Alex Navarre

Universities, a universe of challenges confronted by elusive visions

By Alex Navarre

University mission was self-defined over the years as first and foremost, to train students to acquire in-depth analytical rigor (which distinguishes universities from vocational schools); second, to conduct frontier research that will put that advanced knowledge to test and give the opportunity for graduate students to work on current issues; and third, a fuzzy concept of services to society interpreted by university presidents in many political ways to serve their interests vis-à-vis their stakeholders. Some universities have added a fourth pillar to their mission — the commercialization of their research results.

Part of the current challenge is that the excellence deployed by Canadian universities in meeting their first and second missions has not been effectively translated in meeting the third and possibly fourth objectives. So is the lack of success in transferring knowledge by universities into the marketplace a question of perception or a rock solid reality? What are the challenges to achieving success in this endeavor? Is it possible to effectively achieve all four objectives within the same institution, given conflicts of interest related to intellectual property, university autonomy and academic freedom?

Is commercial translation progressing at all?

While the quality of research in Canada as measured by publications in peer reviewed journals is second to none, it is not the case for the transfer of research results into the economy. The dilemma is that industry lobbying is strong and claims more immediate access and returns from university research, something that universities have been reluctant to deliver.

Certainly, there have been heroic displays of goodwill with the creation of technology transfer units in most universities during the last decade. This drive was highly supported by the National Science and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and some provincial governments. In the last decade, industry has delegated most non-core research to universities with a tacit undertaking by governments to upgrade university facilities. Pre-competitive research grew through research consortia, partly financed by public funds. Concurrently, $6 billion has been committed by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) to revamp university infrastructure and bring it to world standards, and the tri-councils have increasingly fostered partnership programs.

However, those efforts were somewhat dwarfed by structural issues within universities since those units (pooled as university industry liaison offices or UILOs) have typically been part of the VP research offices. They are often conflicted between seeking industry sponsorships and selling non-committed intellectual property (IP). A decade ago, a number of universities even looked upon those units as possible centres of profit, lured by unique successes south of the border and at the Université de Sherbrooke. Since then, realism has prevailed.

On the other hand, translation of knowledge comes in different forms and universities have argued that graduating students, direct contacts between researchers at conferences, and other forms of consultations are a more effective way to translate research. Engagement and longer term partnerships have been the new buzz words within university administrations, despite the fact that it is just a component of technology transfer. It is clear that there is a divide on this topic between the various players.

While Canada enjoys the highest percentage of R&D investments by industry in academia among the G-7, Canadian industries spend far less as a whole (1% of GDP compared to 1.8% in the US and 1.5% in OECD countries). Two-thirds of the research investments in the US and the OECD come from business; it is only 52% in Canada. This feeble industrial investment in R&D has had different impacts, resulting in a relatively high proportion of direct investment in academic research (7.4% as opposed to 2.7% in the US and 4.7% in OECD countries). This adds to the complexity as we analyze governance issues within Canadian universities.

opposition to industry "invasion"

Universities are currently facing the ultimate challenge of their mission definition: debate over their governance and their future has been raging within university walls. Even recently, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has been at odds with the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science on the new NSERC partnership programs. Questions are raised as well on the nominations of tri-council board members.

Industry has increased its funding to universities but with increasing demands and it is lobbying governments to support and match their contributions. Many university researchers oppose industry's virtual invasion of their secluded research space, as well as the commercial slant given to new funding programs and to research results. Underlying this opposition is that advances in applied research rest on advances made in fundamental research, a space that is almost exclusively occupied by the university because industry shies away from it.

Opposition to this industry invasion is enhanced by IP issues which are part of union agreements in most universities and a source of contention. In contrast, polytechnics have developed close ties with industry and have more convivial IP arrangements. Technical colleges are now positioning themselves with increasing research expertise. In Quebec, 43 collegial centers of technology transfer in highly specialized areas are weaving partnerships with small firms, claiming new technological niche markets.

Even university student associations are questioning industry influence. They also question the need for a patent and copyright system in a free trade world where developing countries would benefit from direct open access to such protected technologies, especially in the medical area.

Primarily due to the lack of adequate finding of universities, university administrations have been torn between respecting their mission and increasing control by governments and the private sector. This shift of control has led to governance issues. While universities are largely publicly funded in Canada, most are restricted from raising student fees. However, a large component of their funding (larger for older universities), is coming from donors, these "mécènes" of the modern times, and through industrial sponsorships. Not surprisingly, boards of universities are composed mostly of these stakeholders, as well as prominent researchers that have become administrators.

University administrations have composed ambitious plans, but were ill-prepared for the growth seen in the past decade. Most embarked on considerable infrastructure investments, enticed by CFI grants, getting into unwarranted debt situations, such as at Université du Québec in Montréal. It forced universities to adhere to a new concept: the business of education. But is growth infinite?

Few universities have developed a solid analysis of their clients and of their future needs. University marketing is based on the perception of excellence and relevance, applied to both students and industrial sponsors. Given the meltdown of excellence exclusivity, the increasing demand on funding availability and the effect of the demographic curves, new challenges are now evident.

All those elements are part of the puzzle facing university presidents and governments alike. Despite it, the university cohort is singing a very uniform tune about the need for additional money and less oversight. Some provincial governments, such as Quebec, have tabled legislation to monitor the governance of universities and student fee structures are being revisited.

However, the essential autonomy of universities, liberty of expression, often implying liberty of action, will likely prevail within those sacrosanct walls. And industry will continue to push the limits of those walls. Universities are complex ecosystems where opposite views are the norm among an eclectic range of bright minds. Hopefully, the above mentioned challenges will spur more debates and research.

Alex Navarre is VP Numinor Consulting Inc, specializing in management of research issues and knowledge transfer and training. He has held executive positions within government and university research administrations over the past decade, including McGill University, University of Western Ontario and NSERC.