Menus Subscribe Search

Innovation Must Get in Line for Academic Funding

• October 04, 2011 • 4:00 AM

In a Q&A session, computer scientist Francine Berman, vice president for research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, explains how funding decisions made in Washington help or hinder innovation at universities.

“I think researchers are really struggling to survive in a world where resources are really scarce and innovation is not always the highest priority,” says Francine Berman, a computer scientist and vice president for research at upstate New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Speaking as part of Miller-McCune.com’s series of interviews on the challenges facing research universities, she explained that the innovation enterprise requires complex scaffolding, access to a pool of adequately paid graduate students, up-to-date equipment and money for things like travel to professional conferences. All of these supports, and many others, face erosion due to limited funding.

Prior to joining the oldest technological university in the U.S., Berman was at the University of California, San Diego, where she directed the San Diego Supercomputer Center and its interdisciplinary staff of more than 250 scientists, engineers, and technologists. She was one of the two founding principal investigators of the National Science Foundation’s TeraGrid project, an effort to combine resources at 11 labs to create the world’s largest distributed computer for scientific research. Berman also directed the National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure, a consortium of 41 research groups, institutions, and university partners with the goal of building national infrastructure to support research and education in science and engineering.

The following is a condensed version of a conversation Berman had with journalist Ken Stier earlier this year.

Q: Rensselaer has about $90 million a year for research money. How much of that is from the federal government, and how much from what other sources?

A: I would say most of it is from the federal government but not all. It’s typically the [National Science Foundation], the Department of Energy and various agencies at National Institutes of Health. And then a few other agencies. But those are sort of the big three. Many universities, including ours, have little bits of Homeland Security, or little bits of other agencies, but those are the big three for universities. …

The challenge for today’s researcher is that, on average, they’re writing, four, five, six, seven proposals for every successful proposal they get. That is a lot of overhead. If you think about your science per dollar, your science per hour, the fact that the federal money is so difficult to get — that means that the research community is spending a lot of time not doing the research but applying for research funding. And that’s been a part of our landscape for quite some time.

Q: Do you expect that to get worse given budgetary constraints?

A: Well, we’re concerned because there are several things happening. Number one, the stimulus money was also stimulus money for intellectual capital, and that came out as programs for universities for research. And while that lasted, the success ratio was more like 1 in 3 proposals, rather than 1 in 5 or 6. That was a really terrific thing for researchers, but that money is, as of now, gone. And the prospects for another stimulus, or a continuation, or something like that, is not good. More generally, there is the problem of the economy that is just hard for everyone, including researchers. And it’s been hard for researchers for some time. And then, there is, of course, the third problem of the current political environment in Washington, it’s hard to know how education and research will get sorted out by Congress and in the administration. So yes, we are concerned.

Q: How much time does it take to make a proposal?

A: Oh, my gosh. The really big proposals are thousands of hours, arguably tens of thousands of hours. If it’s a huge proposal, you’ve got a number of institutions in New York to put in to it — so like Syracuse and Rensselaer working together. And all together I really wouldn’t be surprised if there was a hundred or more individuals involved spending a huge amount of time.

For a single investigator proposal, I wouldn’t be surprised if researchers invested hundreds of hours.

Q: I think I’ve heard you say you think the review process in Washington is quite lengthy.

A: Well, the review process varies per agency, so like everything else in Washington, you can’t really paint it all with a broad brush. [The National Institutes for Health] does things very differently than NSF. In NIH, you have the science panels, and they’ve been there for a long time, while the panels at the NSF are not permanent; they come together for different programs, and then they dissolve, and program officers have a different kind of a function at each. It’s just a very different approach. One can assume that everyone’s essentially doing their best to try to assess the goodness of a proposal. But, you know, results might vary.

Q: Is it all peer reviewed? And generally do researchers prefer that peer review?

A: I think you’d have to ask a researcher; I’m a researcher myself, and I’ll tell you my preference is that experts review the proposal. I think we all would like people who know the landscape to be reviewing our stuff and for those to be as objective as possible.

In my own particular research area with computer science and information technology, many of [my] peers are in the private sector, and these people are often included on these panels. Research really is taking place not just in academia — which does a lot of it — but there is also a lot of research in the private sector, as there is in government laboratories as well.

Q: Are you, in academia, competing against that as well?

A: Yeah, you bet.

Q: I wonder how you might describe how priorities have changed, say, around the [post-9/11] creation of the Department of Homeland Security. How did that change the programs and the proposals that the government is looking for? How important was that change?

A: Certainly over the last decade there has been a much more intense focus on security. One was in the physical realm with 9/11, with respect to critical physical infrastructure. At Rensselaer, we have a particular interest in that because we have oldest civil engineering department in the nation. [Founded in 1824, the private university is 187 years old.]

The other area is in the cyber-realm. With the rise of our dependence on electronic information, for progress and advancement in all kinds of things, I think you saw a much greater scrutiny and interest in cyber-security. … The whole community has really thought a great deal more about the very, very hard problems involved. …

A really good example of a need for cyber-security is as we get more and more successful in creating and disseminating electronic medical records. If we remain concerned about privacy of the patient — and I don’t see any reason that we would change on that — you could imagine we will have to be very, very careful about transferring that information, using that information, anonymizing that information, etc.

Q: I’m wondering how this significant shift in funding on the part of the federal government may have favored some schools — those with the intellectual capital that could address those issues — than others that are not so strong in these areas.

A: For all of us, we want to do what’s interesting. You’re never going to get any good work unless you feel passionate about it — never. Researchers know that and that there are huge problems based on things they’re interested in. That being said, it’s a lot easier to choose a problem in an area that’s being funded. We have a whole pipeline. Graduate students choose problems with their advisors, and as the huge number of interesting problems come up in cyber-security, and there is more funding for them, they may gravitate to those kinds of problems. So, then you start getting an increase in cohorts. Sometimes people stay in their chosen areas that are not particularly lucrative if they’ve been working in it and they love it, but then they might look at new applications of their work in areas that are being funded.

Q: I’m wondering if you think there may have been maybe too much of a pendulum swing in this area.

A: I think the answer is no. Market forces might guide trends within the research community, but at the end of the day research is about solving problems for which we do not now have the answer. Research in academia, in particular, is about solving problems without the worry that in 18 months we have to produce a product. And that’s really important because the hardest problems we have to deal with take a long track record and many good brains and a lot of innovation to solve. In the private sector, there’s certainly more pressure to produce products out of research.

Q: But do you have a sense that other things were neglected?

A: Yes, but I think there’s not enough money to do all of the things that are important. That will always be true no matter how much money we put into it. I think we are in a precarious place now: If you look at the amount of investment in innovation in this country, it is falling short of what we need now, and more worrisome is that it is falling even more short of what we need for the next generation. I think it is a real concern not to have the foundation of research and innovation that will keep the U.S. competitive over the next decade. That’s a concern because it’s the generation that’s going to college now, or elementary school, or preschool, that are going to be taking over. Giving them experience with unsolvable problems, that’s research; training them in areas that are up to date, that’s education. Giving them the skills they need to navigate a complex world — that should be a big priority for us, but I don’t think it’s as big as it needs to be.

Q: How do you evaluate how well you’re doing with your research resources? What sort of metrics do you use?

A: There are two goals in the office of research at Rensselaer. The first thing is to help our researchers have impact, because no one wants to work and do something incremental. Everybody wants to come to work and be innovative and really make a difference. And the way you measure impact is often through feedback that you get through your community, or winning awards or prizes: Are our fellows in their professional societies? Are they in a national academy? Are they being cited for their publications? Those kinds of things indicate impact. Are they being picked up by companies? Are they creating paths? Another measure of impact is funding success, so we want to see our levels of funding get ever higher every year. There are two kinds of funding: There’s the number of awards and the aggregate amount of money you get from it, and then there is expenditures — how much of that award money is being spent per year? So typically universities want their funding awards and their expenditures per year both going up every year.

Q: How are you doing on these two goals?

A: I’m happy to say that Rensselaer is doing terrific on that. We got an 18 percent rise last year in awards, and the expenditures went up. Another measurement is the overhead that comes back to the university, which helps us run the university, to support the basic infrastructure of the university. All universities do that, and that’s negotiated between universities and the federal government — [and can run from 20-60 percent] — and what you want to see is the overhead return go up every year, and for us it did.

Q: How much have you turned to corporations for help in research? How do they figure into your efforts here?

A: There’s a really positive type of win-win situation for universities to work with corporations because oftentimes corporations don’t have the kind of freedom to work on certain kinds of problems and explore certain ways of thinking, certain kinds of approaches, because they need to make a profit.

For universities, corporations are a great source of real-world problems. They often have real-world data to share. They’re interested in our students. There’s interest in mentoring students for jobs. So, they’re great partnerships.

Q: Any examples that come to mind?

A: There are a number of industrial partners that run their codes at our supercomputer center, [the $100 million Computational Center for Nanotechnology Innovations]. They pay some money and they get some help, and the supercomputers provide them computational cycles on bigger machines than they have in their own facilities. Our machine runs 90 to 100 trillion calculations per second, so it’s a good-sized machine to get things done very quickly. Oftentimes, they need some help writing in their codes, so they can run their particular programs. IBM has worked with us to provide a really terrific deal on the machine, and the state of New York helped, too. And this was a win-win-win for Rensselaer, the state of New York and IBM to get this machine out there and used by an academic, private-sector constituency, and a state constituency — I’d say this is a great partnership.

Sign up for the free Miller-McCune.com e-newsletter.

“Like” Miller-McCune on Facebook.

Follow Miller-McCune on Twitter.

Add Miller-McCune.com news to your site.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Ken Stier
Ken Stier got started as a reporter at community newspapers, independent film and television industry publications and in public affairs TV in New York in the 1980s. After attending Columbia's School of International Affairs, he moved to Southeast Asia in time for the final Vietnamese troop withdrawal from Cambodia. From bases in Bangkok, Hanoi and Kuala Lumpur, he worked for wire services, newspapers and magazines, including Time and Newsweek. Until recently, he was a features writer at CNBC.com, covering energy and the financial crisis that got him laid off. He now freelances from New York, where he has covered and worked inside the United Nations, written policy papers for think tanks, conducted proprietary research for boutique consultancies, and taught at university.

More From Ken Stier

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

July 22 • 4:00 AM

New Evidence That Blacks Are Aging Faster Than Whites

A large study finds American blacks are, biologically, three years older than their white chronological counterparts.



July 21 • 4:00 PM

Do You Have to Learn How to Get High?

All drugs are socially constructed.


July 21 • 2:14 PM

The New Weapon Against Disease-Spreading Insects Is Big Data

Computer models that pinpoint the likely locations of mosquitoes and tsetse flies are helping officials target vector control efforts.


July 21 • 2:00 PM

Why Are Obstetricians Among the Top Billers for Group Psychotherapy in Illinois?

Illinois leads the country in group psychotherapy sessions in Medicare, and some top billers aren’t mental health specialists. The state’s Medicaid program has cracked down, but federal officials have not.



July 21 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, MacArthur Genius?

Noah Davis talks to Yoky Matsuoka about youth tennis, wanting to be an airhead, and what it’s like to win a Genius Grant.


July 21 • 11:23 AM

People Are Clueless About Placebos

Doctors know that sometimes the best medicine is no medicine at all. But how do patients feel about getting duped into recovery?


July 21 • 10:00 AM

How Small-D Democratic Should Our Political Parties Be?

We need to decide how primaries should work in this country before they get completely out of hand and the voters are left out entirely.


July 21 • 8:00 AM

No, Walking on All 4 Limbs Is Not a Sign of Human ‘Devolution’

New quantitative analysis reveals that people with Uner Tan Syndrome don’t actually walk like primates at all.


July 21 • 6:00 AM

Sequenced in the U.S.A.: A Desperate Town Hands Over Its DNA

The new American economy in three tablespoons of blood, a Walmart gift card, and a former mill town’s DNA.


July 21 • 5:00 AM

Celebrating Independence: Scenes From 59 Days Around the World

While national identities are often used to separate people, a husband-and-wife Facebook photography project aims to build connections.


July 21 • 4:00 AM

Be a Better Person: Take a Walk in the Park

New research from France finds strangers are more helpful if they’ve just strolled through a natural environment.



July 18 • 4:00 PM

The Litany of Problems With the Pentagon’s Effort to Recover MIAs

A draft inspector general report found that the mission lacks basic metrics for how to do the job—and when to end it.


July 18 • 2:00 PM

Sure, the Jobs Are Back, but We Need a Lot More

We’re back to where we were before the 2008 recession, but there are now 12 million more people in the United States.


July 18 • 12:00 PM

What Are the Benefits of Government-Funded Research?

Congress wants to know.


July 18 • 10:31 AM

Why Didn’t California’s Handheld Phone Ban Reduce Motor Accidents?

Are handheld cell phones as dangerous as they have been made out to be?


July 18 • 10:00 AM

The Upside of Economic Downturns: Better Childhood Health

For children, the benefits of being born in tough times can outweigh the costs.


July 18 • 9:48 AM

What Tech Talent Shortage? Microsoft Trims 18,000 Employees From Payroll

Like manufacturing before it, the Innovation Economy has reached a turning point, with jobs moving to places where labor is cheaper.


July 18 • 8:00 AM

The Academic of Comic Books

Kim O’Connor talks to Hillary Chute about comics as objects of criticism, the role of female cartoonists, and the art world’s evolving relationship with the form.


July 18 • 6:00 AM

The Supreme Court’s ‘Hobby Lobby’ Ruling Isn’t a Women’s Health Issue

It’s a private health issue. And it affects us all.


July 18 • 4:00 AM

‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’ Comes Easier to the Danes

New research finds the closer a nation is to the genetic make-up of Denmark, the happier its citizens are.


July 17 • 4:00 PM

A Way for Feminism to Overcome Its ‘Class Problem’

A growing body of research indicates that there are few other interventions that improve the economic prospects and work-life balance of women workers as much as unions do.


July 17 • 2:00 PM

How a Fanny Pack Mix-Up Unraveled a Massive Medicare Fraud Scheme

Two secretaries in a doctor’s office have pleaded guilty and a pharmacy owner faces charges in a scam that Medicare allowed to thrive for more than two years.


Follow us


Subscribe Now

The New Weapon Against Disease-Spreading Insects Is Big Data

Computer models that pinpoint the likely locations of mosquitoes and tsetse flies are helping officials target vector control efforts.

People Are Clueless About Placebos

Doctors know that sometimes the best medicine is no medicine at all. But how do patients feel about getting duped into recovery?

No, Walking on All 4 Limbs Is Not a Sign of Human ‘Devolution’

New quantitative analysis reveals that people with Uner Tan Syndrome don't actually walk like primates at all.

Why Didn’t California’s Handheld Phone Ban Reduce Motor Accidents?

Are handheld cell phones as dangerous as they have been made out to be?

The Upside of Economic Downturns: Better Childhood Health

For children, the benefits of being born in tough times can outweigh the costs.

The Big One

Today, the United States produces less than two percent of the clothing purchased by Americans. In 1990, it produced nearly 50 percent. July/August 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.