IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-29, NO. 2, MAY 1986 51

The NSF Role in Fosterng University-IndustryResearch Relationships

ERICH BLOCH, FELLOW, IEEE, AND CARLOS E. KRUYTBOSCH

Abstract-This paper notes the current boom in university-industry areas, and a new awareness among corporate managersresearch relationships and describes the theory underlying Federal that the stakes for staying in the game require advancedgovernment participation in the phenomenon. R&D and personnel capable of conducting it;

The National Science Foundation's array of programs to foster uni- Xversity-industry collaboration in research and education is described. * the commensurate higher dependence on science andThe paper concludes that the forces driving increased university-in- engineering in manufacturing processes and products.dustry interaction will continue to operate over the coming decade. Thus, in the mid-1970's universities were looking for

new sources of research support, and new locales for em-ployment of their graduates with advanced degrees in sci-

INTRODUCTION ence and engineering. Corporations, too, were looking fornew talent in relevant technological areas, and were seek-

ONE of the most exciting and interesting recent de- ing to leverage their sometimes limited in-house researchvelopments in the world of R&D in the U.S. is the capabilities by increasing their research connections with

rapid growth of research relationships between industrial universities. It was, and continues to be a marriage ofcorporations and the nation's universities. While these great convenience. As in most marriages there are strainsconnections have been important since Edison's time, the and tensions. For example, in a real sense both corpora-past half dozen years have seen a mushrooming of a wide tions and universities are in competition for the brightestvariety of new industry-university arrangements. Be- new Ph.D.'s, and there is considerable concern that thetween 1980 and 1985 the rate of increase of industry fund- higher salaries that industry can offer may result in eatinging of university research has been 9.4 percent per year into the universities' "seed corn" stock of excellent futurein constant dollars. (In current dollars, the rate of increase teachers in areas such as computer engineering and planthas been 15.6 percent.) And there is good reason to be- science. Friction also arises over patenting and licensinglieve that the numbers on which this figure is based are issues, and associated limitation on publication of re-significantly understated. (See [1, p. 27].) In fact, in cer- search results. Despite these matters, the drive to estab-tain disciplines (e.g., engineering, computer science), and lish new linkages and connections proceeds apace. Busi-for certain universities, industry-funded university re- ness is booming in industry-university relationships.search can be twice the average percentage. It should beadded that despite these rapid increases, the fraction oftotal funding of university research provided by industry THE GOVERNMENT ROLEremains quite small-about 5 percent.Why has this been happening at this point in history? Corporate, interest in universities is directly propor-

A confluence of factors can be identified: tional to the vitality of academic research and graduate* the great expansion of university research capabili- education in relevant areas. The Federal commitment to

ties during the 1950's and 1960's, principally funded by support basic research in universities continues to be basedthe Federal government, followed by a slowdown of the on the theory that there are broad social benefits to therate of increase of government funding of academic re- support of basic investigations in science and engineer-search in the 1970's; ing, and that, left to itself, the private sector would un-

* the rapid evolution in the 1970's of major new fields derinvest in basic research because it could not captureof research based technologies, e.g., microelectronics, enough of the benefits for its own exclusive use. This con-biotechnology, materials science, and computer science; cept underlies the fact that over the past decade the Fed-

* the dawn in the 1970's of a new era of intense inter- eral government has provided about two-thirds of thenational competition in several high technology product funds for academic research across all fields.

The "Federal Government" is, of course, a heteroge-neous entity. Several large agencies provide the bulk of

Manuscript received June 28, 1985. the funds for academic research, and each has its ownThe authors are with the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC spca resn,proe,adprcdrsh eat

20550. sellraos upss n rcdrs h eatIEEE Log Number 8607520. ment of Defense, NASA, and the Department of Energy,

0018-9359/86/0500-0051$01.00 ©) 1986 IEEE

52 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-29, NO. 2, MAY 1986

for example, have specific missions to accomplish, and in 1973 as part of the NSF R&D Incentives Program. Thethey must marshal the available national R&D resources program was to study and test incentives that would in-as best they can to accomplish these aims. In many cases crease private investment in R&D. These early centerstheir mission products require cooperation between in- and associated studies provided the basic information ondustrial contractors and university laboratories. The mis- incentives that foster industry-university interaction.sions of other agencies such as the National Institutes of Three pilot centers were established. They were at theHealth may not require as much cooperation of this sort. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (polymer process-

ing), North Carolina State (furniture R&D), and theTHE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION MITRE Corporation (energy development systems).Among the research supporting agencies, the National By 1977, the results of these experiments, including the

Science Foundation has a unique legislative charter in that closing of the N.C. State and MITRE programs, providedit is charged with fostering and supporting excellent sci- enough information on center designs to allow the estab-ence and engineering research in general, as well as sci- lishment of operational centers starting in fiscal year -1979ence and engineering education. NSF is only a small with the inauguration of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-player in the overall picture of Federal support for R&D. tute (R.P.I.) Center for Computer Graphics. The R.P.I.The Foundation provided 2.7 percent of the total in 1985 Center in Interactive Computer Graphics is one exampleas compared with 63.5 percent from the Department of of the educational and training potential of the centers.Defense, and 10.7 percent from Health and Human Ser- Industry came to NSF expressing needs for trained sci-vices (mostly the National Institutes of Health). But in the entists and engineers with industrial CAD/CAM orienta-arena of academic R&D, NSF supplied 15.2 percent of tion; they felt that new approaches to engineering tasksthe total Federal support in 1985, as compared with 16.3 and to CAD/CAM needed to be an integral part of a mod-percent from the Department of Defense, and 49.2 per- em engineering curriculum. The R.P.I. Center is operat-cent from Health and Human Services. ing at over $1.5 million a year with all funding now com-

If NSF's principal clientele is academic science and en- ing from industry. NSF support phased out in 1984.gineering research, why then has it been conducting pro- Industry has also supplied over $3 million in equipmentgrams to foster industry-university research relationships and software to the center. There are 35 graduate studentsfor over a decade? NSF's approach over the years has been in the program at present and 27 were graduated last year.to encourage and provide partial support for academic and These graduates are in great demand because of their ed-industrial researchers to cooperate in excellent research ucation, training, and research programs which relate toprojects. The theory is that industrial and academic re- the industry's advanced science and technology needs.searchers may come at the same problem area from some- The current Industry-University Cooperative Researchwhat different approaches, and that if they work together Centers program continues to stimulate industrial supportthey may well enrich each other's perspectives-the aca- of university research through the establishment of cen-demics may become more receptive to industrial needs, ters that create long-term collaboration between the uni-and the corporate researchers may benefit from a view- versity and industry in research areas of high mutual in-point that is less immediately tied to potential application. terest. The program initiates university research programsWhy, one may then further ask, if there are these benefits with cofunding from groups of industrial firms that areto both sides, do they not enter into these relationships compatible with university research objectives and alsodirectly? Why should the government enter the picture? responsive to industry's research needs. All centers are toThe answer, of course, is that there are many such one- increase the industrial support for their research programon-one contractual research relationships, but they tend to as NSF support (seed money) is phased out within a pe-be for rather specific applications purposes. The company riod of five years. Industry funds centers at a rate of upneeds something the university has to sell. Not that these to five times the NSF share. The average is three to one.relationships necessarily end with one such transaction. A center is considered a success when its research fundingThe evidence in fact suggests that once the parties have is at its original level or higher and NSF no longer pro-come to know one another in such contractual and con- vides support.sulting relationships, they may indeed engage in further At the end of 1984 there were 20 operational centerscollaborative exploratory work. (See [2, p. 19].) The NSF with research programs in polymers, robotics, ceramics,programs are intended to provide more widespread op- hydrogen technology, dielectrics, communication andportunities for such cooperation. Also large companies are signal processing, fluidized bed research, monoclonal an-more likely to do this on their own; smaller companies tibodies, tribology, hybridoma research, ultraclean man-require help, encouragement, and financial support. ufacturing environments, and so forth. Approximately ten

more centers are currently in the planning phase. TheNSF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS funding pattern for the centers is instructive. For 1985, it

Since the early 1970's the Foundation has experimented is anticipated that NSF will contribute $3 million to thewith various program models for promoting collaborative centers, the industrial members will put in $13 million,industry-university research. The Industry-University and the states will invest $12 million.Cooperative Research Centers program was first initiated In 1978 the National Science Board endorsed the con-

BLOCH AND KRUYTBOSCH: NSF ROLE IN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS 53

cept of Industry/University Cooperative Research Proj- a little over $12 million. A recent study of $16 millionects. They are similar to the traditional NSF basic re- worth of SBIR projects during the period 1977-1981search project with the additional elements of industrial showed over $150 million in follow-on private investmentrelevance and industrial participation in the research and in Phase III as a result of the NSF Phase I and II awards.associated costs. These projects focus on fundamental The SBIR program is very much involved with the re-questions and problems of relevance to future technolog- search directorates. Many NSF program managers haveical advancements and not on commercial product devel- indicated that SBIR complements their basic research andopment. Proposals are jointly developed by researchers in provides desirable program balance. SBIR puts out an an-universities and industrial firms and subjected to compe- nual solicitation for proposals with topics written by thetition in the peer review process used to evaluate NSF research divisions. After proposals are logged andresearch proposals in the same area of research. The man- screened by SBIR, all responsive proposals are sent to theagement of the program is decentralized with technical appropriate research divisions to obtain peer review. Allreview and project selection located in the research divi- reponsive proposals in both Phases I and II are peer re-sions of NSF. It was designed in this mode from its in- viewed and only those proposals recommended by the re-ception and has developed procedures for working with search divisions are considered for award.the rest of NSF to emphasize industrially relevant re- Most of the industry-university interaction occurring insearch, while still maintaining NSF focus upon cutting SBIR projects is in a consulting arrangement. Some proj-edge, frontier science. The UICR program has responsi- ects have utilized the unique equipment available in uni-bility and control over: cooperative aspects of the re- versities, and a few have subcontracted research to thesearch, ensuring that each project involves industrial re- university. While small businesses have previously hadsearchers as well as university researchers; the little or no contact with universities, this is now changingtechnological relevance of the research, ensuring that because universities are showing more interest in smallthese basic research projects have important technological high-tech firms and in responding to the SBIR program.relevance in addition to their scientific importance; andthe application of uniform NSF policies on research co- NSF-INDUSTRY COOPERATION IN MATERIALSoperation. RESEARCH

In 1985 NSF awarded about $14 million in cooperative Materials research is a multidisciplinary activity whoseresearch projects. It is estimated that industry contributed main goal is to provide the scientific basis for long-termat least an equal amount for its own participation. understanding of the properties of materials.

One of the driving forces behind materials research isNSF SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH the technological challenge offered by industry. Well-

PROGRAM known examples include semiconductor devices for theIn 1977, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) electronics industry, high temperature structural metals

program was started at NSF when Congress directed NSF and ceramics for high performance engines, superconduc-through its annual Authorization Act, to award 7½/2 per- tors for magnets, and the many industrial uses of poly-cent (or $1 million) of research funds in the Directorate mers.for Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) to small At the same time, materials research is at the forefrontbusiness firms. SBIR provides an important opportunity of major conceptual advances in scientific understanding,for small science and technology-based firms to partici- including universal principles of phase transitions, thepate in NSF research. It enables small firms to propose properties of disordered solids, and the behavior of low-longer term, high-risk creative ideas in NSF program areas dimensional systems such as surfaces, interfaces, andthat could only be pursued by them with outside support. highly directional conductors.NSF awards also have been valuable to many firms in their The nature of problems in materials research is suchobtaining private investment, other R&D awards, and that researchers from many backgrounds are required toworking arrangements with universities, government solve them. Both scientific (primarily physics and chem-agencies, and large companies. istry) and engineering faculty are heavily involved. ManyThe SBIR program is structured in three phases. Phase of the projects are jointly supported by both academic and

I supports research for six months for up to $40 000 on industrial laboratories. Approximately 25 percent ofimportant scientific or engineering problems of interest to the Industry-University Cooperative Research projectsNSF. Phase II funds those projects found most promising (IUCR) program is in materials research. In addition, theafter Phase I for up to $200 000 for 1-2 years. Phase III Division of Materials Research supports many such proj-is the product development phase to pursue the commer- ects entirely with its own funds.cial applications from the government R&D conducted in University-industry interactions are fostered throughPhases I and II. It is entirely funded with private capital, three main funding mechanisms:usually from a venture capital firm interested in invest- 1) Scientific Research Project Support (SRPS) primar-ment or a large industrial company looking to license or ily in condensed matter physics, materials chemistry (in-purchase new technology, cluding polymers), and materials engineering (primarilyNSF expenditures on SBIR during fiscal year 1985 were metallurgy and ceramics),

54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-29, NO. 2, MAY 1986

2) National Facilities (NAF) including synchrotrons, ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERShigh field magnets and neutron reactors, NSF's latest effort to foster closer industry-university

3) Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) which are connections is the Engineering Research Centers programblock grants to 14 universities for interdisciplinary ma- started in fiscal year 1985. The goal of the Centers' pro-terials research. gram is to develop fundamental knowledge in engineeringThe first mode of funding (SRPS) encourages industry- fields that will enhance the international competitiveness

university interaction primarily through the IUCR pro- of U.S. industry and prepare engineers to contributegram, most of which is cofunded with IUCR. Also, a through better engineering-practice. Engineering educa-number of the Industry-University Cooperative Centers tion and research are key elements in improving U.S. in-involve research on materials, particularly polymers and dustrial productivity, and they are firmly linked in thecomposites. Centers. The Centers are supported to meet needs for pro-The second mode (NAF) encourages the use of national viding cross-disciplinary research opportunities for fac-

facilities by industrial researchers. Industrial use cur- ulty and students, for providing fundamental knowledgerently is about 20 percent of the total usage. which can contribute to the solution of important nationalThe third mode (MRL) also has a strong industrial com- problems, and for preparing engineering graduates with

ponent. In a recent informal survey of the 14 MRL insti- the diversity and quality of education required by U.S.tutions, approximately $10 million was found to be as- industry.sociated with industrial research conducted by members While the Centers differ from one another, they all shareof the MRL's. four defining characteristics: 1) they provide for workingThe MRL funding includes two activities which have a relations between students and faculty on the one hand,

substantial industrial component. One of these is thrust and practicing engineers and scientists on the other; 2)research, which emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach their programs emphasize the synthesis of engineeringto materials problems. These projects involve true inter- knowledge-they seek to integrate different disciplines inaction between scientists from different disciplines with order to bring together the requisite knowledge, metho-different backgrounds and skills. Often, scientists from dologies, and tools to solve issues important to engineer-industrial laboratories are involved in the thrust projects ing practitioners; 3) the programs contribute to the in-as adjunct professors. Postdoctoral and graduate student creased effectiveness of all levels of engineeringtraining is also an important part of this research. The education; 4) the Centers have a strong commitment fromtraining received at an MRL is uniquely cross-discipli- industry (money, equipment, and people) to assure theirnary, and makes the people involved particulary valuable involvement in the research and educational aspects of theto industry. The other activity, sponsored by the MRL's Centers.in which industry-university interaction is fostered, is ac- The Centers are located at academic research institu-cess to central facilities. These involve equipment which tions where they are expected to promote strong links be-is typically too sophisticated or expensive to be supported tween research and education. Cooperation between oneby an individual grant. These central facilities are shared or more schools in a region is encouraged where the com-by MRL thrust research and other scientists, both on and bined activity will enhance the Center and the engineeringoff campus. Many of the users are from industry. education and research activities of the region. Current

In addition to visiting scientists from industry who con- Centers focus their work in such fields as compositestribute to (and benefit from) thrust research, and use the manufacturing (jointly between the University of Dela-central facilities, there are other mechanisms which pro- ware and Rutgers University), biotechnology process en-mote industry-university interaction at the MRL's. There gineering (M.I.T.), robotics systems in microelectronicsis direct support in terms of research contracts to faculty (University of California at Santa Barbara), telecommu-or support of individual graduate students and postdoc- nications engineering (Columbia University), intelligenttoral associates. There is also the donation (or cost-shar- manufacturing systems (Purdue University), and systemsing) of equipment. research (jointly between the University of Maryland and

In a typical example, the University of Pennsylvania Harvard University).MRL received last year $900 000 for support of faculty, During fiscal year 1985, six Engineering Research Cen-graduate students, and postdoctorals, $400 000 in equip- ters are being funded at a total cost of about $9.5 million.ment donations, and an equivalent of about $350 000 in The Foundation has a long-term commitment to supportterms of the time involved by industrial scientists in the these centers over the next five years. Current plans en-thrust research and central facilities, visage the establishment of a total of 20-25 centers over

In most cases, the industry-university interactions at the the next five years.materials research laboratories would not exist if there hadnot been NSF involvement at an early stage of develop- INDUSTRY "CONNECTIONS" IN BIOTECHNOLOGY ANDment. The MRL mode of funding, with its emphasis on ADVANCED COMPUTING RESEARCHinterdisciplinarity, is well suited forthe transfer ofknowl- Academic research programs in several engineeringedge from basic research to technology, and ultimately to fields and in materials research have well trodden, tradi-industrial application. tional linkages with industrial research. But other areas of

BLOCH AND KRUYTBOSCH: NSF ROLE IN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS 55

academic basic research such as biotechnology have only plications for international economic competition is su-recently begun to create such connections. percomputers. An NSF investigation into the state ofNSF has, of course, supported academic research in the computer research revealed that access to supercomputers

new biotechnology for a number of years. As mentioned was either inadequate or nonexistent for most of the aca-above, current NSF initiatives are moving to foster in- demic research community. Thus, NSF's task became todustrial connections in this area with the M.I.T. Engi- provide for access to these powerful and expensive ma-neering Research Center for biotechnological process en- chines by academic scientists and engineers. Recently,gineering, and the new Cooperative Research Center four Advanced Scientific Computing Centers were initi-(jointly between Duke University and the University of ated by NSF-two of them are being operated by consor-North Carolina) focusing on monoclonal lymphocyte tia of universities, and two are on individual campuses buttechnology. Planning grants have also been made for sev- will be linked to a large number of other campuses througheral additional proposed Cooperative Research Centers national networks. In addition to NSF funding, these cen-with programs in various areas of biotechnology. ters will all receive partial support from the supercom-The importance of fostering these relationships in bio- puter vendors as well as from state and local governments

technology was strongly underscored by a recent National and from the universities themselves. They are truly co-Academy of Sciences panel on Chemical and Process En- operative efforts in which federal tax dollars are leverag-gineering for Biotechnology. Their report stated: ing industrial, state and local funds.

Additional innovative NSF programs which address vi-"The intense international competition in commer- tal needs in academic research and also encourage indus-cializing high technology opportunities, particularly trial participation in meeting these needs are the Presi-in biotechnology, highlights the need for the United dential Young Investigators Awards program, and severalStates to maintain its scientific and industrial lead- programs to stimulate industrial donations of equipmentership. Despite the Nation's preeminent position in for academic research and science education.basic biological science, our foreign competitorshave established commercial positions by producing PRESIDENTIAL YOUNG INVESTIGATOR AWARDSeffective and forward looking biotechnical engineer-ing. They can be expected to be no less aggressive The Presidential Young Investigator Awards were ini-as the results of U.S. research in the "new" biology tiated in 1983 to provide five years of cooperative re-diffuse abroad." search support for the nation's most outstanding and

The report goes on to point out that the pressures gen- promising young science and engineeing faculty. Witherated by this competition do not permit industries and participation of the industrial sector, the awards are in-

universities to work separately at a leisurely pace. In a tended to improve the capability of universities to respondto the demand for highly qualified scientific and engi-section on "critical needs" the report examines the role

of the Federal government: neering personnel for academic and industrial research byhelping to attract and retain outstanding young Ph.D.'s

"In the short term, the federal government has a who might otherwise pursue nonteaching careers.

critical role to play in attaining the following objec- Funding for these awards is a tripartite venture of thetives. National Science Foundation, which provides an annual

* Establish the fundamental knowledge base to sup- base award of $25 000 plus dollar-for-dollar matching ofport the desig'n, scale-up, and optimal control of re- industrial support up to an additional $37 500, private in-

ap dustry, which is asked to provide the matching funds, andactors and processes for the large-scale growth of awardees' institutions, which arrange for their academic-

explobitatinoftheane biolog. year salaries and absorb some of the indirect costs of theireveloptationofthe.fundamentolo knolegebaeor research activities. Thus, support for the five-year award9~ ~~~~~~~.Deeo.hudmnalkoldebs o could total $500 000 plus academic-year salary.large-scale separation and purification processes that could ta$5 000 plus academic-ye ar dsalarIn the 1983 and 1984 competitions, 200 awards werewill be required to produce the spectrum of potential made each year. It is expected that 100 awards will be

biochemical products from simple organic mole-made in 1986 in the current year's competition. Up to halfcules to complex proteins. .the awards each year are in engineering with the remain-* Train the next generation of biochemical engi- y g g,

neer ina reearh eniromen tha prvide crss- der in the other fields supported by the National Scienceneers in a research environment that provides cross-disciplinary exchange of knowledge, industrial col- Foundation.laoain aviablt of stt-f-h-r facilities Industry support for the program continues to grow as

and equipment, and support levels that will assure ifraincnenn ti oewdl ismntdresearch productivity."~(See [3, pp. 33, 401.) During the year following the announcement of the first

' ' ~~~~setof awards in 1984, private support approaching 70NSF divisions and programs are actively working toward percent of the total industrial match for that year wasthese objectives. pledged by well over 100 corporations, with contributionsAnother fast moving area of research with critical im- still coming in.

56 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-29, NO. 2, MAY 1986

INDUSTRY DONATIONS OF EQUIPMENT TO ACADEMIC MASSCOMP, Harris, and Intel. Other computer manu-RESEARCHERS facturers have either presented offers which are under re-

Among the initiatives being pursued by the National view at this time or have indicated that they will likely beScience Foundation to maximize private sector contribu- setting forth offers in the near future.tion, involvement, and support is an equipment donation In addition, the Foundation is taking steps to expandand discount activity. This activity is based on a National the equipment donation/discount activity into a range ofScience Board policy statement adopted in 1982. The pol- scientific instrumentation and equipment. An announce-

icy calls for the Foundation to encourage and facilitate ment to this effect has been published in the Commercearrangements that lead to donations of, or reduced prices Business Daily, and letters have been dispatched to thefor, instrumentation and equipment required by scien- chief executive officers of manufacturing firms solicitingtists, engineers, and teachers in connection with their re- their consideration of the advantages to their firm of par-search or other activities being supported by or judged ticipating with the Foundation through the provision ofworthy of support by the Foundation. At the same time donation of, and special discounts on, their products forthe Board has emphasized that, as this policy is imple- National Science Foundation awardees. Contact has alsomented, the integrity of the NSF shall not be compro- been made with the principal industrial associations rep-mised, no manufacturer will be favored or appear to be resenting such manufacturers to inform them about thisfavored, and there is to be no inappropriate exploitation initiative and to request their assistance in alerting theirof the NSF's reputation. members to the Foundation's interest. It is anticipated that

Activity was initiated three years ago in the area of a number of offers for donation and discount will be incomputing equipment. Several companies provided sub- place for fiscal year 1986.stantial discounts to NSF awardees engaged in computer- NSF plans to evaluate the benefits to the universitiesintensive research in mathematics. Last year these offers and to industry of both the continuation of the activity inwere extended to awardees working in other disciplines. the area of computing equipment and the expanded activ-It is estimated that approximately $15 million in discounts ity in scientific instrumentation and other equipment over

have been provided by the manufacturers to this point, time. This assessment will consider both cost-effective-with the result that the Foundation has been able to sup- ness and the development of more effective means ofport outstanding researchers for whom resources would achieving the substantial benefits to all parties which ap-otherwise have been unavailable. pear to be present in this sort of public-private sector co-

Two programs have focused on obtaining equipment for operative activity.research and teaching in science education at the precol-lege level. The NSF-Industry Cooperation for Science and CONCLUSIONEngineering Education Using Computers Program re-ceived donations of equipment by private industry which Compared to a decade or even five years ago, NSF'spermitted NSF to make 58 research awards aimed at im- profile of research related to industry has shifted signifi-proving science education at grades 10, 11, and 12. The cantly The array of programs described above are the re-companies donated almost $1 million worth of equip- sult of hard thinking about how to improve the relevancement, and NSF provided $856 000 for research, and gran- of basic science and engineering research to national eco-

tee institutions provided at least one-quarter of the pro- nomic productivity and international competitivenessjected cost in order to receive an award for a total of without compromising the independence and therefore the$800 000. Industries, universities, and the National Sci- flexibility and creativity of the Nation's academic scien-ence Foundation therefore effectively increased the con- tists and engineers.tributions to provide much needed research in science ed- We are rapidly moving into a new era, and these emerg-ucation. ing patterns of cooperative research and education are not

In another initiative in the area of computing and re- a passing fad. Some of the compelling factors in thelated equipment, a number of manufacturers made avail- growth of cooperative programs are outlined above andable a wide range of types of equipment in connection there is every reason to believe that they will continuewith the program of Presidential Awards for Excellence over the next decade.in Science and Mathematics Teaching. Computer hard-ware and software were contributed to teachers from 50 REFERENCESstates, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico by thecompanies involved, with the result that the teachers were [11 Nat. Sci. Board, University-Industry Research Relationships: Myths,

' . ~~~~~~~~~~~Realitiesand Potentials, Nat. Sci. Foundation, Washington, DC, NSBable to teach using state-of-the-art microcomputers and 82-1, 1983.communicate with each other through contributed tele- [2] Nat. Sci. Board, University-Industry Research Relationships: Selectedcommunications services. As of spring 1985, five com- Studies, Nat. Sci. Foundation, Washington, DC, NSB 82-2, 1983.

putin equiment anufaturer haveactiv offes in[3] Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Nat. Acad.,putlngeulpment anufactuers haveactlve ofers ln Sci., Nat. Acad. Eng., Inst. Med., Research Briefings 1984, Nat. Acad.place; these are Digital Equipment Corporation, Pyramid, Press, Washington, DC, 1984.

BLOCH AND KRUYTBOSCH: NSF ROLE IN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS 57

Erich Bloch (A'52-M'57-SM'67-F'80) was born the Corporation's Education Relations Board, which is responsible for IBMon January 9, 1925 in Salzburg, Germany and be- contributions to academic institutions.came a United States citizen in 1953. He studied From 1981 to 1984 Mr. Bloch served as Chairman of the Semiconductorelectrical engineering at the Federal Research Cooperative, a group of leading computer and electronics firmsPolytechnic Institute of Zurich, Switzerland, and that funds advanced research in universities and shares in the results, andreceived the B.S. degree in electrical engineering was a member of the board of the Semiconductor Industry Association. Infrom the University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, in February, 1985, he was awarded the National Medal of Technology by1952. President Reagan at a White House ceremony. The award was made for hisHe was confirmed by the Senate to be Director part in pioneering developments related to the IBM/360 computer that

of the National Science Foundation on August 6, *revolutionized the computer industry." He has also received an honorary1984. As Director, he is responsible for an agency Doctorate of Engineering degree from the Colorado School of Mines,

charged with strengthening the national scientific research potential, with Golden, and honorary Doctorate of Science degrees from the University ofimproving science and engineering education at all levels, and with in- Massachusetts at Amherst, George Washington University, Washington,creasing the interchange of scientific information among scientists in the DC, and the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is a member ofUnited States and abroad. He is also responsible for establishment and im- the National Academy of Engineering and of the IEEE Computer Society.plementation of numerous bilateral science agreements with foreign nationsand other major tasks related to science, engineering, and technology. Hisresponsibilities, carried out through an agency of seven major directorates,involve administration of an annual budget exceeding $1.5 billion and theannual award of 12 000-14 000 grants for research. Research programs areconducted in all fields of natural and social sciences and include major Carlos E. Kruytbosch was born in Patagonia,national and international science programs. Before joining NSF he was Argentina in 1933 and became a U.S. citizen inVice President for Technical Personnel Development at IBM Corporation, 1968. He studied political and social science atwhich he joined in 1952 as an Electrical Engineer. During his career at the University of Amsterdam. The Netherlands,IBM, he was the Engineering Manager of IBM's STRETCH supercomputer and the University of British Columbia, Vancou-system in the late 1950's and early 1960's, developed under contract from ver, Canada and received the Ph.D. degree in so-Los Alamos National Laboratory of the Atomic Energy Commission. In ciology from the University of California at1962, he headed development of the Solid Logic Technology program, Berkeley.which provided IBM with microelectronic technology for its System/360 Since February 1985 he has been Head of thecomputer. Subsequently, he was appointed a Vice President of the com- Science Indicators Unit at the National Sciencepany's Data Systems Division and general manager of the East Fishkill Foundation and is responsible for production offacility, which is responsible for the development and manufacture of semi- the congressionally mandated Science Indicators reports. Since joining theconductor components used in most of IBM's product line. He was elected NSF in 1975 he has occupied a variety of planning and policy positionsan IBM Vice President in 1981. In his last IBM position, he was charged and has been responsible for a number of major reports in policy areas suchwith promoting the technical vitality of IBM's professional engineering, as, women and minorities in science, the state of academic science, youngprogramming, technology, and scientific people throughout the world. His investigators, peer review, scientific instrumentation and facilities, theresponsibilities included programs with universities, the firm's technical connections between basic and applied research, and university-industrylibraries, publication of technical journals, and the operation of IBM's cor- research relationships. Before coming to the NSF he held faculty positionsporate technical institutes. He was also responsible for policies affecting at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the Universities of Cali-the IBM science and engineering community. He served as a Member of fornia at Berkeley and Davis, and the University of Idaho. Moscow.