SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
NSF Celebrates 20 Years of IndustryUniversity Cooperative Research • Development, transfer of industrially relevant technologies from university into practice is goal of more than 50 research centers Deborah L. Illman, C&E\ T West Coast News Bureau n the two decades since it began, the National Science Foundation's industry-university cooperative research centers (IUCRC) program has emerged as one oi the most successful and highly leveraged government research programs to develop and transfer industrialK' relevant technologies from the university into
I
nical challenge, but all are structured more or less according to the same organizational scheme. The IUCRC model provides a mechanism for selecting and funding strategically focused but generic basic research in the university setting in cooperation with industrial sponsors. Organizations pav an annual fee—typically on the order of $25,000 to $50,000—to support, guide, and benefit from a center's research. Membership is attractive to sponsors because it provides a way to leverage a very modest R&D investment while allowing them to work with students and faculty and to network with other industrial représenta fives. Central to the IUCRC model is a system for obtaining sponsor feedback on research ideas and progress. 'This ex-
practice. The program marked its 20th birthday early this month at a meeting in Washington, D.C. The Washington conference and exhibition, entitled "Future Directions for Multimember Research Collaborations: The Best Path for Industrial Research?" provided a showcase for the achievements ot the ILCRC program. More than 300 attendees from industry, government, and academe convened to consider alternative mechanisms—such as state-sponsored collaborations and industrial consortia in addition to the IUCRC model— to foster research collaborations that could enhance industrial competitiveness. IUCRC program director Alex Schwarzkopf notes that there are currently more than 30 active IUCRC centers across the country. Hach is pursuing a unique tech-
Cooperativ e research centers share basic organizational plan Management of industry-university cooperative research centers is carried out through a partnership among the university, the National Science Foundation, and industrial sponsors. Although all centers have widely differing research agendas, they follow essentially the same organizational model. Typically, the center director reports to university management, usually a dean or provost. The center director oversees an array of research programs consisting of individual projects carried out by faculty and students. The Industrial Advisory Board, consisting of one representative per sponsor, provides input to the center director on research project selection, progress, and policy issues. The board's members appoint technical monitors from their organizations who closely follow the research projects. An academic policy committee composed of top university officials addresses university policy matters such as patents/licensing and promotion/tenure issues.
NSF contributes modest financial support and guides center development. A unique feature of the program is NSF's practice of designating consultants, called evaluators, to study and provide feedback on the industry-
National Science Foundation
university interaction at each center, assessing the quality and impact of center research, elucidating factors that contribute to successes and failures, and gauging the degree of satisfaction of all participants.
University management
Academic policy committee
Center director
Technical monitors
Center evaluator
Research program
Projects
Industrial advisory board
m
Research program
Research program
Research program
Γ Ί5ΜΪ Ί Π JANUARY 24, 1994 C&EN
25
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
Cooperative centers pursue wide array of technologies tensive industrial involvement in research planning and review leads to direct technology transfer, bridging the gap that in the past has kept U.S. industry from capitalizing quickly on the fruits of research at American universities," Schwarzkopf emphasizes. Each center sets its sights on a specific area of industrially relevant basic research. For example, Iowa State University's center, in Ames, explores techniques for nondestructive evaluation of samples using x-ray, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, and other techniques. In another instance, researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology's Hazardous Substance Management Research Center, Newark, are developing new management, treatment, and remediation technologies for hazardous wastes. Other centers coordinate programs in topics such as glass research, sensors and actuators, steelmaking, polymers, and software engineering. The IUCRC program has cultivated an impressive portfolio of technologies that continues to expand. Recent additions include composites, ocean technology, corrosion, biodegradable materials, machine tools, and emission reduction. "There is no other program that provides such a broad spectrum of industrially relevant research—all of it picked by industry, all of it primarily funded by industry/' Schwarzkopf observes. The IUCRC program was born in 1973 as a part of NSFs Experimental R&D Incentives Program. After an initial five-year period of experimentation, the program launched new centers at an increasing pace. Today, the IUCRC program is the oldest and largest multimember research program in the country, Schwarzkopf says, involving about 1,000 faculty members and about 1,000 graduate students at a total of 78 universities. Collectively, more than 700 organizations sponsor the centers, including government agencies, national laboratories, and some 500 industrial firms. Equally impressive is that NSFs modest $4.2 million total annual budget for the IUCRC program is leveraged by a factor of about 15:1. Total operating funds from non-NSF sources in fiscal 1992, for example, exceeded $60 million, and that does not begin to count the support allocated within sponsor organizations for activities based on center technologies. Presenting a tribute to the IUCRC pro26
JANUARY 24, 1994 C&EN
Research area (date initiated)
U of Massachusetts, Amherst Case Western Reserve U North Carolina State U Rutgers U Georgia Institute of Technology Pennsylvania State U Colorado School of Mines U of Washington New Jersey Institute of Technology
Polymers (1980) Polymers (1981) Communications/signal processing (1982) Ceramics (1982) Materials handling (1983) Dielectrics (1983) Steel processing (1983) Process analytical chemistry (1984) Hazardous substance management (1984)
U of Arizona Northwestern U U of Arizona Carnegie Mellon U Northeastern U Lehigh U Iowa State U Oklahoma State U Lehigh U
Optical circuitry (1984) Tribology(1984) Microcontamination control (1984) Steelmaking (1985) Electromagnetics (1985) Information management (1985) Nondestructive evaluation (1985) Web handling (1985) Process modeling and control (1985)
Alfred U U of Texas, Arlington U of Tennessee Rutgers U New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology Purdue U/U of Florida U of California, Berkeley U of Southern California U of Iowa
Glass research (1986) Advanced electron devices (1986) Measurement and control engineering (1986) Plastics recycling (1986) Energetic materials (1986) Software engineering (1986) Sensors and actuators (1986) Manufacturing automation (1987) Simulation of mechanical systems (1987)
North Carolina State U U of Colorado, Boulder State U of New York, Buffalo U of Pittsburgh U of New Mexico Brown U U of California, San Diego Georgia Institute of Technology/ U of Arizona Washington State U
Aseptic processing/packaging (1987) Millimeter/microwave technology (1988) Biosurfaces(1988) Parallel and distributed computing (1988) Microengineered ceramics (1989) Thin film and interface research (1989) Ultra-high-speed circuits (1989) Information management (1989)
U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign U of Connecticut U of North Texas Eastern Michigan U U of Michigan Rutgers U North Carolina State U U of California, Irvine/Santa Barbara Lehigh U
Air-conditioning (1990) Grinding (1990) Nanostructural materials (1990) Coatings (1990) Measurement technology (1990) Wireless networks (1991) Integrated pest management (1991 ) High-speed image processing (1991) Polymer interfaces (1991 )
U of Colorado, Boulder Villanova U Carnegie Mellon U Arizona State U U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Stanford U U of Massachusetts, Lowell OhioU New Jersey Institute of Technology U of Rhode Island
Thin film separations (1991 ) Advanced communications (1992) High-performance buildings (1992) Health care management (1992) Machine tools (1993) Composite design and manufacturing (1993) Biodegradable materials (1993) Corrosion (1993) Emission reduction (1993) Ocean technology (1993)
Analog/digital circuits (1989)
We Earned Our MBA.
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
too, there is naturally a lag between the time when new research results are generated and when they are applied in practice. Today, however, there are a host of specific examples of successful technology transfer from these centers. For instance, recent studies show that during fiscal 1993 a total of 64 items of intellectual property, including patents, patent applications, licenses, and copyrights, issued from IUCRCs. Moreover, 70% of the centers report they have successfully transferred technology. Of those transfers, 47% were information/ know-how, 22% were software, 18% were processes, and 12% were actual products or devices. A case in point is the large-scale pilot process for recovering plastics from soda bottles that was licensed by the Schwarzkopf: program budges the gap Center for Plastics Recycling Research, Rutgers University, to 16 domestic and gram at the 20th anniversary dinner cel- five international firms. One of the liebration was John White, dean of engi- censees—Day Products Inc.—opened a neering at Georgia Institute of Technolo- new recycling plant based on the techgy in Atlanta. Former director of the nology in 1989 in Bridgeport, N.J. The Materials Handling Research Center at 60,000-sq-ft plant processes 40 million Georgia Tech, White served as assistant lb of bottles annually and created 80 director for engineering at NSF from new full-time jobs. 1988 to 1991, and as acting deputy direcCenter technologies are helping to tor for the foundation in 1990-91. save time, money, and energy in memWhite calls the IUCRC program the ber companies as well. For instance, rebest operational definition of what has searchers at the Chemical Process Modbeen termed strategically focused re- eling & Control Research Center at Lesearch, as opposed to conventional uni- high University, Bethlehem, Pa., have versity research, which tends to be mainly developed a computer-based technique curiosity-driven. He further notes that the called "tendency modeling," which has concept and early experiences with the been adapted for a batch chemical procenters served as a model for many types of center programs within and outside NSF: NSFs Engineering Research Centers, Science & Technology Centers, and State/IUCRC Centers, as well as similar programs at the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and other government agencies. Another indicator of the impact of IUCRCs, beyond their historical role, is the R&D activity they spark within member organizations. In fiscal 1993 alone, IUCRC research resulted in about $100 million in R&D investments by sponsor organizations based on center technologies. This "new money" investment by IUCRC members may be the most tangible evidence that successful technology transfer is occurring, according to NSF officials. In the early years, the effects of the IUCRC program were difficult to evaluate, in part because of a company's need to protect proprietary information. Then, White: strategically focused research 28
JANUARY 24, 1994 C&EN
cess at sponsor Air Products & Chemicals by a former center graduate student who is now employed by the company. According to the center, the technique enhances efficiency of the chemical manufacturing process, saving the company $2 million per year. Work at the Measurement & Control Engineering Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, will help save energy in distillation processes, among other things. "Three percent of the energy used in this country goes into distillation columns," emphasizes center director Arlene A. Garrison. Sensors and modeling technology developed at the center are helping companies improve efficiency and reduce energy consumption. "We're reaping a huge return on investment" from technologies such as an on-line Fourier-transform Raman fiber-optic spectrometer and process modeling software obtained from Garrison's center, says Terry E. Redmon, instrumentation and process control consultant at DuPont's facility in Nashville. He adds that 13 projects based on center technologies are under way in the company, an investment totaling in the "millions of dollars." The Raman system, which was developed with funding in part from the Department of Energy, is also being applied at Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, Tenn., in the control of a distillation column. Garrison says the company is obtaining increased process throughput in addition to energy savings using the system. New chemical sensors and analytical instrumentation originating from IUCRC research are finding their way into the marketplace. For example, research in new fabrication technology at the Center for Sensors & Actuators at the University of California, Berkeley, has yielded micrometer-scaled mechanical structures such as tiny gears, springs, micropumps, and sensors. Now, Berkeley Microinstruments Inc. is working to commercialize the center's silicon-based flexural-plate wave technology for applications including measuring fluid density and viscosity, determining gas concentrations, and pumping and stirring gases and liquids. A process analyzer now in the commercial marketplace—Perkin-Elmer's PIONIR on-line near-infrared spectrometer—is the fruit of research at the
The Malcolm
If it
anyone
Grueling. Intense, feat's how it ψ felt to be scrutinized b|r the Malcolm Baldrige Award examiners. But we didn't mind. Because being singled out for America's highest award for quality management validates everything we believe and practice. It's confirmation for the Eastman employees who sought a way to do it better. It sparks gratitude for our customer and supplier partners who
Baldrige Award
d do it. journey such a pleasure. Earning the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award was the hardest thing Eastman has ever done. And, for our customers, we'd do it again tomorrow. TJBBJ
Malcolm Baldrige
^m National To learn •[Quality more about FAward Eastman's fl993 journey to Winner quality, call 1-800-695-4388 (ext-1150).
Eastman Chemical Company
EASTMAN
CIRCLE 8 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Malcolm Baldrige Award Winner
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
Students develop chemical process models at the Chemical Process Modeling & Control Research Center at Lehigh University (above); center director Chnstos Georgakis (left) talks with a graduate student in Lehigh's laboratory for modeling of emulsion polymenzation processes.
Center for Process Analytical Chemis try at the University of Washington, Se attle. That center is cited as the catalyst that led to the formation of a strategic alliance between Perkin-Elmer and Dow Chemical to jointly develop and commercialize process analytical in strumentation in the years to come. This kind of synergy, along with an interdisciplinary flavor and a directed basic research agenda, have become the hallmarks of the IUCRC program. And one of the most significant out comes, NSF's Schwarzkopf notes, is the educational value to students involved in center projects. As the conference exhibition illus trated, this experiment in industry-uni versity collaboration seems to be pay ing dividends in terms of support for universities and benefits to industry 30
JANUARY 24,1994 C&EN
and to the national economy as well. "Over the past 20 years," says Schwarzkopf, "we have built up a group of centers that... are chang ing the way universities deal with industry." But some of the concerns about the role of industry in the university set ting—issues that have fueled debate for years—still pose a challenge. Centers have struggled with striking a balance between indus trial relevance and maintaining the fundamental quality appropriate for re search in an academic setting. In addi tion, the job of managing organizations as complex as IUCRCs—with many faculty members, multiple-investigator projects, and involvement of often as many as 100 to 300 industrial sponsor representatives from sites across the country—has taken its toll on many center directors, who suddenly find their time spread ultrathin between running the center and carrying out normal faculty duties such as teaching and advising graduate students. Be yond these concerns, sticky intellectual property issues still confront some centers. Now, the sluggish economy is creat ing additional pressures, both Schwarz kopf and White observe. Companies are cutting back on research support
(see page 15) and find the center spon sorship fee increasingly difficult to jus tify. Some sponsors tend to want more of a contractual or targeted arrange ment instead of the window on a broad array of projects that centers provide. Companies "get myopic" in these times, Schwarzkopf laments, exacerbating the tensions that arise when the short-term industrial perspective and the longer term academic approach come together. In the face of these challenges, "it has been a rewarding time," says S. George Walters of the graduate school of man agement at Rutgers University, and who has served as evaluator for four IUCRCs. "We are participating in some thing that has had—and will continue to have—not only a scientific and educa tional impact, but an economic impact as well." Walters, who also spoke at the anni versary dinner, notes that the success rate of the IUCRC centers is extremely high. "Only 6% of centers have failed" over the lifetime of the program, or roughly an average of 1% per year, he points out, a figure that contrasts with the 82% first-year failure rate observed for new businesses. Walters believes that "as a means to manage collaborative research, the IUCRC model is one of the most signif icant social technologies to come out of the NSF." Π
Mars probe loss blamed on chemical reaction The "probable cause" for the failure of the Mars Observer spacecraft—lost in space last August as it neared Mars— was a highly energetic chemical reac tion between oxidizer and fuel that massively ruptured propulsion system tubing in the spacecraft, according to the report of an independent investiga tion board issued earlier this month. The board, appointed by National Aeronautics & Space Administration administrator Daniel S. Goldin, was chaired by Timothy Coffey, director of research at the Naval Research Labora tory in Washington, D.C. The board's findings generally jibe with those of an internal review panel formed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasa dena, Calif., which managed the space craft's operations. Launched in September 1992 and
