From the time of Vannevar Bush and World War II, academic research has played a role in the nation's economy. Vannevar Bush, national science advisor to both Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, stated that major investments in research should be made to the nation's universities. His position was that the research capacity of colleges and universities was significantly important to long-term national interests. Currently, some Members of Congress have expressed concern about the health and competitiveness of U.S. colleges and universities, specifically research institutions. The federal government provides more than half of the funding for U.S. academic research. The nation's current economic situation, debt, and budget deficit are placing increased focus on cutting discretionary spending, the source of funding for U.S. academic research. Congress is faced with difficult spending decisions that may affect the health and competitiveness of the research capabilities of U.S. colleges and universities. There are those who contend that the long-term competitiveness of the nation is linked to the strength of the academic research infrastructure. It has been reported that academic research is integrated in the local economy, contributes to industrial applications, and provides benefits at both a local and national level. In addition, academic researchers have contributed to developing various technologies, becoming a "strong catalyst for U.S. economic growth." This challenge comes at a time when the nation is facing low economic growth, high unemployment, and increased global competition. While investments in academic research may address these concerns in the long-term, short-term budget considerations may constrict such an investment. Other sources of funding for U.S. academic research are also constrained. In FY2009, self-funding by colleges and universities provided approximately 20.4% of the support for academic research funding, but many institutions are struggling financially. States and local government provided approximately 6.6%, but, like the federal government, most state budgets are under severe constraints. According to a 2010 report of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation enjoys a disproportionate share of the world's highly ranked research universities. In addition, a report of the Times Higher Education revealed that six U.S. universities are ranked among the top ten in the world. However, some analysts assert that U.S. colleges and universities' position has "slipped" over the past decade. While basic research is considered by many to be important to long-term national interests, through stimulating technological advancements and contributing to the growth of new industries, it has not been heavily supported by the private sector because it is not always viewed as being cost-effective. As more countries are doing cutting-edge research, there is discussion that the technological strength of the United States could be improved and enhanced by increasing the support for basic research at these institutions. Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, stated that Game-changing ideas tend to arise out of basic research, which pushes the boundaries of human knowledge. Universities are critical players here, because basic research dovetails magnificently with our educational mission. The primary contribution of universities to our ecosystem is the education of bright, motivated people, who ask questions that may take decades to answer. Furthermore, the endpoints of basic research in terms of commercial technologies often cannot be envisaged—even by the researchers themselves. Yet, history shows that out of such open exploration, thriving industries are born. When we fund basic research, we are funding serendipity. Even a sober, frugal, post-recession United States must invest in serendipity, because without it, there is no vitality in the innovation ecosystem. Indeed, there is no innovation. The following sections will discuss a number of factors that are considered to be important contributors to the nation's economic development and health of the nation's science and technology enterprise. They include the research mission in academia, university-industry partnerships, and the distribution of funding for academic research. Colleges and universities, in addition to their research missions, train and educate future scientific researchers. In general, professors must allocate their time between their role as educator and as researcher. Some assert that many professors short-change their teaching duties to focus more on research. It has been found that at some institutions, those in academia who are more focused on research and who have a record of publications and citations, are rewarded more (in terms of advancements and promotions) than those whose primary activities are teaching. There are those in the academic community who contend that a culture should be created that values both research and teaching. However, in many institutions, research is rewarded disproportionately. This research is more highly rewarded and valued because it brings additional revenue to the institution. Therefore, generating research and obtaining grants is a measure of researchers' productivity. Teaching excellence, as opposed to obtaining external grants, is not as highly rewarded. Stakeholders ask how does an institution sustain a research program while simultaneously contributing to teaching excellence? Could there be a requirement for excellence in teaching for promotion as there is for obtaining outside funds for research? How can research and teaching be made to be complementary activities? Does the role of federal R&D funding distort priorities? As one example, a group of research scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) maintain that [R]esearch and teaching need not be mutually exclusive but are instead intertwined and can interact synergistically to increase the effectiveness of both. The distinction between research and teaching is somewhat artificial; professors teach students how to learn from sources in the classroom, but also how to create new knowledge in their research laboratories. These professors and biomedical research scientists who receive support from HHMI, represent a range of institutional types, and have argued that research and teaching should be viewed as "equally valuable and mutually reinforcing." These academicians contend that the culture of universities does not put an equal emphasis on valuing and rewarding effective teaching—while outstanding research conducted at an institution is recognized both locally and nationally with salary increases and promotions, it is rare for teaching to be recognized outside the walls of the institution. The professors and researchers maintain that The continued vitality of research universities requires that we foster a culture in which teaching and research are no longer seen as being in competition, but as mutually beneficial activities that support two equally important research achievements and ability to obtain successive grants. Some in the academic community maintain that the value of higher education is primarily based on the research being conducted, and to not focus on research would equate to "diluting" or "diminishing" the value of a degree. But that position is countered by those who contend that at some institutions that focus on research, many of the academic researchers are not actually doing the bulk of the teaching or instructing the class—their teaching assistants instead perform these duties. These same individuals advocating for more of a balance between research and teaching assert that if academia put a higher value on teaching, it would result in a more well-rounded student. University research-industry partnerships allow for interaction between the two, sharing both intellectual capital and access to emerging technologies. Collaborations between various industries and academic institutions have resulted in the pooling of resources. Potential benefits to industry include more research-intensive activities and increased involvement in high-risk research activities. Linkages with industries have enabled those institutions with limited research infrastructure to extend their research capabilities. Several National Science Foundation (NSF) programs promote both university-industry relations and knowledge transfer, including the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), the Science and Technology Centers (STCs), and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRs). They provide funding for up to 10 years for research in areas of industrial interest. These centers are usually multidisciplinary in character. A common requirement of the programs is that both undergraduates and graduates be involved in research. Reviews of these programs found sustained, uninterrupted funding was important for conducting high quality research. Universities are collaborating and competing in a global environment, with U.S. academic researchers conducting more research with scientists from other countries. An analysis of internationally co-authored journal articles shows that in 2008, approximately 30% of U.S. articles were internationally coauthored, up from 20% in 1998. U.S.-based researchers authored 43% of the world's total international coauthored journal articles in 2008, a slight decline from the 44% in 1998. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) examined the transformation of university research and its role in national R&D efforts and global economic competition. The report noted that university research has become internationalized, primarily due to the "globalization process and progress in electronic communications and related technologies, which multiply opportunities for co-operation but also intensify the competitive climate at world level." The OECD report further states that [I]n many countries, industry-university research partnerships are increasingly attractive. In short, knowledge transfer is now regarded as an important and legitimate function of universities, in addition to their more traditional roles of producing knowledge (research) and transmitting it (teaching and training). There has been an increase in the patenting and licensing by the academic sector as a result of their research. According to the NSF, one factor in this increase was the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, 1980, which allowed institutions to retain title to inventions as a result of federal research support. Patenting by academic institutions is highly concentrated among a select number of colleges and universities. NSF reports that the number of patents received by academic institutions ranged from 2,950 to 3,700 for the period 1998-2008. Two hundred academic research institutions, less than 10% of the total number of institutions that received patents from 1998-2008, accounted for 96% of all patents awarded to academic institutions. Nineteen institutions alone received more than half of all patents awarded. NSF reports that patent activity differed by field of science. Of those patents awarded, approximately half were granted in the areas of biotechnology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.