|
|
|
[Annual Reports Menu] [Report Table of Contents]
Annual Report
on
Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity
at the
University of Michigan
FY2001
Fawwaz T. Ulaby
Vice President for Research
(From left: Marshall Nirenberg, UM alumnus and Nobel Laureate;
image of quantum dots; image from functional MRI)
Delivered to the
Regents of the University
January 17, 2002
Full-color PDF version of remarks (9 MB)
PDF version with B&W photos (3 MB)
Report Table of Contents
- The Impact of UM Research on Society (Video Transcript)
- Summary of Research Expenditures and Awards
- Why Are We Successful?
- The ÒCostÓ of Success
Appendices of Tables and Charts
Table 1: Volume of Research Expenditures by Sponsor
Table 2: Total Research Expenditures by School, College and Other Units
Table 3: Research and Research-Related Community Service and Instructional Support Expenditures by School, College and Other Units
Table 4: Summary of Research Proposals by Sponsor Group
Table 5: Summary of Research Proposals by Unit
Table 6: Summary of Research Awards by Sponsor Group
Table 7: Summary of Research Awards by Unit
Preface
During Fiscal Year 2001, a total of $592 million was expended in support of research at the University of Michigan, representing an increase of $46 million over FY2000. After discounting for inflation, this one-year increase of 8.5 percent represents net real growth of 4.6 percent over the previous year. New research awards received thus far during the first half of FY2002 total $442 million, an increase of $179, or 68 percent, over the amount received during the corresponding first half of FY2001.
Whereas these expenditure and award figures are very gratifying, they raise a number of critical and timely questions:
- What is the "value" of research and scholarship to the UM community, the State of Michigan, the nation and ultimately to the broader global society?
- Why has the UM been exceptionally successful at winning research grants and contracts? (Over the past two years, UM Research expenditures associated with externally sponsored sources increased at an average annual rate of 8.8 percent, compared with an average annual growth rate of 6 percent for Federal grant expenditures for research by all U.S. universities.)
- How does this rapid growth in research impact the University's capacity to sustain the appropriate foundation for this activity, in terms of space, internal support for upgrading research facilities, adherence to Federal regulations, and other related demands on the institution and our faculty, staff and students?
In this year's annual presentation to the regents, I will attempt to answer the first of the preceding three questions by sharing with you a short video. The program offers an examination of:
- how the research training our graduate students receive provides the foundation that later on may lead to great discoveries and innovative applications of technology;
- what basic research is and the fundamental knowledge it seeks to discover;
- how knowledge is used in the service of society through applied research; and
- what steps we take to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and discoveries into the private sector.
Following the video I will present some additional quantitative indicators of the growth in our level of research activity and then address some of the reasons for this research success. I will also discuss some of the long-term implications of success and the need to start examining our institutional capacity to provide the material and administrative support required for maintaining such a rapid rate of growth in research.
I. The Impact of Research on Society (Video Transcript)
A. Introduction
Fawwaz Ulaby
Vice President for Research
At the University of Michigan, research and scholarship encompass an extensive array of scholarly projects over an incredibly diverse set of topics and disciplines. Our commitment to the discovery of knowledge is really a commitment to help solve the complex problems facing society in the environmental, biological, and social arenas. It is a commitment to serve our State, our nation and the world.
I am Fawwaz Ulaby, Vice President for Research. I invite you to join me now as we sample this broad range of research activities taking place on our campus, and how it influences society Ñ through education, through basic and applied research, and through technology transfer.
B. Educating Leaders and Innovators
First and foremost, our greatest contribution to society is through the students we educate. By involving them in research and the pursuit of scholarship we help them develop their abilities to think, to reason, and to contribute. We are proud of all of the contributions made by our alumni for the betterment of society, and we are particularly gratified when some of them win prestigious awards, or rise to leadership positions in government or the private sector. Let's listen to what a few have to say about their exposure to research at Michigan and how it impacted their careers Ð we start with Jerome and Isabella Karle, who actually met while in graduate school at Michigan.
Jerome and Isabella Karle
Jerome Karle (Ph.D. '44)
Chief Scientist, Laboratory for the Structure of Matter
Naval Research Laboratory
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1985
I would say that the most important aspect of studying at the University was the opportunity that I had at the University of Michigan to take a number of courses that were beyond the usual courses for my studies, which at the time were in physical chemistry in the chemistry department.
Isabella Karle (BS '41, MS '42, Ph.D. '44)
Senior Scientist
Laboratory for the Structure of Matter
Naval Research Laboratory
National Medal of Science, 1995
My Michigan education taught me how to approach research, how to go about it, both from a theoretical and experimental point of view. What I also found extremely useful was the practical experience that I had in high-voltage equipment, in vacuum technology, in glassblowing, wiring Ñ we called them breadboards at the time Ñ because this was all very new at the time.
Marshall Nirenberg (Ph.D. '57)
Chief of Biomedical Genetics
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, NIH
Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1968
The University of Michigan was very important to me because it laid the entire foundation for my becoming a biochemist there. And the graduate school was wonderful. I enjoyed it tremendously. I learned biochemistry, microbiology, chemistry, and really learned how to be a scientist Ñ how to do lab work at the University of Michigan.
Lawrence Evans (MSE '57, Ph.D. '62)
Chairmen & CEO
Aspen Technologies, Inc.
My graduate education at Michigan provided an important foundation for all that I have accomplished. It was where I first learned and got excited about computers. I began to understand just how I could apply this tool to understand the chemical processes. Over time I have been able to tap that foundation in my research while a faculty member at MIT and then to help me build Aspen Technologies into an industry leader providing computer applications of many kinds.
Nancy Benovitch Gilby (BSE '85, MSE '87)
Co-Founder and CEO, PocketThis, Inc.
Entrepreneur - Started 6 companies
It is a very high work ethic that I saw at the University of Michigan Ñ in all of the class work that I was involved with. I was asked to meet very high standards for what I needed to achieve to pass and get good grades in my classes. Similarly, when I was selected to be a research assistant, and when I wrote my master's thesis, the norm was a very high work ethic.
The Honorable Geraldine Bledsoe Ford (AB '48)
Judge, Federal Third Circuit (retired)
The experience of understanding myself and finding myself in relation to the world just happened at the University of Michigan. And I can say for that experience and for the fine groundwork I had here, which guided me, I will be very grateful.
C. The Contributions of Basic Research
Fawwaz Ulaby
Basic research is a core activity of the University of Michigan. And our success is greatly aided by our partnership with Federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation. Here are some comments on this partnership from Michigan Congressman Nick Smith, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Research.
Nick Smith
Michigan Congressman
Chair, House Subcommittee on Research
Basic research conducted at the universities like Michigan and funded by agencies like the National Science Foundation is vital to our Nation. Both our economic prosperity as well as our national security depends on a steady stream of new research and innovation. We must always be expanding our understanding of the world around us to prepare for unforeseen needs and challenges. And through the NSF funded engineering research centers and science and technology centers, we will be able to draw together researchers from a variety of fields to create the foundation for future technological advances that benefit all of our society.
Philip Bucksbaum
Otto Laporte Professor of Physics
Here at the University of Michigan we have been studying new ways to turn x-rays on and off very fast. The new technology involves reflecting x-rays off of a solid crystal and moving the crystal very, very fast using lasers to move it. What we can do is make the x-rays turn on and off on a time scale that is about equal to the motion of atoms in a chemical reaction. If we can perfect this kind of technology, it would really open up a new window for basic research into how chemistry happens.
Thad Polk
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Until recently most scientists interested in the human mind pretty much ignored the brain. And the reason is that there simply wasn't a way to measure neural activity while people were performing cognitive tasks, but a new technique called functional MRI, has changed that. Functional MRI produces high resolution images of brain activity every few seconds and it does so safely and non-invasively; so it is now actually possible to watch the brain work while people are learning or listening or performing a variety of cognitive tasks. Here at the University of Michigan we have a new functional MRI facility on North Campus that a number of faculty in psychology and a variety of other departments at the University are using to study how the brain implements memory, attention, emotion, and a wide variety of cognitive functions.
From left: George Shirley, Gregory Wakefield
Gregory Wakefield
Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
I am working with George Shirley and Freda Herseth in the School of Music and Norman Hogikyan in the Medical School in developing models of the human voice. Taking recordings of the human voice we process these electronically to form images of singing. Mountain ranges in these images tell us about the singing voice. The challenge for the teacher and their singer is to figure out how to build smooth ranges out of these mountains. You can even electronically alter these ranges, so that the singer can hear the present sound of their future voice. Longer term implications of this research is to assist singers in their training as well as to help people with voice disorders.
Fawwaz Ulaby on the Middle English Dictionary
Basic research certainly extends well beyond science and engineering. For instance, in August of 2001, we celebrated the completion of the 13th and final volume of the first-ever definitive record of Middle English, defined by scholars to cover the period from 1100 to 1500 A.D. The sheer magnitude of the Middle English Dictionary project is staggering -- seven decades of scholarly labor, documented by some 3 million citations, culminating in a 13-volume dictionary of nearly 15,000 pages. Equally impressive is the fact that a single academic institution, the University of Michigan, provided the intellectual power and the bulk of the funding to accomplish this truly monumental task.
UM President Lee Bollinger presenting commemorative plaque to Robert Lewis, Editor of the Middle English Dictionary, in May, 2001.
D. Addressing the Needs of Society
Fawwaz Ulaby
The University has a long-standing tradition of conducting research -Ð whether basic or applied -Ð aimed at enhancing human life and the human condition. This is accomplished by faculty, staff and students involved in research projects aimed at developing practical applications -Ð from synthesizing a new drug to treat asthma, to designing new automotive sensors, and to creating new educational tools for teaching science and math to K-12 students.
One project in our Medical School is developing a potent emulsion called BCTP that kills harmful bacteria, yet it is completely non-toxic to humans.
James Baker, Jr.
Ruth Dow Doan Professor of Nanotechnology
At the University of Michigan we have done extensive testing in a number of different areas that suggest that BCTP is effective for treating anthrax spores as well as a number of different organisms that might be used for biological warfare. What we have done is first to look at cultures of these agents and see whether or not the emulsion will kill them. And there is very clear data that shows now that the emulsion does kill spores as well as bacteria in envelope viruses.
Fawwaz Ulaby on the UM Transportation Research Institute
In the University's Transportation Research Institute, many projects provide findings that are important to agencies responsible for transportation safety matters. Other projects help industry understand consumer needs and desires, allowing these companies to better meet the demands of their customers.
Crash test sled
Sandra Danziger
Associate Professor of Social Work
The Michigan program on poverty and social welfare policy is a joint effort at the Schools of Social Work, Public Policy, and Law. In one of our projects we have been interviewing single mothers, who are or have been welfare recipients in Michigan. We find that the women, who face multiple barriers to work, things like health problems, mental health problems, transportation, domestic violence are having more difficulty moving, making the transition from welfare to work and thus, they are at greater risk of losing their benefits. Yet the programs that serve them typically do not assess and treat these problems. We hope that Congress and other policymakers will be able to use our findings when they re-authorize the current law in 2002.
Fawwaz Ulaby on "Saturday Morning Physics"
Some contributions of research to society are quite direct. For the last seven years, scientists from Michigan's Physics Department have offered a Saturday morning lecture series aimed at the general public. The lectures are quite popular and are attended by thousands of people, from school-age children to elderly citizens.
E. Research for Economic Growth
Fawwaz Ulaby
In some cases, the research conducted by our faculty provides the basis for new products and services, in which case the University may patent and / or license the technology to the commercial sector, thereby contributing to the growth of the nation's economy.
Rick Snyder
Chairman, Ardesta, LLC
Technology transfer at the University is very successful these days and it has come a long way. If you go back to when I returned to Michigan back in 1997, I would say that tech transfer was primarily a licensing organization. Over the past few years though, it really has become a partner Ñ a partner in bringing together researchers and businesses in terms of building good business plans and how to make successful businesses out of great research.
David Humes
Professor of Internal Medicine
Founder, Nephros Therapeutics
Nephros Therapeutics was started eight years ago as a spinout biotechnology company from the University of Michigan. This technology is based upon the ability of an academic lab to isolate kidney stem cells from adult tissue to fabricate a device that has both living cells and vial biomaterials for the treatment of acute and chronic kidney failure. We have used these devices in early clinical trials initiated at the University of Michigan Hospital on patients with acute kidney failure in the intensive care unit. The initial results are encouraging. It is our hope and the University's hope that this technology will be able to be further developed to aid the hundreds of thousands of patients with both acute and chronic kidney diseases in the United States and worldwide.
Ron Marx
Professor of Education
Co-Founder, Thinking Bridges, Inc.
I started "Thinking Bridges" in the Spring of 2001 with colleagues in the College of Engineering and the School of Education to commercialize the efforts of our research over the last twelve years. The goal of the company is to make available to American schools research-proven products for science education. We are currently working with an educational publisher to distribute our software and our curriculum to American middle schools and high schools. Over the next year we will be fund raising in the company and developing a new line of products for the classroom use of palm hand-held computers.
Fawwaz Ulaby on Intralase, Inc.
Research conducted at the University's Center for Ultrafast Optical Science and Kellogg Eye Center is the foundation of the company, Intralase. A team of Michigan scientists, including the Medical School's Ron Kurtz, discovered a high-precision laser that can be used to greatly improve laser eye surgery.
Animation of Intralase procedure
Ron Kurtz
Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology
The laser allows the surgeon to create the corneal flap without the use of a mechanical blade. It does this with light energy, which allows the surgeon to have much higher precision and accuracy and can perform the surgery with greater safety.
Fawwaz Ulaby on Intralase, Inc. (Cont.)
The laser system creates the corneal flap by delivering laser energy in a circular pattern directly to the interior layer of the cornea, eliminating trauma to the outer surface of the eye. Intralase has FDA approval for the device and expects to begin distributing the laser system across the United States within the coming year.
F. Concluding Remarks
Fawwaz Ulaby
Thank you for joining me on this quick tour of Michigan research and its impact on society. Providing our faculty, staff and students with a dynamic environment conducive to creativity and innovation is the key to our success as a top-ranked research institution. And whether through the education of innovative leaders, the search for fundamental new insights, the application of research knowledge to real needs, or the development of new technologies into marketable products, Michigan will continue to serve the people of the State of Michigan, the nation and the world with the commitment and dedication to excellence that is at the very core of this great institution.
End of Video Transcript
This video is a good reminder of the rationale for and importance of research at the University. What makes this all possible are the faculty, staff and students who conduct this work, the infrastructure they make use of, and the funding from both external and internal sources. As was stated earlier, our expenditure growth has been impressive. In the following section of this report, I will present some details about the funding that supports our research activity, and then address some of the reasons for Michigan's continued success in obtaining the funds that support our large research enterprise. To end, I will make a few comments about the "costs" of sustaining this success.
II. Summary of Research Expenditures and Awards
A. The University as a Whole
Figure 1 charts the University's total research expenditures over the previous decade. For fiscal year 2001, expenditures reached nearly $592 million, an increase of 8.5 percent over fiscal year 2000. Through the first five months of the current fiscal year, total research expenditures have reached $257 million, compared to $233 million for the same period a year earlier, representing an increase of 10.4 percent.
Figure 1
Total Research Expenditures, FY1991 Through FY2001, Plus the first five months of FY2002
The line across the bar chart shows the University's research spending in constant 1991 dollars. For the past five years, the higher education inflation index has exhibited an average annual rate of 3.1 percent, fluctuating from 1.9 percent in 1997 to 3.9 percent in 2001. Over the same period, the Federal Government's research funding to academic institutions has increased at an average rate of 6 percent per year. Relative to those figures, our research expenditures of Federal funds -- which comprise more than two-thirds of our total research spending -- grew over the past five years at an average annual rate of just under 7 percent. Furthermore, over the last two years, UM research expenditures from Federal sources is up nearly 9 percent per year. Between FY1996 and FY2001, the University of Michigan's total research expenditures increased by $150 million, or $56.6 million in constant 1991 dollars, that is, after taking inflation into account.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of expenditures for FY2001 grouped by the sources of funds. More than two-thirds of UM's research spending originates from Federal grants and contracts. The next largest segment is institutional spending Ñ the money we invest in facilities, seed funding of new areas of inquiry, and cost-sharing on certain projects. Industry sponsors funded about 6 percent of our total, with foundations, trade groups and other sources funding the remainder.
Figure 2
Total Research Expenditures By Sponsor Group, FY2001
Figure 3 shows the trend in research expenditures by all UM units from external sponsors for the last decade.
Figure 3
Total Research Expenditures from External Sources, FY1999-FY2001
New research awards are crucial to continuing the growth trends demonstrated in the previous figures. Figure 4 presents the annual value of total research awards over the past decade, from FY1991 through the first half of FY2002. Each year's total represents the sum of the full value of all awards over their entire, multi-year duration. Put another way, the funds awarded in any one year will support research activity for several years to come. A year ago I was pleased to report that new awards in support of our faculty's research for FY2000 exhibited an increase of over $200 million compared to FY1999. One concern was whether our faculty could sustain this high level of awards, since we know that there is a certain cyclic pattern to awards. Happily, our researchers have cultivated another healthy crop of new awards in fiscal year 2001 Ñ totaling $641 million. Furthermore, the first half of FY2002 shows a significant increase in the dollar value of new awards compared to the same period of FY2001. This figure provides some reassurance to me that our current high level of research spending growth should continue into the foreseeable future.
Figure 4
Research Awards, FY1991 - FY2002 (2Q)
With the big picture of research activity at the University in mind, I want to turn now to several questions. The first is "What does the funding profile look like for academic units with large research programs?" and then, "Which units have experienced large increases in research funding?"
B. Academic Units with Large Research Programs
The following figures address where the increases in funding are occurring by focusing on research expenditures stemming from external sources only, since in many ways the amount of funds secured from outside the institution is the more impartial indicator of research funding success. The first set of figures shows research spending from external sources for the University's largest units Ñ the Medical School, College of Literature, Science and the Arts, and the College of Engineering.
The Medical School (Figure 5) spent $207 million from external sources in FY2001, and has been growing at an average rate of 9.2 percent since 1996. The growth rate in externally funded research for the institution as a whole for this same period is about 4.7 percent. Not only is the growth rate of the Medical School impressively high, but considering the size of the expenditure base, the actual growth of $71 million over the past five years represents the largest fraction of the University's overall growth over this time period.
Figure 5
Medical School Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
Research spending growth has been relatively slower in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, which spent $38 million from external sponsors in FY2001 (Figure 6). However, it has grown at an annual rate of about 5.5 percent over the last five years, an increase from a growth rate of 1.5 percent per year in the first half of the 1990s.
Figure 6
College of Literature, Science & the Arts Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
The College of Engineering has a much larger research budget than LS&A, which now approaches $100 million in expenditures from external funds (Figure 7). Its recent growth rate is 2.3 percent annually for the last five years, following a period in the early 1990s when the rate topped 10 percent.
Figure 7
College of Engineering Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
C. Academic Units Experiencing Exceptional Growth in Research
The next three figures feature units that have grown at exceptional rates over recent years.
The Institute for Social Research (ISR), which spent $52 million from external sources on research last year, has been growing at an average rate of 13 percent in recent years (Figure 8). In general terms, ISR attributes this growth to the increased interest on the part of the National Institutes of Health to conduct research that can be done so expertly at ISR. For instance, NIH decided to expand the scope of the Health and Retirement Survey already being conducted by ISR social scientists, adding more than $4 million in new funding to what is already a large project. The Michigan Interdisciplinary Center on Social Inequalities is a new NIH-funded activity operated jointly with the School of Public Health, and grows out of the fact that the UM has a superb cadre of faculty and so many NIH projects from which this Center can draw.
Figure 8
Institute for Social Research Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
Another reason for ISR's growth stems from a conscious and planned effort to expand the volume of surveys undertaken by the Survey Research Center (SRC). Over the past four years, the SRC has sought to increase the volume Ñ in dollars of expenditures as well as numbers of surveys Ñ by accepting more bids from both on-campus and off-campus academics. This plan was hugely successful and is another reason why ISR research spending has grown rapidly.
Since 1996, the School of Public Health has been growing steadily at an impressive rate of 16.5 percent! (Figure 9). Public Health attributes this success in part to an internal decision made in the mid-1990s to increase the School's own investment in research support for its faculty. Subsequently, faculty in Public Health have been awarded several large research awards from the National Institutes of Health and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. These factors combined have helped elevate the School of Public Health into a national leader among peer institutions.
Figure 9
School of Public Health Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
Finally, Figure 10 shows the research growth trend for the School of Education. In 1991, the School of Education represented a relatively small part of the institution's research portfolio, but that has changed very markedly over the past decade. Research expenditures from external sources topped $13 million last year, as a result of steady growth at the phenomenal average annual rate of 30 percent since FY1996! This school attributes its growth to research partnerships its faculty have formed with faculty from other UM schools, such as with the College of Engineering and LS&A, and to greater attention being paid to research questions of national significance. The Center for Highly Interactive Computing in Education (Hi-CE) is one of these very successful collaborations between the School of Education and Engineering, leading not only to well-funded research, but also to the development of new educational technology that has formed the basis for a new spin-off company. As examples of the research focus of its faculty, the School of Education is now the home of three national research centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education:
- The National Center for Postsecondary Improvement,
- The Consortium for Policy Research in Education, a collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, and
- The Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, a collaboration with Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania.
Figure 10
School of Education Research Expenditures, External Sources, FY1991-FY2001
D. Other Research-Related Sponsored Activities
I have one other indicator of growth and success that I want to share with you, even though by National Science Foundation standards, it is not strictly defined as "research." We receive some grants and contracts to support activity that is coded as "Instructional" or "Community Service." In some schools, these funded projects are in fact important contributors to the research program and prestige of that unit nationally. One large category consists of "training grants" that the NIH awards us to support graduate study in the health sciences. These are counted as Instructional grants and not included in our research totals, yet they support our research mission and we compete successfully for them because of our research excellence. Likewise, faculty in the School of Social Work were involved for many years in a unique worker re-education project that we conducted for the United Auto Workers. In part, this project involved the UM because of the expertise in testing and evaluation that our faculty offered.
In the category of projects coded as "Community Service," some of our units received some very large and prestigious awards, which again are important indicators of the excellence of our faculty and their research. One major example is a grant that has gone to the School of Public Health to operate the Population Fellows Program for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides placements around the world for professionals involved in advanced degree work in population studies.
Let me show you just three examples of where these "Other Sponsored Activities" can make a significant contribution to our overall research and education mission (Figure 11).
First, the School of Public Health, as I mentioned, has both a number of training grants and the U.S. AID grant that involves some $48 million in project expenditures over the five-year period ending in 2004. When we add these figures to the school's totals, its average growth for the past two years is nearly 20 percent per year, further raising the already impressive average annual rate of 16.5 percent for research expenditures alone.
Two other units where other external funding makes a significant difference in the picture of their activity are the Flint and Dearborn campuses. At Dearborn, for instance, the growth in the Instructional and Community Service spending categories exceeds that for externally sponsored research over the last two years. At Flint, where the rates for externally funded Research and externally funded Instructional and Community Service Projects are about the same, the magnitude of spending from other sponsored categories is about 2.5 times larger than for research. By including the figures for growth in these additional areas of externally sponsored activity, we can more accurately represent the vibrancy that these two campuses contribute to the University.
Because it is useful to consider sponsored activity in these other categories, a table including this information for all schools and colleges has been added to this year's Appendix as Table 3.
Figure 11
The Significance of "Other Sponsored Activity"
|
School of Public Health |
FY1999 |
FY2000 |
FY2001 |
Avg % Chg. |
|
Total Expenditures |
$30M |
$36M |
$43M |
19.9% |
|
Research, External |
25M |
28M |
29M |
7.4% |
|
Research, Internal |
0.6M |
3.7M |
2.7M |
249% |
|
Other External** |
3.9M |
4.9M |
11.0M |
75% |
|
UM-Dearborn |
FY1999 |
FY2000 |
FY2001 |
Avg % Chg. |
|
Total Expenditures |
$3.7M |
$5.4M |
$4.9M |
18.7% |
|
Research, External |
1.6M |
2.5M |
2.0M |
18.1% |
|
Research, Internal |
0.7M |
0.7M |
0.8M |
7.9% |
|
Other External** |
1.4M |
2.2M |
2.1M |
28.1% |
|
UM-Flint |
FY1999 |
FY2000 |
FY2001 |
Avg % Chg. |
|
Total Expenditures |
$2.1M |
$3.0M |
$3.1M |
24.8% |
|
Research, External |
0.5M |
1.0M |
0.8M |
50.3% |
|
Research, Internal |
0.7M |
0.4M |
0.3M |
-34.3% |
|
Other External** |
0.9M |
1.6M |
2.1M |
48.7% |
** "Other External" is the combined total of expenditures from external sponsors coded as "Instructional" or "Community Service."
III. Why is the University's Research Program So Successful?
The University has a remarkable record of growth in research expenditures over many years, even while the number of faculty has not changed significantly. Why have we enjoyed this level of success? I believe there are four major contributors to our success:
- our interdisciplinary culture;
- our continued support for new and improved research infrastructure,
- our process for responding to new Federal research initiatives, and
- our efforts to nurture new areas of research expertise.
As the first two factors have been the subjects of previous reports by my office and others, I will address them only briefly. I will then address the second two factors in some detail.
A. The University's Interdisciplinary Culture
As I and my predecessors have said many times, Michigan has such a long tradition of promoting interdisciplinary research so that this is now part of our "culture." In addition, interest in collaborative, interdisciplinary research continues to rise Ñ both on campus and nationally. Funding agencies realize that many complex problems facing society in the environmental, biological, and social arenas clearly require a cross-disciplinary, team approach. Recent history teaches us that many of the major breakthroughs occur at the interface between traditional disciplines, and that interdisciplinary work often leads to new frontiers in knowledge and education. The Provost and the Vice President for Research, as well as the Deans, have been committed to nurturing an atmosphere on campus that encourages faculty to work collaboratively and across departmental, school, college and research unit boundaries, and I think this pays off when our faculty seek funding to support their work.
B. Infrastructure Support and Development
Second, we have supported the infrastructure for research at substantial levels, with the contributions coming from all levels of the University Ñ from the departments, the schools and colleges, and the central administration. For FY2001, the UM spent $98 million of its own funds Ñ 16.6% of our total research expenditures Ñ to assist in the creation of new facilities (such as the Life Sciences Institute, to name one prominent example), to upgrade existing laboratories across the campus, and to provide seed funds for faculty developing new areas of inquiry. In addition, the University has provided substantial support for the library system and our computing facilities to try to keep up with our faculty's needs and the new powerful technologies that enhance the effectiveness of these resources. Our internal spending in support of research has grown Ñ and must continue to grow Ñ if we wish to continue our impressive record of research growth.
C. Responsiveness to Federal Initiatives
In recent years, as the complexity and scope of major funding opportunities has increased, OVPR has responded by instituting more workshops to orient faculty and staff to proposal requirements and stimulate competitive proposals. This process, outlined in Figure 12, often begins with information gathering by DRDA Project Representatives who are familiar with sponsor agency offerings or, in some instances, with advanced intelligence from our Research Officer in Washington D.C. about new, major initiatives that have yet to receive wide public notice. Once aware of the opportunity, we identify potential faculty applicants, often through our network of Research Deans, as well as requirements for additional information or clarification from the sponsor. Frequently, we will pay a visit to the agency personnel in Washington responsible for a new initiative to make sure that the information we will be providing our faculty is up-to-date and accurate.
Figure 12
Flowchart of Coordinated Response to Federal Initiatives
OVPR Workshops are organized with assistance from DRDA as well as Schools and Colleges and serve several purposes. First, while agency solicitations include basic information on project requirements, we can often provide more refined advice based on what the sponsor is "really" looking for in successful proposals. Second, workshops are often used to identify potential team members, an increasingly important element in interdisciplinary proposals that may require forging new relationships between scholars in widely dispersed areas of study. Lastly, the workshop prepares participants for the mechanics of proposal preparation, especially when there are unusual requirements. For example, if an agency has set a limit on the number of proposals it will accept from an individual institution, we will hold an "internal competition" to determine which proposals will go forward. In other cases, unusually high levels of cost sharing from academic units and OVPR or new facilities approval from the Provost may be needed so that our proposals are competitive. To prepare the faculty for all of these possibilities, we will hold a series workshops, as more information becomes available.
An illustration of this process can be seen in the UM's successful competition for awards related to the multi-agency Federal Information Technology Initiative. This program designated new Federal resources for innovative, interdisciplinary projects to advance several academic areas related to information technology. Preliminary meetings were held early in the initiative's life between our Washington Research Officer and OVPR staff with legislative staffers developing the initiative and later with sponsoring agency officials to clarify high priority interests and additional criteria that might be applied in project selection. Early in the process, preliminary meetings were conducted with a wide-ranging group of faculty to seed ideas. Follow-up workshops were conducted as more information became available and as research proposal writing teams were formed. OVPR provided proposal preparation assistance and coordinated cost sharing and other resource requests with participating academic and administrative units.
The results for our faculty (Figure 13) were impressive, with UM being in the group of institutions with the highest number of successful proposals and one of the highest award levels. Faculty reported that the advance knowledge and continuing support had an impact on their competitiveness. We believe that this approach, used creatively and selectively, will continue to have a positive impact on our success in winning awards.
|
Figure 13
Note: UM research expenditures from Federal sources is 2.1% of total U.S. university research expenditures from Federal sources |
D. Nurturing New Research Areas
OVPR also plays a role in major research initiatives where UM, rather than an external sponsor, is the primary source of funds. Though there are many research projects seeded by academic units, individually or in collaboration with one another, when an area is unusual in its interdisciplinarity, cross unit complexity, or specialized resource needs, OVPR is more likely to play an organizing role. The substantive research areas in such instances are identified through a variety of means, sometimes "bubbling up" from the faculty as novel but potentially significant innovations and at other times identified by Research Deans or OVPR staff when potential funding opportunities are matched against institutional capacity. We are most likely to invest significantly in research areas where UM has the capacity to be a leader and yet it has not adequately focused its efforts and resources to realize its potential. As might be expected, this is often because of the inter-unit teamwork and coordination required that no one particular unit has either been able to advance or was even aware of the need to initiate.
An example of such an initiative is the one in Spatial Analysis and Geographic Information Systems. An area of growing interest in many disciplines spurred on by increasingly sophisticated technological advances, it boasted a small, active group of faculty proponents from many units who had been seeking assistance for a number of years. In discussion with OVPR, it became apparent that without some increase in resources, education, and facilitation, UM would not be able to achieve its full potential in this critical area that was, in addition to being a focus of research, of growing importance as a research tool in many disciplines.
Through a series of discussions with faculty and Research Deans a proposal was forged that laid out an ambitious plan to stimulate growth in Spatial Analysis and GIS, not only by upgrading the infrastructure available for training and proposal development, but also by supporting specific pilot projects that might seed sponsor funded proposals as well. With the participation of the Provost and several Deans, a fund of $1.26 million was established and awarded competitively over a two-year period (Figure 14). OVPR hired an expert Research Scientist to support these efforts and lend technical as well as administrative support to the initiative.
|
Figure 14
|
To date, the results have been impressive, and we are seeing continuing ramifications. There has been a Certificate Program established through Rackham to provide an interdisciplinary training program for graduate students across the campus. Several projects have already resulted in successful sponsor awards totaling $3.1 million and there are nearly $2 million in proposals awaiting action by sponsors. While not all internal initiatives are of this scope and funding, they have all had comparable results, establishing the credibility necessary to win competitive awards from external sponsors and building the intellectual and technological infrastructure increasingly necessary to remain in the forefront of scholarship and research.
IV. The "Cost" of Success
As we look to the future we are faced with two intertwined questions:
- What do we need to do to continue to be successful in attracting research funding?
- What are the costs of success?
Michigan's impressive achievements in research rest upon our faculty's ability to continue to compete successfully for research resources on a global scale. While creativity and persistence are essential to remaining in the forefront of their disciplines, the faculty also rely on an infrastructure that provides:
- clusters of complementary colleagues,
- state-of-the-art specialized equipment and technical support,
- access to archives and research sites around the world (as well as outer space!), and
- interaction with the brightest graduate and undergraduate students in the nation.
The requirement for resources is relentless, as is the competition, and we cannot take for granted that the synergy of creativity and infrastructure will be maintained without diligent attention, planning, and organizational commitment.
As we face tight budgets and the many legitimate competing demands for limited funds, we must factor into our resource allocation decisions how easy it is to fall behind in providing a superlative climate for research. Investments in some disciplines require many years to yield visible results. In some instances, failing to keep pace may leave us without the capacity to participate in newly emerging, significant intellectual areas or to ever catch up once we fall behind! Other institutions have demonstrated the capacity to focus research resources in order to leap ahead of their peers, including Michigan, in critical areas of research. While Michigan has always prided itself on remaining competitive across a wide array of disciplines, this approach can only be sustained with an aggressive, comprehensive investment plan.
And what if we continue to succeed at the prodigious rate we have demonstrated over the past ten years? What are the potential costs associated with heeding the admonition to compete and grow? In addition to those implied above, UM will need facilities well beyond those currently envisioned. We will face greater complexity in administering grants and contracts. The demands will grow for ensuring compliance with the ever expanding volume of Federal and State regulations. And we must always be aware of the need to balance the demands on our faculty to maintaining both high-quality instruction and scholarship.
UM needs to carefully assess how to respond to these complexities with the collaboration, as well as under the scrutiny, of the many stakeholders who take an active interest in UM's future. Assessing the proper path for growth and how our institution must continue to develop and transform itself to meet that future is a worthy challenge.
In conclusion, let me leave you with three points. First, all of the indicators suggest that Michigan continues to be a "research star" among US universities. In large part, this is due to our substantial strengths all across the spectrum of academic activity.
Second, we must never forget that most of the credit for UM's success goes to its creative faculty, dedicated staff and eager-to-discover students.
And last, the Administration must maintain an unwavering commitment to providing sufficient internal resources to support our research enterprise. It is this institutional support that serves as an important foundation for our success, and allows the faculty to do their part in maintaining Michigan's prominence as a top research university.
Appendices of Table and Charts for Expenditures, Proposals, and Awards
The following tables provide additional detail about research activity at the University of Michigan, as reflected by three major measures: (1) research expenditures, (2) research awards, and (3) research proposals. These data reflect the rich diversity of research activities and capabilities that have earned the University of Michigan the distinction of the nationÕs leading public research university.
Increases in annual total research expenditures in support of research demonstrate the continued leadership of the University in the discovery of new knowledge and in the application of leading-edge technologies for the benefit of society. Research expenditures in FY2001 totaled $591.7 million, recording an 8.5% increase over the previous fiscal year.
New research awards should exceed annual expenditures in order for the University to sustain its research momentum in the face of increasing costs. In FY2001, this ÒmarginÓ between research awards and expenditures was $147.2 million ($640.8 million in new awards and $493.6 million in expenditures from externally funded sources). Many awards are made on a multi-year basis. Therefore, a portion of the dollars awarded in any given year may be spent in subsequent years. Nonetheless, we believe this marked increase speaks to the continued strength of our faculty in winning competitive awards.
Research proposals submitted provide some indication of the new research opportunities being offered by prospective sponsors and reflect the responsiveness of the faculty to these program opportunities. The majority of proposals are in response to specific requests for proposalsÑRFPÕsÑwhich, in turn, reflect the highest priority research initiatives of the sponsors. The dollar value of the 3,529 proposals submitted in FY2001 exceeded $2.3 billion.
Table 1
Volume of Research Expenditures by Sponsor
| SOURCE | FY 2000 | PERCENT OF TOTAL | FY 2001 | PERCENT OF TOTAL | PERCENT CHANGE |
| FEDERAL SOURCES | |||||
| Health and Human Services | |||||
| Centers for Disease Control | 222,872,575 | 40.9% | 247,472,514 | 41.8% | 11.0% |
| Food and Drug Administration | 3,000,866 | 0.6% | 6,413,767 | 1.1% | 113.7% |
| Heath Care Financing Administration | 538,932 | 0.1% | 1,443,625 | 0.2% | 167.9% |
| Health Resources & Services Administration | 869,849 | 0.2% | 1,332,730 | 0.2% | 53.2% |
| National Institutes of Health | 507,897 | 0.1% | 616,646 | 0.1% | 21.4% |
| Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services | 277,519 | 0.1% | 391,047 | 0.1% | 40.9% |
| Other HHS | 1,060,018 | 0.2% | 1,368,931 | 0.2% | 29.1% |
| Total Health and Human Services | 229,127,656 | 42.0% | 259,039,260 | 43.8% | 13.1% |
| National Science Foundation | 41,717,204 | 7.6% | 50,655,579 | 8.6% | 21.4% |
| Department of Defense | |||||
| Army | 11,556,255 | 2.1% | 12,190,223 | 2.1% | 5.5% |
| Air Force | 9,283,115 | 1.7% | 8,669,185 | 1.5% | -6.6% |
| Navy | 7,808,433 | 1.4% | 7,355,030 | 1.2% | -5.8% |
| Other | 7,384,183 | 1.4% | 6,809,290 | 1.2% | -7.8% |
| Total Department of Defense | 36,031,986 | 6.6% | 35,023,728 | 5.9% | -2.8% |
| Energy | 14,693,765 | 2.7% | 15,584,679 | 2.6% | 6.1% |
| N.A.S.A. | 13,183,889 | 2.4% | 12,615,688 | 2.1% | -4.3% |
| Education | 10,314,069 | 1.9% | 10,626,862 | 1.8% | 3.0% |
| Transportation | 6,290,841 | 1.2% | 6,241,577 | 1.1% | -0.8% |
| Environmental Protection Agency | 6,056,189 | 1.1% | 5,516,980 | 0.9% | -8.9% |
| Commerce | 5,728,465 | 1.1% | 4,864,041 | 0.8% | -15.1% |
| International Development Cooperation Agency | 6,044,351 | 1.1% | 3,623,449 | 0.6% | -40.1% |
| Justice | 1,266,038 | 0.2% | 1,697,161 | 0.3% | 34.1% |
| Social Security Administration | 946,791 | 0.2% | 1,090,814 | 0.2% | 15.2% |
| Agriculture | 777,539 | 0.1% | 871,636 | 0.1% | 12.1% |
| General Services Administration | 469,930 | 0.1% | 395,551 | 0.1% | -15.8% |
| Interior | 148,792 | 0.0% | 124,082 | 0.0% | -16.6% |
| Museum and Library Services, Institute of | 72,093 | 0.0% | 104,614 | 0.0% | 45.1% |
| Veterans Affairs | 623,244 | 0.1% | 86,796 | 0.0% | -86.1% |
| National Endowment for the Humanities | 140,957 | 0.0% | 71,843 | 0.0% | -49.0% |
| Housing and Urban Development | 178,330 | 0.0% | 55,430 | 0.0% | -68.9% |
| Emergency Management Agency | 188,456 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | -100.0% |
| Labor | 142,549 | 0.0% | -5,510 | 0.0% | -103.9% |
| Other Federal | 477,681 | 0.1% | -2,637,853 | -0.4% | -652.2% |
| Total Federal Government | 374,620,815 | 68.7% | 405,646,407 | 68.6% | 8.3% |
| OTHER SPONSORS | |||||
| Industry | 33,252,658 | 6.1% | 34,190,733 | 5.8% | 2.8% |
| Foundations | 19,494,347 | 3.6% | 21,487,297 | 3.6% | 10.2% |
| Public Charities | 7,365,301 | 1.4% | 9,377,172 | 1.6% | 27.3% |
| Other (includes voluntary contributions) | 7,446,436 | 1.4% | 9,347,852 | 1.6% | 25.5% |
| Endowment | 2,474,004 | 0.5% | 5,798,520 | 1.0% | 134.4% |
| State, Local, and Other Governments | 4,664,905 | 0.9% | 5,144,073 | 0.9% | 10.3% |
| Trade and Professional Associations | 6,988,532 | 1.3% | 2,437,239 | 0.4% | -65.1% |
| International Organizations | 349,607 | 0.1% | 209,325 | 0.0% | -40.1% |
| Total Other Sponsors | 82,035,790 | 15.0% | 87,992,211 | 14.9% | 7.3% |
| Total Sponsored Research | 456,656,605 | 83.7% | 493,638,618 | 83.4% | 8.1% |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SOURCES | |||||
| University of Michigan Funds | 88,761,433 | 16.3% | 98,063,899 | 16.6% | 10.5% |
| TOTAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES | 545,418,038 | 100.0% | 591,702,517 | 100.0% | 8.5% |
Table 2
Total Research Expenditures by School, College, and Other Units
| UNIT | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | Average Precent Change |
| Architecture & Urban Planning, Taubman Total | 515,078 | 615,476 | 527,732 | 2.6% |
| External Research Support | 366,848 | 434,463 | 333,948 | -2.4% |
| Internal Research Support | 148,230 | 181,013 | 193,784 | 14.6% |
| Art and Design Total | 107,855 | 231,196 | 303,108 | 72.7% |
| External Research Support | 27,797 | 37,515 | 78,807 | 72.5% |
| Internal Research Support | 80,058 | 193,681 | 224,301 | 78.9% |
| Business Administration Total | 7,358,573 | 8,101,604 | 9,026,107 | 10.8% |
| External Research Support | 2,290,225 | 2,798,595 | 3,355,942 | 21.1% |
| Internal Research Support | 5,068,348 | 5,303,010 | 5,670,165 | 5.8% |
| Dentistry Total | 8,090,925 | 8,819,110 | 9,332,280 | 7.4% |
| External Research Support | 7,291,060 | 7,988,069 | 8,197,052 | 6.1% |
| Internal Research Support | 799,865 | 831,041 | 1,135,229 | 20.3% |
| Education Total | 9,904,899 | 11,588,077 | 14,275,130 | 20.1% |
| External Research Support | 8,725,466 | 10,460,198 | 13,199,739 | 23.0% |
| Internal Research Support | 1,179,434 | 1,127,880 | 1,075,391 | -4.5% |
| Engineering Total | 103,535,505 | 104,479,760 | 112,998,660 | 4.5% |
| External Research Support | 91,963,773 | 93,811,822 | 98,269,806 | 3.4% |
| Internal Research Support | 11,571,732 | 10,667,937 | 14,728,854 | 15.1% |
| Graduate School, Rackham Total | 1,500,150 | 2,074,755 | 3,766,987 | 59.9% |
| External Research Support | 384,028 | 708,515 | 1,225,628 | 78.7% |
| Internal Research Support | 1,116,122 | 1,366,240 | 2,541,359 | 54.2% |
| Information Total | 3,851,161 | 3,935,680 | 3,045,703 | -10.2% |
| External Research Support | 3,762,187 | 3,606,147 | 2,652,561 | -15.3% |
| Internal Research Support | 88,974 | 329,533 | 393,143 | 144.8% |
| Kinesiology Total | 1,267,141 | 641,481 | 1,010,202 | 4.1% |
| External Research Support | 447,857 | 220,681 | 267,911 | -14.7% |
| Internal Research Support | 819,284 | 420,800 | 742,290 | 13.9% |
| Law Total | 1,346,047 | 1,898,821 | 1,765,146 | 17.0% |
| External Research Support | 1,072,406 | 1,689,249 | 1,710,229 | 29.4% |
| Internal Research Support | 273,641 | 209,572 | 54,917 | -48.6% |