research. We don't do as much fundamental basic
research. We do more of applying various systems that we can
put into an equipment solution for our customers. So the
transition can occur at different times and it is one of the
advantages of having those close relationships with
universities. You may not always be first in line with the
research lab, but we are there to find out about that
transistion is and when it comes about.
Mr. Benishek. Anyone else have a comment in that regard?
Mr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. I think the--one of the principle roles for
federally funded research is to invest in high-risk, high-
payoff research. And many of the problems that we face today as
a Nation and in fact as the world, the fundamental solutions
for those problems are not known and so the Federal Government
does have a major role. And I think as this report pointed out,
by having a closer collaboration between the invention-
creators--that is in this case the universities in this
discussion--and the innovators, that is the businesses--having
that federal funding support that invention and then having a
place for that to go through, the partnership will in fact do
just what you ask, and that is turning the federal research
dollars spent in high-payoff areas into outcomes through that
university-industry partnership.
Mr. Benishek. I think my time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Benishek.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski,
from the great State of Illinois.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So many questions that I have, let me try to get into this
quickly. I think one of the issues here--most of the time most
hearings we talk sort of at a level a little higher and more
general than might be good to help all of us to get a better
understanding of, first of all, what exactly are these
collaborations, these partnerships like? Is there a typical
form these partnerships take? Does it depend on specific
nature--does the specific nature depend on the situation, the
objective? And we are also talking about at different points I
know, say, research we were talking--well, basic research or
something where it is getting more applied, so I think it might
be helpful just to talk--let me start with Dr. Graziano. Could
you give some examples of how these partnerships come together
and what exactly these partnerships do? Because I can imagine
them and I think that they--there are a lot of different types,
but could you give some examples----
Dr. Graziano. Sure.
Mr. Lipinski. --and how they come about.
Dr. Graziano. Yeah, there is a lot of types and clear and
foremost is--our goal is to really help develop talent. But
some examples of how they come about--and we put a lot of
effort into understanding the capabilities at our university
partners and the directions they want to go in and
understanding within our businesses what the priorities are for
some of the real high-risk areas and trying to match those up
so that we can see a good alignment for a partnership. The way
they come about at that point is myself or somebody in our
organization will make those connections to the university, say
hey, we would like to talk about this area. Let's get together.
And it just starts just like you want to just sit down and talk
and see how things align and what you can do with each other.
Mr. Lipinski. Do you look at what is being done already at
the university or do you choose the university first and then
start talking about--how does that come about?
Dr. Graziano. We pretty much look at what is being done at
the university or what the really strong, really bright minds
are doing there and see if those capabilities align with what
we are doing. So they don't necessarily have something that is
all developed and then we go in and say, hey, you already have
this; here is a fee for service. But, look, we got some really
bright stuff going on in general in this area of optical
electronics. Let's talk about whether or not you can help us
now come up with new lighting technologies for displays. And so
we look at that general strength that they have and then try to
shape something together.
In some cases, we try to leverage what is already being
federally funded. The EFRCs, which are out there in the case of
solar, we engaged Cal-Tech, University of Illinois, and UC
Berkeley, who are all leading up one of those--one of the
energy frontier research centers and said, hey, we see a way
that we can engage with that. It is already stuff that is going
on. You got some great work going. Now, let's see how can we
start to take that fundamental research and build it out so
that we can actually think about applying it commercially down
the road. And it is not just a matter of dumping it in. There
are still many risks and challenges that have to be achieved to
get that fundamental research and bring it to
commercialization.
Mr. Lipinski. Are there other sort of types that anyone
else wants to mention, types of partnerships besides what Dr.
Graziano was describing
Dr. Hickman. We have a number of types of partnerships.
They can involve service agreements where you are looking for
an answer very quickly. They can involve consulting
arrangements and memberships in consortiums. Quite often,
universities will have specializations, sometimes very niche-
related consortiums, where you can begin those relationships.
These are excellent ways to begin learning what the
capabilities are between universities and industry.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else?
I want to ask what is the role, then--and Dr. Graziano
talked about EFRC--how much of this would be going on--I mean
what--where do you see the importance of the role of federal
funding in all of this? What if federal funding were lessoned
or disappeared? How much of this work that you are doing--your
partnerships, your collaborations with universities--how much
would it take the place of any of that or could it to any
extent or is it really the fact that is this research--
federally funded research wasn't going on, you wouldn't have
these opportunities that you have to make these partnerships.
What is your opinion on--whoever wants to jump in.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No, I mean I think--you know, sometimes we--you
know, we miss the forest for the trees here. I mean what we are
talking about is the opportunity to create a new economy. All
right. And what we are talking about is the opportunity to have
business closely engaged so that there is a good economic value
in this research. And I think, you know, frankly, we need to
double-down on the things we do federally funded but we also
need to industrialize the process of business working with our
universities in a consistent, predictable way because that is
what is going to generate the economic renaissance. Because
really--you know, what we have talked a lot about today is
about the how you get there, but what we are solving for,
right, our high-skilled jobs, rising standards of living, and
an economic vibrance. And that is the trapped assets that we
have in the universities that we need to exploit from the
Federal Government and from industry.
Mr. Lipinski. Does the Federal Government have a role in
helping to increase those----
Mr. Green. One of the----
Mr. Lipinski. --relationships?
Mr. Green. One of the things you mentioned, you know, you
mentioned tax and so forth but you also mentioned convening and
collaborating. I think the Federal Government has a profound
role and in fact obligation and it is a missed opportunity not
to try to take all these little point solutions, which are all
good, but industrializes the state of mind for how the United
States is going to regenerate economic activity with a bias
towards innovation and differentiation.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I am way over time. I just
want to say I appreciate--I want to congratulate Ms. Garton and
Georgia Tech for the I-Corps node and I think that is another
important way among many to promote entrepreneurism.
And I will yield back.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes.
The National Academies report includes several
recommendations for increased federal financial support. I find
these recommendations illustrate a somewhat interesting
perspective about the outlook for federal funding over the next
several years given the situation that we are in. And I am
going to have two comments and then I am going to ask you all
to respond.
According to committee staff, expenditures for research
performed in academic institutions have almost doubled in the
past decade, rising from $30 billion in 2000 to almost $55
billion in 2009 in current dollars, which in current-dollar
terms is roughly an 83 percent increase in funding over a nine-
year period of time. The amount of research and development
performed by business rose from nearly $192 billion in 2000 to
nearly $267 billion in 2008, an increase of 39 percent in
current dollars.
At the federal level--I am going to hammer on something
that you all are probably already familiar with--we have
record-setting deficits. We have had a 1.4 trillion and 1.3
trillion and 1.3 trillion back-to-back-to-back. This year, we
have already blown through the $1 trillion deficit mark. White
House projections for this fiscal year around 1.2 trillion. The
White House is already projecting that next fiscal year
starting October 1 will be another trillion-dollar deficit.
As a consequence, our total debt is ballooning. We blew
through the $15 trillion debt mark in November of last year. We
are soon going to blow through the $16 trillion debt mark this
year. Entitlements have gone up considerably. Entitlements
during the last fiscal year went up more than $100 billion in
cost to American taxpayers. Debt service from fiscal year 2010
to fiscal year 2011 went up $25 billion. One of the adverse
consequences of borrowing more money is that you have to pay
more to the creditors in exchange for the higher debt that you
have borrowed. Twenty-five billion, to put it in perspective,
that is more than the entire Federal Government budget for NASA
and that is roughly half of the entire federal budget for all
of our transportation infrastructure needs--highways, roads,
things of that nature.
So in this kind of context we can anticipate there is going
to be stiffer competition for scarcer federal dollars going
forward, and in that competition between, say, research
universities and entitlement programs, do you have a judgment
as to who should prevail? What is the best approach for our
country going forward? What is the best approach for our
economy going forward? And why do you have a judgment as to who
should prevail?
Mr. Green, and then we will just work across.
Mr. Green. I guess, you know, I am a business person. I
make a payroll, I run a tight ship, I think hard about
economics. I do believe that our research capabilities are an
untapped asset. I think a dollar spent on research--I mean you
get a shovel-ready project, you get a swimming pool. You get a
bridge. You get a research-ready project, you can change how
the world works and lives. I think our research institutions
have an obligation to be more efficient and deliver more value
for money. I think they have taken that on and it says that in
the report.
But I think importantly, in terms of changing how the world
works and lives, in terms of having an innovation economy, the
return, you know, in shovel-ready is Hickman, 5X. The return in
research-ready could be 1,000X. And as a business leader, I
believe that profoundly and I think it can really energize the
next renaissance in American economic activity.
Chairman Brooks. Before I get to Dr. Johnson, let me add
that I am from Huntsville, Alabama, which is the home of
America's second-largest research park and we also have two
fine universities that are engaged in basic research. So I
agree with your point of view, Mr. Green. What I am looking for
is ammunition or insight that can help us prevail in these
kinds of debates and arguments going forward. And of course, if
you disagree and think research universities should not be
competitive with the entitlement programs, feel free to express
that point of view, too, because we would love to fund all of
them but we don't have enough money to do so.
Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. Thank you.
I think that, as the report points out, there can be
increases in the efficiency, the partnership between academia
and industry and the focus of the research. So there can be
efficiency increases. However, we know historically that
investments in research and development have been an engine for
the economic growth of the Nation and of other nations in the
world. Roughly 50 percent of the new jobs created will be in
STEM fields.
We are also on the cusp of the convergence of a lot of
technologies that have been behind the curtain in basic
research for a number of years and that are finally coming
together and finally reaching the point where they can make a
huge impact. Advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, these
can be turned into economic engines for the nation and
discriminators for our competitiveness.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you.
And Dr. Hickman, before I get to your remarks, I see my
time has expired. But inasmuch as I am the Chair, I get to
waive those kind of things. But I want to assure my colleagues
that if they have a pending question they would like all the
panelists to answer that I will similarly waive the 5-minute
rule so that they can get an answer from each of our panelists.
Dr. Hickman. Well, I agree with the comments that the
previous speakers made. I don't need to reiterate their
comments regarding the payback overall of research activities
and the needs for improvements and efficiencies.
I also would like to tie a major role that research
universities have in developing the future workforce, which
will tie back to future entitlements. It may be a much longer-
term perspective than the current entitlement issues, but there
is that relationship, including the factor of making sure that
we are trained in various STEM-related fields and that applies
across the broad reaches of the population of the United
States.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Hickman.
Dr. Graziano?
Dr. Graziano. Yeah. One thing I want to bring up in this
regard because I think what matters is not just getting more
money out there, which is of course important, but how we focus
that money. And we talk a lot about universities doing basic
research and then industry then just turning it into products.
And I think the area to focus is really in that transition
period. There is still a lot of risk coming from fundamental
research on the products. There is a lot of development and a
lot of knowledge that needs to be done there.
I think something like the proposals that have come out of
the Advanced Manufacturing Program report tried to address that
much the way the DARPA model tries to bridge that gap, you
know, the valley of death sort of thing.
So I think it is a matter of focusing there not only
because of helping to bridge that gap but it brings other
organizations like the community colleges and it gets to
bringing that research there, training a workforce not just at
the high-level research areas but the technology areas and the
medium-range areas. I think it is an area where we can really
have impact if we could address the focus a little more, not
just throw more money at it.
Chairman Brooks. Ms. Garton, again, with respect to the
competition between research universities and a myriad of other
programs and the entitlement programs that are ballooning,
where do you stand? What would you recommend that we in
Congress do?
Ms. Garton. Well, I agree with the other panelists that it
is--that basic research that drives the transformational new
ideas into entirely new industries. I also agree with them that
undertaking more efficiencies, developing more streamlined
processes, working together with the Federal Government to make
our indirect cost recoveries cover all of our infrastructure
needs. Those are very important components of becoming more
efficient with the funds that we have. But it is that link
between research and education that is going to reduce the need
for entitlement programs in the future as we have a workforce
that is expanding and new opportunities are being created from
our research and using our own graduates as the workforce that
drives that new economy.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Ms. Garton, for your insight.
At this point, the Chair recognizes Mr. Clark--yeah, there
is--from the great State of Michigan. You are up for your five
minutes plus as needed.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
And as I mentioned to some of the panelists, I represent
metropolitan Detroit, an area that has been very hard hit
economically over the past few decades but yet has a very
powerful national brand, and I would argue that brand is--goes
far beyond the--its reputation the manufacturing sector. Once
Detroit is perceived as coming back, that means our U.S.
economy has come back with much strength in our global economy.
Once concern I heard throughout your various testimonies is
difficulties relating to negotiating intellectual property
agreements between business and industry. How can this
Subcommittee actually make it easier to negotiate those
agreements? Let me give you some examples. How can we better
clarify who owns the property? Mr. Johnson, you indicated--Dr.
Johnson, you indicated sometimes universities don't want to
give up those rights. How can we make it easier to license
technologies produced as a result of university research
possibly by reducing some of the costs or some of the
bureaucratic hurdles that have been mentioned?
Also, Dr. Hickman, you indicated that the time to negotiate
these master research agreements is sometimes too lengthy. Are
there any thoughts on what we could do to reduce those times? I
know these are kind of specific questions but perhaps we can
create a better way of negotiating these agreements that could
ultimately spur--make it easier to create more jobs. That is my
first question and I do have others. And this is posed to
anyone.
Dr. Johnson. Okay. Thank you. I think the IP agreement
support is best achieved through a partnership and a
collaboration. I don't really easily see the Federal
Government's role in the activity. What I do see is that when
researchers at the university and when researchers in industry
understand the other's needs that the agreements can be reached
better. Historically, I think industry would come to a
university and say we will pay for this research and all we
would like is the intellectual property. That is really not in
the university's best interest and they don't like that and
they don't want to do that when in fact industry really only
wanted used rights of that intellectual property, not ownership
of the property. And I think reaching agreements and coming to
better understanding of what each party needs will yield faster
agreements and better agreements in the long run. Maybe there
is a role for the Federal Government but I don't see it within
that process.
Ms. Garton. If I could add the National Science Foundation
and National Institutes of Health have participated with the
University-Industry Demonstration Partnership that Mr. Hickman
described and that is an organization that has done a lot to
improve the climate for contracting and licensing and really
has developed some new agreement mechanisms and some supports
for negotiators and training for people who negotiate
agreements and has done a lot to make that process much easier.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you very much.
Mr. Green, you powerfully mentioned that the return on
research-ready investment could be 1,000X, which is
extraordinary. In your testimony you indicated that businesses
should better incentivize early-stage research partnerships
with universities. If you or any of the other panelists have
some thoughts on how we can best do that, best incentivize
businesses to work at early stage with universities on
research.
Mr. Green. Yeah, I think the first thing is, you know,
getting the success stories known because there are some great
stories out there and very self-interest where universities and
businesses teamed up to do extraordinary things. But I think,
as was mentioned in the opening remarks, you know, our lack of
big industrial research capabilities that we used to have a la
Bell Labs and Xerox Park and so forth, we have to replace that
with something and we have to move from, you know, the science
project if you will to industrialization of the innovation and
invention. And I think that is something that could be
facilitated through, you know, convening and collaborating, you
know, by this panel or others in government as well.
Mr. Clarke. Yes, Dr. Hickman?
Dr. Hickman. Yes, another factor that is very important is
just engaging universities. We have our employees engaging at
universities on curriculum reviews and on advisory councils.
When you start maintaining these relationships, such
opportunities come to the forefront. And when the university
learns your company and what your needs are, the company learns
the university and what their capabilities are--it is that
matchmaking process that becomes so important. That takes some
work and takes some engagement on behalf of both parties--and
opportunities do come to the forefront when that happens.
Dr. Graziano. The--also just to add to that--and I agree. I
don't think it is something the Federal Government can really
dictate that engagement. It is something we have to drive. But
ways to incentivize, some of the smaller programs, things like
NSF Goalies, which, you know, bring fundamental research
together with industrial partners. You know, those kind of
programs that bring people together like that help create those
points of engagement. We are engaging in a lot of places, we
have a lot of good resources, but there is a lot of medium-
sized companies that--and I was one with Rohm and Haas that,
you know, it is harder to put those resources there. So that
kind of incentive to get connected I think on programs together
can be useful.
Mr. Clarke. My goal representing southeastern Michigan is
to encourage industry to partner with our great research
universities. We have University of Michigan, Michigan State
University, and then right in the heart of the center of
Detroit is Wayne State University and how that type of
partnership could create more jobs and economic development,
especially for the central part of the City of Detroit where we
have a lot of cheap, vacant property that has infrastructure.
We have the roads, we have the sewers right there. We also have
very hardworking and creative people who are out of work who
are ready and willing to work. So we have all the assets that
you need right there.
Many of you have mentioned the importance of making
permanent and enhancing the R&D tax credit. You have other
thoughts on how we could--on how that proposal could be further
enhanced to spur job creation in blighted areas or high
unemployment areas such as Detroit? But Detroit is really
unique. It has gone through tough times but yet it has all of
the assets and it has that international brand, though, that
could be leveraged to create jobs throughout the country.
Dr. Graziano. Well, one program I would point out--and I
think one of the goals of the Advanced Manufacturing Program
around these manufacturing innovation institutes and the
manufacturing demonstration facilities, I think they provide a
means to bring a lot of small and medium enterprises together.
They are meant to be sort of pilot-shared areas so maybe they
could start to make use of the infrastructure and facilities
that are vacant in places like Detroit and start to bring in--
and they are also meant to bring a level of training so it
might be a way to retrain employees, you know, toward some of
these manufacturing areas.
So I think some of the concepts around there might be worth
looking at that are ways that could help revitalize some of
these areas that have infrastructure and some resources, how do
we take better advantage of it. And that is where maybe I think
the Federal Government might be able to help that with steering
in that direction.
Mr. Green. I might also just add, you know, I think this is
a place where our community colleges, which are also the
overlooked and underappreciated resource in this country--Jim
Jacobs who leads Macomb Community College just up there is one
of the best people in the country. You know, the 45,000 people
they used to train them for the auto industry and now they
train them for healthcare and now they do other things. I mean
it is a profound success. And I think--you know, I have always
encouraged our national universities to adopt our community
college system, one, as a source of terrific raw talent,
underappreciated and overlooked. But secondly, it is the place
where small and medium business can collaborate on a micro-
scale and tackle some of these issues of the community.
And I think the important thing it isn't about degrees; it
is about capabilities and it is about training for people--
training people for three blocks away, not 3,000 miles away.
And I think, you know, Detroit has made good progress in that
but that is an important thing we have an obligation to pursue
across the country.
Mr. Clarke. Well, thank you so much.
Oh, yes, Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. Just wanted to mention that in the fall we
will be taking a research team to the University of Michigan to
have a 2-day collaboration. I think it happens to also be the
days before the university plays the Air Force so I am hoping
to stay and watch that game.
Commenting on the comments that were made to answer your
question from the other panel members, I think there is this
wonderful blend of--take the University of Michigan as an
example of a really good research university. The--so you have
business models that aren't closing. People want to do things
and they want to--you know, there are activities that the
business model won't close on and they require subsidies in
order to work. Fortunately, there are many technology advances
that are enabling the business models to close, mostly through
cheaper manufacturing, cheaper products being able to do things
in a more efficient and more affordable way. The research
universities play a major role in making that happen so I can
envision a partnership between the research universities,
advanced manufacturing that is benefitting from the research
university research making these cheaper because what you are
doing really is fighting cheap labor. Right? What you are doing
is taking away the cheap labor advantage through advanced
manufacturing.
And then finally, I completely agree with community
colleges. That was a question that we had earlier that the
community colleges aren't just a place to prepare people for
four-year colleges. All right. It used to be the community
college prepared people to work in skilled labor fields. I
think this renaissance in manufacturing coupled with the
research universities and the community college as a source of
talent can be a wonderful consortium that could in fact help
Detroit.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your
time and I would like to follow up with each one of you and
your staffs on these issues. Thank you again.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
The Chair at this point recognizes Mr. Hultgren from the
great State of Illinois.
And you weren't here but I am being a little bit liberal
with respect to the 5-minute time limit. That doesn't often
happen.
Mr. Hultgren. I know. I have never known you to be liberal
so that is good. No, thank you. Just kidding.
It is so good to be with you. I apologize. It is one of
those mornings where we have got--I have got three Subcommittee
hearings going on at the same time so I am kind of jumping
around but very important subject. I just want to thank you so
much, each one of you, for being here, for the work that you
are doing. It is very important work. I do want to just give a
special thank you to Mr. Green. I have the privilege to have
the Q Center, which is an unbelievable education center in St.
Charles in my district. Thousands and thousands and thousands
of people are trained there and just an amazing place. I had
the privilege of being out there a couple of months ago I think
and was very, very impressed. So I appreciate the great work
that Accenture is doing. It is fantastic.
But my hope is I am passionate about science, science
education, basic scientific research, figuring out how we can
push that forward and this is a really important discussion to
have. I think during challenge times when budgets are tight, it
opens up an opportunity for us and that opportunity is to
communicate like we have never communicated before and realize
that we are all in this together. And I think that is what is
so important about this panel today is recognizing that
interaction between business, corporate innovation, and our
research universities and hopefully even taking it on the next
step to our research laboratories.
I am passionate about our research laboratories and I think
all three of those need to fit together all taking the
responsibility that we are in this together. If it is going to
work well, we have all got to take responsibility for telling
the story of what makes America great, and a big part of what
makes it great is wonderful research institutions, wonderful
national laboratories, and wonderful corporate partners that
are willing to come alongside to help us in this effort but
also to ultimately bring benefit to the American people and to
the world. I mean that is really what is going on. So thank you
so much for being here.
Couple questions I have, Mr. Green, I would like to start
with you if that is all right. But I know the National Academy
Study Committee found that while industry has dismantled its
large corporate research laboratories, they do--have not yet
fully partnered with research universities to fill that gap.
Why do you think this gap still persists and what can we do to
push through that gap?
Mr. Green. Yeah, well, I think, you know, we heard today on
the panel a lot of really excellent relationships and
partnerships, but I think the size of the problem is so big we
have to institutionalize it and industrialize it. The last
major wave in renaissance of invention was when our research
universities and the U.S. Government teamed up after the war.
The thing that is going to be the next renaissance, just adding
business to that----
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Mr. Green. --and having the incentives, the framework, and
the industrialization to make it easy, to make it focused, and
to take some of these issues that today, you know, we think are
complex--they aren't--and wrestle those things to the ground in
order to jumpstart, you know, sort of the renaissance of the
innovation economy, which is, you know, what we need. And I
think the report does a good job of articulating that. The
Graduate Pathways Support does as well. It frankly suffers from
a lack of leadership. How do you get all the people on the same
page to pursue the same outcome?
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I would open it up to some of the
others of you as well on the panel if you would have any
thoughts of how can we utilize this partnership? How can we
take that next step? Many have and I am so grateful again we
have got a panel full where we have seen that benefit, but how
do we take it to the next level to other corporations who
haven't accessed this and maybe even more smaller and medium-
sized companies that potentially could grow into large
companies and could benefit from that. Any thoughts on what is
holding us back, what we can do as Members of Congress to push
this forward?
Dr. Graziano. Well, it is a tough thing to say how to
actually do these things, right? And so I get back again to,
okay, it is not just a matter of throwing more money at it. I
mean more money is certainly useful but really focusing it in
areas that, like you say, how do we bring small-, medium-sized
enterprises together? How do we bring community colleges into
the picture? So taking programs that will benefit--that we see
will benefit our Nation and achieve our goals of growth in
areas and zeroing in on what those area is is a challenge as
well, too, and trying to bring opportunities for all those
partners to share that don't necessarily have the resources at
their disposal through co-funded programs with Federal
Government, with private industry, with local government. I
think those are the opportunities to bring a lot of different
entities together that don't necessarily have the resources to
do some of the kind of larger investments that some of the
larger companies can do and it helps bring partners together
and not just get universities and business to know each other
but gets us knowing the small companies that we may not know
about as well.
Dr. Hickman. I think there is an important role to research
parks, the research incubators and that universities play. We
were not the first ones on the University of Illinois campus,
but we saw what the other companies were doing there. We went,
too. You find a whole environment that supports innovation with
the students and the type of energy students have, it opens up
resources. The faculty get to know you. And so any activities
at universities also should allow faculty some freedom to start
up some of these small companies, to be able to get them
started in a place that can be later turned over to industry is
a very important role. These foster a whole environment of
innovation that will be important for years to come.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, again, thank you so much for being here
and I really do appreciate the testimony and want to continue
this discussion as well.
One challenge I would make to each one of you and to others
that I make a challenge to many of my constituents who are
physicists at Fermilab doing great work there and I would love
for them just to be able to focus on their physics research
but, you know what, they have to be good at telling the story
of how important the work is that they are doing and how we
have to, as a Nation, be a part of this, how this has to be a
priority. So what we have pushed on, really, is even with
collaboration there reaching out to universities who are also
engaged for them to connect with their Members of Congress. And
that is something I would just encourage you as well all the
people involved in this partnership to be telling the story
back to Members of Congress of how valuable this is, how
valuable this collaboration is and how important our research
universities are to be a part of that for us to be that
innovative nation that we all want going forward.
So thanks for being here. Thank you for your time. Thanks
for your work and hopefully we work together in the time to
come here.
So I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
At this point, the Chair recognizes one of our newer
Members--and I am a freshman; she is newer than me--from the
great State of Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chairman, and also Ranking Member Lipinski,
for holding this hearing today and for all of you for your
testimony on this critical issue.
The district I represent in Oregon is home to a thriving
technology industry, and we have industry giants like Intel and
numerous smaller technology companies. We also have in Oregon a
signature research center ONAMI, which is the Oregon
Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute that is a
collaboration among all of our Oregon research universities and
industry and our investment community, very successful work on
not only the research but the commercialization going on there.
We all know and we have had the discussion here today that
the economic success of our country is going to depend on
having the workforce that these companies and all the numerous
startup companies need to continue innovating and growing. And
I look forward to working with all of you and all of us on the
Subcommittee in promoting STEM education.
And although I know our focus today is on the university
level, I am actually pleased to see that, Dr. Graziano, you
mentioned in your testimony the importance of preschool--or
pre-K through post-secondary education. And I am especially
appreciative, too, of the comments, and Mr. Green, you
mentioned the need for creativity and innovation. And given
those needs, we should also be concerned about the trend in
education about cuts to non-STEM disciplines that lead to
creative, innovative thinkers. If you know the connection
between music and math, you will appreciate that. We all know
we need those creative, innovative thinkers and a well rounded
education, including of course focus on STEM will lead to that.
What I want to ask about today is one of the
recommendations provided in the National Academies report and
that is that the businesses and universities work together to
develop new graduate programs that address strategic workforce
gaps for science-based employees. I have spoken with some of
the constituent businesses in Oregon that have open positions
because of these gaps, the workforce gaps. My question is for
both of those in the private sector and on the university side,
if you could talk about how you respond to those gaps, how you
identify that the gaps exist, and then match up the companies
with the universities to help create the students with the full
set of skills they need to succeed in the workplace. And I
know, Dr. Graziano, you in your testimony point to one of the
main principles of using key partnerships to create the
workforce of the future. So I would like to hear a little bit
about how you are identifying the gaps and then working to fill
them. Thank you.
Dr. Graziano. Well, a lot of where I have worked has been
in the graduate level so I probably don't have all the details
down at the workforce level at the midrange. But I think one of
the big issues there--and I think it also applies to what Mr.
Hultgren had brought up--is communication. We are losing so
many people at a young age away from the sciences and it gets
to how do we communicate better that there is exciting things
to be done in science and engineering and education? The thing
that excited me and got me in chemistry--which I hated in high
school by the way--was--in the '60s and '70s was the
environmental movement. It was just all over there. And I see a
resurgence in people's interest in the technical challenges now
with energy, with water, with food, all those things, and we
got to do a better job exciting people about these areas so
that we don't lose them at a very young age.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Green. I think there is a lot of good information out
there. I mean sometimes in this education space we, you know,
tend to reinvent the wheel and do the study again to come up
with the same thing that was in the study before, but I think
in the area--what Change the Equation group has done, Business-
Higher Education Forum, which is very well known, very
straightforward. We do have to not just education; we have to
energize and inspire. And that I think is the challenge of, you
know, today's generation. Right, the education is very
vertical. We have to teach in a horizontal way that shows the
outcome and that focuses on inspiration, right, things that one
can do with this.
And so I think there are two things. First of all, there is
time-to-job, right, filling the jobs we have and I think
community colleges have proven to be incredibly focused at
that, incredibly good at it. The second thing is companies need
to go upstream. We can't say to the education infrastructure we
know what we like when we see it. Right? We have go to in there
and on the Commission on the Pathways through Graduate Schools
and into Careers Report talks about that. We have to go shape
what we want as outcome and I think that is incumbent upon all
of us to do that in all of our important recruiting schools.
And we have to think about jobs not in terms of the jobs of
today but the jobs we haven't invented yet because 40 or 50
percent of the jobs five years from now don't even exist today
and we need to put more business cycles into helping the
education infrastructure figure that out.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
And I know, Dr. Johnson, you----
Dr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you.
Both of your questions, the second one first, take an area
of great interest to us today in the corporation and I think
nationally cybersecurity. We recognized a few years ago that
the number of graduating cybersecurity experts if you will,
people educated specifically in cybersecurity, was not going to
meet the needs of our corporation, much less the Nation. And so
we worked with major universities, with our partner
universities to develop programs in that area. So this is an
example of how we develop programs that feed a particular need
today at the graduate--at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Your other question really was talking about the pipeline
and we are really proud to be able to comment on our
sponsorship for the USA Science and Engineering Festival that
was held in--the first one was held in October of 2010 on the
National Mall where we were able to get over a million people
to visit over 1,500 hands-on exhibits where you translate from
the theoretical to the practical to do that inspiration, to get
kids excited about science. And then we held the second
festival in April of this year at the Washington Convention
Center, again, diverse set of families from all over the metro
area who got a chance to see this time over 3,000 hands-on
exhibits.
So we are concerned about the pipeline decisions to go into
science and engineering generally is to be made at a young age
so they get algebra at an eighth grade so they can continue on
that math and science track. So we are strong supporters of
developing that pipeline.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
Ms. Garton. Ms. Bonamici, I would just--I would like to add
that I think that one of the most important things that we can
do in universities to bring a little bit of understanding about
future workforce needs to our curriculum is to really engage
our students from the very beginning of their undergraduate
careers in problem-based learning. And that is one of the
things we have done at Georgia Tech I think pretty successfully
is bringing industry into the university to help inspire some
of the problems, to help identify some of the challenges that
they are facing and offer them to our students as problem-based
learning challenges even as freshman and then working all the
way through the senior design courses. Often companies give us
access to company data sets or to company facilities so our
students can work on these problems, and we have had a lot of
inventions come out of those undergraduate problem-based
learning courses and through some of the grand challenge
contests that companies have sponsored at universities where
they identify a problem and ask students to work on the grand
challenge to get a prize.
And so you develop that creativity, you spark that
inventiveness, you engage them in the research, you teach them
the skills to solve the problem, and that is part of the way we
find where the work force needs are going to be and what we
need to bring into the curriculum. And we spur those students
on to engage in research and to be creative and to solve
problems.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. My time has expired but
thank you for your very inspirational ideas. Thank you.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici, for your
insightful questions and the Committee's witnesses' responses.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
In that vein, I have one.
We had a hearing not too long ago on the regulatory impact
on university research. And the witnesses at that hearing
indicated that they had some specific regulations that they
thought were counterproductive, excessive, overly burdensome,
what have you. This may apply strictly to Ms. Garton, but
still, if anyone else wishes to supplement with a written
response, I would very much appreciate it. If you are familiar
with any Federal Government regulations which you believe have
the net effect of inhibiting the universities' abilities to
properly conduct basic research of the kind that we have been
discussing today, please share that with me and our committee
staff so that we will be in a better position to address some
of those regulations going forward.
With that request having been made on the record, the
record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments
from Members.
The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. William D. Green
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.059
Responses by Dr. Ray O. Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.062
Responses by Dr. John S. Hickman
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.064
Responses by Dr. Lou Graziano
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.070
Responses by Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75396.079