1 / 23

Outline

Outline. Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights Research Statistics Trend Analysis Comparative Analysis Impact: Another Metric for Research Conclusion Discussion. Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights. Sponsored research awards 2008 rose to $675M, an impressive 8.3% increase

redell
Télécharger la présentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outline • Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights • Research Statistics • Trend Analysis • Comparative Analysis • Impact: Another Metric for Research • Conclusion • Discussion

  2. Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights Sponsored research awards 2008 rose to $675M, an impressive 8.3% increase In 2007 R&D expenditures grew nearly 5%, increasing from $595M to $624M Source of funding remained unchanged: 71% from federal sources, 44% from NIH, 10% from NSF Gross revenues from patent and licensing activity increased to $86.9M, a 25% increase Significant improvement in Shanghai World Rankings, moving to 28th-ranked research university in world (up from 33rd)

  3. 2008 Sponsored Expenditures by College 6.1% increase over 2007 >20% increase in the School of Public Health Report Figure 2.1

  4. 2008 Sponsored Awards by College 8.3% ($56M) increase over 2007 25% or greater increases in: IT, Vet Med and Pharmacy 20% or greater in Nursing Report Figure 2.2

  5. 2008 Sponsored Expendituresby Source Sources of funding remain relatively unchanged: 71% federal sources44% NIH 10% NSF Report Figure 2.3

  6. Technology Commercialization Two new metrics will be reported • Current Revenue Generating Agreements • Outgoing Material Transfer Agreements $21M increase in revenue over 2007 Two strong start-ups launched; others in pipeline Report Table 3.1

  7. R&D Expenditures: 1999-2007NSF Survey 2007 total = $624M ~5% growth from 2006 Report Figure 3.1

  8. Sponsored Expenditures: 1999-2008 by Category Expenditures by source relatively unchanged Most overall growth is attributable to increases from federal sources Report Figure 3.2

  9. Comparison Group Rankings UMN 9th ranked among public universities; same as 2006 UMN ranked 14th nationally among all universities World ranking by Shanghai improved from 33rd in 2007 Report Table 4.1

  10. 2007 Rankings by R&D ExpendituresNSF Survey UMN 9th ranked among public universities; same as 2006 Report Figure 4.1

  11. R&D Expenditure Growth: 1999-2007 NSF Survey 68% growth since 1999 13th among peer group Up from 15th in 2006 Gap to number three reduced to $199M Report Figure 4.2

  12. UMN retained 9th ranking from 2006 Growth since 2004 totaled $98M dollars 18.6% increase Second-largest change among top public research universities in this interval Rate of growth slowing at some prominent institutions Report Table 4.2

  13. 2007 R&D Expendituresby SourceNSF Survey Source of funding among top public universities differs significantly Report Figure 4.3

  14. Impact of Change in Just One Source:Business and Industry Ohio State increased B&I-supported research expenditures greater than 3-fold since 2005 Now #1 in B&I research support 60% of the growth in total research activity in this period is attributable to B&I support Attributable to the state’s Third Frontier initiative Report Figure 4.4

  15. Comparative Analysis35 Year Historical Context

  16. Comparative AnalysisHistorical Context

  17. BUDGET CUT D =$28M/y -$2M/y $29M/y -$2M/y $14M/y ? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana BUDGET CUT BUDGET CUT

  18. Impact: The Ultimate Metric “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” - Albert Einstein

  19. Impact: PEL Team Conclusions Measurement of the impact of University research locally, nationally, and inter-nationally is critical in fully illustrating the University’s stature Ultimately the importance of our research measurement efforts lies in highlighting the impact of our research on our disciplines, our community, and the world Capturing impact may well be paramount in fully illustrating the University’s stature

  20. Impact: Some Great Examples Sowing the seeds of a biofuel revolution: Professor David Tilman and prairie grasses Voice to Vision: Professor David Feinberg and responses to genocide A century of commitment to horticultural research: Professors Bedford and Luby and cold weather hardy varieties Much more than a business arrangement: Professor Steven Girshick and Rushford Hypersonic A heartbeat felt far and wide: Professor Doris Taylor and the beating heart Seeking a better way to treat trauma patients: Professors Andrews and Drewes (UMD) and TamiasynTM

  21. Conclusions Total R&D expenditures increased nearly 19% between 2004-2007; second-largest growth rate among top 20 public research universities University research funding is on a positive trajectory Significant improvement in Shanghai Rankings The University’s research and scholarship have broad, significant impact; we must capture impact as an important metric for success The research enterprise is healthy, but vulnerable Cuts to the University’s budget correlate with a downturn in research productivity Funding challenges reinforce need to identify areas of synergy, to leverage mutually beneficial approaches and partnerships, and to be smarter and more strategic in resource allocations

More Related