Alex Navarre

Is there a power struggle within academia?

By Alex Navarre

When the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada sent a delegation of more than 20 university presidents to Parliament Hill last month, they were not alone. They were each accompanied by an industry CEO. Their message: we are relevant to industry.

Universities have traditionally kept their distance from the halls of political power, and likewise, politicians were not usually centre stage at university events. That began to change about a decade ago. Nowadays, universities are commonly a backdrop for political announcements. What's changed?

In early 2000, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) was the first to ask universities for a five-year plan detailing their research priorities. At the time, it was politicized as an intrusion into the sacrosanct freedom of universities. Such requests are now routine since universities are increasingly under pressure to demonstrate the positive impacts of their research on both society and the economy. Societal impact is rather straightforward with student training, environmental sustainability and health research. Economic impact is often longer term and thus more difficult to assess, which funding recipients fear puts their $3 billion from the granting councils at risk.

In the upcoming Budget, the government is likely to examine, once more, the issue of efficiency within its research engine. Universities are only one of the vehicles — colleges and polytechnics have also attracted interest because of their connections with small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). So universities are likely to be asked to be more creative with existing resources.

Industry has also taken a more active interest in university research. A small, but significant portion of university-earmarked funds is flowing into partnership programs, which help industry carry out higher risk projects. Universities — and to a large extent colleges — are a source of creative ideas from which industry benefits as they trickle down when students join their workforce or through researcher's consulting activities.

In the past decade or so, the clustering trend spearheaded by the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE), NSERC's collaborative R&D programs and more recently the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR) program, have allowed for increased industry involvement and less research duplication.

Colleges could also benefit from an adapted NCE program to enhance their already strong industry interactions and share among themselves best practices and technological know-how. Rationalization of research activities and pursuance of sectoral clusters of excellence hold great promise. They are favoured in Europe with mega research centres under development.

What about the researcher's motivations? As suggested above, developing further national and international partnerships is underway. From the university researcher's standpoint, one of the key challenges is their performance evaluation. Few, if any, universities have incorporated industrial partnerships and patent publications into their tenure requirements, at least in those fields where it is applicable. So how can we expect researchers to value commercial exploitation of their research?

boost resources for industry engagement

While industry says it costs between five and 10 times their R&D budgets to commercialize research results, universities have invested less than 2 % of their R&D expenses in the commercialization of their research, commonly referred to as their technology transfer activities. That level has been decried by a major federal report in 2000 (the Fortier report), which recommended a 5% investment target.

This would impact one of the most creative aspects of the researcher's work and potentially make a valuable contribution to industry. So despite increases in the overhead levels that were contingent to enhancing their commercialization efforts, universities have not increased their dedicated resources. Some have even outsourced them, with no specific incentives for further support to researchers.

Yet, in just the last decade, universities across Canada have positioned themselves to become powerhouses of influence. The call comes from vocal professors, media savvy experts and above all, lobbying. Lobbying is not only direct but now includes industry partners that are receiving significant benefits through grants and tax credits. Public relations and communication functions have grown as part of university structures and overhead.

The change is that a few years back, industry criticized traditional university knowledge silos. Now they adhere through large precompetitive consortia such as CRIAQ, PROMPT and the NCEs, reinforcing the circular loop to convince government of their value proposition. But can the government justify an efficient economic impact when, year after year, the OECD gives Canada a failing mark for its commercialization of university results, in stark opposition with its research and publication performance?

Nothing comes without a price. Universities have positioned themselves as a sounding board for new industry developments — a substitute to the traditional National Research Council's mandate. The model is evolving as CFI-funded equipment and facilities are deployed. But is industry, especially SMEs, prepared to share its core technological issues in an open innovation approach with university researchers and other related parties?

Will researchers respond to their expectations? Will scientists accept being compelled to remain silent over sensitive political or economic issues, as was discussed at the AAAS meeting in Vancouver last month? Can they expect the necessary support from their university structures? Universities have to come to grips with the consequences of industry and government exposure.

The debate may be contentious but its resolution lies elsewhere. We need a system that recognizes and values commercialization of intellectual property, partnership around IP development and devolution of IP to industry, under certain conditions. It is not a question of IP policy, but a question of institutional attitude. Can universities be bold enough to meet expectations from both government and industry in the near future and arbitrage the consequences? The efficiency of the Canadian research engine depends on it.

Alex Navarre is VP at Numinor Conseil Inc. He has worked in the federal government on S&T issues and has administrative experience within large Canadian universities.