Research Views

By Stephen Forrest, Vice President for Research

I am often asked a seemingly simple question: “How did Silicon Valley become Silicon Valley?”  You could ask the same question of the Route 128 corridor around Boston, the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Austin innovation clusters.  How did they ever emerge?  Of course, underlying this question is the obvious corollary:  “Will Southeast Michigan ever grow its own Silicon Valley”?

First of all, it is clear that that these clusters were not started by universities.  But the presence of world-class universities that serve as a rejuvenating reservoir of both talent and ideas has been a key element essential to their growth, and sustainability. Most importantly, there have been emergent technologies that provided the spark that set off the particular industries that now flourish in these regions.  In each case, the universities evolved along with their regions, adapting their own academic strengths and cultures to ensure that a close relationship developed with their neighboring industrial base.

Here in Southeast Michigan, the major industry that is poised to explode is the one that has been here all along: transportation and advanced manufacturing.  Clawing our way out of the Great Recession, we now find opportunities here as never before. The Big 3 automotive companies are entering the recovery with surprising strength, and we have innovation centers of many of the major global automotive manufacturers within a 20-mile radius of Ann Arbor.  This region is poised to become a major industrial cluster that will define and support the next generation of American advanced manufacturing not only in transportation, but also in renewable energy, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other areas where manufacturing expertise is the key element to success.

But to be more than just a dream, we must actively embrace—and strengthen—this region’s growing ecosystem of innovation.  That is our break from the past, and why transportation alone has not created a sustainable core in here in Michigan over the last 100 years.  For the first time, we have all the critical elements for the region to “take off”: we have companies with their advanced labs locating here from all over the world, we have the talent, and we have a university that sits in the center of the action that has sought engagement with its industrial partners as a core institutional value for at least the last decade.

Here are just a couple of examples of moves that U-M has taken in the last 6 months to build our ecosystem:

• Recognize engagement in innovation and entrepreneurship in the faculty tenure and promotion process. This was announced in a letter from the provost to all 19 schools and colleges this last semester.  And let’s face it: nothing influences culture more than the faculty evaluation and tenure processes.  Indeed, in academia this is truly “where the rubber hits the road”.

• Expedite Research Contracts, by reviewing and refining the processes of U-M’s Office of Research and Sponsored Projects (ORSP) to provide faster, more responsive service to industry and other research sponsors. To ensure success, we have elevated the importance of this office by creating a new Associate VP position to oversee it, reporting directly to the VP for Research. Along with U-M Tech Transfer and our Business Engagement Center, we are creating a seamless, customer-oriented interface between our faculty and industry partners.

• Negotiate IP terms up front, allowing our most substantial industrial partners to pre-negotiate terms for ownership of intellectual property at the outset of a long-term research program. This Michigan Research Advantage Program eliminates one of the biggest impediments to university-industry partnerships: uncertainty in obtaining important IP that is developed under industry sponsorship.

• Establish the Michigan Venture Accelerator at the North Campus Research Complex as a location where our faculty can start their own companies while accessing expert help in being successful.  We have completely filled the accelerator in only 1 year with 17 companies from 5 of our schools.

• Launch the Michigan Investment in New Technology Start-ups (MINTS) Program, that allows U-M to invest in its own spin off companies.  This program is a huge development in how universities engage with their own faculty enterprises.

These are just a few recent examples of how U-M is working with industry, government, and other universities to create the next “Silicon Valley” right here in Southeast Michigan. Many more are on the way.  It takes an ecosystem, and we are well on our way to building one that will lay the foundation for a new leap in the progress and prosperity of our region and the nation.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
March 12, 2012

What’s in a name?
A lot, we believe.

That’s why we recently changed the name of the six-year-old Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute to the University of Michigan Energy Institute (UMEI). The shorter name shows a clear identification with the University of Michigan as a whole, and the broad range of multidisciplinary work of its energy experts in disciplines ranging from engineering to public policy.

The Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project was created in 1948 as part of the “Atoms for Peace Program,” and has served as a living memorial to the students and faculty who gave their lives in the service of their country in World War II. The rich legacy and unique mission of the project will endure as a distinct, actively supported UMEI unit dedicated to exploring the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

UMEI, meanwhile, is set to build on its early momentum as a resource for research, education and understanding in such wide-ranging and pivotal areas as carbon-neutral electricity sources, energy storage, transportation and fuels as well as energy-related policy and economics.

A unit of the Office of the Vice President for Research, UMEI plays a central role in defining high-profile research initiatives in energy, with support for grant writing, management, and promotion. These include the recently awarded Department of Energy’s Clean Energy Research Center– Clean Vehicle Consortium (CERC-CVC) led by UMEI. By coordinating the U-M’s team-leading efforts for a group that includes national labs, leading research universities and industry partners, UMEI helps bring the best ideas in clean automotive technologies to the global market through this unique collaboration with researchers from China’s leading universities and industrial interests.

Closer to home, UMEI recently solicited a third round of applications for its popular Partnerships for Innovation in Sustainable Energy Technologies (PISET) program, which seeds new, interdisciplinary research in sustainable energy science and policy by supporting research fellowships. Through its first two rounds, the PISET program has funded five post-doctoral fellows to explore advancements in multimodal transportation, biofuels, efficient lithium ion batteries, and has created opportunities for reducing CO2 emissions at coal-fired power plants.

While U-M’s research strengths have long cultivated a robust, supportive community for graduate students and post-docs, it is also committed to nurturing future generations of investigators by providing undergraduates with hands-on opportunities to work in our labs, shoulder-to-shoulder with top scholars. That’s best reflected in the highly successful Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program, which creates research partnerships between first- and second-year students and faculty, research, scientists and staff from across campus. This spring, I’m pleased to report that UMEI will help extend these opportunities into the energy realm, offering support for up to 20 additional UROP students engaged in energy-related research during the academic year or in the spring/summer.

The U-M Energy Institute also looks forward to promoting the U-M’s flourishing spirit of entrepreneurship by funding energy start-ups. For example, UMEI continues to partner with the Clean Energy Venture Challenge, a state-wide competition established by DTE Energy that provides student teams interested in clean energy entrepreneurship with the education, mentorship and resources to advance their ideas. This year, nine U-M teams competed with two finishing in the top three.

Realistic approaches to energy-related challenges require integrating the perspectives of multiple disciplines. Through its various programs, UMEI plays a key role in encouraging faculty and students from across the entire campus to work across disciplinary boundaries to the lay the groundwork in education and research that will lead to a sustainable future.

So we believe the new name does make a difference. We preserve the memory of the Phoenix Memorial within the Institute, while highlighting the role that UMEI plays as a broad umbrella for the diverse and exciting array of energy-related activities across the entire campus and beyond.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
October 31, 2011

President Coleman recently announced that the university will invest up to $25 million over the next decade in select U-M startups. This is a winning idea for all: for U-M entrepreneurs, for the University’s endowment, for the state, and for the nation.

The initiative, which shows that even a large and complex institution like U-M can be entrepreneurial, is another step that shows the University’s commitment to encouraging faculty engagement in the larger society. It comes from thinking big, and thinking globally about its mission.

The idea behind the Michigan Investment in New Start-Ups (MINTS) initiative is to invest up to $500,000 of university funds in start-ups whose businesses are based on ideas and insights emerging from faculty research.  To be eligible, the company must first secure initial funding from a qualifying venture capital firm that has independently assessed its potential. (Further details below.)

For fledgling companies, this early stage support is critical. It is a period where extra funding from any source can make a big difference in their ability to establish themselves in the marketplace.

It also makes good sense as a way to diversify U-M’s endowment investments. An independent analysis of how our spin-offs have performed over the last 20 years showed that this strategy would indeed have yielded healthy returns to U-M.  The overall quality of startups out of our university, measured by any reasonable standard, has been outstanding.

But the value of the MINTS initiative goes far beyond the financial return on investment. It shows our faith in the creativity of our faculty, and by helping spur the success of our own start-ups, it also helps strengthen the culture of entrepreneurship at U-M while expanding the entrepreneurial infrastructure here in Michigan.

Entrepreneurs thrive in the company of other entrepreneurs, and over the last decade in particular, the area around Ann Arbor has become known as a great place to start an enterprise. By working to ensure the success of more start-ups, we can help draw even more entrepreneurs and more investments into the region. With this initiative, we are sending a strong message to our partners across the globe:  U-M believes in the potential of ideas emerging from our campus; we are investing in them, and so should they.

More broadly, MINTS helps us fulfill our mission as a public research university. Our $1.24 billion research enterprise is one of the largest of any university in the world. Part of our obligation is to help ensure that society benefits from the ideas that arise from our laboratories and classrooms. New company creation is one of the many ways this happens.

The spirit of entrepreneurship is at the heart of the American character, and it has long been a significant driver of our nation’s economy. By helping to create successful role models that will inspire this spirit in new generations of faculty and students, MINTS is a true investment in our future.

_______________________________________________________________________

The Michigan Investment in New Start-Ups (MINTS) initiative

The MINTS initiative is an opportunity for the University of Michigan is to leverage commercialization efforts by the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) for investment purposes while demonstrating support for U-M start-ups. The details are as follows:

• Investments made under this initiative would apply only to start-ups based on U-M technology.
• Investments would be made subsequent to the initial round of funding, and where an independent professional venture capital investment firm is also participating.
• The University has no obligation to invest in any particular start-up that may meet the above criteria.
• Each investment in a qualifying round of financing would be capped at $500,000.
• The program will be managed by the University’s Investment office, with the support of OTT and the General Counsel’s Office, as part of the University’s long-term portfolio of investments.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
November 23, 2010

There is a great deal of discussion today about the value (or lack) of the federal stimulus program. Was it wasteful, or did it really accomplish something? There was a lot of talk, too, about investing in “shovel-ready” projects, yet a piece of the investment went toward research – quite a bit of it to the University of Michigan. Let’s face it; research is anything but shovel-ready. So, this got me thinking a bit about the effects, both good an bad, about the stimulus, particularly as it relates to the University of Michigan and our state.

First, let’s consider the context. Where were we at the beginning of the new administration, in the fall of 2008?

The economy seemed to be in free fall. Banks were folding. Wall Street was in chaos. Our auto companies – the back-bone of the U.S. manufacturing base were in deep trouble. Company financials made it look like whole sectors were imploding. Banks and others “too big to fail” were going bankrupt. And the workforce was shedding more than half a million jobs a month. It was an unimaginable time.

It got so that no one could remember the last time the New York Times did not have a lead story, above the fold, about something other than dire news about the American economy going down the drain.

We all felt that American competitiveness was heading toward an unrecoverable abyss.

I remember those days very well. We all do. We felt all of those things in Michigan perhaps more strongly than anywhere else in the country. This seemed like the culmination of our nearly decade-long decline. Our statewide nightmare had finally touched the entire nation.

That set the stage for something unanticipated to happen. Under the leadership of a new president, and with support of many members of Congress, a significant first step toward both short and long term recovery was taken — the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the stimulus program.

In a major break from the past, the centerpiece of that landmark legislation was a significant investment in research. For someone like myself who has been an active researcher for the last 30 years, this investment was stunning. I had seen, over that 30 years, American support of research shrink to a point where the future of the single most consistent and sustaining part of our economy, innovation, was in serious danger of diminishment. Indeed, the main topic of conversation in the high-tech world was when, not if, we would finally be overtaken as innovators by the Chinese, the Koreans, or even Europe.

But ARRA sent the opposite message, and signaled to the world, that in this worst of times, America knew that economic recovery depended on a strong, innovation-based, and entrepreneurial economy. In short, our nation would be okay if we just stuck to doing what we always did best. Innovate – and, of course, build things.

I am very pleased to say that when this opportunity for renewed innovation arose, the University of Michigan faculty responded with an energy and enthusiasm as never before experienced at this university, that was perhaps greater than experienced anywhere else in the U.S.

A few numbers bear this out. The U-M has received well over 500 new grants under ARRA with a total anticipated funding of $277 million. Although there isn’t yet a national tally of research stimulus funding, I’m confident that the U-M is very near the top in total grants and monies awarded to universities!

Our Medical School was particularly successful, receiving 270 grants worth over $80 million. The College of Engineering was awarded $50 million through 60 grants, and the Institute for Social Research also received nearly $50 million in stimulus funding.

So, it is fair to ask, why was U-M so astonishingly successful? Why did our faculty, without prodding, expend such effort to “move the needle” of our research enterprise, which now exceeds $1B annually—the third largest academic research enterprise in the country?

I have asked myself this question many times. Why U-M? Why now? Of course, we never for a minute doubted that U-M researchers stand as tall as any in the U.S. and the world. But the volume of proposals sent in response to the call from ARRA was astonishing. Far larger than anyone had ever anticipated.

I actually think the answer to the question of “why U-M?” is simple. As I said, the State of Michigan has been at the epicenter of the nation’s economic troubles. Long before the current “Great Recession” hit, Michigan has experienced its own Depression that started nearly a decade ago.

When the stimulus bill was passed, our faculty saw an opportunity, finally, to do what they did best to help reverse the fortunes of our state and region. They know how to innovate. And teach the next generation of innovators, how to partner with industry and government to ensure that our innovations are used by others. And they certainly know how to start companies based on our inventions.

The U-M faculty had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize an extraordinary confluence of events to truly make a difference.

The faculty, staff and students, along with our many partners, pulled together as never before to move Michigan into the era of an advanced, knowledge-based workforce serving the needs of a similarly knowledge-based industrial sector.

Luckily, the support machinery at U-M was equal to the task of meeting the challenge of processing and submitting a flood of new proposals. We have amazing talent throughout the university that was, and is, always ready to serve the faculty: from the contracting office (DRDA), to our Office of Tech Transfer, to the Business Engagement Center – everyone sensed that if we worked together to build our research enterprise as never before, we could, and would, make a very big difference in our community and state.

A few major wins from this intense effort should make it immediately apparent how research and innovation is the engine best oiled to move the US economy forward:

The largest single grant received by the U-M was for $19.5 million from the Department of Energy in support of an Energy Frontier Research Center that develops new materials for solar energy harvesting – the core of the greentech economy.

Another project at the School of Public Health supports research on genetic variants that predispose individuals to type 2 diabetes. This project, tackling a major medical issue, helps to power up our rapidly growing health care industry.

And then there is the Department of Energy award of $2.5 million to establish an educational program in “green jobs”. Educated workforce development is a central contribution of our great university.

The impact of this research, both in the past and in the future, are apparent all around the region. The new companies that U-M faculty have formed and now, with the acquisition of the North Campus Research Complex, have begun to “spin in.” These companies thrive on our knowledge base, as a few statistics will show.

In the end, everyone must decide for themselves whether the stimulus has been effective or not. In fact, we will probably have to await the historians’ verdict to tell us if this was the right course to take. But from my perspective, the renewed emphasis on research is sure to pay off long into the future. No matter what the outcome of this particular program, I am particularly encouraged and proud that the University of Michigan is playing such an important role in creating a new future for our state and nation.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
October 19, 2010

Nobody likes to put the words “politics” and “research” in the same sentence (as I just did). It seems to be an awkward mix of our conception of the “philistine” with the “pure”. But, like it or not, all research is political with deep social and moral dimensions. We must face that apparent contradiction and deal with it head on if we are going to be successful researchers whose ultimate goal is to deepen our knowledge of the natural world and humankind, which will ultimately make our planet a more interesting and hospitable home.

I have really done a great deal of thinking about politics and research of late. These thoughts have been triggered by the convening of the World Stem Cell Summit recently held in Detroit, and the recent report by my Committee on Culturally Unidentified Human Remains (CUHR) that has worked to clarify the relationship between our museum’s extensive collections of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects, and the Native American tribes that inhabit our state and nation. Both are examples of how science (in one case, medical research, and in the other, anthropology) can result in social conflict. Stem cell research has long been an area of deep controversy and conflict that is still seeking resolution within the political sphere, whereas the issue of ownership of human remains that have found their way into our museum collections is a highly emotionally charged one that profoundly affects both the Native American communities as well as our ability to understand the history of our region and our indigenous population from the study of these remains.

But these are just two of many similar examples spanning almost every field of human knowledge. Indeed, society (and hence, the political landscape) impacts research in often unexpected ways. Engineers, like myself, do not do classified research here on campus, there are many regulations and controversies surrounding the conduct of both human and animal research, and I hardly need to remind you of the deep divisions and popular controversies surrounding climate research and evolutionary biology.

So, what do we make of this? Should we be sensitive to political issues, or is the research enterprise so “pure” that we should follow our own lights, wherever they may lead us, independent of what the larger society thinks? While, like most researchers, I am tempted to just “get on with it,” I also know that in our pluralistic and democratic society that this is not possible, and in fact, it is irresponsible to do so.

The reason for this is simple. In our country, the public funds research to advance the general welfare of our society. For this, we owe the public the results of our investigations, and we also must ultimately admit that the public has the right to determine what research it will invest in. These often complex priorities are set by our state legislators as well as by the Federal government – and more specifically the most political of all institutions: Congress and the President.

We ignore this political process at our peril. Although distracting and time consuming, it is nevertheless our responsibility as recipients of public funds to listen thoughtfully, argue our points when we wish to persuade, but ultimately to follow the public’s instructions and provide them with results that emerge from our investigations. Ultimately, we do research to give our nation the tools that lead to a globally competitive and innovative society, that can sustain a high quality of life in a well-managed natural environment.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
July 27, 2010

I recently returned from a long and grueling trip. It started out in Karlsruhe, Germany, then on to Shanghai, Korea, Japan, and finally, home. Part of this round-the-world trip was focused on university business that included the announcement that kicked off joint research programs with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in biomedical technologies and in renewable energy. And, while I was in Shanghai, an exciting trip to the World Expo thrown in for good measure.

But one event stood out most strongly in my mind, and got me to thinking about the importance of what we do in our research and scholarship. That was the event in Karlsruhe where the Optical Society of America was celebrating the 50th anniversary of the invention of the laser. Two Nobel Laureates gave talks to a packed auditorium: Charles Townes, often referred to as the father of the laser, and Theodor Hänsch who has made a career out of using lasers to revolutionize the world of spectroscopy, now employed to measure phenomena from the nano to the astronomical scales.

The reason that this event stuck with me has less to do with the laser itself, but more about transformations of our lives during the 20th and 21st Centuries due to new ideas, and inventions. The invention of the laser is one of those transformative events — the world following that invention is completely different than what existed before. The laser has literally changed the course of human life on this planet. It has enabled a revolution in communications through fiber optics, which has then given us, among other things, the internet. Almost every household in America today depends on lasers to read their CDs and DVDs. Lasers allowed the implementation of the most accurate clocks ever constructed, and of course there are always laser light shows to entertain us! I could go on, but the point is clear. Lasers changed the world.

But there are many other world-changing inventions and events that occurred during the last century that have made the world of the past unrecognizable to us now. Edison and Tesla introduced electricity into our everyday lives, moving us from the horse-and-buggy era into modern times. The airplane, the transistor, the discovery of antibiotics and vaccines have all had a profound impact on the course of the human condition. It seems that the pace of these advances are occurring more frequently than ever.

As researchers and scholars, it is abundantly clear. We do make a difference, sometimes with very positive impacts, and almost as often, with unintended negative consequences. We can, and do transform the world, from inventing nuclear weapons to creating revolutionary methods for linking people together, from inventing the internal combustion engine to warming the planet. It certainly makes me wonder: what’s next? And when will we recognize that yet another transformation has occurred?

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
April 27, 2010
[PDF of post]

The Office of the Vice President for Research recently announced a collaborative agreement between the U-M and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) that encourages cooperative research in renewable energy and biomedical research. Many questions arise from this announcement: Why SJTU? Why these topics? Why now? Let me try to answer them here.

We have unquestionably entered the age of globalization. Many companies large and small do business across the globe, placing significant manufacturing and service arms in numerous locations worldwide. Indeed, one cannot imagine a Microsoft, IBM, General Motors or any of the Fortune 500 companies succeeding without a global reach.

Unlike the industrial community, there are few examples where universities have created formal collaborative research agreements with foreign partner institutions. We, of course, have a long tradition of one-on-one faculty collaborations with overseas colleagues. But in this highly interconnected world where large research problems have global reach, the absence of institutional-level cooperation seems strange.

Even so, universities have long recognized the benefits of “study abroad” for undergraduates. It gives participants an educational experience that provides a deeper appreciation of the views and perspectives of a culture other than their own. In fact, I’ve personally benefitted from an education abroad program. While attending the University of California in the 1970’s, I spent one year at the University of Birmingham, UK. To say it changed my life is not an understatement. Everything that followed for me started with this extraordinary experience!

Nearly two years ago, U-M entered into a significant and successful inter-institutional research collaboration with the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany, and Fraunhofer USA. The subject is clean fuels. The object is to combine our complementary research expertise to build economic foundations for less carbon-intensive transportation. This collaboration is based on seed investments from both the Fraunhofer Institutes and U-M, and has successfully brought together exciting research projects from both organizations.

So this brings us to SJTU. U-M has had an educational collaboration with SJTU that goes back for more than a decade. The U-M/SJTU Joint Institute places American and Chinese students here and in China, with more than 200 JI students now attending U-M, mostly in the College of Engineering. Prof. Jun Ni (U-M, Mechanical Engineering) is currently Dean of the Joint Institute.

While educational opportunities have abounded, research collaborations have been slower to develop, although it now seems natural that U-M and SJTU take the next step in building links between our universities and countries. After all, President Obama has stated (correctly, in my view) that the U.S. and China have the most important bilateral national relationship in the world today. To understand our cultures, and to make rapid advances particularly in the areas of clean energy and medicine, we have to learn to do joint research, thereby learning from and teaching each other.

Interestingly our timing is excellent. The U.S. Department of Energy just announced an opportunity for joint research with Chinese institutions on renewable energy. This program recognizes that we all live on the same planet, and the two largest carbon-emitting nations must work together if we are ever to have hope in solving the massive problems of climate change and affordable, secure energy generation now confronting humanity. Our U-M/SJTU research collaboration is opportune, as it places us in an excellent position to compete for such programs.

I believe, therefore, that globalization of research is an essential step for universities to make the greatest possible impact in solving the largest problems now confronting humanity. Fraunhofer and SJTU are only the start of what looks to be an increasingly important trend overtaking the academic research enterprise worldwide.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
February 3, 2010
[PDF of post]

We often speak about how the North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) will “transform” research at the University of Michigan. We sometimes even suggest that the NCRC has the potential to redefine how research at universities will be pursued in the 21st Century. I agree with both of these sentiments, but it won’t happen because we hope it will; it will only become reality if we work together to forge a vision of what we want the NCRC to become, and help to make U-M the undisputed leader of university research in the decades ahead.

To understand the challenge, we must understand today’s research environment. I assert that we are entering the “4th generation” in the research relationship between the Federal government and universities.

Shortly after World War II, the modern research relationship was defined in Science, The Endless Frontier, authored by FDR’s science adviser, Vannevar Bush. Basic, or “curiosity-driven” research conducted at universities was defined as the first step in a linear process of innovation, that in time, ended with practical application developed by engineers in industrial settings.

By 1980, the U.S. economy was not obviously benefiting from the enormous post-war research investment. This gave rise to the 2nd generation of the partnership, where improved communications between industry and university researchers were actively encouraged. Gone was the concept that someone engaged in basic research would not be interested in following through to product realization. Two signs of this change were the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 (allowing universities to retain rights to intellectual property generated using federal funding), and establishment of Engineering Research Centers by the National Science Foundation.

What followed was an era of rapidly developing collaborations between university and industry, and a burgeoning group of faculty-entrepreneurs. As a result, the influence of some universities, such as Stanford and MIT, exploded as they fully engaged in applied research and entrepreneurialism.

But the scene changed yet again in the mid 1990’s. Ironically, the internet bubble and the growth of the high-tech economy, much of which came from university labs and entrepreneurs of the previous decade, led to a devaluation of the importance of use-inspired basic research. There were many causes for this; for example, much fundamental knowledge generated from federal funds was exploited by competitors, most notably Japan, that had made very little investment in foundational research. And then there was the investment-driven commercial economy that was impatient with long-term knowledge building. This 3rd generation lasted throughout the Bush Administration, and was characterized by a shift toward support for applications development based on knowledge already on hand.

We find ourselves once more in a time of change. Global competition is placing pressures on the U.S. economy and our ability to compete in the world. Indeed, ignoring basic research is taking its toll. At break-neck speed, high intellectual content technologies such as renewable energy, are creating new industries in parts of the globe that, in the past, we never considered as serious competitors. Visionary universities are searching for ways to create new knowledge, while simultaneously taking the most promising ideas rapidly to application.

To address these apparently conflicting goals, we must enter into close partnerships involving academics in different disciplines and institutions, along with industry and government. The 4th generation of research will be defined by creative and dynamic partnerships that come together to solve the most complex problems facing humankind. And when the immediate problem is solved, the team is dissolved, a new team forms with a different set of participants around new challenges.

So where does the NCRC fit in to all of this? This highly interconnected, spectacular laboratory space offers a unique resource when it is combined with the extraordinary strength of our faculty across almost all disciplines (as clearly demonstrated by U-M’s standing among the three largest U.S. research universities). We find ourselves with an unprecedented opportunity to define productive ways to partner, to tackle the largest problems currently facing humanity.

Achieving success in the 4th generation will not be easy. We must develop a shared understanding about the uses and possibilities offered by NCRC, and find exciting new ways to engage our brilliant faculty in developing broad partnerships. We find ourselves in a troubled economy of a state facing extraordinary challenges. Yet we are also faced with opportunities that others might only dream of, right at our doorstep.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
November 24, 2009
[PDF of post]

By now, many have heard that the University of Michigan broke the $1,000,000,000 threshold for research expenditures in Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09). Indeed, by National Science Foundation accounting, U-M has moved into third place for research expenditures by U.S. universities in 2008 (the latest year for which such numbers are available). Only the University of California at San Francisco and the University of Wisconsin rank higher.

But wait! There are even more numbers I could mention. For example, at our last count, the U-M has earned $150 million in ARRA research funds (otherwise known as “stimulus” spending), perhaps the largest share among all universities in the country.

This is all great news. However, these “loud” numbers (especially that $1B milestone) can drown out some important messages. Most prominently, I must point out that the U-M can only do this well by having one of the highest quality and most productive faculty on the planet.

Indeed, it is crucial to realize that our great research depth is due to the contributions of thousands of players, working in hundreds of different disciplines. Unlike a large company where teams of employees focus with unwavering attention on making a specific product successful, our success comes from our intellectual diversity. In some ways, U-M’s achievements are indicative of our lack of focus on a single objective. Our impact becomes even more impressive when we assemble teams of researchers to explore strategic areas of need or interest. New ways of thinking are born, spawning approaches to problems never before tried.

While we laud our faculty and their productivity, we also must not forget that research successes usually require making strategic investments long before we can confidently predict that such investments will pay off.

Likewise, the quality of our faculty was not built over night. It is the result of 192 years of applying a concerted vision to create the best institution of higher education in the country. And because of that enduring effort, we should never take such a resource for granted. Many seemingly first-rate institutions that have taken decades to establish their excellence, have squandered their long efforts in a heart beat. The severely diminished research capacity of the once highly creative Bell Labs last year comes immediately to mind.

Our faculty members have put forward time and again both fascinating and important ideas for study and development. It might be our social scientists who collaborate with the military to try to understand how best to monitor the mental health of soldiers in the face of a rising suicide rate. Or it’s our engineers and physicists digging into the nature of materials to improve the capacity to generate electricity from solar energy. And then there are the biomedical scientists who study rare, or “orphan” diseases, that get little attention because of the small number of affected people, yet in the aggregate, affects millions.

These are but three of the thousands of examples from our campus. Indeed, the breadth of our research is a direct reflection of the incredible breadth and excellence of our many schools and colleges at the University of Michigan.

But as times (and the economy) change, how does the U-M maintain and improve its faculty strength? And how do we demonstrate leadership in solving the important questions facing humankind?

The recently acquired North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) provides us with a unique setting to engage in interdisciplinary research, where we can bring together teams of researchers into a common location to solve the really “big” problems posed by an exploding population on a warming planet. To address these problems, we must support faculty groups as well as work with government and industry partners.

The enormous energy and terrific ideas of our faculty, the imaginations of our student body, the architecture of the NCRC, the basic can-do spirit of our entrepreneurial community, and our willingness to partner are all ingredients that will catapult U-M into the forefront of research universities in the decades ahead.

This is the big news. If we listen, it overwhelms even the roar of the big numbers that are only one indication of what we can do at the University of Michigan.

Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research
August 31, 2009
[PDF of post]

I would venture to guess that most of you reading this have doubts about the economic future of Michigan and possibly most of the Midwest. I am not one who shares this pessimism. For all of the bad news that our region has received over the last several years, I feel confident that we are positioned to come out of the current economic downturn with a level of success that may surprise many.

Our future is hardly guaranteed, of course. Success will require that we as citizens (often acting through government, business and educational institutions) take steps that may seem risky, but which will prove beneficial over time. If we act boldly, use our imaginations and our energy, then we can take advantage of these most “scary” of times and turn them into a period of rare opportunities. Indeed, we have a once-in-a-century chance, today, to transform our region and our long-term economic standing in the global economy.

Let me first set the stage that put us where we are. The Great Lakes Region has been, for nearly a century, the principal manufacturing hub of commodities in the U.S. – about 30% of manufactured goods are made here. But manufacturing is no longer the economic driver of the national economy that it once was.

The centers of innovation and economic resilience that have appeared over the last couple decades are primarily based on knowledge. If you examine where growth and innovation has been occurring — California, Washington, Massachusetts, to cite some familiar examples – it’s clear that these regions have strongly leveraged their university research and talent. It is wrong to assume that those regions were launched as economic powerhouses solely because of the universities. Instead, their success is due to a symbiotic relationship that developed between a region’s industrial and business cores, and then were enhanced by the talent and resources that local universities contributed. Neither business innovation nor university talent and ideas alone are responsible for sustained economic growth. Rather, it’s their combination that forms the juggernaut.

Yet, Michigan (and much of the Midwest) faces particular obstacles before we can join these others. First, we must reverse the view in many Michigan households that a college education is not essential to success. And we have to overcome the lore that all things of importance happen on the Coasts, even though the area between the coasts is home to two-thirds of the U.S. population.

With this as the backdrop, what do we have to do? First and most important is to drop our mindset of denial. The economy in the Midwest has changed forever. We’re not going through just another cycle, although there is a cyclic aspect to what we’re experiencing. We are experiencing a permanent decrease in the number of blue-collar, skilled manufacturing jobs in the automotive industry that has been the source of our regional prosperity for nearly a century.

It is time to turn our attention to knowledge-based industries in our second “industrial revolution.” Advanced automotive manufacturing, green energy, and health care and drug discovery are a few examples. Among these, advanced automotive manufacturing has recently been largely overlooked as a significant opportunity. But let me share an example situation which should give us hope that Michigan and the Midwest is a place where the new automotive industry can, in fact, be reborn.

In the 1990’s the U.S. semiconductor industry was on the verge of collapse because memory chip-making looked to be permanently migrating to Asia like so many other manufactured goods. The U.S. simply could not compete with Asia in making low-cost semiconductor memory chips. Today, we see memory as a commodity that is almost free. A year ago, a gigabyte of flash memory cost about a dollar. Now it can be found for less than half of that, and continues to decline.

In spite of this, and contrary to all expectations, the U.S. still leads the global semiconductor industry. We have giants – Intel, Motorola and AMD — that design and develop the most valuable (and expensive) chip in the computer, the central processing unit. The CPU is based on intellectual property owned by these industry leaders, and every company that assembles computers needs them. As a result, the semiconductor industry in the U.S. remains strong.

Similarly, while many blue-collar auto jobs have left the Midwest to places where production is less costly, a number of advanced R&D labs are now locating back in the auto heartland. Beyond Ford and GM, we now have facilities for Toyota, Hyundai and others.

What resources do we have to support this growth in knowledge-based auto R&D? For starters, we have several top research universities. With these universities we get innovation, and produce the resources and talent to turn those innovations into job-creating enterprises through partnerships with the private sector.

However, one thing concerns me about our universities as a regional resource. Michigan is just not doing much to support its knowledge base, the very thing that is helping attract new industries to our region. Over the last dozen years, Michigan ranks 49 out of 50 in the level of state support of its universities. In the last five years, it has been number 50 out of 50. In fact, Michigan is the only state in the last five years where the change in state appropriations to the state universities has gone negative and where money is being taken back every year.

The state budget forecasts suggest that trend will continue. The poor state of our economy is one reason. But the loss of support for higher education is also a statement of our priorities and reflects a lack of will to change the economic basis for the state.

Here is my formula for changing this trend. We need to get all sectors of the economy engaged, and we need to have a society that’s open and inclusive. One of the things that attracted me to Michigan four years ago was a speech by President Mary Sue Coleman where she said the U-M must “partner or perish!” My office and others in the University of Michigan leadership team have been hard at work finding new ways to forge these partnerships, to generate a culture of risk, and to make education and investment in entrepreneurship a priority.

In many respects, it is our students who have shown great leadership by demanding that we teach them the tools of entrepreneurship. Our students are demanding this type of educational experience, and I think we’re now rising to the task.

Our intention is to create sustainable traditions of risk, reward and entrepreneurship at the U-M and throughout Michigan. We are making progress, sharing and aligning our best practices among all of the state’s universities.

The Great Lakes Region and Michigan are at a crossroads. We can choose the past – not a very appealing prospect. Manufacturing simply can’t compete on a global scale, at least as it is currently configured. If we fail to adapt, the result will be decline in prosperity, loss of population, and marginalization.

Or we can choose the future. Structural and cultural changes are needed. Education of the population is the highest priority, and adapting to risk and change is essential. Michigan is not too big to fail, the Great Lakes Region isn’t too big to fail, and even the United States is not too big to fail. We have to live with those facts and be as competitive as we know how to be.

We certainly live in times of scary opportunities. They’re ours to miss only if we are afraid to take the risk to change.