U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–396PDF 2012

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND 

RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: COLLABORATIONS 

FUELING AMERICAN INNOVATION 

AND JOB CREATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012 

Serial No. 112–100 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Mo Brooks, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witnesses: 

Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman, Accenture ......................................

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 

Lockheed Martin Corporation .............................................................................

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Dr. John S. Hickman, Director, Global University Relations and Life Sciences, 

Deere and Company .............................................................................................

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Dr. Lou Graziano, Director, University R&D Strategy, Sustainable Technologies & Innovation Sourcing, The Dow Chemical Company .......................

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 47 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President for Research and General Manager, 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Georgia Institute of Technology ............

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 73 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman, Accenture ...................................... 90 

Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 

Lockheed Martin Corporation ............................................................................. 94 

Dr. John S. Hickman, Director, Global University Relations and Life Sciences, 

Deere and Company ............................................................................................. 97 

Dr. Lou Graziano, Director, University R&D Strategy, Sustainable Technologies & Innovation Sourcing, The Dow Chemical Company ....................... 99 

Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President for Research and General Manager, 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Georgia Institute of Technology ............ 105 

(1) 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS 

AND RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: 

COLLABORATIONS FUELING 

AMERICAN INNOVATION AND JOB CREATION 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mo Brooks 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Chairman BROOKS. The Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education will come to order. 

Mr. Lipinski, the Ranking Member, is not yet here but we are 

going to go ahead and proceed without him inasmuch as we do 

have two other Members of the minority party present. When Mr. 

Lipinski does arrive, then if we have already passed the point at 

which he makes his opening statement, we will give him the opportunity to do so. If we haven’t reached that point, well, then he will 

make his opening statement in the normal course of events. 

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled 

‘‘The Relationship Between Business and Research Universities: 

Collaborations Fueling American Innovation and Job Creation. The 

purpose of this hearing is to examine partnerships and collaborations between industry and research universities. 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biography, and truths-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

We are pleased to welcome this distinguished panel of witnesses 

to examine partnerships and collaborations between industry and 

research universities. I look forward to working with my fellow 

Members of this Subcommittee to learn more about these important relationships. 

The fundamental basic research taking place at U.S. research 

universities is essential to the future prosperity of our Nation. Collaboration between business and academia helps fuel research necessary for American innovation and helps prepare a workforce that 

meets the needs of industry. Both are critical components to future 

economic prosperity and job growth. 

As we discussed in a previous Subcommittee hearing in June, the 

National Academies report entitled ‘‘Research Universities and the 

Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s 

Prosperity and Security,’’ asserts that ‘‘business and industry have 

largely dismantled the large corporate research laboratories that 

drove American industrial leadership in the 20th century, such as 

Bell Labs, but have not yet fully partnered with research universities to fill the gap at a time when the new knowledge and ideas 

emerging from university research are needed by society more than 

ever.’’ This report asserts an important role for industry to play in 

maintaining the strength of the Nation’s research universities. The 

report also asserts that ‘‘business is the channel through which 

basic ideas developed in research universities reach the marketplace.’’ 

The report recommends that America strengthen businesses’ role 

in research partnerships, reform graduate education, and reduce 

regulatory burden for U.S. research universities as part of its 10 

stated actions to support the future of United States research universities. Today, we will hear from witnesses representing industry 

and academia and learn more about what these collaborations hold 

for the stakeholders and students, how they take shape and evolve, 

and if and how they can continue to be strengthened. 

I look forward to learning more from our witnesses, and how this 

Subcommittee and Congress can institute policies which help rather than hinder industry and research universities. 
12 

Thank you again to our witnesses for taking the time to be with 

us today. 

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski from the great State 

of Illinois for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MO BROOKS

Good morning. We are pleased to welcome this distinguished panel of witnesses 

to examine partnerships and collaborations between industry and research universities. I look forward to working with my fellow Members of this Subcommittee to 

learn more about these important relationships. 

The fundamental basic research taking place at U.S. research universities is essential to the future prosperity of our Nation. Collaboration between business and 

academia helps fuel research necessary for American innovation and helps prepare 

a workforce that meets the needs of industry. Both are critical components to future 

economic prosperity and job growth. 

As we discussed in a previous Subcommittee hearing in June, the National Academies report, Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough 

Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security, asserts that ‘‘business and industry have largely dismantled the large corporate research laboratories that drove 

American industrial leadership in the 20th century, such as Bell Labs, but have not 

yet fully partnered with research universities to fill the gap at a time when the new 

knowledge and ideas emerging from university research are needed by society more 

than ever.’’ The report asserts an important role for industry to play in maintaining 

the strength of the Nation’s research universities. The report also asserts that ‘‘business is the channel through which basic ideas developed in research universities 

reach the marketplace.’’ 

The report recommends that America strengthen businesses’ role in research partnerships, reform graduate education, and reduce regulatory burden for U.S. research universities as part of its ten stated actions to support the future of U.S. research universities. Today we will hear from witnesses representing industry and 

academia and learn more about what these collaborations hold for the stakeholders 

and students, how they take shape and evolve, and if and how they can continue 

to be strengthened. 

I look forward to learning more from our witnesses, and how this Subcommittee 

and Congress can institute policies which help rather than hinder industry and research universities. Thank you again to our witnesses for taking the time to be here 

with us today. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank you, Chairman Brooks. Thank you for holding this hearing. And thank you, witnesses, for being here this 

morning. 

I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Graziano for being 

here today after agreeing to testify just three days ago and to 

Chairman Brooks and his staff for their flexibility in adding Dr. 

Graziano as a witness. 

I could not have selected a more apt hearing title myself. Norman Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, likes to describe scientific research as the engine of a thought-based economy. 

To paraphrase him further, if your plane is too heavy to fly, you 

don’t toss out the engine. I couldn’t agree more, which is why even 

in these tight budget times I continue to believe that we must sustain our investments in scientific research, which means sustaining 

our investments in our world-class research universities. 

But it takes more than just the engine to fly a plane. It takes 

a system of components working together. In this case, the path 

from the lab bench to innovation and job creation depends on a 

complicated network of private companies, scientists, universities, 

venture capitalists, startups, and entrepreneurs. And today, as the 

most important question that we are facing is where are the jobs 
13 

going to come from in America today and in the future, I think innovation is the key. It is something I have focused on since even 

before the recession started, since I have been on this committee 

for the past 7–1/2 years is we need to promote innovation in this 

country, and we have great research universities, national labs, 

fantastic research, the best in world, going on. We need to do a better job of turning that research into innovation and into jobs. 

At the June 27 hearing that the Subcommittee held, we heard 

from several university leaders representing a diverse set of research universities about the nature of their partnerships with industry and their efforts to promote entrepreneurship on their own 

campuses. At a July 16 field hearing in Chicago, we heard from research faculty and experienced entrepreneurs how the NSF Innovation Corps Program is helping to drive entrepreneurship and commercialization of university research. 

I am pleased that today we get to hear about some of the same 

issues from the perspective of business leaders whose companies 

actively partner with research universities, as well as the head of 

a research corporation at a major research institute. 

One of the topics I would like to explore further is the role of the 

federal science agencies such as the National Science Foundation 

in facilitating and contributing to university-industry partnerships 

and to hear from witnesses about what is working well and where 

we can make improvements. The Federal Government can use 

many mechanisms to promote collaboration between the business 

and university communities. These include tax incentives such as 

R&D tax credit, direct support for university-based research centers that require or encourage industry partners, or convening university and industry stakeholders around areas of shared interest. 

These also include programs such as NSF is Innovation Corps, an 

education program which helps federally funded research innovations transition from the university lab into a profitable company. 

While limited partnerships around easily definable milestones 

are valuable and should continue, our ultimate goal is to promote 

the creation of innovation ecosystems within which universities, 

businesses, research institutes, and other stakeholders build and 

sustain long-term and mutually beneficial collaborations. 

In the last hearing, university leaders talked about the need to 

move more collaboration closer to this kind of peer-to-peer relationship. I would be interested in hearing the perspective of today’s 

panel on that issue. 

Finally, I would like to hear from our witnesses their thoughts 

on STEM education, and in particular how their companies can 

better partner with universities to ensure that they are producing 

graduates with the skills, including the soft skills, that meet the 

needs of today’s industries. 

I think the data on the supply and demand for STEM workers 

is variable enough that is difficult to generalize across all sectors 

of our economy or all levels of education. But as leaders from large 

companies with significant STEM workforce needs, you are well positioned to help us understand current and future demand in your 

respective industries. 

Once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here this morning and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 
14 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you Chairman Brooks for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning. And I’d like to give a special thanks to Dr. 

Graziano for being here today after agreeing to testify just three days ago, and to 

Chairman Brooks and his staff for their flexibility in adding Dr. Graziano as a witness. I could not have selected a more apt hearing title myself. Norm Augustine, the 

former CEO of Lockheed Martin, likes to describe scientific research as the ‘‘engine 

of a thought-based economy.’’ To paraphrase him further, if your plane is too heavy 

to fly, you don’t toss out the engine. I couldn’t agree more, which is why even in 

these tight budget times I continue to believe that we must sustain our investments 

in scientific research, which means sustaining our investments in our world-class 

research universities. 

But it takes more than just the engine to fly a plane, it takes a system of components working together. In this case, the path from the lab bench to innovation and 

job creation depends on a complicated network of private companies, scientists, universities, venture capitalists, startups, and entrepreneurs. 

At the June 27 hearing we heard from several university leaders representing a 

diverse set of research universities about the nature of their partnerships with industry and their efforts to promote entrepreneurship on their own campuses. At a 

July 16 field hearing in Chicago we heard from research faculty and experienced 

entrepreneurs how the NSF Innovation Corps program is helping to drive entrepreneurship and commercialization of university research. 

I am pleased that today we get to hear about some of the same issues from the 

perspective of business leaders whose companies actively partner with research universities, as well as the head of a research corporation at a major research institute. 

One of the topics I’d like to explore further is the role of federal science agencies 

such as the National Science Foundation in facilitating and contributing to university-industry partnerships, and to hear from witnesses about what’s working well 

and where we can make improvements. The federal government can use many 

mechanisms to promote collaboration between the business and university communities. These include tax incentives such as the R&D tax credit, direct support for 

university-based research centers that require or encourage industry partners, or 

convening university and industry stakeholders around areas of shared interest. 

These also include programs such as NSF’s Innovation Corps, an education program 

which helps federally funded research innovations transition from the university lab 

into a profitable company. While limited partnerships around easily definable milestones are valuable and should continue, our ultimate goal is to promote the creation of innovation ecosystems within which universities, businesses, research institutes, and other stakeholders build and sustain long-term and mutually beneficial 

collaborations. In the last hearing, university leaders talked about the need to move 

more collaboration closer to this kind of peer-to-peer relationship. I’d be interested 

to hear the perspectives of today’s panel on that issue. 

Finally, I’d like to hear from our witnesses their thoughts on STEM education, 

and in particular how their companies can better partner with universities to ensure 

that they are producing graduates with the skills, including the soft skills, that 

meet the needs of today’s industries. I think the data on the supply and demand 

for STEM workers is variable enough that it is difficult to generalize across all sectors of our economy, or all levels of education. But as leaders from large companies 

with significant STEM workforce needs, you are well positioned to help us understand current and future demand in your respective industries. 

Once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here this morning and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

If there are other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

Chairman BROOKS. At this time, I would like to introduce our 

witness panel for today’s hearing. Our first witness will be Mr. William D. Green, Executive Chairman for Accenture. In addition to 

chairing the Board of Directors, Mr. Green works closely with the 

leadership team on Accenture’s long-time—excuse me—long-term 
15 

business strategy. He has served on Accenture’s Board of Directors 

since its inception in 2001. From September 2004 through December 2010, Mr. Green served as Accenture’s Chief Executive Officer. 

He assumed the additional role of Chairman in 2006. Thank you, 

Mr. Green. 

Our second witness is Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President 

and Chief Technology Officer for Lockheed Martin Corporation. As 

an officer of the corporation and a member of the Executive leadership team, Dr. Johnson guides Lockheed Martin’s technology vision 

and provides corporate leadership in the strategic areas of technology and engineering. Dr. Johnson currently chairs the United 

States Council on Competitiveness, Technology Leadership, and 

Strategic Initiative. 

Our third witness is Dr. John S. Hickman, who is the Director 

of Global University Relations and Life Sciences for Deere and 

Company. The Global University Relations group is developing and 

sustaining a global network of university relationships to support 

Deere and Company’s strategic business objectives. Prior to joining 

John Deere, Dr. Hickman worked as a faculty member at Kansas 

State University specializing in soil management and environmental quality. 

Our fourth witness is Dr. Louis Graziano, Director of University 

Research and Development Strategy for Sustainable Technologies 

and Innovation Sourcing for the Dow Chemical Company. In 1981, 

Dr. Graziano joined with Rohm and Haas Company in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and held research management positions in adhesives, biocides, and codings. In 2005, he took a leadership role in 

external technology building collaborations and partnerships with 

universities, federal agencies, and industry partners. Dr. Graziano 

continued in that role when Rohm and Haas was acquired by the 

Dow Chemical Company in 2009. 

Our final witness, who happens to—I have just discovered—come 

from my hometown is Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton, Vice President for 

Research and General Manager of the Georgia Tech Research Corporation for the Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia Institute 

of Technology is a comprehensive university which reported over 

$655 million in research expenditures for fiscal year 2011. Ms. 

Garton is responsible for the financial and business affairs of Georgia Tech Research Corporation, including technology transfer and 

research contracting. Ms. Garton joined Georgia Institute of Technology in 1998. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. William Dr. Green. And 

Mr. Green, thank you for being here, and you are recognized for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM D. GREEN, 

EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, ACCENTURE 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Brooks, 

Ranking Member Lipinski, and the entire Subcommittee, for the 

opportunity to testify before you today on a subject that I am extremely passionate about. 
16 

I am the Executive Chairman of Accenture. I previously served 

as its CEO. I have been with Accenture for 34 years starting directly out of college. I also recently had the honor of serving as a 

member of the Committee on the National Research Universities of 

National Research Council. 

I am testifying today in my capacity of the Chairman of the 

Board of Accenture to discuss the relationship between business 

and our national research universities, which is critical to the future prosperity and security of our Nation. I will also discuss my 

own experience at Accenture and I will draw upon the work of the 

Committee on Research Universities that I believe is so profoundly 

important. 

Accenture is a global management consulting and technology 

services company with over 250,000 employees serving clients in 

120 countries. We are proud that more than 37,000 of those employees are based here in the United States, and last year, we 

hired more than 5,000 people in the United States, many of whom 

came to us directly from college campuses. 

Representative Hultgren knows about our investment and talent 

in human capital since he recently visited our training facility outside of Chicago. Each year, we send 25,000 employees to train at 

this particular facility. In fiscal year 2011 we spent close to $50 

million on that training. Congressman Lipinski, I am sure, knows 

about our work with city colleges in Chicago and the Skills for 

Chicagoland’s Future that we are involved in a great deal. 

Accenture has traditionally been one of the top college campus 

recruiters in the United States, hiring people with undergraduate 

and advanced degrees, and we thank Georgia Tech for their contributions to our company as well. 

Global competitiveness is the key CEO issue, and having the talent to compete is what keeps CEOs up at night. The companies 

and the countries with the best talent win. I think we have learned 

that in the last few years. To sustain our standards of living—to 

lead, to ignite our economic growth engines—it is about talent, research, and innovation. It is that simple. 

Our national research universities are our secret weapons. They 

are a national asset we have invested in for decades. Every country—and I have traveled to 40 or so countries in the last year or 

so—every country wants to build the capability we have. And we 

need to be gone when they get there. And gone means by investing 

and leveraging our research universities to fuel an economic renaissance that we have—the likes of which we have never seen before 

and taking full advantage of this incredibly precious asset. 

We found a shortage of talent in this country, especially with 

people with background in the STEM areas. At the same time, 

there is very little recognition of the vast power and potential at 

our fingertips within these institutions across government, across 

society, and unfortunately, across business. And it is time that we 

seize that opportunity, particularly business. 

The National Academy report provides a compelling review of the 

strengths and challenges of our research universities, the opportunities they confront moving forward. It also recommends 10 steps 

that state and Federal Government, universities, and businesses 

can take to strengthen our country’s university research. 
17 

There were three really broad goals in there. First, strengthening 

the partnerships among universities, federal, state governments, 

philanthropy, and business. Second, improving the productivity and 

administrative operations in research and education within the 

universities, how they operate themselves, how do we get more 

value for money? And finally, ensuring that America’s pipeline of 

future STEM talent remains creative and vital, leveraging the 

abilities of all its citizens and attracting the best students and 

scholars from around the world. 

There were four major recommendations in there that very much 

focused on business, accelerating strategic partnerships and more 

collaboration to reduce the time to innovation. Reforming and creating new graduate degree programs were business helps shape the 

outcome we want not for the jobs of today but for the jobs of tomorrow. Focusing on the STEM pathways and diversity to get a bigger 

percentage of our people engaged in these exciting disciplines. And 

lastly, focusing on the international students and scholars, the people we train that are some of the world’s best that we can allow 

them to be here and contribute to our economy. 

People with graduate degrees drive research and development in 

profound ways. The Commission on Pathways through Graduate 

School and Into Careers, on which I also served, has incredible, you 

know, direction on improving the role and the collaboration between business and our research universities broadly. 

I would just talk for a minute about Accenture’s university partnerships. At Accenture we collaborate with major research initiatives in a variety—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Excuse me, Mr. Green, we are about a minute over 

on your 5-minute allotment. If you could please wrap up, we would 

appreciate it. We do have your full testimony in writing as a part 

of our record. 

Mr. GREEN. I shall do that right now. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. Accenture is a company that lives by talent, 5,000 

people hired in the United States. The best people that are in the 

best companies are the ones that win, and we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the research infrastructure. And 

what we need to do as a company and with other companies is to 

do more to make a difference, to harvest the unique asset that we 

have. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you for bearing with our time limitations. 

At this point, the Chair will recognize our second witness, Dr. 

Ray O. Johnson, for five minutes. 

Dr. Johnson, thank you for sharing your insight with us today. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RAY O. JOHNSON, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, distinguished 

Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. On behalf of the 62,000 engineers, scientists, and IT professionals at Lockheed Martin and the greater 

population of 120,000 employees, we appreciate this opportunity to 

discuss the relationship between business and academia. With your 

permission, I will submit a prepared statement for the record and 

now offer a brief summary. Thank you, sir. 

As Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Lockheed Martin, I guide the Corporation’s technology vision and provide corporate leadership in the strategic areas of technology and 

engineering across a portfolio of more than 4,000 programs. I am 

extremely proud of the work of my colleagues and our university 

partners. 

University collaboration is an inherent part of our company’s innovative culture. We proactively develop and maintain relationships with universities and academic institutions globally. Our goal 

is to facilitate, encourage, and enable utilization of university research and the resultant insertion of the university technology in 

our programs and products. For 2012, we plan to make research 

and development contributions to universities of approximately $20 

million. 

While we invest in a wide variety of technical domains, we are 

increasingly concentrating our efforts in fewer, larger partnerships 

with universities in strategic areas such as nanotechnology, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. Some of our relationships 

span literally decades. Others are more recent. What you will see 

throughout is our pursuit of game-changing innovations, not inventions, not evolutionary improvements. We work with universities 

because their inventions become the basis for our innovations. They 

help us reach critical milestones in the delivery of affordable solutions to our customers. 

Our collaboration with universities extends beyond research and 

development to talent acquisition. Lockheed Martin is a large employer of entry-level talent, recruiting close to 1,800 full-time intern 

and co-op students annually. Over 75 percent of our skill needs are 

for technical talent. To meet those needs, we have established relationships of mutual benefit with over 100 U.S. colleges and universities. We develop relationships with faculty, staff, and student organizations throughout—through activities such as curriculum development, classroom presentations, advisory board participations, 

and scholarships. We seek partnerships with institutions known for 

academic excellence, diversity, and research expertise. These 
29 

schools also are often the top universities where we sponsor research. 

For all the benefits the university collaboration provides, Lockheed Martin, like many companies in the present economic reality, 

is aggressively reducing costs. This reality is putting increased 

pressure on research funding. Sponsored research generally advances knowledge within a domain in the form of research results, 

papers, and presentations. The positive financial implications of 

this work often occur over time horizons that stretch far beyond 

immediate sales forecasts. Sometimes, university research is necessarily reduced when weighed against more critical expenses that 

have more near-term impact. 

There is also a perception that university research agreements 

are exceptionally difficult to negotiate, specifically with regard to 

intellectual property or IP rights. Generally, we are able to negotiate the rights we need while still allowing the university the freedom to pursue its own activities. However, we have noticed an increased reluctance from universities to grant IP rights to certain 

research sponsors. 

Despite these challenges, industry, including Lockheed Martin, 

has and will continue to play an important role in the future of 

university research. Businesses will continue to make investments 

as they look to diversity into new markets and domains. 

The National Academy of Sciences report that we are discussing 

today offers several important recommendations to help overcome 

the existing challenges and enable even greater collaboration. 

There are three recommendations that we consider among the top 

priorities. They are recommendation one, concerning the adoption 

by the Federal Government of stable and effective polices, practices, and funding for university-performed research and development; recommendation three on the strengthening of the business 

role and the research partnership facilitating the transfer of knowledge, ideas, and technology to society; and recommendation nine on 

securing the full benefits of education for all Americans in science, 

technology, engineering, and math. 

Important is the federal reestablishment of the research and development tax credit, preferably a permanent and enhanced R&D 

credit when research is performed in the United States, the highly 

skilled scientists and engineers along with the institutions are 

maintained and strengthened. However, other countries have introduced strong incentive specifically directed toward research conducted within their borders. 

In our opinion, these three recommendations would provide some 

of the most significant impacts as—and they are attainable. Having 

consistent policy would provide a stable backdrop for research. Providing for a permanent research and development tax credit would 

enable companies to make investments in U.S. universities driving 

wealth and job creation through innovation. Helping students realize their full potential through science, technology, engineering, 

and math education would guarantee our Nation the next generation of researchers that we so desperately need. 

In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the opportunity to join you here today. The Committee is addressing extremely important issues that not only impact American busi-
30 

nesses, but they also have the potential to benefit every person in 

our country as innovation benefits us all. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. 

The Chair now recognizes our third witness, Dr. John S. Hickman. 

Dr. Hickman, five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN S. HICKMAN, DIRECTOR, 

GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RELATIONS AND 

LIFE SCIENCES, DEERE AND COMPANY 

Dr. HICKMAN. Good morning and thank you. 

I am the Director of Global University Relations and Life 

Sciences at Deere & Company, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to share our perspectives on collaborations with research 

universities and how that impacts both people and innovation at 

Deere. 

Deere & Company is a leading global manufacturer of agricultural, construction, forestry, turf care equipment. Our strategic direction reflects on the very important role that innovation is going 

to play in addressing two important challenges for the world—how 

to feed a population growing in size and affluence and, at the same 

time, develop the infrastructure required to support massive urbanization. 

Regarding innovation, we are seeing the rise of smart machines, 

equipment that is monitored and directed by computers, global positioning systems, sensors, and actuators to ensure safer and more 

efficient operation. Simultaneously, we see an increase in frugal innovation or value innovation that is very important to our company. Frugal engineering requires a very intensive focus on the 

customer so you precisely deliver the features that they need at a 

price the customers can afford to pay. 

Now, no one company has all the resources to develop, maintain, 

support the innovation being demanded by industry. Especially 

moving in the future, we understand the need to partner with others such as universities. Aside from the role that research universities play in innovation, research universities are very important 

in attracting and developing employees and understanding at times 

our customers’ local needs both today and into the future. All of 

these critical—are considered critical success factors helping us 

meet our global business aspirations. 

Deere formed a Global University Relations Initiative in 2011. 

The initiative is to develop and sustain alignment among the 

strong university relationships currently in place today and guide 

direction for those universities we are going to need globally moving into the future. And research universities play a very important 

role in this initiative. 

We have a broad reach of R&D activities—innovation activities 

at U.S. research universities. Historically, the majority of our research efforts have been with faculty and colleges—or students, excuse me—faculty and students in the College of Engineering. However, research activities occur across many parts of campus. Many 

of our research projects would be classified as sponsored research. 

They have comprehensive legal agreements but there are other 

types of research activities including professional service agreements, consulting agreements, memberships in consortiums, equipment loans, research gifts, and grants. 
39 

At Deere, we really like to focus on the complementary benefits 

we can achieve through our collaborations with universities, so the 

win-wins we can achieve for both parties. Industry plays a very important role in advising universities as to the relevance of research 

and workforce development. In being able to address both current 

and future business needs is part of that win-win. We encourage 

our employees at John Deere to make sure that they engage in the 

university in reviewing curriculums, serving on advisory councils 

and advisory boards, participating in federal grants, getting in the 

classrooms, and so on. At some universities we have a physical 

presence right on or very near campus. One example of that is our 

John Deere Technology and Innovation Center that is located in 

Champaign, Illinois. 

Where we expect to have significant research activities with the 

university, we try and negotiate a Master Research Agreement between Deere and the university. That Master Research Agreement 

addresses the various IP publication confidentiality, all the sort of 

difficult legal issues and makes forming subsequent research 

projects a very simple process moving forward. The long period of 

time to negotiate a research agreement is the most frequently mentioned challenge associated with university-industry relationships. 

We are also members of a couple of organizations or forums with 

organizations that can help us specifically address collaboration opportunities and the dynamics of industry-university relationships. 

Two organizations are convened by the National Academies, and 

they include the Government University-Industry Research Roundtable and the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership. 

These organizations have a variety of materials that can help out, 

including continuums and research guidebooks. Researchers from 

industry and universities have gotten together to develop these materials. Such organizations help us focus on the opportunities rather than the challenges associated with these relationships. 

And again let me reiterate Deere’s appreciation for this opportunity to appear before the Committee today and I would be 

pleased to address your questions later in the hearing. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hickman follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Hickman. 

I now recognize our fourth witness, Dr. Louis Graziano. 

Dr. Graziano, you have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LOU GRAZIANO, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY R&D STRATEGY, SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES & INNOVATION SOURCING, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Thank you. 

Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, my name is Lou Graziano and I am the Director 

of University R&D Strategy at—for Dow Chemical. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss our views on the university-industry 

partnership and its role in America’s future today. 

Dow believes that our relationship with academic partners is 

critical to our success and to the success of our partner institutions 

as well. A vibrant collaborative environment ensures that the 

greatest minds of industry and academia come together to solve the 

technological challenges that face society today and in the future. 

We believe that the most effective way to have a successful university partnership is to focus on a limited number of academic partners. This allows the partners to achieve a depth of understanding 

of each other’s strategy and needs and thus allows us to grow together in ways that could not be realized with a less committed relationship. 

To this end, Dow has increased its investment and programs with leading U.S. universities with a $25 million-per-year commitment over ten years. The investment is currently being distributed 

among 11 U.S. institutions. DOW took this step to strengthen research in traditional scientific fields important to the future of the 

company and the future of the Nation. Our collaborations take 

many shapes and their beginnings vary. Some might suggest that 

it all starts with an idea, but the real genesis starts with the recognition of a problem such as achieving breakthroughs in solar energy conversion efficiency and the articulation of the problem. It is 

precisely this reason that we take a strategic approach to our university partnership model. The depth of our relationships helps us 

recognize the relevant problems of today and then combing our capabilities to build the ideas that will solve those problems. A deeper relationship results in a higher quality collaboration. 

The three important outcomes we seek in our collaborations include the discovery of advanced technologies that are relevant to 

the industrial and society problems we face today and in the future; the development of excellent talent at the Nation’s institutions of higher learning, and the assurance that our partners remain strong in the disciplines that are essential to healthy, 

sustainably advantaged manufacturing sector to secure America’s 

economic future; and providing new avenues of support to our partners, ensuring that they benefit not just from our funding but also 

from the collaboration of scientific minds and the advanced knowledge we bring to the table with respect to other important issues 

such as safety, such as sustainability and intellectual property protection. 

The resources Dow expends in the research collaboration includes many intellectual exchanges, training seminars on a number 
48 

of topics, joint workshops, and onsite visits. This provides the graduate researchers perspectives that cannot always be achieved in a 

research laboratory setting. These activities help tomorrow’s workforce get a broader understanding of industrial challenges and the 

scale at which industry operates. 

In addition, our academic partners witness firsthand our approach to portfolio analysis, project selection and prioritization, a 

critical learning for a successful business entity and a successful 

nation. 

Intellectual property is often noted as a challenge to successfully 

executing collaborations. It remains a challenge today, and in many 

cases, collaborations abroad provide a more industry-friendly atmosphere for partnerships. However, Dow has worked hard to overcome these barriers. The committed partnerships that we have 

built helped us create a more cooperative environment and allowed 

us to establish strong academic programs in many areas, including 

advanced electronics, new polymer platforms, and energy efficient 

separation processes, to name a few. 

Another challenge in maintaining the research focus and discipline once a collaboration is in place. The real close interaction 

that we expect of our own scientists who are leading the industrial 

side of the partnership, that helps us maintain that discipline. This 

is a significant resource expenditure at Dow and one which we feel 

is essential to achieving a true collaborative environment with our 

partners. 

The National Academies report highlights many key features of 

an improved research university system. Of note is the recommendation for better business-university engagement. At Dow, 

we are playing a major role in ensuring the business-university relationship creates a true peer-to-peer environment and encourage 

progress in this direction. We applaud any efforts to find better 

ways to support fundamental research that encourages industrial 

interaction. 

Another issue in the report is the retention of foreign students 

trained in the United States. Many graduate students come from 

overseas to get their training in the United States and many of 

these students benefit from a system which leads the world in critical thinking and problem-solving. We recommend reducing barriers that remain—to remaining in the United States after a young 

professional’s education is completed. In this way, the Nation can 

ensure we are maximizing our return on education investment. 

Thank you once again for providing me with the opportunity to 

address the importance of the university-industry partnership in 

ensuring innovation and economic prosperity for our Nation’s future. 

I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Graziano follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Graziano. 

At this point, the Chair recognizes our final witness, Ms. Jilda 

Diehl Garton for five minutes. 

Ms. Garton? 

STATEMENT OF MS. JILDA DIEHL GARTON, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION, GEORGIA 

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. GARTON. Thank you. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored by your 

invitation to present this testimony and by the opportunity to discuss collaborations between America’s research universities and 

private industry. I will address your questions about the National 

Research Council report from my perspective as a research officer 

in a university with a long history of industry engagement and one 

that has a strategic vision and plan that infuses innovation and entrepreneurship across everything we do. 

Georgia Tech is a comprehensive public university with 21,000 

undergraduate and graduate students and we are proud to be the 

graduates of more engineers than any other U.S. university. Georgia Tech has long been a university that is engaged with industry. 

Of that $655 million, 14 percent of our research funding comes 

from private industry with new awards from industry totaling over 

$88 million last year. Of the 407 invention disclosures my office 

has received last year, 103 of those resulted from industry-sponsored research. Our students are an active part of the research and 

discovery process, and in fact 70 percent of our invention disclosures named one or more students among the inventors. 

But just as we innovate in our research programs, we also try 

to innovate in our business processes. We have created a series of 

sponsored research agreements that tailor the terms of collaboration, including intellectual property terms to the needs of both parties in the collaboration and we target these to the specific level of 

technical development, of the research project that we are undertaking, and to the needs of both parties. Our White and Gold 

Agreement and our TRL 3–6 Agreement are both described in my 

written testimony. 

At Georgia Tech, we have several new programs that focus on accelerating innovation for the creation of new ventures as well. We 

have our GT:IPS program, which is a facilitated and streamlined 

licensing program and our FlashPoint Program, which builds on 

lean startup methodologies and provides professional development 

for entrepreneurs. 

NSF recently announced that Georgia Tech will be a node for its 

I–Corps Program. The Georgia Tech node will serve the Southeast 

region and beyond and builds on existing programs in the Enterprise Innovation Institute and the Advanced Technology Development Center, which is the Nation’s oldest and largest universitybased business incubator. 

The main challenges facing Georgia Tech’s research efforts are 

not unique to our institution. The NRC report addresses the major 

challenges of dealing with limited resources, increasing regulation, 

and increasing reporting requirements. If we could reduce the ad-
57 

ministrative burden for our research investigators, we could—they 

could complete their groundbreaking working more quickly and innovations could be commercialized more quickly. 

As a research administrator with over 22 years of experience in 

higher education, I can tell you that the call for consistent and full 

recovery of all research costs, including facilities and administrative costs and the cost of research compliance would, if implemented, bring a predictability and a stability to the research enterprise that would be very welcome. And it would also foster better 

compliance regimes. 

I should note that the NRC report calls for full support of research costs by all sponsors, including industry, and rarely, in my 

experience, does private industry object to paying full and indirect 

costs. 

Finally, recommendation three in the NRC report suggest 

strengthening research partnerships and suggests actions by the 

Federal Government, businesses, and universities to foster innovation. When endeavoring to accelerate in innovation, it is critical to 

recognize that there is a considerable distance between an invention and an innovation. Federally funded research at universities 

is largely and properly directed toward fundamental research 

where inquiry leads to new insights to form the bases of transformational new ideas. These are generally early-stage technologies. 

The Federal Government has a role in helping to fund proof-ofconcept in the initial stages of translational research. Programs 

like NSF’s I–Corps and NIH’s NCATS program fill the niche. Proposals like those offered by Congressman Lipinski to permit SBIR 

funds to be used for proof-of-concept research would extend the 

availability of federal funds already intended for the creation of 

new ventures to this early critical stage. These federal programs 

contribute to an ecosystem that brings business professionals, investors, and inventors together in an environment that is conducive 

to entrepreneurship. However, it is companies that provide the investment in development that allows innovations that originated 

under federally funded research to become commercially viable new 

technologies that can have a positive impact on people’s lives. Over 

80 percent of Georgia Tech’s licensed inventions are license to existing industry. 

Finally, in summary, university-industry engagement is important in meeting our country’s need for new technologies and innovations and for training scientists, engineers, and the workforce to 

lead innovation in the future. The NRC’s report offers actions that 

would strengthen this partnership and the research enterprise. 

I look forward to discussing these actions further and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garton follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Ms. Garton. 

I would like to thank the panel for their testimony. 

Reminding Members that committee rules limit questions to five 

minutes, the Chair will at this point open the round of questions. 

Normally, the Chair recognizes himself, but in this instance, I 

am going to defer my opening slot to Mr. Benishek of the great 

State of Michigan. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it. 

Well, this is a great opportunity for me. I was just at a—actually 

a community college yesterday that does concrete research in association with concrete business people in the City of Alpena. And 

that was—leads me to my first question is that how do these partnerships get started and how do you determine—I mean it sounds 

like from some of the testimony that it is like big research universities, you know, the big-time schools. And, you know, I have like 

five small universities in my district which, you know, they seem 

to have done some pretty decent research in this—in concrete development and research. And I mean how do I get, you know, my 

community colleges and, you know, four-year, two-year degree 

schools involved in this a little bit more? And is there more of a 

place for that? Does anyone have to comment? 

Dr. GRAZIANO. I will be happy to comment. I don’t have a real 

clear answer to say, well, this is how to do it. And you are right. 

We do concentrate on the larger research institutions for our R&D 

strategy because that is where we are looking at graduate students. But at the same time, we—I know we work—we have 

worked a lot with Delta College to help bring, you know, the notadvanced degrees into better training and better workplace opportunities. 

As far as getting R&D funding there, I think the best way that 

we could probably do something like that is through the major universities. So let’s say, for example, we have a research program, if 

we have something that makes sense in the area of, say, your concrete research that you were talking about, a project that could go 

through, say, University of Michigan or Michigan State University, 

could be subcontracted to the universities. So I think it is a matter 

of marrying up those capabilities so that we can say, hey, that 

aligns—what they are doing there aligns with some goal that we 

want to get at now. How do we make that connection—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Right. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. —to get a program underway that maybe can support that research in a way that aligns with our goals and what 

our needs are. Does that make some sense—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Yeah, a little bit. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. I think it is probably not exactly what you wanted 

to hear but—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I am going to send my people over to talk 

to you but—— 

Dr. GRAZIANO. That would be great. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Ms. Garton, I had a question, too. You mentioned 

about the regulated nature of higher education and there were 

some barriers to research. Could you give me a couple of examples 

of things like that? 
74 

Ms. GARTON. Yes, sir. The—universities don’t certainly object to 

regulation and to requirements to report the results of our research 

or to report how funds are used for research. What I think the 

problem is is where we have duplicative regulation or we have multiple reporting to different agencies. We report the same data to a 

number of different agencies and have sort of a duplicative reporting process. So the kinds of things that I would suggest that could 

probably be looked at and to reduce burden would be things like 

requirements by, for example, the Department of Defense to have 

multiple reviews of the same protocol by three different IRBs before the research can be conducted. That could probably be, you 

know, streamlined and improved so maybe one IRB could do that 

work. 

Other things like the federal reporting requirement could be 

streamlined and be put into a logical sequence, which I think people are beginning to work on doing so that we don’t have multiple 

reports, electronic reports that have to go in different formats to 

different agencies and require us to have different systems to report our results to three different agencies. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Right. I just have one more question. You know, 

government funding plays a significant role in this initial research, 

and I support that and I also support the public-private partnerships. But I wanted to know what your opinion is as to determine 

when the time for the government funding is over and what parameters we should put on this R&D funding so that it transitions to 

more of a—when there is something actually economically viable, 

at what point does that occur. Mr. Hickman, do you have a—you 

seem to be nodding your head there. Do you have an idea there? 

Dr. HICKMAN. The transition can occur at many different places. 

And at that time it is more likely that Deere will to take this research. We don’t do as much fundamental basic research. We do 

more of applying various systems that we can put into an equipment solution for our customers. So the transition can occur at different times and it is one of the advantages of having those close 

relationships with universities. You may not always be first in line 

with the research lab, but we are there to find out about that 

transistion is and when it comes about. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Anyone else have a comment in that regard? Mr. 

Johnson? 

Dr. JOHNSON. I think the—one of the principle roles for federally 

funded research is to invest in high-risk, high-payoff research. And 

many of the problems that we face today as a Nation and in fact 

as the world, the fundamental solutions for those problems are not 

known and so the Federal Government does have a major role. And 

I think as this report pointed out, by having a closer collaboration 

between the invention-creators—that is in this case the universities 

in this discussion—and the innovators, that is the businesses—having that federal funding support that invention and then having a 

place for that to go through, the partnership will in fact do just 

what you ask, and that is turning the federal research dollars 

spent in high-payoff areas into outcomes through that universityindustry partnership. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I think my time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Benishek. 
75 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski, 

from the great State of Illinois. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So many questions that I have, let me try to get into this quickly. 

I think one of the issues here—most of the time most hearings we 

talk sort of at a level a little higher and more general than might 

be good to help all of us to get a better understanding of, first of 

all, what exactly are these collaborations, these partnerships like? 

Is there a typical form these partnerships take? Does it depend on 

specific nature—does the specific nature depend on the situation, 

the objective? And we are also talking about at different points I 

know, say, research we were talking—well, basic research or something where it is getting more applied, so I think it might be helpful just to talk—let me start with Dr. Graziano. Could you give 

some examples of how these partnerships come together and what 

exactly these partnerships do? Because I can imagine them and I 

think that they—there are a lot of different types, but could you 

give some examples—— 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Sure. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —and how they come about. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Yeah, there is a lot of types and clear and foremost is—our goal is to really help develop talent. But some examples of how they come about—and we put a lot of effort into understanding the capabilities at our university partners and the directions they want to go in and understanding within our businesses 

what the priorities are for some of the real high-risk areas and trying to match those up so that we can see a good alignment for a 

partnership. The way they come about at that point is myself or 

somebody in our organization will make those connections to the 

university, say hey, we would like to talk about this area. Let’s get 

together. And it just starts just like you want to just sit down and 

talk and see how things align and what you can do with each 

other. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you look at what is being done already at the 

university or do you choose the university first and then start talking about—how does that come about? 

Dr. GRAZIANO. We pretty much look at what is being done at the 

university or what the really strong, really bright minds are doing 

there and see if those capabilities align with what we are doing. 

So they don’t necessarily have something that is all developed and 

then we go in and say, hey, you already have this; here is a fee 

for service. But, look, we got some really bright stuff going on in 

general in this area of optical electronics. Let’s talk about whether 

or not you can help us now come up with new lighting technologies 

for displays. And so we look at that general strength that they 

have and then try to shape something together. 

In some cases, we try to leverage what is already being federally 

funded. The EFRCs, which are out there in the case of solar, we 

engaged Cal-Tech, University of Illinois, and UC Berkeley, who are 

all leading up one of those—one of the energy frontier research centers and said, hey, we see a way that we can engage with that. It 

is already stuff that is going on. You got some great work going. 

Now, let’s see how can we start to take that fundamental research 

and build it out so that we can actually think about applying it 
76 

commercially down the road. And it is not just a matter of dumping 

it in. There are still many risks and challenges that have to be 

achieved to get that fundamental research and bring it to commercialization. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Are there other sort of types that anyone else 

wants to mention, types of partnerships besides what Dr. Graziano 

was describing 

Dr. HICKMAN. We have a number of types of partnerships. They 

can involve service agreements where you are looking for an answer very quickly. They can involve consulting arrangements and 

memberships in consortiums. Quite often, universities will have 

specializations, sometimes very niche-related consortiums, where 

you can begin those relationships. These are excellent ways to 

begin learning what the capabilities are between universities and 

industry. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else? 

I want to ask what is the role, then—and Dr. Graziano talked 

about EFRC—how much of this would be going on—I mean what— 

where do you see the importance of the role of federal funding in 

all of this? What if federal funding were lessoned or disappeared? 

How much of this work that you are doing—your partnerships, 

your collaborations with universities—how much would it take the 

place of any of that or could it to any extent or is it really the fact 

that is this research—federally funded research wasn’t going on, 

you wouldn’t have these opportunities that you have to make these 

partnerships. What is your opinion on—whoever wants to jump in. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No, I mean I think—you know, sometimes we—you 

know, we miss the forest for the trees here. I mean what we are 

talking about is the opportunity to create a new economy. All right. 

And what we are talking about is the opportunity to have business 

closely engaged so that there is a good economic value in this research. And I think, you know, frankly, we need to double-down on 

the things we do federally funded but we also need to industrialize 

the process of business working with our universities in a consistent, predictable way because that is what is going to generate 

the economic renaissance. Because really—you know, what we have 

talked a lot about today is about the how you get there, but what 

we are solving for, right, our high-skilled jobs, rising standards of 

living, and an economic vibrance. And that is the trapped assets 

that we have in the universities that we need to exploit from the 

Federal Government and from industry. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Does the Federal Government have a role in helping to increase those—— 

Mr. GREEN. One of the—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —relationships? 

Mr. GREEN. One of the things you mentioned, you know, you 

mentioned tax and so forth but you also mentioned convening and 

collaborating. I think the Federal Government has a profound role 

and in fact obligation and it is a missed opportunity not to try to 

take all these little point solutions, which are all good, but industrializes the state of mind for how the United States is going to regenerate economic activity with a bias towards innovation and differentiation. 
77 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I am way over time. I just want 

to say I appreciate—I want to congratulate Ms. Garton and Georgia Tech for the I–Corps node and I think that is another important way among many to promote entrepreneurism. 

And I will yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. 

The National Academies report includes several recommendations for increased federal financial support. I find these recommendations illustrate a somewhat interesting perspective about 

the outlook for federal funding over the next several years given 

the situation that we are in. And I am going to have two comments 

and then I am going to ask you all to respond. 

According to committee staff, expenditures for research performed in academic institutions have almost doubled in the past 

decade, rising from $30 billion in 2000 to almost $55 billion in 2009 

in current dollars, which in current-dollar terms is roughly an 83 

percent increase in funding over a nine-year period of time. The 

amount of research and development performed by business rose 

from nearly $192 billion in 2000 to nearly $267 billion in 2008, an 

increase of 39 percent in current dollars. 

At the federal level—I am going to hammer on something that 

you all are probably already familiar with—we have record-setting 

deficits. We have had a 1.4 trillion and 1.3 trillion and 1.3 trillion 

back-to-back-to-back. This year, we have already blown through the 

$1 trillion deficit mark. White House projections for this fiscal year 

around 1.2 trillion. The White House is already projecting that next 

fiscal year starting October 1 will be another trillion-dollar deficit. 

As a consequence, our total debt is ballooning. We blew through the $15 trillion debt mark in November of last year. We are soon 

going to blow through the $16 trillion debt mark this year. Entitlements have gone up considerably. Entitlements during the last fiscal year went up more than $100 billion in cost to American taxpayers. Debt service from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011 went 

up $25 billion. One of the adverse consequences of borrowing more 

money is that you have to pay more to the creditors in exchange 

for the higher debt that you have borrowed. Twenty-five billion, to 

put it in perspective, that is more than the entire Federal Government budget for NASA and that is roughly half of the entire federal budget for all of our transportation infrastructure needs— 

highways, roads, things of that nature. 

So in this kind of context we can anticipate there is going to be 

stiffer competition for scarcer federal dollars going forward, and in 

that competition between, say, research universities and entitlement programs, do you have a judgment as to who should prevail? 

What is the best approach for our country going forward? What is 

the best approach for our economy going forward? And why do you 

have a judgment as to who should prevail? 

Mr. Green, and then we will just work across. 

Mr. GREEN. I guess, you know, I am a business person. I make 

a payroll, I run a tight ship, I think hard about economics. I do believe that our research capabilities are an untapped asset. I think 

a dollar spent on research—I mean you get a shovel-ready project, 

you get a swimming pool. You get a bridge. You get a research- 
78 

ready project, you can change how the world works and lives. I 

think our research institutions have an obligation to be more efficient and deliver more value for money. I think they have taken 

that on and it says that in the report. 

But I think importantly, in terms of changing how the world 

works and lives, in terms of having an innovation economy, the return, you know, in shovel-ready is Hickman, 5X. The return in research-ready could be 1,000X. And as a business leader, I believe 

that profoundly and I think it can really energize the next renaissance in American economic activity. 

Chairman BROOKS. Before I get to Dr. Johnson, let me add that 

I am from Huntsville, Alabama, which is the home of America’s 

second-largest research park and we also have two fine universities 

that are engaged in basic research. So I agree with your point of 

view, Mr. Green. What I am looking for is ammunition or insight 

that can help us prevail in these kinds of debates and arguments 

going forward. And of course, if you disagree and think research 

universities should not be competitive with the entitlement programs, feel free to express that point of view, too, because we 

would love to fund all of them but we don’t have enough money to 

do so. 

Dr. Johnson? 

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I think that, as the report points out, there can be increases in 

the efficiency, the partnership between academia and industry and 

the focus of the research. So there can be efficiency increases. However, we know historically that investments in research and development have been an engine for the economic growth of the Nation 

and of other nations in the world. Roughly 50 percent of the new 

jobs created will be in STEM fields. 

We are also on the cusp of the convergence of a lot of technologies that have been behind the curtain in basic research for a 

number of years and that are finally coming together and finally 

reaching the point where they can make a huge impact. Advanced 

materials, advanced manufacturing, these can be turned into economic engines for the nation and discriminators for our competitiveness. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you. 

And Dr. Hickman, before I get to your remarks, I see my time 

has expired. But inasmuch as I am the Chair, I get to waive those 

kind of things. But I want to assure my colleagues that if they 

have a pending question they would like all the panelists to answer 

that I will similarly waive the 5-minute rule so that they can get 

an answer from each of our panelists. 

Dr. HICKMAN. Well, I agree with the comments that the previous 

speakers made. I don’t need to reiterate their comments regarding 

the payback overall of research activities and the needs for improvements and efficiencies. 

I also would like to tie a major role that research universities 

have in developing the future workforce, which will tie back to future entitlements. It may be a much longer-term perspective than 

the current entitlement issues, but there is that relationship, including the factor of making sure that we are trained in various 
79 

STEM-related fields and that applies across the broad reaches of 

the population of the United States. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Hickman. 

Dr. Graziano? 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Yeah. One thing I want to bring up in this regard 

because I think what matters is not just getting more money out 

there, which is of course important, but how we focus that money. 

And we talk a lot about universities doing basic research and then 

industry then just turning it into products. And I think the area 

to focus is really in that transition period. There is still a lot of risk 

coming from fundamental research on the products. There is a lot 

of development and a lot of knowledge that needs to be done there. 

I think something like the proposals that have come out of the 

Advanced Manufacturing Program report tried to address that 

much the way the DARPA model tries to bridge that gap, you 

know, the valley of death sort of thing. 

So I think it is a matter of focusing there not only because of 

helping to bridge that gap but it brings other organizations like the 

community colleges and it gets to bringing that research there, 

training a workforce not just at the high-level research areas but 

the technology areas and the medium-range areas. I think it is an 

area where we can really have impact if we could address the focus 

a little more, not just throw more money at it. 

Chairman BROOKS. Ms. Garton, again, with respect to the competition between research universities and a myriad of other programs and the entitlement programs that are ballooning, where do 

you stand? What would you recommend that we in Congress do? 

Ms. GARTON. Well, I agree with the other panelists that it is— 

that basic research that drives the transformational new ideas into 

entirely new industries. I also agree with them that undertaking 

more efficiencies, developing more streamlined processes, working 

together with the Federal Government to make our indirect cost recoveries cover all of our infrastructure needs. Those are very important components of becoming more efficient with the funds that we 

have. But it is that link between research and education that is 

going to reduce the need for entitlement programs in the future as 

we have a workforce that is expanding and new opportunities are 

being created from our research and using our own graduates as 

the workforce that drives that new economy. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Ms. Garton, for your insight. 

At this point, the Chair recognizes Mr. Clark—yeah, there is— 

from the great State of Michigan. You are up for your five minutes 

plus as needed. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. 

And as I mentioned to some of the panelists, I represent metropolitan Detroit, an area that has been very hard hit economically 

over the past few decades but yet has a very powerful national 

brand, and I would argue that brand is—goes far beyond the—its 

reputation the manufacturing sector. Once Detroit is perceived as 

coming back, that means our U.S. economy has come back with 

much strength in our global economy. 

Once concern I heard throughout your various testimonies is difficulties relating to negotiating intellectual property agreements 

between business and industry. How can this Subcommittee actu-
80 

ally make it easier to negotiate those agreements? Let me give you 

some examples. How can we better clarify who owns the property? 

Mr. Johnson, you indicated—Dr. Johnson, you indicated sometimes 

universities don’t want to give up those rights. How can we make 

it easier to license technologies produced as a result of university 

research possibly by reducing some of the costs or some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have been mentioned? 

Also, Dr. Hickman, you indicated that the time to negotiate these 

master research agreements is sometimes too lengthy. Are there 

any thoughts on what we could do to reduce those times? I know 

these are kind of specific questions but perhaps we can create a 

better way of negotiating these agreements that could ultimately 

spur—make it easier to create more jobs. That is my first question 

and I do have others. And this is posed to anyone. 

Dr. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you. I think the IP agreement support is best achieved through a partnership and a collaboration. I 

don’t really easily see the Federal Government’s role in the activity. What I do see is that when researchers at the university and 

when researchers in industry understand the other’s needs that the 

agreements can be reached better. Historically, I think industry 

would come to a university and say we will pay for this research 

and all we would like is the intellectual property. That is really not 

in the university’s best interest and they don’t like that and they 

don’t want to do that when in fact industry really only wanted used 

rights of that intellectual property, not ownership of the property. 

And I think reaching agreements and coming to better understanding of what each party needs will yield faster agreements and 

better agreements in the long run. Maybe there is a role for the 

Federal Government but I don’t see it within that process. 

Ms. GARTON. If I could add the National Science Foundation and 

National Institutes of Health have participated with the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership that Mr. Hickman described and that is an organization that has done a lot to improve 

the climate for contracting and licensing and really has developed 

some new agreement mechanisms and some supports for negotiators and training for people who negotiate agreements and has 

done a lot to make that process much easier. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green, you powerfully mentioned that the return on research-ready investment could be 1,000X, which is extraordinary. 

In your testimony you indicated that businesses should better 

incentivize early-stage research partnerships with universities. If 

you or any of the other panelists have some thoughts on how we 

can best do that, best incentivize businesses to work at early stage 

with universities on research. 

Mr. GREEN. Yeah, I think the first thing is, you know, getting the 

success stories known because there are some great stories out 

there and very self-interest where universities and businesses 

teamed up to do extraordinary things. But I think, as was mentioned in the opening remarks, you know, our lack of big industrial 

research capabilities that we used to have a la Bell Labs and Xerox 

Park and so forth, we have to replace that with something and we 

have to move from, you know, the science project if you will to industrialization of the innovation and invention. And I think that is 
81 

something that could be facilitated through, you know, convening 

and collaborating, you know, by this panel or others in government 

as well. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, Dr. Hickman? 

Dr. HICKMAN. Yes, another factor that is very important is just 

engaging universities. We have our employees engaging at universities on curriculum reviews and on advisory councils. When you 

start maintaining these relationships, such opportunities come to 

the forefront. And when the university learns your company and 

what your needs are, the company learns the university and what 

their capabilities are—it is that matchmaking process that becomes 

so important. That takes some work and takes some engagement 

on behalf of both parties—and opportunities do come to the forefront when that happens. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. The—also just to add to that—and I agree. I don’t 

think it is something the Federal Government can really dictate 

that engagement. It is something we have to drive. But ways to 

incentivize, some of the smaller programs, things like NSF Goalies, 

which, you know, bring fundamental research together with industrial partners. You know, those kind of programs that bring people 

together like that help create those points of engagement. We are 

engaging in a lot of places, we have a lot of good resources, but 

there is a lot of medium-sized companies that—and I was one with 

Rohm and Haas that, you know, it is harder to put those resources 

there. So that kind of incentive to get connected I think on programs together can be useful. 

Mr. CLARKE. My goal representing southeastern Michigan is to 

encourage industry to partner with our great research universities. 

We have University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and 

then right in the heart of the center of Detroit is Wayne State University and how that type of partnership could create more jobs 

and economic development, especially for the central part of the 

City of Detroit where we have a lot of cheap, vacant property that 

has infrastructure. We have the roads, we have the sewers right 

there. We also have very hardworking and creative people who are 

out of work who are ready and willing to work. So we have all the 

assets that you need right there. 

Many of you have mentioned the importance of making permanent and enhancing the R&D tax credit. You have other thoughts 

on how we could—on how that proposal could be further enhanced 

to spur job creation in blighted areas or high unemployment areas 

such as Detroit? But Detroit is really unique. It has gone through 

tough times but yet it has all of the assets and it has that international brand, though, that could be leveraged to create jobs 

throughout the country. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Well, one program I would point out—and I think 

one of the goals of the Advanced Manufacturing Program around 

these manufacturing innovation institutes and the manufacturing 

demonstration facilities, I think they provide a means to bring a lot 

of small and medium enterprises together. They are meant to be 

sort of pilot-shared areas so maybe they could start to make use 

of the infrastructure and facilities that are vacant in places like 

Detroit and start to bring in—and they are also meant to bring a 
82 

level of training so it might be a way to retrain employees, you 

know, toward some of these manufacturing areas. 

So I think some of the concepts around there might be worth 

looking at that are ways that could help revitalize some of these 

areas that have infrastructure and some resources, how do we take 

better advantage of it. And that is where maybe I think the Federal Government might be able to help that with steering in that 

direction. 

Mr. GREEN. I might also just add, you know, I think this is a 

place where our community colleges, which are also the overlooked 

and underappreciated resource in this country—Jim Jacobs who 

leads Macomb Community College just up there is one of the best 

people in the country. You know, the 45,000 people they used to 

train them for the auto industry and now they train them for 

healthcare and now they do other things. I mean it is a profound 

success. And I think—you know, I have always encouraged our national universities to adopt our community college system, one, as 

a source of terrific raw talent, underappreciated and overlooked. 

But secondly, it is the place where small and medium business can 

collaborate on a micro-scale and tackle some of these issues of the 

community. 

And I think the important thing it isn’t about degrees; it is about 

capabilities and it is about training for people—training people for 

three blocks away, not 3,000 miles away. And I think, you know, 

Detroit has made good progress in that but that is an important 

thing we have an obligation to pursue across the country. 

Mr. CLARKE. Well, thank you so much. 

Oh, yes, Dr. Johnson? 

Dr. JOHNSON. Just wanted to mention that in the fall we will be 

taking a research team to the University of Michigan to have a 2- 

day collaboration. I think it happens to also be the days before the 

university plays the Air Force so I am hoping to stay and watch 

that game. 

Commenting on the comments that were made to answer your 

question from the other panel members, I think there is this wonderful blend of—take the University of Michigan as an example of 

a really good research university. The—so you have business models that aren’t closing. People want to do things and they want to— 

you know, there are activities that the business model won’t close 

on and they require subsidies in order to work. Fortunately, there 

are many technology advances that are enabling the business models to close, mostly through cheaper manufacturing, cheaper products being able to do things in a more efficient and more affordable 

way. The research universities play a major role in making that 

happen so I can envision a partnership between the research universities, advanced manufacturing that is benefitting from the research university research making these cheaper because what you 

are doing really is fighting cheap labor. Right? What you are doing 

is taking away the cheap labor advantage through advanced manufacturing. 

And then finally, I completely agree with community colleges. 

That was a question that we had earlier that the community colleges aren’t just a place to prepare people for four-year colleges. All 

right. It used to be the community college prepared people to work 
83 

in skilled labor fields. I think this renaissance in manufacturing 

coupled with the research universities and the community college 

as a source of talent can be a wonderful consortium that could in 

fact help Detroit. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time 

and I would like to follow up with each one of you and your staffs 

on these issues. Thank you again. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 

The Chair at this point recognizes Mr. Hultgren from the great 

State of Illinois. 

And you weren’t here but I am being a little bit liberal with respect to the 5-minute time limit. That doesn’t often happen. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I know. I have never known you to be liberal so 

that is good. No, thank you. Just kidding. 

It is so good to be with you. I apologize. It is one of those mornings where we have got—I have got three Subcommittee hearings 

going on at the same time so I am kind of jumping around but very 

important subject. I just want to thank you so much, each one of 

you, for being here, for the work that you are doing. It is very important work. I do want to just give a special thank you to Mr. 

Green. I have the privilege to have the Q Center, which is an unbelievable education center in St. Charles in my district. Thousands 

and thousands and thousands of people are trained there and just 

an amazing place. I had the privilege of being out there a couple 

of months ago I think and was very, very impressed. So I appreciate the great work that Accenture is doing. It is fantastic. 

But my hope is I am passionate about science, science education, 

basic scientific research, figuring out how we can push that forward and this is a really important discussion to have. I think during challenge times when budgets are tight, it opens up an opportunity for us and that opportunity is to communicate like we have 

never communicated before and realize that we are all in this together. And I think that is what is so important about this panel 

today is recognizing that interaction between business, corporate 

innovation, and our research universities and hopefully even taking 

it on the next step to our research laboratories. 

I am passionate about our research laboratories and I think all 

three of those need to fit together all taking the responsibility that 

we are in this together. If it is going to work well, we have all got 

to take responsibility for telling the story of what makes America 

great, and a big part of what makes it great is wonderful research 

institutions, wonderful national laboratories, and wonderful corporate partners that are willing to come alongside to help us in this 

effort but also to ultimately bring benefit to the American people 

and to the world. I mean that is really what is going on. So thank 

you so much for being here. 

Couple questions I have, Mr. Green, I would like to start with 

you if that is all right. But I know the National Academy Study 

Committee found that while industry has dismantled its large corporate research laboratories, they do—have not yet fully partnered 

with research universities to fill that gap. Why do you think this 

gap still persists and what can we do to push through that gap? 

Mr. GREEN. Yeah, well, I think, you know, we heard today on the 

panel a lot of really excellent relationships and partnerships, but 
84 

I think the size of the problem is so big we have to institutionalize 

it and industrialize it. The last major wave in renaissance of invention was when our research universities and the U.S. Government 

teamed up after the war. The thing that is going to be the next 

renaissance, just adding business to that—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. —and having the incentives, the framework, and the 

industrialization to make it easy, to make it focused, and to take 

some of these issues that today, you know, we think are complex— 

they aren’t—and wrestle those things to the ground in order to 

jumpstart, you know, sort of the renaissance of the innovation 

economy, which is, you know, what we need. And I think the report 

does a good job of articulating that. The Graduate Pathways Support does as well. It frankly suffers from a lack of leadership. How 

do you get all the people on the same page to pursue the same outcome? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I would open it up to some of the others 

of you as well on the panel if you would have any thoughts of how 

can we utilize this partnership? How can we take that next step? 

Many have and I am so grateful again we have got a panel full 

where we have seen that benefit, but how do we take it to the next 

level to other corporations who haven’t accessed this and maybe 

even more smaller and medium-sized companies that potentially 

could grow into large companies and could benefit from that. Any 

thoughts on what is holding us back, what we can do as Members 

of Congress to push this forward? 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Well, it is a tough thing to say how to actually do 

these things, right? And so I get back again to, okay, it is not just 

a matter of throwing more money at it. I mean more money is certainly useful but really focusing it in areas that, like you say, how 

do we bring small-, medium-sized enterprises together? How do we 

bring community colleges into the picture? So taking programs that 

will benefit—that we see will benefit our Nation and achieve our 

goals of growth in areas and zeroing in on what those area is is 

a challenge as well, too, and trying to bring opportunities for all 

those partners to share that don’t necessarily have the resources at 

their disposal through co-funded programs with Federal Government, with private industry, with local government. I think those 

are the opportunities to bring a lot of different entities together 

that don’t necessarily have the resources to do some of the kind of 

larger investments that some of the larger companies can do and 

it helps bring partners together and not just get universities and 

business to know each other but gets us knowing the small companies that we may not know about as well. 

Dr. HICKMAN. I think there is an important role to research 

parks, the research incubators and that universities play. We were 

not the first ones on the University of Illinois campus, but we saw 

what the other companies were doing there. We went, too. You find 

a whole environment that supports innovation with the students 

and the type of energy students have, it opens up resources. The 

faculty get to know you. And so any activities at universities also 

should allow faculty some freedom to start up some of these small 

companies, to be able to get them started in a place that can be 

later turned over to industry is a very important role. These foster 
85 

a whole environment of innovation that will be important for years 

to come. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, again, thank you so much for being here 

and I really do appreciate the testimony and want to continue this 

discussion as well. 

One challenge I would make to each one of you and to others 

that I make a challenge to many of my constituents who are physicists at Fermilab doing great work there and I would love for them 

just to be able to focus on their physics research but, you know 

what, they have to be good at telling the story of how important 

the work is that they are doing and how we have to, as a Nation, 

be a part of this, how this has to be a priority. So what we have 

pushed on, really, is even with collaboration there reaching out to 

universities who are also engaged for them to connect with their 

Members of Congress. And that is something I would just encourage you as well all the people involved in this partnership to be 

telling the story back to Members of Congress of how valuable this 

is, how valuable this collaboration is and how important our research universities are to be a part of that for us to be that innovative nation that we all want going forward. 

So thanks for being here. Thank you for your time. Thanks for 

your work and hopefully we work together in the time to come 

here. 

So I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

At this point, the Chair recognizes one of our newer Members— 

and I am a freshman; she is newer than me—from the great State 

of Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Chairman, and also Ranking Member Lipinski, 

for holding this hearing today and for all of you for your testimony 

on this critical issue. 

The district I represent in Oregon is home to a thriving technology industry, and we have industry giants like Intel and numerous smaller technology companies. We also have in Oregon a signature research center ONAMI, which is the Oregon Nanoscience and 

Microtechnologies Institute that is a collaboration among all of our 

Oregon research universities and industry and our investment community, very successful work on not only the research but the commercialization going on there. 

We all know and we have had the discussion here today that the 

economic success of our country is going to depend on having the 

workforce that these companies and all the numerous startup companies need to continue innovating and growing. And I look forward to working with all of you and all of us on the Subcommittee 

in promoting STEM education. 

And although I know our focus today is on the university level, 

I am actually pleased to see that, Dr. Graziano, you mentioned in 

your testimony the importance of preschool—or pre-K through postsecondary education. And I am especially appreciative, too, of the 

comments, and Mr. Green, you mentioned the need for creativity 

and innovation. And given those needs, we should also be concerned about the trend in education about cuts to non-STEM disciplines that lead to creative, innovative thinkers. If you know the 
86 

connection between music and math, you will appreciate that. We 

all know we need those creative, innovative thinkers and a well 

rounded education, including of course focus on STEM will lead to 

that. 

What I want to ask about today is one of the recommendations 

provided in the National Academies report and that is that the 

businesses and universities work together to develop new graduate 

programs that address strategic workforce gaps for science-based 

employees. I have spoken with some of the constituent businesses 

in Oregon that have open positions because of these gaps, the 

workforce gaps. My question is for both of those in the private sector and on the university side, if you could talk about how you respond to those gaps, how you identify that the gaps exist, and then 

match up the companies with the universities to help create the 

students with the full set of skills they need to succeed in the 

workplace. And I know, Dr. Graziano, you in your testimony point 

to one of the main principles of using key partnerships to create 

the workforce of the future. So I would like to hear a little bit 

about how you are identifying the gaps and then working to fill 

them. Thank you. 

Dr. GRAZIANO. Well, a lot of where I have worked has been in 

the graduate level so I probably don’t have all the details down at 

the workforce level at the midrange. But I think one of the big 

issues there—and I think it also applies to what Mr. Hultgren had 

brought up—is communication. We are losing so many people at a 

young age away from the sciences and it gets to how do we communicate better that there is exciting things to be done in science and 

engineering and education? The thing that excited me and got me 

in chemistry—which I hated in high school by the way—was—in 

the ’60s and ’70s was the environmental movement. It was just all 

over there. And I see a resurgence in people’s interest in the technical challenges now with energy, with water, with food, all those 

things, and we got to do a better job exciting people about these 

areas so that we don’t lose them at a very young age. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. GREEN. I think there is a lot of good information out there. 

I mean sometimes in this education space we, you know, tend to 

reinvent the wheel and do the study again to come up with the 

same thing that was in the study before, but I think in the area— 

what Change the Equation group has done, Business-Higher Education Forum, which is very well known, very straightforward. We 

do have to not just education; we have to energize and inspire. And 

that I think is the challenge of, you know, today’s generation. 

Right, the education is very vertical. We have to teach in a horizontal way that shows the outcome and that focuses on inspiration, 

right, things that one can do with this. 

And so I think there are two things. First of all, there is timeto-job, right, filling the jobs we have and I think community colleges have proven to be incredibly focused at that, incredibly good 

at it. The second thing is companies need to go upstream. We can’t 

say to the education infrastructure we know what we like when we 

see it. Right? We have go to in there and on the Commission on 

the Pathways through Graduate Schools and into Careers Report 
87 

talks about that. We have to go shape what we want as outcome 

and I think that is incumbent upon all of us to do that in all of 

our important recruiting schools. And we have to think about jobs 

not in terms of the jobs of today but the jobs we haven’t invented 

yet because 40 or 50 percent of the jobs five years from now don’t 

even exist today and we need to put more business cycles into helping the education infrastructure figure that out. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And I know, Dr. Johnson, you—— 

Dr. JOHNSON. Yeah, thank you. 

Both of your questions, the second one first, take an area of great 

interest to us today in the corporation and I think nationally 

cybersecurity. We recognized a few years ago that the number of 

graduating cybersecurity experts if you will, people educated specifically in cybersecurity, was not going to meet the needs of our 

corporation, much less the Nation. And so we worked with major 

universities, with our partner universities to develop programs in 

that area. So this is an example of how we develop programs that 

feed a particular need today at the graduate—at the undergraduate 

and graduate level. 

Your other question really was talking about the pipeline and we 

are really proud to be able to comment on our sponsorship for the 

USA Science and Engineering Festival that was held in—the first 

one was held in October of 2010 on the National Mall where we 

were able to get over a million people to visit over 1,500 hands-on 

exhibits where you translate from the theoretical to the practical 

to do that inspiration, to get kids excited about science. And then 

we held the second festival in April of this year at the Washington 

Convention Center, again, diverse set of families from all over the 

metro area who got a chance to see this time over 3,000 hands-on 

exhibits. 

So we are concerned about the pipeline decisions to go into 

science and engineering generally is to be made at a young age so 

they get algebra at an eighth grade so they can continue on that 

math and science track. So we are strong supporters of developing 

that pipeline. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GARTON. Ms. Bonamici, I would just—I would like to add 

that I think that one of the most important things that we can do 

in universities to bring a little bit of understanding about future 

workforce needs to our curriculum is to really engage our students 

from the very beginning of their undergraduate careers in problembased learning. And that is one of the things we have done at Georgia Tech I think pretty successfully is bringing industry into the 

university to help inspire some of the problems, to help identify 

some of the challenges that they are facing and offer them to our 

students as problem-based learning challenges even as freshman 

and then working all the way through the senior design courses. 

Often companies give us access to company data sets or to company 

facilities so our students can work on these problems, and we have 

had a lot of inventions come out of those undergraduate problembased learning courses and through some of the grand challenge 

contests that companies have sponsored at universities where they 
88 

identify a problem and ask students to work on the grand challenge to get a prize. 

And so you develop that creativity, you spark that inventiveness, 

you engage them in the research, you teach them the skills to solve 

the problem, and that is part of the way we find where the work 

force needs are going to be and what we need to bring into the curriculum. And we spur those students on to engage in research and 

to be creative and to solve problems. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. My time has expired but 

thank you for your very inspirational ideas. Thank you. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici, for your insightful 

questions and the Committee’s witnesses’ responses. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony 

and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we 

will ask you to respond to those in writing. In that vein, I have one. 

We had a hearing not too long ago on the regulatory impact on 

university research. And the witnesses at that hearing indicated 

that they had some specific regulations that they thought were 

counterproductive, excessive, overly burdensome, what have you. 

This may apply strictly to Ms. Garton, but still, if anyone else 

wishes to supplement with a written response, I would very much 

appreciate it. If you are familiar with any Federal Government regulations which you believe have the net effect of inhibiting the universities’ abilities to properly conduct basic research of the kind 

that we have been discussing today, please share that with me and 

our committee staff so that we will be in a better position to address some of those regulations going forward. 

With that request having been made on the record, the record 

will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(89) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
90 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. William D. Green 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Responses by Dr. Ray O. Johnson 
95 
96 
97 

Responses by Dr. John S. Hickman 
98 
99 

Responses by Dr. Lou Graziano 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

Responses by Ms. Jilda Diehl Garton 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

Æ