1. Annual Report to the Board of Regents on the Status of University Research R. Timothy Mulcahy Vice President for Research December 8, 2006

2. Annual Report: Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction –Measures and metrics Section 2: FY06 Research Statistics –http://www.oar.umn.edu/trends/index.cfm Section 3: UMN Trends and Analyses Section 4: Comparative Analyses Section 5: Federal R&D Budget Section 6: Strategies to Increase Competitiveness Section 7: Conclusions

3. Introduction: Measures and Metrics No single research metric is reflective of overall quality or prominence NSF R&D ranking data are best recognized Based on science and engineering research funding Official publication of NSF data trails by ~2 years Emphasis on “research” in strategic objective will necessitate inclusion of a credible research metric NSF ranking CANNOT be ignored, but should be used with awareness of limitations

4. FY06 Research Statistics: Highlights Research awards increased 2.7% to $576M Expenditures increased 1.5% to $518.4M Significant award changes: –AHC-shared +65%; IT +11%; SoN +78%; UMD +34%; UMM +263%; MS -7%; Pharmacy -4%; CLA -26%; Public Health -10%; Vet Med -11%; Education -33% >5000 grant proposals were submitted Patent & licensing activity increased 18.6%; Gross revenues = $56.1M UMN ranked 6 th in commercialization by Milken Inst.

5. NSF Research Expenditures 1997-2006 Report Figure 3.1 Progressive growth Average growth rate= ~6.8%/yr since 1999 In constant 1995 $ average growth rate = 2.0%

6. Comparison Group Rank in Various Ranking Schemes NSF (Publics) 2004 Florida Center 2005 Shanghai (World) 2006 UCLA*1Group 114 U Michigan*2Group 121 U Wisconsin*3Group 116 UC San Francisco4Group 418 U Washington*5Group 217 UC San Diego6Group 313 Penn State*7Group 342 U Minnesota 8Group 232 UC Berkeley*8Group 14 Rank in Various Ranking Schemes NSF (Publics) 2004 Florida Center Shanghai (World) 2006 Ohio State*10Group 366 UC Davis11Group 442 U Illinois*12Group 225 U Colorado13Group 634 U Pittsburgh15Group 348 U Florida*17Group 253 U North Carolina18Group 159 U Texas – Austin*23Group 239 IncreaseDecrease Change relative to previous year: * Public University Comparison Group

7. 2004 NSF Ranking: Public Universities $20M Report Figure 4.1 In 2004 Minnesota ranked 8 th *; tied with UC-Berkeley Difference between 8 th and 11 th is just $20M Small differences in future performance can have a significant + or – effect on ranking * Includes amended total for UMN not published in 2004 NSF report, but accepted by NSF

8. Growth Rates: 1997 - 2004 Report Figure 4.2 Based on NSF Survey Expenditures UMN increased 53%; overall average 88% UMN 16 th of 17 Average annual growth rates differed widely (5% - 18%) UMN average annual growth rate = 6.7%; average annual = 11% Price Index = 30%

9. NSF Research Rankings: Public Universities - 1995 to 2004 199520002004 UCLA*931 U Michigan*122 U Wisconsin*213 UCSF874 U Washington*345 UC San Diego556 Penn State*787 UC Berkeley*1168 U Minnesota698 Ohio State*13 10 UC Davis-1211 U Illinois*131112 U Colorado121413 U Texas – Austin*161923 > +2 +/- 2 > -2 Differential growth rate has contributed to re- ordering of NSF rankings Several universities (green) posted gains since 1995 UMN has dropped two positions since 1995 remains 8 th in 2004 * Public University Comparison Group

10. Number 3: The Gap $237M UMN Number 3 $65M U WaU W U M UCLA Based on NSF expenditure data Growth rate differential has contributed to a widening “gap” between UMN and the 3 rd ranked public university Report Figure 4.3

11. NSF Survey Data: What categories account for differences? NSF Research Support Category UMN Research Expenditures UMN Rank among 17 “peers” #1 Research Expenditures Federally Sponsored Research $308 Million10 th $625 Million (U Washington) State & Local Government Sponsored Research $50 Million4 th $80 Million (U Florida) Institutional Research Support $70 Million13 th $210 Million (U Wisconsin) Industry Sponsored Research $22 Million12 th $86 Million (Penn State U) All Other Sources $76 Million3 rd $123 Million (UCLA)

12. Net Impact: Comparison with #3 D = $126M D = $140M Report Figure 4.5 Multiple components contribute to the “Gap” Each provides unique strategic opportunities for improvement Each is achievable

13. UCLAU ColoradoU MichPenn StateU WiscUCSDUT-AustinOhio State U Wash UNCU Pitt U Florida UC-DavisBerkeley UMN U Illinois Deconstructing Research Ranking: Impact of Medical School and Engineering R&D Report Figure 4.4 Data depicts change in national rank if MS research, Engineering research, or both (square) are subtracted from total Variation indicates dependence for ranking on MS or Engineering Data indicates UMN has consistent research strength across fields

14. Consistent ranking when medical school and/or engineering contributions are factored out “reflects an academic commitment to the notion of the well-rounded university – the campus that cultivates the liberal arts and sciences as the core activity of a mainstream University” From “ Deconstructing University Rankings: Medicine and Engineering, and Single Campus Research Competitiveness”, Lombardi et al, The Center, University of Florida,December 2005

15. Declining Federal R&D Budget: A Big Problem Federal sources provide >70% of UMN research funding 2007 NIH budget expected to increase just 0.7% For third year in a row will fail to keep pace with inflation Report Figure 5.1

16. NIH Budget: Impact on Investigators Zerhouni, EA. Science 314:1088-1090, 2006 In 2006 NIH reduced budget commitments on existing grants by 2.35% NIH will only fund current commitments to ~80% until FY2007 appropriation is approved Success rate to decline to >20% (~20% for NSF also) Considerably more time and effort must be committed to securing funding Report Figure 5.2

17. Strategic Positioning: Strategies to Close “The Gap” Increase share of federal research support: –Increase research capacity: faculty & facilities Biomedical Facilities Bonding Authority –Provide for critical research infrastructure –Emphasis on interdisciplinary research Institute for Advanced Studies, Institute on the Environment, Institute for the Advancement of Science and Technology Allocations for new strategic interdisciplinary initiatives –For example: nanobiotechnology, translational neuroscience

18. Increase share of federal research support (cont.): –Work with colleges to develop strategic plans to enhance research productivity –Take advantage of major opportunities aligned with UMN strengths For example: biofuels and renewable energy –Enable increased faculty productivity Office of Collaborative Research Services Improve administrative support services Reduce administrative hurdles Increase awareness of and responsiveness to funding opportunities Strategic Positioning: Strategies to Close “The Gap”

19. Increase sponsored research collaborations with business and industry –Emphasize long-term relationships –Revision of negotiating practices –University-Industry Demonstration Partnership –Academic and Corporate Relations Center Identify and prioritize increased unrestricted funds in support of research –Increased State support –Improved technology commercialization –Work closely with UMF & MMF Strategic Positioning: Strategies to Close “The Gap”

20. Conclusions remains one of the top public research universities maintains academic commitment to well-rounded university research portfolio has continuous growth of research funding over the last decade. The core is healthy. has identified critical challenges and formulated strategic responses The University of Minnesota: Strategic positioning has put the University in position to attain its research goals.