US science and technology eminence is in trouble, says report

US research universities face serious decline unless the federal government, states, and industry take action to ensure adequate, stable funding in the next decade, says a new report by the National Research Council. Universities must work harder to contain costs, enhance productivity, and improve educational pathways for students to careers both within and outside academia, the report says.

Written by a 21-member committee chaired by Bank of America chairman Charles Holliday Jr., the report responds to a request from Congress to recommend 10 actions that the nation should take in the next five to 10 years to maintain top-quality US research institutions. Among those steps, the committee urged, was that of doubling the budgets of NSF, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and NIST that was called for in the 2007 America Competes Act. But for fiscal 2013, the administration requested just a 4.8% increase for NSF, and a 2.4% increase for DOE’s Office of Science. Only the relatively tiny NIST R&D programs got the magnitude of increase needed to keep it on a doubling trajectory.

While federal funding for research has flattened or declined since onset of the recession, state funding for research universities has plunged by 25% to 50%, the committee found. Tuition increases at both private and public universities are threatening to put college education out of reach for many. At the same time, other countries have increased their R&D funding and are pouring significant resources into developing their own research institutions, patterned after US universities.

As state budgets recover from recession, they should strive to restore per-student spending for higher education to levels last seen in 2002, adjusted for inflation. But recognizing that increases from states will be difficult in the near term, the committee urged that state governments “provide their public research universities with sufficient autonomy and ability to navigate what could be an extended period with inadequate state funding.”

Among other recommendations, the committee said that universities should improve their administrative and academic productivity, and urged that federal and state governments scale back their administrative requirements.

Committee member Teresa Sullivan, the outgoing president of the University of Virginia, lamented that half the students who start out majoring in science, mathematics or engineering have switched to non-technical majors within two years. “Sometimes that’s because we’re not teaching them the right way,” she said. “We have to rethink how we teach, particularly the technical areas for undergraduate students. If we could reduce that attrition in half, we’d meet our national goal for scientists and engineers.”

Fewer students are pursuing graduate studies, Sullivan said. And of those who do, 40% drop out. Among computer science graduate students, the attrition rate is 50%. Universities should make doctoral programs more effective by reducing the time it takes to obtain degrees, and by better aligning programs with career opportunities inside and outside of academia.

Universities should increase their administrative and academic productivity, and federal and state regulatory and paperwork requirements on institutions should be eased so that researchers can spend more of their time in the lab.

Governments should provide incentives such as tax breaks for businesses to become more involved with universities in peer-to-peer collaborations in areas of joint interest. Business and universities should work closely to develop new graduate degree programs that address strategic workforce gaps for science-based employers.

Francisco Cigarroa, chancellor of the University of Texas system, said universities should institute matching funds to help attract philanthropic support. A few years ago, the Texas legislature put up $50 million for a matching fund. Within one hour of its opening, the fund was completely matched by private donors.