Get documents about "Slide 1 - Texas Tech University
Document Sample
First View of the Research
Enterprise at Texas Tech
Dean O. Smith
Vice President for Research
December 15, 2005
Strategic Plan Goals
GOAL 1. National Research Prominence:
Attain national recognition as a top public
research university.
• Generate $100 million per year in
sponsored research
• Ultimately rank in the top 75 public
universities in total research expenditures
Total Research and Development
Expenditures – Public Universities
(millions)
1. UCLA $ 849
.
13. Texas A&M $ 456
.
20. University of Texas – Austin $ 344
.
75. University of Massachusetts $ 126
.
82. University of Delaware $ 100
.
96. Texas Tech $ 69 (2003 Data)
R&D Expenditures at Most Research
Universities are Increasing
350 UT Austin
R&D Expenditures ($ millions)
300
U Mass
100 U Del
Texas Tech
50
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Until 2003, Texas Tech Research Expenditures
Had Grown Faster the National Totals
(www.nsf.gov)
2.2
TTU
2.0
1.8
Fold increase
1.6
1.4 U.S.
1.2
1.0
1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
After Years of Growth, R&D
Expenditures Declined in 2004
70
R&D Expenditures ($ millions)
65 $12 million
decline (-17%)
60
55
50
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
During the Past Two Years, Award Funding
Decreased for the Majority of Programs
CASNR
EDUC
LAW
VPA
ARCH
HUMAN SCI
ENGR
A&S
TIEHH
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Awards FY05 Minus FY03 ($ millions)
Why Have R&D Expenditures
Decreased?
• 10 senior faculty retired or left -- $ 2 million
• Large federal earmarks lapsed -- $ 5 million
• State funding decreased -- $ 5 million
Texas Tech is a Young Research
University
1876 Texas A&M
1883 UT Austin
1887 Hatch Act -- Funded research in Land Grant
universities
1923 Texas Technological College
1950 National Science Foundation -- Focused
federal research in universities
1969 Texas Tech University
Sources of Research Money
• State appropriations
• Patent blockbuster
• Faculty research
capacity
Sources of Research Money
• State appropriations
• Patent blockbuster
• Faculty research
capacity
Texas Tech Receives More State and Less Federal
Funds than the National Average (2003 NSF Data)
TTU
US total
Federal
State & local
Industry
Institutional
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Total Amount
Sources of Research Money
• State appropriations
• Patent blockbuster
• Faculty research
capacity
Patent-Generated Revenue Can
Be a Major Funding Source
millions
1 New York University $ 109.0
19 UT Southwestern $ 11.5
-- Texas A&M $ confidential
37 UT Austin $ 5.1
127 Texas Tech $ 0.145
2004 data
Texas Tech Generates Patents
Very Efficiently
Texas Tech
Stanford
average
U Wisconsin
Texas A&M
UT Austin
U Colorado
0 5 10 15 20 25
R&D expenditures/patent issued ($ millions)
Sources of Research Money
• State appropriations
• Patent blockbuster
• Faculty research
capacity
Increase Faculty Research Capacity
• Increase proposal submissions
• Hire new faculty
• Stimulate new programs
Increase Faculty Research Capacity
• Increase proposal submissions
• Hire new faculty
• Stimulate new programs
Texas Tech Faculty Are Aggressively
Submitting Proposals
850
70
submissions
R&D expenditures ($ millions)
Proposals submitted
800
65
750
60
expenditures
700
2003 2004 2005
Year
Increase Faculty Research Capacity
• Increase proposal submissions
• Hire new faculty
• Stimulate new programs
Projected New Faculty in
Sciences and Engineering
• About 10 new faculty hired this year
(excluding normal turnover)
• If all generate $1.2 million/year in grants,
this yields $12 million in research funding
• Much more realistic is 5 to 10 new faculty
successfully generating $200,000/year,
yielding $1 to $2 million per year in
research funding after a 3- to 5- year lag
Potential Impact of New Faculty:
Status quo
300
R&D expenditures ($ millions)
250
U Delaware:
No new faculty
200 8% growth/yr
150
100 Texas Tech
10 new faculty in 2006
50 4% growth/yr
2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Potential Impact of New Faculty:
Add 133 new faculty per year
300
Texas Tech
R&D expenditures ($ millions)
250 U Delaware: 133 new faculty/yr
No new faculty 4% growth/yr
8% growth/yr
200
150
100 Texas Tech
10 new faculty in 2006
50 4% growth/yr
2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Realistically, adding
new faculty is
necessary but not
sufficient to achieve
targeted growth
Bold New Initiatives Are
Necessary
Increase Faculty Research Capacity
• Increase proposal submissions
• Hire new faculty
• Stimulate new programs
New Program Stimulation:
Faculty-Driven Initiatives
• $1 million is available
• Proposed new multi-year initiatives
were solicited from the faculty
–No constraining guidelines
–No budget limitations
• Award(s) will be made in March
New Program Stimulation:
Institution-Driven Initiatives
First question:
where’s the money?
Federal Obligations for Research
Performed at Universities and Colleges,
2004
Social sciences
Psychology
Other sciences
Environmental sciences
Math & Computer sciences
Engineering
Physical sciences
Life sciences
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
$ (billions)
Texas Tech Receives Relatively Little Life
Sciences Funding
TTU
Defense
U. S. total
NSF
Funding Agency
Agriculture
Energy
NASA
HHS
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage of Total R&D Expenditures
If Money is the Object,
Focus on the life sciences
Caveat
Continue to invest
heavily in existing
areas of excellence
Bottom Line
It takes money to earn money
Invest
Invest
Invest
Research Investment Amplification:
A Conservative Model
$10 million - Institutional investment
$30 million - Extramural awards
$80 million - State and local economy
Research Investment Amplification:
A Conservative Model
$10 million - Institutional investment
$30 million - Extramural awards $14 million
Institutional
operations
$80 million - State and local economy
Research Investment Amplification:
A Conservative Model
$10 million - Institutional investment
$30 million - Extramural awards $14 million
Institutional
operations
$80 million - State and local economy
Research Investment Amplification:
A Conservative Model
$10 million - Institutional investment
$30 million - Extramural awards $14 million
Institutional
operations
$80 million - State and local economy
Texas Tech Ranks Low in Institutional
Research Investment
U North Texas
Texas A&M
UT Dallas
UT Austin
U of Houston
UT El Paso
Texas Tech average
UT Arlington
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Institutional Research Funding (% of total research $)
Benchmarks
• Re-establish a growth rate tracking
the national trend
• Increased graduate student
enrollment
–This is an indicator of program
quality and productivity
Texas Tech Has Relatively Low
Graduate Enrollment
UC Berkeley
U Wisconsin
U Texas
U Houston
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Graduate students (% of total enrollment)
SUMMARY
• Texas Tech is a young research university
• Research growth has slowed the last 2 years
• Faculty have been submitting proposals
• Texas Tech is investing in its faculty
– New faculty are hired with competitive start-ups
– $1 million for new, innovative research ideas
• The State must increase its investment for
Texas Tech to become a major research
university
