Nanjing Agricultural University GCHERA International Seminar October 20, 2013 William B. Lacy

1. U.S. Agricultural Universities as Innovators and Entrepreneurs: Strategies and Challenges Nanjing Agricultural University GCHERA International Seminar October 20, 2013 William B. Lacy Vice Provost – University Outreach and International Programs University of California, Davis

2. Presentation Overview • History • Agricultural Colleges’ QS/International Rankings • Commercialization of Knowledge • International Collaborations • Funding • Future Challenges for Public R & D • Future Shortcomings for Public R & D • Conclusions

3. U.S. State Agricultural Universities Key Federal Legislation 1862 – Morrill Land Grant College Act (establishes state colleges for agriculture) 1887 – Hatch Act (state agricultural experiment stations) 1914 – Smith-Lever Act (extension system in every county) 1925 – Purnell Act (agricultural economics & rural sociology) 1940s – Hatch Act Multi-state research - 25% of funds

4. Table 1: QS World University Rankings 2013: Agriculture and Forestry

5. 1980 – Bayh-Dole Act and other laws, executive orders and judicial decisions: • Provided for universities to retain title to inventions made under federally funded research • Promoted university collaboration with commercial organizations • Bayh-Dole Act is “perhaps the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the past half-century…and effectively secured the country’s leadership position in innovation” (The Economist 2002) • Similar policies now in many countries (Brazil, China, Germany, Japan) Commercialization of Knowledge

6. Table 2: U.S. Universities with Colleges of Agriculture and Significant Licensing income/patents and start-ups

7. U.S. colleges of agriculture contributed to international institution building worldwide (USAID – 1950s-1980s) • Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSP) – 31 U.S. colleges of agriculture and CGIAR institutions jointly pursue science and innovation with developing nations scientists International Collaborations

8. Public funding for agricultural research: $3 billion 1970 to $5 billion in 2010 • U.S. Department of Agriculture: $2.3 billion, or 1.7% of total federal R &D • High rates of return on investment in public agriculture R & D – 20%-60% annually • If spending remains constant until 2050, agricultural productivity growth will fall 50% • Private funding passed public funds in 1980s; reached $6 billion in 2007 Funding

9. President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report 2012 • Need to manage: • New pests • Pathogens • Invasive plants • Increase the efficiency of water use • Reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture • Adapt to a changing climate • Accommodate demands for bio energy Future Challenges for Public R & D

10. President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report 2012 • Proportion of federal funds in competitive programs too low • Too much overlap and duplication with private-sector agenda • Not adequately addressing areas not pursued by private sector Future Shortcomings for Public R & D

11. University Case Studies Interviewed 84 scientists and 66 research administrators at 9 universities: 6 LGUs, 1 public non-LGU, 2 private

12. Industry Collaborators Interviewed 63 scientists and managers at 30 agricultural biotechnology companies

13. Research Environment in U.S. Universities and their Industry Partners (All Respondents) Advance knowledge Basic science Open communication Disciplinary emphasis Long term Individual-oriented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Blue = University Red = Industry Mean Scores; 1=Not Characteristic, 7=Highly Characteristic; N=210

14. Research Environment in U.S. Agricultural Biotechnology Companies and their University Partners (All Respondents) Proprietary product Applied science/develop Team-oriented Problem-solving Short-term,urgent Multi-disciplinary Red = Industry Blue = University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Scores; 1=Not Characteristic, 7=Highly Characteristic; N=210

15. University Respondents’ Primary Criteria for Problem Choice with Industry Comparisons

16. Industry Respondents’ Primary Criteria for Problem Choice with University Comparisons

17. Why do university scientists collaborate with industry? Funding Equipment Knowledge Materials Expertise Access to databases Technology Opportunities to place graduate students Institutional legitimacy

18. Why does industry collaborate with universities? Access to university scientists Access to graduate students/future employees Increased credibility/legitimacy Enhanced regulatory success Strengthening marketing possibilities Leveraging resources and structural linkages (extension) Increased research efficiency Lower infrastructure costs Decreased labor costs

19. Possible Negative Consequences of UIRs for the University Reduction of long-term research Loss of important non-proprietary research (e.g. ecological or systems research, social impact assessment) Delayed or impeded scientific progress (e.g. complex material transfer requirements) Secrecy agreements Corporate gifts (i.e. deliverables with no overhead) Legal disputes Lack of disclosure Conflict of interest Ethical issues

20. Policy Implications Monitor expansion of university and industry relationships Develop appropriate policies, practices and organizational arrangements to ensure transparency and to realize the goals of both the public and private sectors Increase public agricultural research funding to ensure that public research institutions are strong and complementary partners with industry

21. “It will take very strong leadership to keep the profit motive from gradually eroding the values on which the welfare and reputation of universities ultimately depend.” Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, 2003

22. Finally, to achieve a just and democratic society, the escalating commercialization of knowledge must be balanced by diverse and responsive public sector science and technology.