Research and Discover Sub-committee Kickoff Meeting, Feb. 28, 2013

1. RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY
SUB-COMMITTEE
KICKOFF MEETING
February 28, 2013 | 8 a.m. to noon
LSU Ag Center | 214 Efferson Hall

2. Meeting Information
 All articles and presentations will be posted on
www.lsu.edu/LSU2015
 This meeting is streaming live at
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/RDSC
2

3. WELCOME
Dr. William Jenkins, Interim President, LSU System

4. CHARGE AND INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Jim Firnberg, Chair, Research and Discovery Sub-Committee

5. Opening Remarks
 Beginning today and throughout our process we
will look at why higher education is undergoing
transformation across the country.
 Change is a constant, but today there is a “new
normal” in many institutions.
 We look forward to hearing from you and from our
guests and online public comments.
5

6. Research and Discovery
Sub-Committee Charge
 Our sub-committee will make recommendations on:
 Current strengths
 Strategic priorities and goals
 Joint research proposals and projects
 Collaboration incentives
 Productivity and accountability
 Technology transfer
6

7. Introductions
Please introduce yourself and in two to three
minutes, tell us about yourself and your relevant
experience and background.
7

8. BRIEF ORIENTATION TO THE
TRANSITION ADVISORY TEAM
PROCESS
Dr. Christel Slaughter, SSA Consultants

9. Transition Advisory Team Objectives
 Develop a vision for a world-class university;
 Identify elements critical to remaining
competitive in the higher education environment
of the future; and
 Recommend best-practice organizational models
for a multi-campus flagship university.
9

10. Sub-Committee Leadership
 Academic Sub-Committee
 Dr. William “Bill” Jenkins
 Dr. Lester W. Johnson
 Finance and Revenue Sub-Committee
 Mr. Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr.
 Mr. G. Lee Griffin
 Operations and Technology Sub-Committee
 Mr. William M. Comegys III
 Mr. William L. “Bill” Silvia
 Research and Discovery Sub-Committee
 Dr. James W. “Jim” Firnberg
 Student Experience Sub-Committee
 Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honore’
 Ms. Carroll W. Suggs
 Legal and Regulatory Advisory Group
 Dr. James W. “Jim” Firnberg
 Mr. W. Shelby McKenzie
10

11. Organizational Chart
LSU Board of Supervisors
Transition Advisory Team
Legal and Regulatory
Advisory Group
Operations and
Academic Finance and Revenue Research and Discovery Student Experience
Technology
Sub-Committee Sub-Committee Sub-Committee Sub-Committee
Sub-Committee
11

12. Task Forces
Finance and Revenue and Operations and Technology Sub-Committees
 Commercialization and Technology Transfer
 Streamlining Procedures, Rules, and Regulations
 Technology
 Administrative Services
 Revenue Generation
 External Affairs
12

13. Sub-Committee Design
 Five topic specific sub-committees (Academic, Finance and
Revenue, Operations and Technology, Research and
Discovery, and Student Experience)
 Sub-committees will gather information from subject-matter experts,
research studies, and other resources to develop best practices
recommendations by focus area to the Transition Advisory Team
 Each sub-committee will be chaired or co-chaired by Transition
Advisory Team members
 Other sub-committee members will be appointed through
recommendations provided by each campus
 Sub-committee activities will begin in January 2013 and be completed
by June 2013
 One Legal and Regulatory Advisory Group will provide
technical advice and support to the five sub-committees
13

14. Process
JANUARY 2013
Sub-Committees Staffed and Activities Scheduled
JANUARY to MAY 2013
Transition Advisory Team and Sub-Committees Execute Activities
MAY 2013
Sub-Committees Deliver Reports to Transition Advisory Team
MAY to JULY 2013
Transition Advisory Team Develops Report of Recommendations
JULY 2013
Transition Advisory Team Presents Final Report of
Recommendations to Board of Supervisors
14

15. Sub-Committees and Meeting Format
 Each sub-committee is expected to meet at least twice
and will be led by two of the co-chairs.
 During these meetings, national and local subject-matter
experts will provide testimony; reports and findings will
be discussed; and input from the public will be heard.
 Please let us know in advance if you would like to
provide testimony or recommend a speaker.
 Information gathered from your sub-committee
meetings will become part of the Final Report to be
submitted to the Transition Team and ultimately, the LSU
Board of Supervisors.
15

16. Public Records and Open Meeting Laws
 In an effort to comply with the Public Record and
Open Meeting Laws, we will subscribe to the
following practices:
 Announce all meetings and post the agendas at least
24 hours in advance.
 Allow public comment at all meetings.
 Provide a facilitator and scribe to ensure that
agendas are followed and meeting minutes are
posted to the website.
 All emails and other documents are considered to be
public records.
16

17. WHY MUST HIGHER
EDUCATION UNDERGO
TRANSFORMATION?
Dr. Christel Slaughter, SSA Consultants

18. Disruptive Transformations
 Significant periodic transitions that are highly
disruptive to an industry or economic sector
 Brought on by: new technology, consumer
needs/demand, and cost pressures
 Many examples in our lifetime include:
 Media
 Financial institutions
 Healthcare
18

19. Higher Education Transformation…Why?
1. Cost Trend is Not Sustainable
 Today’s institutions of higher education are
extraordinarily complex organizations with
significant resources tied up in overhead and
administrative costs.
 Three decades of 6 percent to 7 percent annual price
increases have put college beyond the means of
most families (without substantial grants and/or
resorting to substantial student loans).*
*Deloitte: Disruptive Innovation – Case Study: Transforming Higher Education
19

20. Higher Education Transformation…Why?
2. Consumer Demand is Growing and Changing
 The high school diploma has been supplanted by the
college degree as the ticket required for economic
advancement. The income advantage offered by a
college degree is double what it was a generation ago.*
 The number of non-traditional students is growing.
 Individuals are in need of affordable paths to
qualifications necessary for economic
advancement, resulting in a untapped market.
20
*Stuart M. Butler: The Coming Higher-Ed Revolution

21. Higher Education Transformation…Why?
3. New Technology
 Online learning offers significant potential for higher
education to transform its basic business model.
 New technology is increasing the number of disruptive
entrants in the higher education market such as:
 DeVry
 Western GovernorsUniversity
 MIT’s OpenCourseware
21

22. LSU’s Transformation Imperatives
 Refocus energy and resources on academics
 Develop and leverage alternative revenue sources
 Serve the economic and workforce development
needs of the state and students
 Improve quality through innovative delivery
models and collaborative research
22

23. CURRENT TRENDS IN
RESEARCH AT
AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Dr. James Duderstadt, President Emeritus University of Michigan

24. BREAK

25. RESEARCH AT PENNINGTON
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER
Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Executive Director

26. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
“LSU SYSTEM METRICS: RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER”
Nicole Honorée, LSU System Director
of Research and Economic Development Initiatives

27. Nicole Baute Honorée
LSU System Director of Research & Economic
Development Initiatives
February 28, 2013

28. Overview
 The National Research Landscape
 Research Activity in the LSU System
 The National Commercialization Landscape
 Tech Transfer Activity in the LSU System
 Implications for Economic Impact of LSU

29. Measuring Research Activity
 The National Science Foundation (NSF) conducts an annual
survey (referred to as “HERD”) that is considered the
premier measure of university research and development
(R&D) activity.
 The HERD captures actual annual university expenditures on
R&D from all sources of funding.
 The HERD has very specific directions and
definitions, increasing its reliability and comparability.
 Expenditures are NOT the same as Awards.
 Major categories are total, federal, state, industry

30. National R&D Expenditures FY2011:
Top 25 vs. All LA University R&D
(NSF, dollars in thousands)
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Scale Matters!!

31. National University Research Landscape
NSF HERD FY2011: $65 billion academic R&D expenditures
$41 billion from federal sources
ALL U.S. Universities LSU System
 63% federally funded  42% federally funded
 Total R&D $$ change  Total R&D $$ change
 One year (FY10-11): 6%  One year (FY10-11): -1%
 Five year (FY06-11): 31%  Five year (FY06-11): 14%
 Federal R&D $$ change  Federal R&D $$ change
 One year (FY10-11): 9%  One year (FY10-11): 1%
 Five year (FY06-11): 32%  Five year (FY06-11): 21%

32. LSU System Annual R&D Expenditures
(without UNO, dollars in thousands)
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
Total
$200,000
Federal
$150,000
$100,000 Avg. Fed as %
of Total : 38%
$50,000
$0

33. LSU System Total R&D
Expenditures, By Campus (dollars in thousands)
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
HSCS
$250,000 HSCNO
$200,000 LSUS
$150,000 PBRC
$100,000
LSU AG
LSU A&M
$50,000
$0

34. LSU System Federal R&D
Expenditures, By Campus (dollars in thousands)
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
HSCS
$100,000
HSCNO
$80,000 LSUS
$60,000
PBRC
LSU AG
$40,000
LSU A&M
$20,000
$0

35. LSU A&M Peer Comparison:
FY2011 TOTAL R&D Expenditures (NSF, dollars in thousands)
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0

36. LSU A&M Peer Comparison:
FY2011 FEDERAL R&D Expenditures (NSF, dollars in thousands)
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0

37. Major Sources of LSU System
R&D Expenditures (dollars in thousands)
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
2006-07
100,000
2007-08
80,000 2008-09
2009-10
60,000
2010-11
40,000 2011-12
20,000
0
Federal State and local Industry
Government governments

38. LSU System Faculty Employment
1,400
1,200
1,000
2005-06
800 2006-07
2007-08
600 2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
400
2011-12
2012-13
200
0
Professor Associate Assistant Research
Professor Professor Associate

39. Measuring Technology Transfer
 “Technology transfer” refers to a broad set of
activities and agreements that help move inventions
along the pathway from concept to commerce
 The federal Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is the legal
foundation of most university tech transfer activity
 The Association of University Technology Managers
(AUTM) conducts an annual survey of metrics which
capture certain activities of university tech transfer

40. Technology Transfer:
Myth vs. Reality
 “Universities make a fortune  Half of institutions made less
with their inventions.” than $2 million in 2011
 “Licenses always go to
 Nearly 70% of licenses go to
small companies & start-ups
large, established
companies.”
 Only about 15% of licenses
 “Most disclosures should be are for inventions that are
turned into start-ups.” broad enough to form the
basis of a start-up.
 “All licenses make lots of  Only 0.5% of licenses make
money for the university.” more than $1 million/yr.

41. National Commercialization Landscape
Benchmarks for Technology Transfer Activity
 1 invention disclosure per ~$2.5 million in R&D
 ~25% of disclosures eventually get licensed
 1 start-up company per ~$100 million in R&D
 ~47% of legal expenses reimbursed
 Patent apps filed on ~60% of new disclosures
 Only 0.5% of licenses generate >$1 million
 Average ROI for Universities ~ 3.3%
Source: Speaker Analysis of AUTM FY2011 Repot

42. LSU System Invention Disclosures
Actual vs. Expected Invention Disclosures
(1 per every $2.5 million in R&D expenditures)
180
160
140
120
Actual
100 Disclosures
80 Expected
Disclosures
60
40
20
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

43. LSU System Invention
Disclosures, by Campus
80
70
60
50 LSU A&M
Ag Center
40
Pennington
30 HSC-NO
HSC-S
20
LSU-S
10
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

44. LSU System Patent Activity
80
60
40
Filed
20 Issued
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

45. LSU System Licenses & Options
Signed, by Campus
35
30
25
HSC-S
20 HSC-NO
Pennington
15
Ag Center
10 LSU A&M
5
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

46. Start-up Companies based upon
LSU System Inventions (expect 1 for ~$100 Million R&D)
7
6
5
4
Actual
3 Expected
2
1
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

47. LSU System License Income
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000 HSC-S
$7,000,000
HSC-NO
$6,000,000
$5,000,000 Pennington
$4,000,000 Ag Center
$3,000,000
LSU A&M
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

48. LSU System License Income, By
Campus, ALL Campuses
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000 LSU A&M
$6,000,000
Ag Center
$5,000,000
Pennington
$4,000,000
$3,000,000 HSC-NO
$2,000,000 HSC-S
$1,000,000
$0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

49. LSU System License Income, By Campus,
without Ag Center
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000 LSU A&M
$300,000 Pennington
$200,000 HSC-NO
HSC-S
$100,000
$0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

50. Return on Investment (ROI):
LSU System License Income as % of R&D
3.50%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

51. LSU System Campuses:
Legal Fees Spent & Reimbursed
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000 Expended
$400,000
Reimbursed
$200,000
$0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

52. LSU System Campuses:
Legal Reimbursement Percentage
180%
160%
140%
LSU A&M
120%
Ag Center
100%
Pennington
80%
HSC-NO
60% HSC-S
40% National
Average
20%
0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

53. LSU System Campuses:
Tech Transfer Office Staffing Levels
(System total FTE in white box, year office launched in legend)
5
4 LSU A&M (1985)
Ag Center (1986)
3 Pennington (2000)
HSC-NO (1999)
2 HSC-S (2001)
LSU-S (2006)
1
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

54. University Research & Economic Impact
 Research activity is a fundamental input supporting the mission of a
land grant institution
 Knowledge and innovation are outputs of this research activity
 These outputs can be transferred out through multiple channels:
 Student internships & corporate hiring of graduates
 Publications & presentations
 Faculty consulting, collaboration & visiting appointments
 Industrial research partnerships
 Licensing inventions to existing or start-up businesses
 Strengthening LSU’s research enterprise, and thus its economic
impact, requires sustaining and increasing the activity flow
through this R&D “pipeline” of inputs and outputs.

56. A CLOSING QUESTION:
What must be done to sustain and enhance the
inputs into the LSU R&D pipeline to increase
both the volume and variety of outputs, and
thus expand LSU’s economic impact?

57. PUBLIC COMMENTS

58. Save the Date
Next Meetings:
 March 11, 1 to 4 p.m. – New Orleans, Location TBD
 April 1, noon to 4 p.m. – LSU Ag Center, 214 Efferson Hall
58

59. ADJOURNMENT