After two years of carefully crafting their arguments for increased federal support, leaders of the nation’s research universities heard plenty of sympathy when they came before Congress on Wednesday for its verdict.
“Research universities play a vital role in America’s ability to maintain its competitiveness in an increasingly technologically developed world,” the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Rep. Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, said in opening a hearing on a new National Research Council review of American research universities.
But as far as actually helping research universities cope with cuts in state and federal support, Mr. Brooks made clear there would be limits. “We’ve got a lot of competing demands” for federal money, especially at a time of economic uncertainty, he said.
The hearing in the Republican-controlled House was the first public examination of the report, which was issued two weeks ago by a 22-member panel of university and business leaders formed by the National Research Council at the request of lawmakers from both parties.
The lawmakers were responding to a request from the research universities, especially public institutions, which have seen state legislatures cut their support by an average of about 25 percent nationwide in the past few years.
The National Research Council panel, led by Charles O. Holliday Jr., a retired chairman and chief executive officer of the DuPont chemical company, recommended a series of 10 actions that universities, governments, and industry could take together to help America retain its global dominance in university-based research.
The list includes calls for universities to hold down costs and boost graduation rates among science and engineering majors, for federal and state governments to revive their financial support, and for industry to form partnerships with universities that emphasize broad educational and economic goals rather than individual projects and job-specific training.
Mr. Brooks and his subcommittee, which is part of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, didn’t delve deeply into the details of the recommendations. He did, however, cite one that called on the federal government to begin a program of matching state and private donations for facilities and endowed faculty chairs.
That idea, Mr. Brooks said, doesn’t appear to “take into account the nation’s true economic condition.”
Mr. Holliday quickly assured him that the NRC study panel pondered the matter “at great length” and recognized that universities couldn’t expect significant new government support in the near future. Mr. Holliday said he instead would emphasize other suggestions for helping research universities cover expenses, such as greater collaborations with industry.
Examples include work that DuPont has carried out with universities in developing biofuels, Mr. Holliday said. “In the short term, we can do much more of that,” he said.
A Pitch for Less Regulation
Along with Mr. Holliday, the subcommittee invited testimony from top research officials from four institutions—Auburn University, Duke University, Texas A&M University at College Station, and the University of Arizona—none of whom served on the NRC panel.
The four highlighted various aspects of the panel’s report, including expanding federal research tax credits, expanding cooperation between institutions, and improving methods for translating research findings into commercial applications.
They got their most enthusiastic response from the Republican-dominated subcommittee, however, when they suggested that Congress could save them money if it reduced the burden of government regulations on their operations.
“Regulations are just burying us,” said James N. Siedow, vice provost for research at Duke.
Leslie P. Tolbert, senior vice president for research at Arizona, said specific areas needing attention include financial conflict-of-interest regulations, “effort reporting” rules designed to ensure scientists spend a promised amount of time on a grant, and export-control laws.
Subcommittee Republicans, led by Mr. Brooks, promised to devote staff time to working with universities on specific solutions. Lawmakers are ready “to get into the weeds a bit” to solve the regulatory issue, Mr. Brooks said.
A few other lawmakers had their own concerns. Rep. Randy Hultgren, an Illinois Republican whose district includes the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, said he’s concerned that federal labs have suffered even more than research universities in terms of federal budget cuts, and said he has recommended that Fermilab officials respond by developing even deeper partnerships with universities.
And Rep. Ralph M. Hall, a Republican of Texas who serves as chairman of the full House science committee, repeatedly pleaded with Jeffrey R. Seemann, vice president for research at Texas A&M, to help ensure his granddaughter gets good grades at his institution.
Universities can at least take comfort from the hearing that federal lawmakers appear concerned about the future of American research universities and remain willing to help out, as much as they can, said Howard J. Gobstein, an executive vice president at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.
In reality, though, many public universities are now getting only about 10 percent of their operating budgets from their states, and it’s hard to be optimistic that those numbers will change, Mr. Gobstein said after the hearing. With that level of support, it’s not clear how universities will fulfill their public missions, he said. “I don’t have a good answer for that.”